A View From Inside the OLPC Project

icknay writes "Here's an interesting rant on the OLPC from someone who worked there, including: 'The core mistake of the present Sugar approach is that it couples phenomenally powerful ideas about learning — that it should be shared, collaborative, peer to peer, and open — with the notion that these ideas must come presented in an entirely new graphical paradigm. We reject this coupling as untenable. Choosing to reinvent the desktop UI paradigm means we are spending our extremely over-constrained resources fighting graphical interfaces, not developing better tools for learning.' I have an OLPC, and the OS itself seems quite unfinished. I buy the argument that it would be better to focus on Sugar as educational software, and let it run on Linux, Windows, whatever."

Comments

We are not in the dark.

[Odder]

There's a lot of spin and intentional ignorance here and it spills out best when he says this:

we don't know that laptop recipients will benefit from fixing software on their laptops. Indeed, I bet they'd largely prefer the damn software works and doesn't need fixing. While we think and even hope that constructionist principles, as embodied in the free software culture, are helpful to education, presenting the hopes as rooted in fact is simply deceitful.

The project in Sengal was not the only place non free software has bombed in education - it's bombed everywhere, not due to "intense competition" but to greed and planned obsolescence. Non free software is mostly designed for business, not education. What little non free software there is is quickly obsoleted by the upgrade treadmill and must be replaced at great expense. The dominant OS has been even worse from the very beginning with poor security - from macro viruses on floppies to today's modern botnets. The net result is that only the richest of schools has been able to afford a good ratio of computers to children and they do little more with them than write papers. They lacked free libraries, text books and other useful references until these things showed up on line. Schools like MIT did better because they helped themselves, in part with free software. The non free way has been an unmitigated dissaster and should not be pushed onto anyone else.

Re:We are not in the dark.

[nuzak]

> There's a lot of spin and intentional ignorance here and it spills out best when he says this:

Spin? Spin is what organizations do to put bad news back "on message". This is one guy, ranting. One guy who was really involved, who went out to do the deployments to places that make the term "backwater" seem a goddam metropolis, and one guy who is really bitter about what he saw. If you read about, oh, one or two paragraphs more, it's quite obvious he doesn't think XP is going to save what he considers a fundamentally doomed project.

Imagine your IT department deployed 40,000 laptops (that's about as many people as work for Microsoft) and didn't have one single person on the payroll to actually deploy the things into the field. Now imagine that in Peru.

Re:We are not in the dark.

[DECS]

When Apple approached OLPC about basing its mini laptop on a light version of Mac OS X, it was rebuffed because the project wanted everything to be fully open source and unfettered with proprietary software. Now it's ready to put Windows on the XO?

With Mac OS X, the XO would have a native environment for running free software including Sugar, along with or in addition to running commercial Mac software. Unlike clone PCs, there's no vast range of hardware to support. Development tools are simpler and Apple currently has no business plan for selling its dev tools. That seems to make far more sense than slapping on a OS designed primarily to run on full sized, corporate desktops with expensive Office software licensing.

It's too bad OLPC set such lofty ideals about open development, setting itself up to drop them immediately and become yet another extension of a monopoly that doesn't have the technical merits to run on low cost mobile devices.

iPod Game Console, Tablet at WWDC? Highly Unlikely

Re:We are not in the dark.

[tsm_sf]

Why do so many people have such a hard-on for this guy? He has several previously identified accounts, so just tag them as 'foe' and be done with it.

((btw, if you feel that you are "educating the masses" in regards to general douchebaggery, please be advised that we've seen it all))

Re:We are not in the dark.

[mikji]

Now imagine that in Peru. ...on fire

Re:We are not in the dark.

[ozmanjusri]

Governments are not selfless enough to want to actually "help" someone. They mostly just send aid and "help" to entrap the downtrodden and desperate.

While it's sad that Ivan believes OLPC has lost sight of it's goals, you might want to keep an eye on what's happening with OLPC Australia.

The Rudd government is looking at providing sponsored laptops for children. OLPC has set up an Australian office as a consequence. Jeff Waugh has been appointed board director, and seems to understand the issues well.

"The easy answer to that question is that at the moment Windows doesn't exist on the machine," says Waugh. "It is completely irrelevant to the value of what the whole project is all about. OLPC Australia has been set up without that ever being on the agenda. The core principal that's repeated often about the project is that it's an education project not a laptop project. Part of delivering on that idea is the open source platform. The community built around the not only the technology but also the content and the use of the device. There is a community angle that permeates everything on what the device, how it works for kids and that sort of stuff.

"I have no idea as to why Windows is regarded as relevant to this and some of the stuff in the press about running Sugar on Windows and things like that - well Windows is just an operating system that doesn't deliver on the vision of OLPC."

I have no doubt that Microsoft will attempt to subvert this project, as it does everything else, but so far, the Rudd government has delivered on most of their promises.

Re:We are not in the dark.

[Lars512]

Presumably you're unable to deploy 40,000 laptops in Peru without backing or support from either other NGOs or the Peruvian government. He simply said that there was only one staff member dedicated to deployment. Perhaps their job was to coordinate a much larger pool of non-OLPC staff and volunteers. Without knowing the scale of OLPC staffing or the support from Peru they got, it's difficult to determine if this situation was really so poorly managed.

Re:We are not in the dark.

[catbertscousin]

What the hell is "intentional ignorance"? Choosing not to RTFA.

Re:We are not in the dark.

[hey!]

But the Rudd government is still young, and we are yet to discover the riddles and traps of their policies.

I'm all for cynicism, but if you go too far you end up going full circle, approaching naive idealism from, as it were, the other side. It appears that you think that governments should operate more effectively other human institutions.

People are fallible, and inconsistent. In fact, given that people are fallible, it's a good thing they're inconsistent. But things are never quite what you expected them to be; over time you are forced to compromise so many times that the initial coherence of your plans starts to fall apart.

That's why the best way of managing human enterprises is to make them mortal. The Grim Reaper removes the deadwood and lets the light in for new growth. This notion is built into capitalism. Businesses fail all the time. Business that are "too big to fail" incorporate extinction into themselves, changing leadership, spinning off divisions, dropping products and initiatives all the time.

That's why crony capitalism stinks. It takes extinction off the table. Businesses, like large defense contractors, that are treated as national assets are a mix of the worst elements of government and private enterprise.

The real value of democracy is not to ensuring good government. That's humanly impossible. The real value of democracy is removing bad government. The only advantage of democracy over any other philosophy of government is that it makes extinguishing a bad regime routine and in social terms relatively cheap. People living under other kinds of systems can change regimes, but at the risk of being killed, imprisoned or exiled.

What we are seeing in the OLPC program is a questioning of some of its initial assumptions. That's inevitable. It's also unfortunate that MS used it's marketing pull to force them to confront the Windows issue,because given the mission of the organization, that's a side show. And, as confronting issues in these cases always does, it's undermined other assumptions of the project's initial vision, like creating a new desktop paradigm. It would have been better for the project to have had more of a chance to make its case before it faced political pressures.

In defense of the Sugar concept, it's sometimes easier to do more than to do less. It's easier to keep the creative juices flowing, to attract interest and support, when you are doing something revolutionary than when you are doing something incremental, even if the incremental changes have revolutionary effects.

But that's only when things are going well. When the project's assumptions are undermined, then bold design philosophies become a liability, sapping support and energy by being one more thing that people argue over.

Re:We are not in the dark.

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Amen. Up until now, I have been a huge supporter of this project. This article pretty much made me write it off as dead. I work in a semi-rural school district in North Carolina with about 14,000 kids. Many of the kids and a fair number of the teachers are comfortable with computers. We have a decent WAN and a fairly stable Internet connection. Even given this, there is no way in hell I would try to implement a 1:1 laptop program yet. Deployment would be a nightmare. I can only imagine deployment in the wilds of Peru. The problem is that you can't just throw laptops at the populace and wait for the Angelic choirs to start singing. You need policies, ways to charge the things, training for teachers on how to do wikis, blogs, etc. It takes time, effort, and a willingness to be open to new, paradigm-shifting ideas about education. This is hard enough in tech-savy America. I had always assumed that a big part of the OLPC project would be OLPC people going out in the community to help students and teachers integrate the machines into education. I was shocked to hear that there is pretty much NO plan for integration and deployment. You see, computers in education are really not about the software. Computers are a tool. It's all about how you use the tool. Get ready, this thing will crash hard and Bill Gates won't need to do anything to make it happen.

OS not UI

[bluefoxlucid]

That last comment about Linux/Windows/Whatever doesn't match up with the discussion about UI paradigm. UI paradigm means the way the user interface acts, not what OS runs it.

That said, the UI paradigm of Sugar falls into the Kiosk world, along with MythTV. I would have liked to see that run as an application, minimizeable and windowable, but under XFCE or IceWM for a Gnome-like UI and integration with a standard platform.

Re:OS not UI

[Aklarand]

Actually, I think it does as now there is a decoupling of the Sugar UI which is, as you said, a kiosk, from the technologies that they developed.

The desktop paradigm is familiar and *VERY* well refined at this point thus, there's really no need to put the kids on a outside-the-box perspective on computing just because you can. Why reinvent a very good wheel? I think that Sugar was something very innovative but was it very useful in the end? Prolly not really.

NOW, when moving back up to the discussion of WHICH desktop you should be using? Well, that's just politics and money there. The point of the project was kinda to project the idea of informational freedom on the people of the world where in some places that's kinda a weird idea. Thus, when looking a little higher into the argument toward the ideology of the project:
    - information is free
    - you can go get information
    - go get information and improve your lives by knowing more about the world and its ways
    - oh, and do your homework on it too! (For those of you with teachers. The rest? We have minesweeper!)

You see the point of wanting to make the choice of a free operating system semi-important because that 'show source key' works anywhere in the current OS. Which means that the kids who want the knowledge about computers, which, is a very valuable skill and would improve conditions in many areas (theoretically, think infrastructure for communication kinda stuff) could learn that and start working on projects that would improve the places that they live... or something like that.

If you lock the kids into a closed source OS, they can't learn how the LOW LEVEL stuff works due to that key not being able to show you the source for, say, msvcrt.dll (the C++ interpreter interface thingy). Mind, they CAN eventually remove Windows and put UbSuDeRhCeSlinux on there to taste what that kinda freedom is like but, it's like how most of us (those that made that move before you found out how very nice OSX is) had to kinda 'discover' that there was more out there. It's just another step that you don't HAVE to make kids jump through as... (ta-dah the POINT) there is another perfectly useful desktop paradigm/implementation out there in Gnome/Kde/XWhatever!! Hence, you don't have to reinvent the wheel... but you don't have to make them buy a wheel with a EULA. (whew)

Re:OS not UI

[lkcl]

"Why reinvent a very good wheel?"

actually, it's an incredibly bad paradigm.

when you go into a real-world office, where is the filing cabinet? do you find that the filing cabinet is on the floor, or on top of the desk? (the "desk top")

where is the "calendar"? is it a) on the wall b) on the top of the desk?

where is the "flip-chart"? is it a) on a 3-legged easel on the floor b) on the wall c) on the "top of the desk"?

where is the "wall clock"? is it a) on the wall b) on the ceiling c) on the "top of the desk"?

where is the "wall paper"? is it a) on the wall b) on the floor c) on the "top of the desk"?

this should clearly illustrate to you that the "desktop metaphor" - look up the book "beyond the desktop metaphor" - is clearly broken.

and it is only people who are "used to" the "desktop" metaphor who find that anything _other_ than the "top of the desk" metaphor to be difficult to cope with.

personally, i find SUGAR to be seethingly annoying - and that's because i, personally, run fvwm, xterms, and when i want to run another program i type the command "firefox" or "skype" into one of the xterms. and so anything that doesn't have an easy way to navigate a 3x3 set of "desk tops" i find exceedingly frustrating, or if it's excessively pretty, i find it excessively slow.

hence, i have been thinking for quite some time about taking compiz-fusion or 3ddesktop, merging something like bzflag or other 3D game or virtual reality into a REAL "office" metaphor.

on the "desk", which will have four legs and a chair in front of it, will be several "monitors". on each "monitor" there will be a "desk top" showing one application per monitor. on the other side of the "room" there will be a Television, which, when you want to play DVDs you will "click" on the "remote control" with your mouse and it will change channels.

the WinAmp and xmms "skin" will quite literally be on the front of a 3D remote-control.

there will be a bakerlite telephone on the "desk", which, if you click on it, you get taken to skype, kiax and other applications which run "communications".

there will be a "filing cabinet" which, when you click on a "drawer", up pops a series of REAL folders, with little tabs on them displaying A-D E-H .... V-Z which you can "click" on, and the folder will "pop up" and show you a series of icons of the files in that "folder" !

there will be a "book case" containing actual books, and CDs, and your DVD library. clicking on a DVD will make it "fly through the air" towards the TV. clicking on a "book" will open the web site. or fire up the PDF viewer. or take you to google's site. or fire up gopher _whatever_.

_this_ is the kind of paradigm that is entirely missing from computing - one based on "reality".

oh - and if you're wondering if this is entirely impossible and science fiction, i recently ran the beryl desktop on a 600mhz ULV Pentium M processor, which had only a 512k cache, and it had an older style intel extreme graphics chipset - 855 or maybe even 815.

i was running the ondemand cpufreqd module.

at 1280 x 1024, this 600mhz CPU didn't even make it above 450mhz.

Uh, isn't that the whole point?

[Coopjust]

I buy the argument that it would be better to focus on Sugar as educational software, and let it run on Linux, Windows, whatever.

Isn't that the whole point of it being distributed with free educational software? No propietary software restrictions, copyright infringement for sharing programs, no licenses, no future lock in? It seems to me that this insider can't see past the fact that MS wants to subsidize Windows on the OLPC to lock in a new customer base...

Re:Uh, isn't that the whole point?

[ianare]

He's not saying it should only run on Windows, rather that it shouldn't matter what the OS is.

Now, pay close attention: while I'm unequivocally enthusiastic about Sugar being ported to every OS out there, I'm absolutely opposed to Windows as the single OS that OLPC offers for the XO.
By making it cross-platform it would make it easier to develop and more accessible.

A Windows-compatible Sugar would bring its rich learning vision to potentially tens or hundreds of millions of children all over the world whose parents already own a Windows computer, be it laptop or desktop.

Re:Uh, isn't that the whole point?

[ianare]

Sugar is made with python/gtk, there is no technical reason it can't run on many different platforms, in fact it already does for development.

The reasons the user version does not are, according to the author, political and philosophical.

Re:Uh, isn't that the whole point?

[chris_sawtell]

The whole point of XP on XO is that Microsoft cannot stand up commercially if it ever becomes generally accepted knowledge that there are other O/Ss for small computers which work just as well, if not better than Microsoft products. This is what really gives Bill Gates and Steve Balmer serious laundry problems during the day and horrendous dreams at night. They just cannot allow that to happen.

Where the OLPC people are really in la-la land is thinking that the pupils and their teachers are going to be able to produce the course/learning software modules for themselves. The first world has failed spectacularly in that department, I'd really love to think the third world is going to be able to show up the first world as a bunch of ninnies in this regard, but I fear not.

After watching my son's schools futzing around with both desktop and laptop machines, in my not so humble opinion, laptops in primary schools are a complete waste of time, money and effort, and of very questionable value in secondary ones. Useful for teachers to keep records and to produce teaching materials, but for the pupil's use, no.

It matters not one jot who wrote either the GUI or the underlying O/S, because that's al hidden under the course-ware, which is what counts.

Re:Uh, isn't that the whole point?

[ajs318]

Sugar doesn't need to be cross-platform! It already runs on GNU/Linux -- and any PC running Windows can be persuaded to run GNU/Linux, a lot more easily and cheaply than the other way around. If developers are really so averse to creating a small (because OLPC itself has limited RAM and storage anyway) partition from which to run GNU/Linux, they can always do their development work from a liveCD.

All this smacks of an attempt to subvert a noble effort to teach people to fish into a way of selling even more expensive, proprietary tackle and bait.

Re:Uh, isn't that the whole point?

[ianare]

I have, actually. Python makes this very easy, you don't need to worry about the underlying OS as long as you program in a platform-agnostic way, ie use os.path.join(path, file) rather than path + '\\' + file, and only use relative sizes and positioning for GUI elements.

You're right about testing though, even if there are no (or very few) code changes, you do need to test in every supported platform which takes time.

Overheard from a reporter embedded in OLPC

[BadAnalogyGuy]

"help! I'm stuck! Someone open the case!"

Here is my version of the events:

[Alex Belits]

http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=2730.msg21987#msg21987

If I missed anything, correcftions are welcome.

Re:Here is my version of the events:

[Tore S B]

I have both the Eee and the OLPC; The OLPC is the better-engineered laptop by a mile. Different leagues.

Re:Here is my version of the events:

[ajs318]

No processor manufacturer will be able to undermine anything, because the patents covering the first-generation ARM processor are expiring soon -- and while early ARM chips were considered excessively RAM-hungry (every instruction occupies a 32-bit word) modern 80x86 devices are also RAM-hungry -- especially when running Windows -- so RAM prices have fallen to the point where it's economically viable to use old-skool ARM with a fully-populated memory map (you'd probably have to use bank switching; the addressing schema is only 24 bits wide, giving 16M * 32 bit words. ARM, like its spiritual predecessor the 6502, doesn't differentiate between memory and I/O buses). And did I mention that it manages all this with about 24 000 transistors?

It would hardly be beyond the bounds of feasibility to set up a clean, modern factory in the third world somewhere to make patent-free ARM clones for use in mark II OLPC machines. Since all the software is Open Source, it doesn't matter what the underlying processor architecture is just so long as there's a port of GCC available for it.

Actually, maybe that is exactly what all the major players are scared of .....

The problem with OLPC and Windows

[mlwmohawk]

Forget Sugar, yea its great and all, but the point of the OLPC is learning. Learning requires freedom.

Windows is not "free," and I don't mean price, and I mean freedom. Putting Windows on OLPC is nothing more than a marketing move by Microsoft. Not to help kids, but to ensure they become customers. Not giving them books, selling the subscriptions. Not teaching them to farm, but making them sharecroppers.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[initialE]

Learning requires freedom. At the risk of being flamebait, exactly how does learning require freedom? Children learn from their parents - the most autocratic system in the world is the family structure, especially in the formative phases. Yes, freedom is a good thing to have, but it's not going to benefit people if all they learn to do is use an obscure system that doesn't do anything the way they do it out in the business world.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[yomegaman]

When I grew up we had no idea what free software was, all we had were our Apple II's, C64's, etc, that were pretty much 100% proprietary. Yet, we somehow learned about computers by reading books and writing our own programs in the cruddy BASIC interpreters they came with. A kid with XP, Java/Python/what-have-you, and the Internet is a million times better off than we were. I swear, some of you people act like it's a tragedy if someone grows up not knowing Bourne shell scripting. The platform you learn on isn't that important, as long as you are learning the concepts.

PS: Besides, you can use a computer to learn about things other than the computer itself, right?

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[s4m7]

The freedom he's talking about isn't the "freedom to do whatever you want" but the freedom to explore. In the autocratic family structure you describe, the parents can be strict mormons who don't allow their kids to have fun and require them to marry off at 15, or they can be easy-going sure-have-a-couple-sips-of-beer-you're-18-they-can-draft-you types. The point of the learning argument about proprietary software is that you can only learn so much about the proprietary inner functions.

your buisness argument is pretty good though, however, the OS functioning differently didn't affect those of us who grew up in the 80's when schools were hooked on apple, and now use OSX, Linux, and Windows on the same machine. (maybe those of us are a rare breed... i don't know)

quoting TFA:

Stallman similarly called a Windows port of Sugar "not a good thing to do". Here's the thing: such a port is only a waste of time if free software is not the means here, but an end Well I would agree if development tools were equally available amongst the two. Development tools for windows are for the most part flawed unless you buy a license. Since part of the point of this experiment, I would think, is to see how the developing world can help us innovate from their own background experiences, I think FOSS makes sense as a basis for the project. Further, it helps prevent hardware obsolescence over the long term, and since this is a philanthropic experiment, I should think that would be a goal.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[pembo13]

platform you learn on isn't that important Microsoft certainly doesn't seem to share that sentiment

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[DerekLyons]

The freedom he's talking about isn't the "freedom to do whatever you want" but the freedom to explore.

And frankly, from the point of view of education, that freedom exists regardless of price tag on the OS or the apps. (Aside the from the very minor and likely to be little used ability to look 'under the hood' and modify the code.)
 
As this individual points out:

When I grew up we had no idea what free software was, all we had were our Apple II's, C64's, etc, that were pretty much 100% proprietary. Yet, we somehow learned about computers by reading books and writing our own programs in the cruddy BASIC interpreters they came with. A kid with XP, Java/Python/what-have-you, and the Internet is a million times better off than we were.

The Slashmind is seriously misguided if it thinks education and learning can only be accomplished via F/OSS OS's and applications.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[Karma Sink]

But what help do you get out of it just because it's OSS? I don't see any solid argument there at all. Simply because your software is open source, you are learning more?

It's the 'distro' that matters here. It's how the software is aimed at them and how they help the users to learn to use that software. I don't see how that is easier or harder on OSS or proprietary software.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[hey!]

At the risk of being flamebait, exactly how does learning require freedom?

Well, learning to do things that require you to think and act indepedently requires freedom.

Children learn from their parents - the most autocratic system in the world is the family structure, especially in the formative phases.

Perhaps your family was the most autocratic system in the world, but my experience of family life was quite different.

My siblings and I always thought of our parents as strict, but years later my mother contradicted us and claimed she was extremely lenient. We were both right. We grew up (figuratively of course) in an enclosure with iron walls, but the enclosure kept expanding. While the wall was always close enough that it loomed in our minds, we seldom challenged it because there was always new territory to explore within the walls. Then, one day, after the area within the walls became sufficient for a lifetime's exploration, and we'd shown ourselves responsible and competent, the walls were gone. We were allowed -- no, required -- to think and decide for ourselves what was responsible and what was not. And that was parenting at its toughest and most hard-nosed. Play with matches if you want, but do it in your own house and carry your own insurance.

Yes, freedom is a good thing to have, but it's not going to benefit people if all they learn to do is use an obscure system that doesn't do anything the way they do it out in the business world.

The reason parents erect walls is to protect their children; the reason they expand those walls is to raise competent children. What is the reason to erect walls around students in technology education? Exactly who are we protecting? Do the training wheels ever come off?

The disadvantage of authoritarian parenting is that it keeps children infants when it comes to dealing with things they don't have rules for or experience with. The advantage is that you can ensure a predictable response in a certain situation, so long as circumstances around that situation haven't changed very much. The advantages and disadvantages of authoritarian education are the same. Authoritarian education prepares its recipients to be subordinates.

A technology education built around what is currently in common use in the "business world" prepares students in developing countries to take subordinate roles in that world. It's great if you want a nation of workers that staffs call centers, and does the other menial work of the information age. It's great if you want a cadre of bureaucrats who will execute the programs devised for them by wealthy "development" agencies faithfully. In short, arbitrary technological dependency is just the thing if you are aiming for economic and political subservience. It's not so great if you want a people capable of solving their own problems creatively, or carving out their own niche in the world economy.

And it's not really that clear that the developed world is that well adapted for the conditions of the mid twenty-first century. Our economies are predicated on cheap and abundant energy and resources, and cheap disposal of wastes. We are going to be hard pressed ourselves to adapt and improve our material well being. The developing world, with its lower resource footprint, could well experience major gains in quality of life while we struggle to maintain own our own. But they won't be by adopting first world lifestyles; they don't have the accumulated capital to bootstrap a resource intensive lifestyle as wealthier societies bid up prices.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[rbanffy]

At that time, you could browse the ROM and OS of an Apple II or C64 (the Apples even provided a nice disassembler - and the original II had an assembler and the Sweet-16 virtual processor) and, with some work, fully understand it. You could study it and, with the proper tools (an EPROM programmer, some soldering), modify it. You could package and sell your modifications.

You can't do that with any modern computer. You can't learn from watching a multi-layer motherboard where you can't find out what connects to what in what fashion without a multi-thousand-dollar lab and a high-res X-ray machine. You can't just look up what a modern thousand-leg GPU does the way you could with a 74LS74. There are no books on that. You can't cut a trace and rewire something, not anymore.

Different times require different tools. Open source is probably the only way to see what happens in a computer these days. That's why the OLPC should be open from top to bottom.

Re:The problem with OLPC and Windows

[DerekLyons]

You can't do that with any modern computer. You can't learn from watching a multi-layer motherboard where you can't find out what connects to what in what fashion without a multi-thousand-dollar lab and a high-res X-ray machine. You can't just look up what a modern thousand-leg GPU does the way you could with a 74LS74. There are no books on that. You can't cut a trace and rewire something, not anymore.

Nor do you need to do all those fancy things. The vast majority of modern programmers got their start programming, not hacking hardware I wager.
 
 

Different times require different tools. Open source is probably the only way to see what happens in a computer these days.

Sorry, but you are comparing apples to oranges - because you start with hardware and then swap to software. Along the way, you somehow missed that a whole generation of programmers got their start on proprietary computers (Apple, C64, IBM/clones) with a crappy language and tools (BASIC) and a handful of books and magazine (no interwebs). Today, one can start with Python/Java/Ruby/whatever and the internet and be light years ahead of where we all started out.

middle ground

[nguy]

I think plopping a full-blown Gnome or KDE desktop on the OLPC would be a mistake: those desktops work poorly on small screens, and they are incredibly obscure for new users (although no more obscure than Windows and Macintosh).

I think there's a middle ground, though: reuse the Gnome desktop infrastructure but replace the window manager with something simpler that prevents the usual beginner mistakes (losing windows behind each other, moving windows off-screen, etc.).

As for Windows on OLPC, I don't get it. Even if you run Windows+Sugar on the OLPC, you won't be able to install commercial software or commercial drivers with it, Windows books won't apply, and realistically you won't be able to run Microsoft's development tools on the OLPC either. But you will alienate lots of OLPC contributors, and you'll saddle yourself with an OS over which OLPC has no control, and Microsoft secretly probably just wants to kill the whole project anyway.

Re:middle ground

[Alex Belits]

think plopping a full-blown Gnome or KDE desktop on the OLPC would be a mistake: those desktops work poorly on small screens, and they are incredibly obscure for new users (although no more obscure than Windows and Macintosh). I already have a version of Ubuntu with Xfce that has default configuration designed to be usable on those laptops -- it's my development/mobile-device configuration. I even went as far as re-painting icons from Human theme green, so they don't clash with colors usable on a white-and-green laptop. The goal was to:

1. Port a Debian-based distribution with good hardware support, development and "mainstream" connectivity tools.
2. Make configuration suitable for a person who is accustomed to "traditional" windowing systems.
3. Demonstrate that if Windows on OLPC laptops is addressing a problem, that problem is already solved better by using existing free software.

So far I find that laptop perfectly usable -- in fact, for some things it ended up being better because slow Flash annoyed me enough to add a script, mplayer configuration and rebuilt clive package, so Youtube works in fullscreen without glitches. On my regular laptop I did not bother, and just accepted that I have to use Flash plugin with it craptastic performance on videos.

Re:middle ground

[nguy]

I already have a version of Ubuntu with Xfce that has default configuration designed to be usable on those laptops

I don't think XFCE window management is any better for these kinds of screens than Gnome, and I think the XFCE dock and toolbars are considerably worse.

2. Make configuration suitable for a person who is accustomed to "traditional" windowing systems.

But that's not the goal of OLPC. The goal of OLPC is to make a system usable for kids and non-experts. Kids and non-experts have real trouble with Windows/Mac/XFCE/Gnome-style window management. Sugar may not be the right answer to this problem, but none of the traditional desktop environments are suitable.

Re:middle ground

[jhoger]

"Windows is crack" aside, My point is that none of this matters. NN has an agenda of getting as many laptops to kids as possible. He will do that in any way he can, and his current idea seems to be to ditch Linux AND Sugar AND any educational principles. Just ship as many laptops as possible. So running Sugar on top of Linux, or a minimal Sugar with Linux just don't matter unless you completely go around NN and OLPC.

Which, I think, is the right thing to do.

-- John.

I've been underwhelmed by Sugar

[dpbsmith]

I've been disappointed and underwhelmed by Sugar in the form that it was delivered on the G1G1 units.

Now, I'm not a kid, and I've been brain-warped by decades of exposure to the Mac, but I really feel a lot of cognitive dissonance between Sugar's stated design goals and what's actually been delivered.

For example, one of Sugar's key design principles is "recoverability," and it says "However, the primary and essential means of recoverability remains the ability to undo one's actions."

Nevertheless, the keyboard has no marked "undo" key, and very, very few of the Sugar's activities appear to support any kind of "undo" facility.

Similarly, I've read the theory of how the Journal is supposed to work, and I may be wrong--I don't have any kids to try it on--but as nearly as I can tell, the only way you can find past Journal entries is by a very left-brained search capability that requires you to have labeled each Journal entry as you make it.

There's a long essay on how the Journal is supposed to work... revolutionary, non-hierarchical, etc. But I've found "tagging" to be a royal, royal pain. It's all very well to say that "Tagging will become a fundamental process for all types of data and activities on the laptops. Fortunately, children have a natural inclination to describe their world and the things they see and do." As I say, I haven't watched kids use the thing and maybe they "get" it, but I find it extremely hard to envision a ten-year old typing in tags every time he creates a journal entry.

While I'm intrigued by the idea of a GUI that is new from the ground up and informed by a fresh way of looking at things... to tell the truth my main motivation for participating in G1G1 was to experience Sugar... I'm quite disappointed by what's actually been achieved.

Right now, Sugar is a program launcher, no better than the Apple Dock or the Windows Tray... and to this aging brain, at least, the Journal simply doesn't work very well. Much less well than the Mac Finder as it existed in 1984, for example.

However, the problem is that I think open source is a key educational feature for OLPC. The concept of a "view source" button thrilled me. I grew up at a time when you could take the back off a TV set and see the tubes inside, and smash a tube in a vise and see the plate and filament and so forth inside. Maybe I couldn't build a TV or modify a vacuum tube, but just the conceptual readiness of looking inside was terribly important.

I was disappointed in the absence of a working "View Source" button in the G1G1 build. I think it's very important that all the code in the XO be open for inspection, and that definitely includes the GUI. So however bad Sugar is, I think it would be a disaster to replace it with a proprietary GUI.

Re:I've been underwhelmed by Sugar

[Locutus]

the Journal may not be perfect in its current form but if you think of how you had school assignments, it plays very well with that. School assignments for primary grade students might last a week at the most be two weeks but for the most part, let's say less than a week. When the teacher starts the assignment in class, students can label it with all the other students so it's easily found later. Now the kids go home and continue working on the assignment and there it is, right near or at the top of the Journal. They just click to open it up where they left off and they can keep doing this until the assignment is complete. Now, it'll peculate down the list as new assignments are created.

IMO, this is brilliant and leaves all the mess of learning hierarchical file systems to later years when they have mastered the three R's and basic computer skills like clicking, mouse movement, etc.

Sugar and the Journal just need some fine tuning and it'll be as great as it was intended at enabling kids to learn on these devices without the computer interface getting in the way.

LoB

Re:I've been underwhelmed by Sugar

[tsm_sf]

The old Mac finder was simple in such a positive way that It's a shame it couldn't have been used in a situation like this. You could have called it "sotakemitocourt" or something.

Graphics

[simpl3x]

I have to agree. In my mind something like OS X lite, the iPhone interface, would be ideal for this concept of learning. Rapid, limited OS decisions coupled powerful applications.

Negroponte's dismissal of Steve's offer, only to arrive at Bill's door is rather odd. But, as the eeepc has shown, we will arrive there one day soon with or without the OLPC.

game over?

[genican1]

What I can't get over is the fact that the OLPC project has been plagued by so many problems. First the price increases, then the Windows fiasco (depending on which side you're on), things that don't work... While I know it's not an easy task to design, implement, and distribute a $100 laptop to kids in developing countries, perhaps a group less prone to political infighting (HAHA!) should "fork" it and start their own project.

I wrote about software problems in my OLPC review

[detroitindustrial]

..for the Register. The review is here.

Pretty much.

[khasim]

Exactly. Who says that an "insider" cannot have an agenda that is contrary to providing the best tools for the children to learn with?

From TFA:

If proprietary software is half as good as free software at aiding children's learning, you're damn right it makes the world a better place to get the software out to children. Hell, if it doesn't actively inhibit learning, it makes the world a better place.

No.

No.

And, no.

It has to be BETTER than the ALTERNATIVES at the same price. And Linux is free.

Wait, it gets better.

I started using Linux in '95, before most of today's Internet-using general public knew there existed an OS outside of Windows. It took a week to configure X to work with my graphics card, and I learned serious programming because I later needed to add support for a SCSI hard drive that wasn't recognized properly.

Yeah, he's bringing up the state of Linux in 1995 ... when the discussion is about Linux in 2008.

He has an agenda. And it isn't about getting the best tools available (for the price) to the kids of the world.

Re:Pretty much.

[nuzak]

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article? He doesn't even want XP on the OLPC. What he wants is some focus on the application usability in order to further constructivist learning, regardless of the operating system underneath. The damn thing ships with Squeak, the apps are written in python, and they SHOULD manage to run on any platform.

I think most people read about a page in, then rushed back to slashdot to muster their defense of Free Software and Fight The Good Fight, and well, pretty much proved his point: OLPC's mission is being lost by people who care more about meta-issues than either the learning mission (enabled by the software, not really the kernel) or the ongoing viability of the project itself (deployments need support!)

Peru may soon be stuck with 40,000 doorstops. Maybe I'll go take a look at Sugar and see if any of the ideas are worth lifting for a groove-like P2P network.

Re:Pretty much.

[Scrameustache]

I started using Linux in '95, before most of today's Internet-using general public knew there existed an OS outside of Windows. It took a week to configure X to work with my graphics card Yeah, he's bringing up the state of Linux in 1995 ... when the discussion is about Linux in 2008. My friend got a news windows machine in 95, we spent an entire weekend trying to get his "plug and play" modem to work.
Since he's bringing up unease of use in 95, I felt like sharing.

unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Within 5 years, every one of these OLPCs will be a node in a Beowulf-cluster spamming network run by a new generation of Jedi 419 scammers. I have seen the future, and it is a nefarious cloud of ugly green plastic that needs to borrow $2,000 to release its family millions from Mugu National Bank.

GREAT JOB GUYS

Re:unintended consequences

[enoz]

On the upside, at least there will be a mesh-network whenever you travel.

Amateurs talk strategy...

[edremy]

Professionals talk logistics.

It's an old military saying, and it's right. By far the most damning bits in his article don't deal with Sugar, Windows or anything else- they deal with the utter and total lack of planning on the part of the deployment folks. (Err, folk) The fact that they had virtually no plan, no infrastructure and no supply chain management indicates to me that they were simply not living in the real world- any Army 2LT could have sat down with them and explained how they were about to fail. How you get to a point where you have a quarter of a million pieces of hardware sitting around with no coherent way to get them to the people who actually need them is beyond me. Why didn't they hire a pile of old brigade S4s? You know, folks who actually have experience getting stuff to people out in the middle of nowhere?

I've been tremendously disappointed by the entire project- the goals were wonderful, the hardware ended up pretty nice, the software has ended up pretty meh, but the overall project seems to be run by pie-in-the-sky idealists, Open Source fanatics and others for whom the real world is a place they only visit from time to time.

I'm confused

[jmorris42]

I'm seeing this same thing on every recent article about OLPC. Can someone help me understand?

1. OLPC repeats and repeats they are committed to Sugar.

2. OLPC then says they are unhappy with Sugar and are replacing Linux with Windows... because they are unhappy with Sugar.

3. OLPC says they are going to port Sugar to Windows.

So let me see if I understand where they are coming from. The think Sugar is a mistake so they are going to solve the problem by porting it to Windows and switching the underlying OS from Linux to Windows.

WTF! Am I the only person who gets braincramps trying to parse the doublespeak coming from OLPC?

Re:I'm confused

[PPH]

So let me see if I understand where they are coming from. The think Sugar is a mistake so they are going to solve the problem by porting it to Windows and switching the underlying OS from Linux to Windows. Otherwise stated: If you are going to make a mistake, make a really big one.

Re:I'm confused

[Locutus]

I've not seen any talk of putting Sugar on Windows and I've been looking. I did see Negroponte say that he thought the activities should not be so tied to Sugar and I read that as he wanted Activities which ran off the default Windows desktop.

Bender said he'd like to see Sugar run on many different OS's and indeed it is in the Ubuntu repositories and can be installed on the latest Ubuntu( v8.04 ) as a different session type/desktop.

And Sugar provides more than just a desktop so all the things like mesh, network UI, Journal, etc are not going away. So sure some at OLPC are still committed to Sugar since it's about 80-90% there and just needs some polish. How long as it taken Microsoft to come up with the latest UI they're pushing? Far longer and with far more developers and $$$ behind it.

So there really isn't a whole lot of doublespeak coming out of OLPC. Negroponte has not clarified what having Windows on the XO means but we all know that Microsoft will not allow Sugar to cover up the Microsoft Windows desktop so IMO, Windows on the XO is just Windows and any Windows based software making the XO just a ruggedized low end Windows laptop. Not the well designed learning machine the XO-Sugar stack provides. But hey, Egypt can probably purchase as long as its got Windows and that means a million or two get ordered and sold.

LoB

Learning inhibitors

[mudshark]

This guy is a bit unhinged and it harms his case. He really goes nonlinear about 12 paragraphs down when after tries to rip RMS a new one and says

If proprietary software is half as good as free software at aiding children's learning, you're damn right it makes the world a better place to get the software out to children. Hell, if it doesn't actively inhibit learning, it makes the world a better place.

Well, I respectfully submit that the worldview favored by Microsoft actively inhibits learning. As a blindingly mundane example: Make an OS (Windows) which uses filename extensions to divine metadata about certain files (bad, but we'll let that slide for the moment). Next, release a version of said OS which has a default UI setting to hide these filename extensions from the user. This very demonstrably inhibits learning -- even the casual user picks up fairly quickly on things like ".txt" and ".exe" -- and gives people a distorted picture due to the missing information. That, in turn, increases confusion (why are there 4 things called "Setup" in this folder, why do they have different icons and which one do I click?) and paves the way for some of the the crudest exploits (somebadvirus.doc.exe) simply by dumbing down the user. Not only has the prevailing approach by the monopoly software vendor actively inhibited learning, but the net result of that has been several iterations of malware which Just Didn't Need To Happen.

How can you develop a culture of innovation when you promote a mindset which discourages tinkering? Sorry, but in this case half a loaf is worse than no loaf at all. People like Krsti should at least be able to notice this bias in proprietary operating systems and applications. He makes enough reasonable points that it's even more important not to let him off the hook for something like this.

Re:Learning inhibitors

[urcreepyneighbor]

How can you develop a culture of innovation when you promote a mindset which discourages tinkering? Look, we're talking about developing a cheap, little, rugged laptop so little M'beka can learn fractions, read Wikipedia articles, and IM his friends about tonight's home.

This "culture of innovation" bullshit - and the rest of the FOSS ideology - is the anchor around the OLPC's neck.

Let M'beka learn.

Re:Learning inhibitors

[Alex Belits]

I've downloaded some linux apps before, unzipped them and guess what? Several files of the same name. Like the name of the application is common. There's a fooname app and a fooname thank you text file and a fooname config file and others at whatever whim of the writer or compiler of that app. So where is this superior system that doesn't have extensions and is somehow conducive to learning? 1. Filesystems do not allow multiple files with the same name to exist in the same directory.
2. Linux applications are not distributed in zip files.

Therefore you are lying. At most, you have unpacked a set of Linux executables on Windows and were hit by the very same user interface deficiency that just was described. What means that you are also stupid.

And don't tell me that I should be opening the program first and then file > open for the document. That's just stupid. why? Because the folder browser is nearly always more flexible and searchable where the file > open dialog is not. All modern file managers have default action (usually double-click on a file), and list of alternative applications and actions (usually right-click). Same as Windows, not any different from MacOS of any version.

There are many other reasons why opening a file from an application is more convenient than running application from a file manager, however it has nothing to do with file managers or file names.

Also all files on a Linux (or any Unix-like) system that are meant to be "opened" by a user, either have extension, or are text files and have names in all capitals (README, COPYING, etc.) The only files that almost never have extensions are executables -- they are supposed to be installed before you can run them, and all Linux distributions went to a great length to make installation and package management automatic. In any real-world setup the only executables a user is supposed to run by doing anything directly with their files (from a terminal or file manager) are executables the user made by himself, and for some reason decided not to install into /usr/bin (or /usr/local/bin ) where they belong.

Of course, if you actually used Linux, you would know that.

The jury is still out

[iamacat]

You could also argue for just using the cheapest Windows or Ubuntu notebooks instead of less powerful custom hardware that currently doesn't cost much less. Vegetable oil-powered generators and solar panels may not be out of reach of villages targeted by OLPC. Let different ideas in hardware and software compete and the best ones win in each target market.

Re:The jury is still out

[1u3hr]

You could also argue for just using the cheapest Windows or Ubuntu notebooks

I'd argue with that. Half of them would be dead in a month. 90% by the end of a year, in a village environment.

The OLPCs are rugged, pretty waterproof, batteries (a VITAL point) cheap and much longer life than standard laptops.

Re:The jury is still out

[anothy]

amen. it's amazing to me that so many people here on slashdot have such a poor grasp of fundamental engineering principles (it probably shouldn't, but it does). the XO is explicitly designed for kids in developing countries. its closest "competitors" are simply not - they're shrunken laptops. it's not a question of better or worse in some abstract absolutist sense, it's a question of engineering your solution to fit your problem.

Enlighten me

[Jooly Rodney]

The cost of developing it aside, what is the problem with having the ideas "presented in an entirely new graphical paradigm," when you're giving the machines to communities in which the per capita rate of computer ownership is practically nil?

Re:Enlighten me

[digitalgiblet]

"The cost of developing it aside, what is the problem with having the ideas "presented in an entirely new graphical paradigm," when you're giving the machines to communities in which the per capita rate of computer ownership is practically nil?"

He wasn't talking about the problem of getting people to accept the interface.

I believe his point was that with the OLPC's limited resources they pretty much managed to do nothing BUT get the "entirely new graphical paradigm" MOSTLY working. Not much of educational value was produced, unless you really do believe that this hardware, OS and UI have mythic powers akin to the monolith in 2001...

It would be kind of like starting a transportation project and as a first priority deciding that you didn't want to use any wheels because they seem old fashioned. Sure you might come up with a fantastic mag-lev train for a handful of people, but was that the mission or was enabling the greatest number of people to get from point a to point b?

If there is indeed value in putting computing devices in the hands of children, then time becomes a paramount factor. The time it takes to truly innovate a "new paradigm", learn to use it effectively, and then produce the software that rides on top of it and makes it worth having done in the first place... is longer than it takes a child to grow up... That means deferring the supposed value of the project to a later generation.

The project of getting devices to children who can gain value from them should be a separate project that is NOT dependent upon the "new graphical paradigm" project. By all means pursue the second project, but don't block the first project while you do it.

Of course this whole argument begs the question of how much real value the devices would actually bring to the children's education. So far I have heard ZERO arguments for the project based on verifiable research. I've also heard ZERO arguments against the project based on verifiable research.

Re:Enlighten me

[westlake]

The cost of developing it aside, what is the problem with having the ideas "presented in an entirely new graphical paradigm," when you're giving the machines to communities in which the per capita rate of computer ownership is practically nil?

When the Freeplay Foundation designed the Lifeline Radio they chose not to re-invent the wheel.

Instead focusing on the design of a rugged multiband portable - in appearance and operation a radio like any other. Building on the infrastructure and experience of eighty years of educational broadcasting.

It was and is a project that would rank zero for ideological or political correctness. But the radios are out there and the program is on track and on budget.

Frustration @ Lack of Management

[BoRegardless]

After reading the article, it becomes apparent that they did NOT have proper business management of the OLPC project, and you don't get managers of large projects from teaching staff and professors.

I found it a depressing read. With a key person who focused on the half dozen key concepts and stuck to them, maybe OLPC could have been better with fewer hiccups. It would likely have taken a Steve Jobs to make the decisions & push needed buttons.

I see the value in business picking the best commercial hardware choice.

I do NOT see the value in forcing proprietary solutions on the third world, but also do not see the value of having software OS & Applications that can get corrupted in a device to be thrown out in the middle of nowhere. In other words, I think it would take running the OS & core applications in flash memory.

The UI is a core issue. Why should it be materially different from what a billion computers already run? If the students are going to be able to go onward from OLPC, then their "language" must be "compatible" with the other "computers" they will see later.

Too many questions. Not enough answers. Then politics hits along with MS Money.

I'm not buying it...

[Belial6]

"and they are incredibly obscure for new users (although no more obscure than Windows and Macintosh)."

That fallacy keeps getting repeated.

Soon after my son's 1st birthday, I set up an Ubuntu system for him. I loaded gCompris, and spent about 5 minutes showing him how the mouse works. A few days later, I spent maybe 5 minutes showing him how to load gCompris from the menu. Within a few days of that, he had no problem loading his computer and loading his software. I soon found that he was also loading other programs he liked to use. Klotski seemed to be a favorite of his. It took all of 10 minutes of 'training' to teach a 1 year old child how to navigate the Gnome desktop with no problems. He couldn't even read, and he had no problem loading the programs he wanted to use. There is no way that Gnome can be called a difficult to understand UI.

This is also why to the chagrin of many geeks, the desktop metaphor just won't go away. It works, and it works well. It is incredibly easy to understand both for advanced users and novices alike. I can't count the number of articles and comments I've read where someone is saying that the 'desktop' needs to be replaced because it is 25 years old. Really, it doesn't. There have been many refinements to it, and I am sure that more will come, but the premise is rock solid.

Re:I'm not buying it...

[Lonewolf666]

This is also why to the chagrin of many geeks, the desktop metaphor just won't go away. It works, and it works well.

True.
I'd like to add that the occasional annoyance is usually due to poor implementation. Examples include
-inconsistent GUI design in general, where you learn some principle just to find out it is NOT applicable to all of the application
-Windows Explorer failing to update itself after you moved around some files
-Focus stealing by popups (Windows again)

All of these are not a fundamental failure of the desktop metaphor, but individual failures to apply it well.

I stopped reading after this

[martin-boundary]

My theory is that technical people, especially when younger, get a particular thrill out of dicking around with their software. Much like case modders, these folks see it as a badge of honor that they spent countless hours compiling and configuring their software to oblivion. Hey, I was there too. And the older I get, the more I want things to work out of the box. Ubuntu is getting better at delivering that experience for novice users. Serious power users seem to find that OS X is unrivaled at it.

What's wrong with this comment? The guy's telling us he thinks tweaking a system is for young people. Fine, so he feels too old to go through the whole rigmarole and frustration and he prefers a turnkey system. Plenty of older people are like that.

But here's the thing: learning new stuff is the whole point of an educational laptop like OLPC. If you give kids a system that works out of the box, then you're spoon feeding them. Just give them a half finished system and tell them they can finish it themselves. It's frustrating and painful, and they'll learn something.

Obviously, he's gotten too old to be willing to learn something new every day, which is why he thinks "dicking around" with a PC is a waste of time. And we should take his views on how to help kids learn seriously? Gimme a break.

I stopped reading TFA after that paragraph, because if he can't see the fundamental contradiction between what works for an old guy who's tired of learning, and a kid who's soaking up everything around him, then his other views on Sugar and whatnot are probably not worth reading either.

Re:I stopped reading after this

[Karma Sink]

And if you can't see the difference between frustratingly banging your head against a keyboard to get Linux to run properly and learning something new every day, then you're not really seeing with very clear eyes, I don't think.

Frustrating the end user so that they think that the system is nothing but a frustrating, annoying piece of crap is not a very good way to get people to work with it. Especially not the people who give up quickly because they would rather be trying to figure out how to get potable water instead of how to compile a web browser. :(

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion