Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OLPC 2.0 — One Laptop Foundation Reboots

Posted by timothy on from the mouse-keeps-roaring dept.

Greg Huang writes "In early January, the One Laptop Per Child Foundation laid off half its staff and shed work on the Sugar graphical interface. Now, OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte and president Chuck Kane for the first time detail the foundation's new plans, describe how the XO laptop will do what netbooks can't do, and share their hope to keep working with Sugar developer Walter Bender, who left OLPC last year."

4 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. what about the "philosophy" behind OLPC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Does Negroponte still believe in Constructionism crap? Or has he finally been hit by the clue train and thrown away Seymour Papert's raving theories, which have never been supported by any kind of scientific proof (and apparently been recently disproved by real science)? In that case, OLPC might finally become useful, offering third world children a tool for, well, learning even at the expense of playing...

  2. MOD PARENT UP by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think you mean it facetiously, but you certainly a valid and apt observation. The last thing we need to be sending to people who are starving to death and getting shot by wandering bands of "people's militias" is a damn computer. And we can't even reasonably distribute food - something that actually matters - so why the heck would we be able do distribute what amounts to a trinket.

          Brett

  3. Re:Negroponte should have listened to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    tru dat.

    - Posting from his expensive job, not his mum's basement.

    ps. I never liked Sugar though and it was a hard sell for politicians who knew Windows -- they should have stuck to a conventional desktop.

  4. Re:Same name; New Project by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The fact that the second G1G1 failed despite significant marketing to the public-at-large, whereas the first G1G1 succeeded using only word-of-mouth and grass-roots marketing is quite telling. I'm sure there are many reasons (including the economy), but I believe the shift in values of the OLPC organization was a significant effect.

    I'm sure those things were part of it - but you can't ignore two other significant factors; First, by the time of the second G1G1 there was considerable competition in that market. Second, by the time of the second G1G1 word had spread about how badly they'd bungled the first and their refusal to acknowledge the problems.
     
     

    But then I felt let-down by the changes in OLPC. The switch in emphasis (including the shift to Windows) meant that many enthusiasts and volunteers lost interest.

    Which is in itself telling - that you placed your religious (OS/software) beliefs over your desire to support the goals of the project. (Which was primarily educational, and only secondarily political.)
     
     

    Obviously 1st-world enthusiasts and hackers are not the target audience for the XO. And yet I believe they were quite important in building and supporting the platform ($37 million from the first G1G1 is quite impressive), and that by neglecting that community OLPC has lost some of its most useful supporters.

    Which tells me that in the end the 1st world enthusiasts and hackers weren't as liberal as they insist they are, and really aren't any different from Joe Sixpack Biblethumper. So long as they are being catered to, they talk the talk - but when the OLPC refused to adhere to their religious beliefs.... they took a walk.