Sorry guys, but I was the one to write an article http://opensourcelearning.info/blog/?p=359/ on my weblog that first brought up the point that Mandriva is one of two companies I felt could be Microsoft's next target. After that there was some discussion http://opensourcelearning.info/blog/?p=362 on Mandriva's cooker mailinglist whether or not Mandriva should respond yes or no. In the end the Mandriva management came with a clear statement which was pre-announced here: http://opensourcelearning.info/blog/?p=365.
Linus Torvalds doesn't like Gnome! So what? He recommends Linux users to use KDE instead. Fine. He is entitled to his own opinion. He might have used somewhat more polite language, but even in that sense he is no different from many other Linuxists. But since he is Linus Torvalds the rest of the digital realm tends to pay more attention. And it is a nice topic for a blog.
For one, I am not biased to any desktop interface. In fact, I use them interchangeable throughout the day when I switch from my home Ubuntu Gnome desktop, to my Windows Mobile 2003 on PDA 1 and Windows CE3 on PDA 2, and from then on to Windows XP at home, alternating KDE, Xfce and Gnome on my laptop and dabble around under Mac OS X on the old iMac. Using them all in this way doesn't give me any better insight in which desktop is really the best. When you reach a certain level of experience it doesn't take a long time time to acquaint yourself with the basic functions and all the stuf you need on a day to day basis. Interoperabilty is way more important for me.
I also like tinkering with my desktops, changing at least the wall paper on a very regular basis, but having no qualms about changing the complete theme of the desktop, making it look completely different. I used to run Flyakite in order to make Windows XP look like Mac OS X. I used a theme package from KDElooks to change my KDE interface into an XP interface. Usually this kind of exercise renders my desktop unusable after a while or making it too dynamic. At that point I revert back to more austere, simple, uncluttered desktops.
With any desktop I know there are tons of options under the hood. One thing I have learned from most computer users is that they don't give a damn thing about all those options. Not even after using the computer for years their level of expertise ever reaches that point. They are users and content at that. Those are not the types to start thinkering in the Windows registry or start delving in all the desktop options, Gnome, KDE or otherwise. Hence, there is a lot to say for the decisions made by the Gnome developers. Ever since the human interface guidelines were accepted the Gnome desktop has developed into a simple, uncluttered desktop. The KDE desktop has developed along different lines, with a different philosophy in mind. Is one better than the other? Who cares?
Linus tried to prove his point by submitting a patch or two. Great. I don't have his coding skills (nor any skills in that area I would even want to mention), but what does it prove? Nothing, just that he has coding skills. As far as I understand it he wrote some code that would add KDE like configurations in the Gnome desktop. Well, no doubt the Gnome afficionados would be able to write a patch to simplify the KDE desktop as well. The problem is that this isn't the point. Linus likes to tinker more with his desktop than maybe the whole new batch of Linux users that appreciate the simplicity and accesibility of Ubuntu Linux. Linus also doesn't like GPL 3 and doesn't mind DRM. Isn't is great to have opinions?
...but the schools do not teach the old software and require you to run the new stuff.
Well, that would be the first time I hear about that. My wife went to get a teacher's degree and I had to install Word 2000 to comply with the organization's requirements. Most educational institutions won't have the funds to keep up with software upgrades, neither do many companies (you would be surprised about the number of organizations still running Windows98).
Crossover offers a possibility for those organizations and businesses to change the OS platform, migrate most functions to new open source applications and keep running the remaining Windows-based applications on the same old hardware. Seems to me that the costs for Crossover are less than the costs for buying new Vista capable hardware and paying for the licenses of the latest software.
Linux was developed around a very open and collaborative concept and it succeeded in drawing the attention of tons of developers and a growing number of end-users. NeXT was an innovative concept, supported by the some of the brightest minds around. But it did not succeed. Some it found it's way in other desktops. BeOS was a great concept. It is one of the fastest desktops ever with a very high performance. Yet, it did not succeed in the market place (MonaOS looks like BeOS). Amiga? Same thing.
We can't blame Linux for being more succesfull in attracting the workforce. The question should be: "Why are the projects you mention unable to attract the same kind of attention?" Maybe there is no answer, maybe some of their good parts will one day merge into what is now considered the main stream (like the BeOS developer that is now hired by Microsoft).
I am not accusing anyone of rascism, but you brought the issue of race into the argument.
Anyway, if you have some time at hand I can encourage you to read Robert Chamber's "Putting the last first". He gives an interesting insight into why many projects directed at the poorer countries of the world actually fail. In short, it the bias of western specialists focusing on high-technology development, big center oriented and easily accessible locations. There is some more to his arguments, but this will suffice. His key question is: Does anyone actually ask the people there what they want and why? He doesn't stop there, because he also challenges the way we ask it. What does this have to do with the OLPC project?
For me, it is the Green Revolution all over, in a new digital jacket. It will put a strain on limited resources in countries where education is hardly a top priority. Just check public and private spending in the poorest countries of the planet. When teachers are forced to look for side-jobs in order to feed themselves and their families I feel it in my right to promote proper pay for them. When teachers do not have school books or other educational tools I feel it in my right to promote that children get access to that first. No FUD, but a reality in the poorest and not so poorest countries of this planet. I was responsible for educational innovation in a small country, where the middle aged teachers were still using the same books they themselves used when they were kids. Those teachers and kids need new books, no new toys. Unfortunately, the richer part of this world was unwilling to donate/loan $ 350 mln over a ten year period which would have been sufficient to upgrade the whole primary, secundary and higher education, including the buildings, the teachers and the educational tools. So when I promote a decent educational system I know exactly what I am talking about. Decent meaning tailored to the real needs of the country and the people, to make them more self relient, a system that is not a runway to higher education in the west.
Now, one other thing we should keep in mind: not all countries and parts of countries are alike. When Lybia and Argentina decide to buy the OLPC that is different from -lets say- the Central African Republic or the rural area of Liberia. Where you focus on big cities with their accumulation of intellectual capital I am confident you will find the expertise needed to maintain and upgrade OLPC boxes. It's the other areas I am worried about.
Wow, you must have a problem with race here. But let's focus on the arguments.
With the lack of a decent educational system where teachers are both sufficiently enumerated and equiped with regular educational tools I fail to see why the distribution of low cost technology would actually benefit the kids. "Low cost" is a relative term, since the $ 150 the OLPC is going to cost would constitute an annual income for the parent in quite a numberof countries. Yes, for us in the richer part of the world that kind of money would be peanuts.
True, there are no licensing restrictions so local developers can do whatever they like with the software. But... will there be an extensive training for local developers? And who is going to maintain the whole thing? And, with the specifics of the hardware in mind, will it even be possible to hack a more complete package on the OLPC box? Are all the hardware specs open source as well? See, having the permission to do something doesn't actually mean it is feasable. Out of the box the OLPC has only five applications, three of which require an internet connection. A default Google page is nice, but I don't consider that a proper replacement for real educational tools.
Bridging the digital divide is a great goal in life and I can only support any real attempt to make that happen. Is the OLPC going to contribute to that? I hope so, but I was and am disappointed by what OLPC is providing right now.
I know I am sceptical as to the real benefits of the One Laptop Per Child project as to it's contribution to fighting poverty in the world. It is possible for some time to download the virtual image of the OLPC Linux version and I decided to give it a test drive. The main criterium I looked for wass desktop usability. Does it make sense and will it make life easier on the kids that have to work with it.
The main screen looks okay, but navigating it is very awkward. You have to move the mouse to the top and only then the dark grey menu bar appears. Then you have to move around the edges to get to the bottom where the applications are located. The buttons in the top left corner deal with various screen layout options. One option allows you to set all applications to the center of the screen.
Then you realize there are actually only five applciations available: an RSS feed, a chat program, a program that identifies itself with a drum but that doesn't make sense initially and Abiword. Strange enough the webbrowser is not loaded in the center screen option, but it is there.
That's it. Five applications, three of which you need an internet connection for.
Abiword is already a very light and versatile word processor and adding it to the OLPC really makes sense. But why does it have to be an extremely stripped version of Abiword. Even the complete version leaves a very small footprint. And where is the ubiquitous spreadsheet program? Is it not necessary for the kids in poor countries to be able to calculate?
The inclusion of the webbrowser does make sense, but you can only hope that the schools or the villages are willing to spend some money on a decent internet connection. Since you can hardly expect that, it leads to the conclusion that the disk space spend on chat and the RSS feeds has been wasted.
The overall usability is low. Very low. The interface and the icons are far from intuitive. And, for heavens sake, who decided that purple, light grey and dark grey are attractive colors for children? That team should have been sent to the likes of Toys R Us.
Nope, this interface and the choice of applications only add to my scepticism. The idea behind the project might have been good, but in the end it is disappointing.
My first response would be: definitely. But I would say that for all of the top mainstream Linux distributions. I have been using Ubuntu full time for the last four months and I use it for writing, designing and editing documents, answering and writing emails, accessing my websites and editing PHP files, play some music in the background, edit screenshots, burn my DVD's etc. etc. There are no issues, none whatsoever. In all honesty, Ubuntu Linux is very boring when you use it every day. No surprise glitches. Nothing.
I agree with the issue of updates, most notoriously FF2.0. Dapper Drake still doesn't have it and -as far as I understand- will not have it in the foreseeable future. That could be a security risk but since most companies still run IE6 even Dapper Drake with FF1.5.x should be a major improvement. I do understand that the choice for stability comes at a price. If you want to stay current with all innovation (and there are major innovations under way in Linux) Dapper Drake is not the distribution to use (nor is Debian for that matter, but only few complain about that).
Dapper Drake is a stable, secure and solid desktop distribution perfectly suitable for common office tasks. Will it still be around in five years time? That will depend on it's actual use. If the home endusers continue to follow the upgrade trail and move away from Dapper Drake and the number of companies rolling out Dapper is minimal, I can see the LTS version being dropped prematurely and replaced by another stable version. Canonical is a business like many others: young, but with a lot of traction. We should give it the benefit of the doubt and start pushing adoption of Ubuntu in our workplaces.
Aha, the discussion continues. Eric S. Raymond released the fox in the hen house when he started promoting the inclusion of proprietary drivers and codecs in Linux distributions in order to increase the critical mass of users. Without such a critical mass companies will not be inclined to provide open source drivers and/or codecs.
As far as I understand there are two main arguments. One, in 2008 the transition to 64-bit computing will be complete (or at least reached a critical mass). Previous hardware transitions also saw a definite shift in main operating systems. If Linux can not dominate the 64-bit market this window of opportunity closes. Second, the average desktop user is spoiled with his/her multimedia experience (either under Windows or Mac OS X) and this will determine the succes or failure of Linux on the 64-bit hardware platform. The story is not all bleak though for Linux. When it comes to driver support, the strength of the developer community and legacy emulation Linux has a head start. Multimedia is a serious weak point, mostly the result of the strong root and presence in the server market.
ESR is no fool and he is certainly someone we should listen to. I don't agree with his choice for Linspire as the flag bearer for Linux in this regard, but I do agree that the inclusion of proprietary drivers and codecs would benefit adoption on a larger scale. Larger than now that is. I also feel that far more is needed to reach the large scale adoption that ESR wants to achieve. The inclusion of proprietary elements would improve the first impressions of W2L migrators and make life easier. But will this alone convince Auntie Agatha or Joe Smith to install Linux on the box? Nope, it removes but one obstacle. ESR treats the issue of desktop domination as a technical issue, but he fails to take into account a much larger ecosystem perspective. Yes, the technological side is important, as is user exeprience. But without childhood adoption, without teaching and educational aids for schools, companies and individual, without ubiquity of Linux in all facets of life, without decent promotion or marketing only a small niche of new W2L migrators can be reached. Mac OS X is a great operating system with all the nice things ESR wants in Linux and even that never led to mass adoption. Yes, the iMac and the iPod are icons, but most people use the iPod in conjunction with their Windows PC's. They are not buying iMacs in droves. So far -and this for a long time already- desktop computing equals Windows, both in the 16 bit as in the 32 bit world.
No, forget about the 2008 deadline. Forget about the hardware issue. Focus on ubiquity. Create digital playgrounds and internet café's in the neighborhoods, in pubs, in libraries, in schools, supported and maintained by local Linux user groups. This costs money, so set up an international infrastructure for funding, for buying used hardware and redeploying them as Linux boxes. Companies like HP, Sun and IBM will have to be convinced to put their weight behind it as part of a long-term strategy. Realizing a paradigm shift takes time and effort.
Interesting move. I noticed Planmaker in one of the Ubuntu repositories already. Textmaker and Planmaker are good applications. I am running both on an older Windows CE 3.x PDA and they are way better than the defeault PocketWord and PocketExcel you get. Both applications are fast, easy to use and hence a good starting point for W2L migration. The more supported platforms the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry guys, but I was the one to write an article http://opensourcelearning.info/blog/?p=359/ on my weblog that first brought up the point that Mandriva is one of two companies I felt could be Microsoft's next target. After that there was some discussion http://opensourcelearning.info/blog/?p=362 on Mandriva's cooker mailinglist whether or not Mandriva should respond yes or no. In the end the Mandriva management came with a clear statement which was pre-announced here: http://opensourcelearning.info/blog/?p=365.
Am I complaining? Nooooooooo, of course not ;-)
For one, I am not biased to any desktop interface. In fact, I use them interchangeable throughout the day when I switch from my home Ubuntu Gnome desktop, to my Windows Mobile 2003 on PDA 1 and Windows CE3 on PDA 2, and from then on to Windows XP at home, alternating KDE, Xfce and Gnome on my laptop and dabble around under Mac OS X on the old iMac. Using them all in this way doesn't give me any better insight in which desktop is really the best. When you reach a certain level of experience it doesn't take a long time time to acquaint yourself with the basic functions and all the stuf you need on a day to day basis. Interoperabilty is way more important for me.
I also like tinkering with my desktops, changing at least the wall paper on a very regular basis, but having no qualms about changing the complete theme of the desktop, making it look completely different. I used to run Flyakite in order to make Windows XP look like Mac OS X. I used a theme package from KDElooks to change my KDE interface into an XP interface. Usually this kind of exercise renders my desktop unusable after a while or making it too dynamic. At that point I revert back to more austere, simple, uncluttered desktops.
With any desktop I know there are tons of options under the hood. One thing I have learned from most computer users is that they don't give a damn thing about all those options. Not even after using the computer for years their level of expertise ever reaches that point. They are users and content at that. Those are not the types to start thinkering in the Windows registry or start delving in all the desktop options, Gnome, KDE or otherwise. Hence, there is a lot to say for the decisions made by the Gnome developers. Ever since the human interface guidelines were accepted the Gnome desktop has developed into a simple, uncluttered desktop. The KDE desktop has developed along different lines, with a different philosophy in mind. Is one better than the other? Who cares?
Linus tried to prove his point by submitting a patch or two. Great. I don't have his coding skills (nor any skills in that area I would even want to mention), but what does it prove? Nothing, just that he has coding skills. As far as I understand it he wrote some code that would add KDE like configurations in the Gnome desktop. Well, no doubt the Gnome afficionados would be able to write a patch to simplify the KDE desktop as well. The problem is that this isn't the point. Linus likes to tinker more with his desktop than maybe the whole new batch of Linux users that appreciate the simplicity and accesibility of Ubuntu Linux. Linus also doesn't like GPL 3 and doesn't mind DRM. Isn't is great to have opinions?
Well, that would be the first time I hear about that. My wife went to get a teacher's degree and I had to install Word 2000 to comply with the organization's requirements. Most educational institutions won't have the funds to keep up with software upgrades, neither do many companies (you would be surprised about the number of organizations still running Windows98).
Crossover offers a possibility for those organizations and businesses to change the OS platform, migrate most functions to new open source applications and keep running the remaining Windows-based applications on the same old hardware. Seems to me that the costs for Crossover are less than the costs for buying new Vista capable hardware and paying for the licenses of the latest software.
And.... your school should consider Mono ;-)
We can't blame Linux for being more succesfull in attracting the workforce. The question should be: "Why are the projects you mention unable to attract the same kind of attention?" Maybe there is no answer, maybe some of their good parts will one day merge into what is now considered the main stream (like the BeOS developer that is now hired by Microsoft).
I am not accusing anyone of rascism, but you brought the issue of race into the argument.
..
Anyway, if you have some time at hand I can encourage you to read Robert Chamber's "Putting the last first". He gives an interesting insight into why many projects directed at the poorer countries of the world actually fail. In short, it the bias of western specialists focusing on high-technology development, big center oriented and easily accessible locations. There is some more to his arguments, but this will suffice. His key question is: Does anyone actually ask the people there what they want and why? He doesn't stop there, because he also challenges the way we ask it. What does this have to do with the OLPC project?
For me, it is the Green Revolution all over, in a new digital jacket. It will put a strain on limited resources in countries where education is hardly a top priority. Just check public and private spending in the poorest countries of the planet. When teachers are forced to look for side-jobs in order to feed themselves and their families I feel it in my right to promote proper pay for them. When teachers do not have school books or other educational tools I feel it in my right to promote that children get access to that first. No FUD, but a reality in the poorest and not so poorest countries of this planet. I was responsible for educational innovation in a small country, where the middle aged teachers were still using the same books they themselves used when they were kids. Those teachers and kids need new books, no new toys. Unfortunately, the richer part of this world was unwilling to donate/loan $ 350 mln over a ten year period which would have been sufficient to upgrade the whole primary, secundary and higher education, including the buildings, the teachers and the educational tools. So when I promote a decent educational system I know exactly what I am talking about. Decent meaning tailored to the real needs of the country and the people, to make them more self relient, a system that is not a runway to higher education in the west.
Now, one other thing we should keep in mind: not all countries and parts of countries are alike. When Lybia and Argentina decide to buy the OLPC that is different from -lets say- the Central African Republic or the rural area of Liberia. Where you focus on big cities with their accumulation of intellectual capital I am confident you will find the expertise needed to maintain and upgrade OLPC boxes. It's the other areas I am worried about.
was yet more OLPC FUD
Wow, you must have a problem with race here. But let's focus on the arguments.
..
With the lack of a decent educational system where teachers are both sufficiently enumerated and equiped with regular educational tools I fail to see why the distribution of low cost technology would actually benefit the kids. "Low cost" is a relative term, since the $ 150 the OLPC is going to cost would constitute an annual income for the parent in quite a numberof countries. Yes, for us in the richer part of the world that kind of money would be peanuts.
True, there are no licensing restrictions so local developers can do whatever they like with the software. But... will there be an extensive training for local developers? And who is going to maintain the whole thing? And, with the specifics of the hardware in mind, will it even be possible to hack a more complete package on the OLPC box? Are all the hardware specs open source as well? See, having the permission to do something doesn't actually mean it is feasable. Out of the box the OLPC has only five applications, three of which require an internet connection. A default Google page is nice, but I don't consider that a proper replacement for real educational tools.
Bridging the digital divide is a great goal in life and I can only support any real attempt to make that happen. Is the OLPC going to contribute to that? I hope so, but I was and am disappointed by what OLPC is providing right now.
Was OLPC FUD
I know I am sceptical as to the real benefits of the One Laptop Per Child project as to it's contribution to fighting poverty in the world. It is possible for some time to download the virtual image of the OLPC Linux version and I decided to give it a test drive. The main criterium I looked for wass desktop usability. Does it make sense and will it make life easier on the kids that have to work with it.
The main screen looks okay, but navigating it is very awkward. You have to move the mouse to the top and only then the dark grey menu bar appears. Then you have to move around the edges to get to the bottom where the applications are located. The buttons in the top left corner deal with various screen layout options. One option allows you to set all applications to the center of the screen.
Then you realize there are actually only five applciations available: an RSS feed, a chat program, a program that identifies itself with a drum but that doesn't make sense initially and Abiword. Strange enough the webbrowser is not loaded in the center screen option, but it is there.
That's it. Five applications, three of which you need an internet connection for.
Abiword is already a very light and versatile word processor and adding it to the OLPC really makes sense. But why does it have to be an extremely stripped version of Abiword. Even the complete version leaves a very small footprint. And where is the ubiquitous spreadsheet program? Is it not necessary for the kids in poor countries to be able to calculate?
The inclusion of the webbrowser does make sense, but you can only hope that the schools or the villages are willing to spend some money on a decent internet connection. Since you can hardly expect that, it leads to the conclusion that the disk space spend on chat and the RSS feeds has been wasted.
The overall usability is low. Very low. The interface and the icons are far from intuitive. And, for heavens sake, who decided that purple, light grey and dark grey are attractive colors for children? That team should have been sent to the likes of Toys R Us.
Nope, this interface and the choice of applications only add to my scepticism. The idea behind the project might have been good, but in the end it is disappointing.
My first response would be: definitely. But I would say that for all of the top mainstream Linux distributions. I have been using Ubuntu full time for the last four months and I use it for writing, designing and editing documents, answering and writing emails, accessing my websites and editing PHP files, play some music in the background, edit screenshots, burn my DVD's etc. etc. There are no issues, none whatsoever. In all honesty, Ubuntu Linux is very boring when you use it every day. No surprise glitches. Nothing.
I agree with the issue of updates, most notoriously FF2.0. Dapper Drake still doesn't have it and -as far as I understand- will not have it in the foreseeable future. That could be a security risk but since most companies still run IE6 even Dapper Drake with FF1.5.x should be a major improvement. I do understand that the choice for stability comes at a price. If you want to stay current with all innovation (and there are major innovations under way in Linux) Dapper Drake is not the distribution to use (nor is Debian for that matter, but only few complain about that).
Dapper Drake is a stable, secure and solid desktop distribution perfectly suitable for common office tasks. Will it still be around in five years time? That will depend on it's actual use. If the home endusers continue to follow the upgrade trail and move away from Dapper Drake and the number of companies rolling out Dapper is minimal, I can see the LTS version being dropped prematurely and replaced by another stable version. Canonical is a business like many others: young, but with a lot of traction. We should give it the benefit of the doubt and start pushing adoption of Ubuntu in our workplaces.
Aha, the discussion continues. Eric S. Raymond released the fox in the hen house when he started promoting the inclusion of proprietary drivers and codecs in Linux distributions in order to increase the critical mass of users. Without such a critical mass companies will not be inclined to provide open source drivers and/or codecs. As far as I understand there are two main arguments. One, in 2008 the transition to 64-bit computing will be complete (or at least reached a critical mass). Previous hardware transitions also saw a definite shift in main operating systems. If Linux can not dominate the 64-bit market this window of opportunity closes. Second, the average desktop user is spoiled with his/her multimedia experience (either under Windows or Mac OS X) and this will determine the succes or failure of Linux on the 64-bit hardware platform. The story is not all bleak though for Linux. When it comes to driver support, the strength of the developer community and legacy emulation Linux has a head start. Multimedia is a serious weak point, mostly the result of the strong root and presence in the server market. ESR is no fool and he is certainly someone we should listen to. I don't agree with his choice for Linspire as the flag bearer for Linux in this regard, but I do agree that the inclusion of proprietary drivers and codecs would benefit adoption on a larger scale. Larger than now that is. I also feel that far more is needed to reach the large scale adoption that ESR wants to achieve. The inclusion of proprietary elements would improve the first impressions of W2L migrators and make life easier. But will this alone convince Auntie Agatha or Joe Smith to install Linux on the box? Nope, it removes but one obstacle. ESR treats the issue of desktop domination as a technical issue, but he fails to take into account a much larger ecosystem perspective. Yes, the technological side is important, as is user exeprience. But without childhood adoption, without teaching and educational aids for schools, companies and individual, without ubiquity of Linux in all facets of life, without decent promotion or marketing only a small niche of new W2L migrators can be reached. Mac OS X is a great operating system with all the nice things ESR wants in Linux and even that never led to mass adoption. Yes, the iMac and the iPod are icons, but most people use the iPod in conjunction with their Windows PC's. They are not buying iMacs in droves. So far -and this for a long time already- desktop computing equals Windows, both in the 16 bit as in the 32 bit world. No, forget about the 2008 deadline. Forget about the hardware issue. Focus on ubiquity. Create digital playgrounds and internet café's in the neighborhoods, in pubs, in libraries, in schools, supported and maintained by local Linux user groups. This costs money, so set up an international infrastructure for funding, for buying used hardware and redeploying them as Linux boxes. Companies like HP, Sun and IBM will have to be convinced to put their weight behind it as part of a long-term strategy. Realizing a paradigm shift takes time and effort.
Interesting move. I noticed Planmaker in one of the Ubuntu repositories already. Textmaker and Planmaker are good applications. I am running both on an older Windows CE 3.x PDA and they are way better than the defeault PocketWord and PocketExcel you get. Both applications are fast, easy to use and hence a good starting point for W2L migration. The more supported platforms the better.