| Leave computers to the market economy |
|
|
| Written by Alex Singleton | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thursday, 19 April 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 The very worst idea in international development circles is the One Laptop Per Child scheme being fronted by academic Nicholas Negroponte. The idea is that developing country budgets and development aid will be spent buying computers for up to two billion children in the developing world. The organisers want these computers to cost $100 each (although they haven't actually been able to meet that target price) and be ordered in minimum quantities of 1m units. They will be handed out without charge.The scheme is doomed to disappoint because it envisages Negroponte's laptop design as the single, monopoly type of computer for two billion children across the developing world. Although Apple apparently offered its Mac OS X software to the scheme for free, the offer was rejected because they were determined only to open source software. Moreover, the open source operating system has been given a special user interface not used anywhere else. They've dropped the idea of working on a "desktop" and there is no such thing as a folder for organising documents, for example. These metaphors, of course, have worked very successfully. Negroponte's rejection of the desktop user interface is a fundamental mistake. People have tried doing these sort of special educational user interfaces in rich countries and they've flopped. Open source software should compete against non-open source variants. Different hardware, similarly, should compete. The one-size-fits-all approach is flawed because Western academics can't know the specific needs of two billion users. The African child who desperately wants to be a graphic designer for the African subsidiary of global company might want a computer that can run Adobe software. A child musician might want a computer that can run Sibelius, the music composition software used by famous composers and American and European schools. The one-size-fits-all laptop won't run these programs. Another problem of the scheme is the reliability issue. What happens if these laptops aren't very reliable? In the market economy, companies compete on reliability. PC Magazine publishes an annual study of reliability. But the incentives to be reliable are going to be a lot weaker with this laptop project. Moreover, the laptop proposal is simply a very wasteful use of money when there are more important priorities. The Indian Ministry of Education has attacked the laptop as "pedagogically suspect". India's Atanu Dey says that in his country: Tens of millions of children don’t go to school, and of the many who do, they end up in schools that lack blackboards and in some cases even chalk. Government schools - especially in rural areas - are plagued with teacher absenteeism. The schools lack even the most rudimentary of facilities such as toilets (the lack of which is a major barrier to girl children.)So, how long before eBay gets flooded with people flogging the things?
Comments (58)
Trevor Jones
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to this comment's feed| People who hate capitalism love this project. But if poor people were given the choice, I doubt many would buy these gadgets. They'd choose something that runs standard software instead. |
Ami Ganguli
said:
| I'm not sure where you get the idea that these guys are a monopoly. Microsoft just announced a $3 Windows package for developing countries. Intel has it's own low-cost computer initiative. Just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean it doesn't have competition. You may disagree with their technology choices, but every company has to make technology choices. If they were wrong then the project will fail, as it should in a competitive environment. Actually the Microsoft deal is an example where the project has already succeeded indirectly. Even if the laptops fail, they've forced Microsoft to respond to the competition by offering developing countries a better deal. Competition at its finest. ... Ami. |
Trevor Jones
said:
| I think the monopoly aspect is that governments are buying the thing and then giving one model of machine to every child, rather than (for example) giving a voucher and letting parents decide. I don't favour this approach but they could give everyone a voucher and then schools would say: we're going to be teach on Linux or Mac or Windows so we'd recommend you buy a machine that does what we're teaching on. |
Ami Ganguli
said:
| The problem is that these things are intended to be part of the curriculum, so they need to have computers that are compatible, and they each need to have one. Think of it more as a textbook than as a computer (and in fact their goal is to replace paper textbooks). Letting the parents decide doesn't really make sense - these are for use in the classroom. You don't let individual students choose the computers to be purchased in a school computer lab. The fact that the kids get to take these home doesn't change that. ... Ami. |
Wayan
said:
| Alex, Thank you for your input on the OLPC debate. We have a lively discussion about all angles of One Laptop Per Child on OLPC News where we've already analyzed the underpinning ideas of your argument before and found them to be flawed. The OLPC XO is designed as an educational tool for the younger set, 5-10 year olds who want to learn basic subjects, not teenagers thinking of Adobe as their software for employment. That said, the Sugar UI is a risky move, not because its different from Windows or Mac UI's but because its yet to be fully tested by students. As to reliability, the OLPC looks to be much more reliable that any other computer, by far. What you failed to notice was the OLPC implementation plan, or better yet, the lack there of. The current country doorstep drop-off mentality of OLPC means those who cannot distribute current resources, the local governments, will be handed valuable computers to allocate equitably. In doing so, eBay sales are inevitable. http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/ebay_olpc_sales_inev.html |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| "the OLPC looks to be much more reliable that any other computer, by far" How can you know that? They haven't gone into production yet. |
AdamW
said:
| You've entirely missed the point of the project. You're looking at it like this: * This is a project to give kids computers. * These computers don't do things other computers do. * There may be a demand for the functions these computers can't do. * Therefore these computers are a failure! This is just silly. The OLPC project does not in any way preclude the provision of conventional computers to those who need them for some specific purpose. The point of OLPC is not to provide kids with 'a computer' in the sense you're talking about. It's easiest not to think of the OLPC as 'a computer' at all but as a new type of educational tool. The point of OLPC is not how well it can ape a 'real' computer, otherwise it wouldn't have been designed the way it has: it would resemble the competing Microsoft project, which is basically 'build a normal PC as cheap as you can'. The OLPC wasn't designed this way not because its designers are stupid, but because they are not trying to design a conventional computer. The OLPC is an attempt to answer genuine needs of the environments into which it is being introduced: the need to provide high quality, easily updatable educational information, the need to allow students to interact with each other in an environment where it's far more difficult than in, say, England to bring all the students at an institution together in the same place at the same time, and so on. It's simple to intentionally misunderstand OLPC, look at it from a negative perspective, and say 'it can't do X, it can't do Y', but as I said, this is to completely miss the point. You need to understand what OLPC is actually *trying* to do, and assess whether it does that. To illustrate the point I could easily turn the discussion on its head, point at a conventional laptop, and dismiss it on the grounds that it can't do half the thing OLPC can do. Would that be fair? Of course not. Your mistake is to think that the two distinct items have the same goal, which they do not. |
John Woz
said:
| Wow - what conservative propaganda spewed by a no-nothing. The laptop will run a version of Fedora, a far finer OS than Windows and the equal of OSX (yes I actually use these operating systems regularly to code with so I am not just regurgitating something I read). Many of the working computers of the world run a version of Red Hat's well vetted OS. The re-thinking of the UI is something that is being done across the board in many markets for many devices (iPhone anyone) - old metaphors however apt at one point are losing their timeliness. The new OLPC UI, dubbed "Sugar", is actually very intuitive - far more so than the standard desktop and folders model - for a child easy to pick up - for some over the hill Republican who can barely use Windows - maybe not so much. Old dogs and new tricks don't jive so well. This is a great project with noble goals across the board - it should be lauded and will help spur technological innovation that monopolist companies have caused to stagnate. |
TippyH
said:
| They shouldn't have called it a "laptop." The comparisons with a conventional laptop are misguided. But they needed to call it a "laptop," in order to generate enough interest. It's a Catch-22. |
total_loss
said:
| Mr. Singleton, I don't know where your flawed idea's come from, nor do I care. But open source is the only way to go, people need to realize that there are may OS' in existence not just $Microflub. I have met many people who assume that computers only run software from one place - Redmond, Washington. Little do they realize how (Sir (Mr Gates) ripped off an OS for a mere $50,000 and made 250 billion - that is a monopoly. People adapt, they will adapt to this, since many have probably never seen a computer, they have no expectations of a UI or gui, so what difference does it make? What if you had grown up in poverty, wouldn't you want a chance to do something besides being a goat herder? And be honest in answering that. Many thanks from me to the open source community and Red Hat - which is what I use at work and home, so there. |
JOB
said:
| AdamW, you just took the words out of my mouth. What is some poor kid in the rural part of Malaysia going to do with a laptop decked out with Windows Vista, without an electrical outlet even? Nothing, thats what. The basic premise of these machines are that they are a starting point. Open software gives these kids options... options to tinker, modify, upgrade. |
stickers
said:
| Alex - if your posting was designed to get a lot of visits by taking a controversial standpoint, you have succeeded. If, instead, your post was supposed to be a cogent analysis, you have failed to understand your subject. OLTP has far greater value than just a computer, it also brings all of the resources of the world's information (via the internet) to those most needing free educational resources. |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| total_loss: I have no objection to open source - my object is to governments deciding which operating system and which hardware people use. |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| stickers: You say "OLTP has far greater value than just a computer, it also brings all of the resources of the world's information (via the internet) to those most needing free educational resources." Well the internet and the free information it brings is a pretty central part of what a computer means to me, too. |
Josh Sebastian
said:
| Who the hell is Alex Singleton? Is this guy serious? Where is the "This study was paid for by..." label? Maybe he wrote this because he didn't understand the concept of OPEN SOURCE. Alex, it means it's free and open to everyone and developed by everyone. It epitomizes democracy. When is the last time you saw the free market throw money at education? Yeah, me neither. A stack of cheap laptops and a single wireless connection could give an African village the same knowledge as the richest of Americans. How is that not a good thing? Maybe you'd like to keep them poor and under educated... You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting spun logic that could be detrimental to the education of the impoverished. |
Matthew C. Tedder
said:
| If they feel so strongly about such bad-mouthing such well-intentioned projects, ask them to at least get a first grade education themselves and look at what the product is and what Open Source Software is. So much could be said to counter-chastise these fanatics, but I will limit myself to a few points: (1) Computer hardware is notoriously, cheaply made and unreliable in the market place where emphasis is focused on low cost, high margins, and short life cycles for furthering sales. My 13 years in the industry can certainly attest to that. But these OLPCs are given an unparalleled length of QA testing and are built for rugged outdoor use. (2) The Sugar Interface (which I have running in a virtual machine) seems language independent and very simple to learn and use but in no way precludes access to an ordinary desktop or applications. It is an ordinary GNU/Linux system capable of the full range of ordinary GNU/Linux applications that would cost tens of thousands of dollars, if it were Windows or Mac OS X based. And by definition, Open Source provides far more choice and differentiation than proprietary software. (3) Neither Windows nor OS X are likely to provide the flexibility to customize enough to due what has been managed in these devices. First, their memory foot-prints and CPU requirements are too large. In turn, the OLPC uses the Linux-BIOS project such that the kernel is automatically loaded on boot. (4) Yes--these countries need teachers and schools and much more. But they can also benefit from education and global connectivity through these devices. Each should give in the areas they can and not knock the others for doing so. People have been giving money and volunteer support for years to build schools. In my view, these machines are teachers in and schools in and of their own right. (5) The existing market has not served these people in decades past and, with their requirements for pre-existing computer literacy, English literacy, electricity, etc. what makes you think these people will be served by market forces any time soon? Are you really going to sell PCs to rural villages teaching kids under the shade of trees? Are you going to first pay for power plants and reliable power distribution? UPS to protect from power loss and surges? Clean the dust out of their hard drives and keep the sun from damaging their screens? Sure.. I can see the Windows PCs sitting in the sand. OLPCs can give these kids global perspective and a way to learn even when teachers are unavailable. They learn skills on standard Open Source software that could enable new business and industries at price-points they are far more likely to afford. They can join the world and share with the world in ways not otherwise possible. No other hardware meets the needs the OLPC is designed for. I am truelly and personally offended by that "thoughtless think tank." |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| Josh: I'm a former IT journalist who has worked freelance for the International Data Group (one of the world's largest information suppliers on information technology) and VNU Business Publications, writing in UK publications such as Personal Computer World and ComputerActive. I wrote what I wrote because that's what I believe. I wrote it during an evening in my bedroom on my iMac. No one paid me to write it. I am not against open source. Where do I say I'm against open source? |
Gill
said:
| What is more productive? letting LEDC based children struggle along with what little they are provided with or make a brave attempt to helping them by giving them the basic computer that allows them to learn? Those, though new and confounding, laptops provide internet access, general knowledge and children can easily learn how to use a Sugar User Interface because there is a large chance they have never used or seen any other kind of User Interface let alone a computer. Don't you think the children will be grateful for what they can get? You really believe they are going to be upset that you didn't get them a specific application? or a specific User Interface? You are being too knowledgeable for the worlds good. It's a good and moral act and will also assist in poverty and development in LEDCs. Teaching kids is probably one of the most important things to do in the world. Just because they don't have money doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights and education. |
Timmy
said:
| Tese laptops are probably used for general education needs and therefore would have no need of specific programs such as adobe. Probably the reason the operating system has been modifies is to fit the sylubus of the eduction program better. In my personal opinion this is a good idea, giving educational tools to those in needs and its better than nothing. Although the money could be used for more imediate problems such as schools, food and shelter. But maybe the policy through which theyre going by is educating the young so that they can build the future or sometthing like that. |
mia
said:
| I think that the OLPC is a good idea in theory and every child should have access to a computer but all the money being spent on these lap tops that could be unreliable and that will most likly not get much use is just a huge waste of money. I believe that it would be in everyones best interest if schools in these developing countries had all the right equipment such as black boards, books and even chaulk before they have computers. |
RF
said:
| Get your priorities right guys. You miss the point. This is a complete waste of time. Maybe these kids will need computers in mass but not before 50 years. There is already quite a few hardware around in Africa and those who need it have it. What they need are electricians, civil engineers, jurists, physicians, industrial and agricultural entrepreneurs, not f*** open source software or windows software. However the project will have loads of success in richer countries, where cheap IT is truly needed ! |
Ben
said:
| Exactly what JOB said. They have stated that they're not expecting every kid that gets a computer will grow up to be a programmer, but at least they have a chance to tinker with it. And the people that wrote this article are overlooking the main reason for the computers. It's not to run expensive music software, and for heavy computing. It's a learning tool. They have also said that money should be spent on food and water instead of this. There are thousands of people giving their time in these countries to help with food and water, and the analogy of teaching somebody to fish plays in very well here. These kids can get a good education if these machines are put to good use. In getting this education, they can then go on to help their country in the numerous ways that it may need it. And of course the people can counter this by saying "Well how is using a computer going to help them solve the food and water problem?". They are also saying that they will be unable to use a traditional desktop GUI. What are they expecting these kids to do with these computers become GNOME/KDE/XFCE power users. It's all about simplification. The easier it is to use, the more people will use it. And if they had actually researched the XO interface at all, they have recently come out with a live cd to demonstrate it, and it comes with a striped-down version of GNOME. "OOHH Stripped down that means it's not as good" they may say, but once again it's all about simplicity. They also bring up the point of them using Linux. Don't get me wrong, I love MS Windows, and most of MS's products. What I hate is their monopolistic buisiness model. But my foray into the world of open-source (Linux / BSD), has indeed shown me that Linux is a much more stable operating system (Less Crashes), and when there is a crash, it is much easier to recover from. And in using Linux, they are able to customize the software to the best fit for the hardware, unlike using proprietary MS Windows, they would no doubt be restricted. And as said by Trevor up at the top, I don't hate capitolism, but this article overlooks many important points such as other programs to help with other things such as schools, food, and water. |
Matt
said:
| "How can you know that? They haven't gone into production yet." The operating system is available for download, and you can get a live CD here: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/sdk/build1/livecd/ |
salllllll
said:
| i think that this project is going to be really good because not many LEDC's can afford operating systems e.g. mac. but there are some things bad about this project too. as you said that you cannot run adobe etc. so there are both good and bad sides. they can really help in LEDC's because atleast they provide basic services like internet etc and will therefore help in education of children in LEDC'S |
F_W_
said:
| Alex this is not necessarily governments trying to choose which operating system and hardware their people are going to use, it's more just that this is the best deal out there for cheap computers. It allows the children to learn what they need through the internet. And yes there will be people selling them on eBay but not as many as you would think (eBay isn't really that popular in Africa). And many of these people getting the laptops will actually use this service and be extremely grateful for it. Also these computers are not meant to be base working computers for people, they are not meant for the kid who wants to be a graphics designer, or music composer. They are meant for kids who have never used a computer in their life to get access to the internet. |
moo
said:
| Mr. Singleton, If your objection is with the governments decisions, then it sounds like you don't really have a problem with OLPC. Your problem is with the governments. As others have said, there ARE competitors to the OLPC, so it is not a monopoly. It is possible for the governments to give its citizens the choice of machine, and instead of attacking the governments decisions, you attacked the OLPC, the first to come up with the idea of spreading the machine around in the first place. Also, I'm sure Linux was chosen due to its scalability. It is very low in power consumption, meaning that using a handcrank or related device is actually feasible. I'd be very surprised if I saw Mac OS X (and I am actually a Mac fan, so I'm not really insulting it) or Windows running on low enough power to efficiently support that. As for the UI, there are successful alternatives to the normal UI metaphor we are all used to, but they are only used for special purposes. This is a special purpose machine, not a normal computer. I believe this is what you failed to realize. Desktops and folders were used because businessmen were used to folders, documents, and desktops already, hence the metaphor. These children have no concepts of folders and desktops, so what does it matter that they use a different metaphor? |
marilyn monroe
said:
| i think the OLPC is a very good idea because every child deserves a decent education and to be able to use the different technology we have today. and so I agree how it can be a "starting point" for many children. But living in a country where its diffucult to even afford food, having a computer isnt going to change that fact, unless they sell the computer... which would prove that there is no point in having the OLPC. the government, should feed the children well before considering the OLPC |
Maaaa
said:
| This might be a waste of time... I understand that it will help LEDC's and children who need education. I really do, but I don't think this will help the children and the country. It is true that internet and technology has helped countries developed in many ways, but has it been truely effective? In the US, 'internet' is being an enemy..it has become a bad influence to many children. It really has. So, its not a good idea, it will become a bad influence for those children with the laptop. |
Seatux
said:
| JOB, Malaysia is alot more developed than you think it is. In fact typing this out on a PC rather than going snail mail proves my point. Look for Cyberjaya and see the progress, however little it is. Perhaps the OLPCs too can be used by farmers for weather info and commodity prices updates and the local clinic could use it for references and accessing a national database of patients. So the OLPC might just be a lot more flexible than one might think |
okijuf
said:
| It doesnt really matter if this lap top runs for adobe or not, what matters the most is the fact that kids in LEDCs are getting the opportunities to touch and know the technology that we have right now. Before even thinking about negative aspects that this thing can have, why can you just support for what people can offer to those kids? |
Jake Nelson
said:
| Alex Singleton, You have done very little research into the purpose of this project. The reason OS X was not chosen for this project is about education. The software that is provided is completely open to the end user. Children can modify to their hearts content anything on the system. Yes, OS X looks pretty, but it offers nothing to the end user other than a shiny veneer. Using open source software is just as free (as in money) as the Apple offer. However the Apple offer is not free at all (as in information and knowledge) that the open source software brings to the table. The users can learn from, modify and freely distribute to each other and the world the software that is included on the laptop. |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| Jake: Mac OS X comes with all the tools you need to write multitasking software, and uses open source software under the bonnet (Darwin) so I don't see the point of your argument. Whatever OS is used, there is open source software for it that can be modified. Besides, my objection isn't against the fact that OLPC uses open source software. |
Cam H
said:
| Alex: I still think you are missing the point of the project when you say "my object is to governments deciding which operating system and which hardware people use.". This project is not about governments telling people what OS/Hardware they can or cannot use; it's about governments choosing an educational tool for young children (as stated many times above). A five year old is not going to know the difference, nor care, about what operating system is running on their computer. The target age group is 5-10 -- by 10 years old, a child might be savvy enough to make their own decision. Creating a customized, intuitive interface for a learning tool is the obvious course of action. Using open source would also avoid any potential attempts by commercial vendors at monopolizing new markets; allowing for greater freedom of choice. |
Jeremy
said:
| This was alluded to before, but one of the goals of the OLPC is to lead to lower technology prices in the 3rd world. As someone has also noted, this has already happened (e.g. Microsoft's $3 package). The physical machine of OLPC is a very small part of the organization and its intentions. |
Simon Forsyth
said:
| Poorly thought out arguments based on spurious logic that casts a dark cloud over any thinking that comes from the "Globalisation Institute" |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| Thanks for the ad hominem, Simon. |
Josh
said:
| Let's examine what you say VERY carefully for a few moments. "doomed to disappoint because it envisages Negroponte's laptop design as the single, monopoly type of computer for two billion children across the developing world." So you don't think a start is better than nothing? "Although Apple apparently offered its Mac OS X software to the scheme for free, the offer was rejected because they were determined only to open source software." Where does this come from? OK. Then later as a retort you say... "Mac OS X ...uses open source software under the bonnet (Darwin) so I don't see the point" Yeah, neither do I, but we'll keep going. "People have tried doing these sort of special educational user interfaces in rich countries and they've flopped." Well, let's give these children Windows Vista and see how they fare with THAT special interface. I'm sure the learning curve is much flatter. "The one-size-fits-all approach is flawed because Western academics can't know the specific needs of two billion users." Let's rewrite this one..."The one-size-fits-all approach is flawed because Western academics (computer users and developers) can't know the specific needs of two billion (novice computer) users." No, it CAN'T possibly make sense that way either. "A child musician might want a computer that can run Sibelius" You're right, let's scratch this whole idea we'll give 10% of the kids good computers and the other 90% better farm implements. Does that help your "cause?" "But the incentives to be reliable are going to be a lot weaker with this laptop project.' Yeah, because NO ONE will want to buy from anyone else if they do suck. Everyone will just give up on the whole idea.... There's no use. "Moreover, the laptop proposal is simply a very wasteful use of money when there are more important priorities." Did you have any thoughts of your own on this, or did you just want to quote the "Indian Ministry of Education" Well you know what? That quote is right, some of these schools don't even have blackboards and chalk. There is NO point in buying books because the laptops can be the books, can be the blackboard, can be the chalk, can be the homework, can be the media player, can be the... Unlimited possibilities, thats why. Isn't that what technology opened up for you? Or was it only that your technology was derived from a free market economy and you then paid the price they asked for it? You should be ashed of yourself for spreading distorted double talk that could take this opportunity away from "two billion children across the developing world." |
Paul Hillsdon
said:
| I think it's an interesting concept in any case. Nobody can predict what exactly is going to happen, and if the third-world governments want to spend the money on the laptops, it's their choice. The world relies on these types of huge projects for excitement and togetherness. Whether the children actually gain something or not, it's going to make the history books. I really don't feel it's that bad of an idea, as long as the computers get used in some fashion, which I'm sure will happen. In fact, I would wholeheartedly support a "200$" laptop project for the Western world, to introduce each and every child here to technology at a young age, before moving up into more serious computers, such as those with a need for Photoshop, or Final Cut. |
Fred
said:
| When I was a kid, I learned how to compute by using a Commodore 64. This is obviously an underpowered machine by today's standards (there was certainly no Sibelius, but there was Music Construction Set, which was fine for my needs at the time), but I used it on a daily basis and was easily able to parlay that into a greater understanding of computing when the time came. In fact, I think that the non-standardness of the C64 was advantageous to my tech growth because it showed me that there is no such thing as a 'standard interface' (which is nice whenever Microsoft comes out with a new OS that changes everything). The greatest part of OLPC initiative is the hardware, which at least gives underpriveleged kids the offchance of getting to use a computer, when before (in a Microsoft/Apple run world), the barriers to entry were much too great. The specifics of the OS are much less important to getting the hardware in front of actual impoverished kids. The fact that OLPC have put so much work into the OS is nice, but by no means essential for the success of this project. |
bob
said:
| Lame article. The market economy is alive and well: No country - developing country or not - is being forced to buy these machines. Alex Singleton should put his efforts into DOING something instead of uselessly berating the folks who got off their @55z and are actually trying to make a difference. |
superdoofus metadrive
said:
| i recall when my parents got our first computer, an apple ][ . i goofed around on it and started programming little programs in basic. then, as i wanted to learn how to make better programs, i had to go to the library to check out books (because there was no internet at the time...) a few years later i started reading about some language called "C" and wanted a PC. alas, my parents could not afford one. so, since i was friends with other emphatic computer geeks at school, and we talked about it a lot, we would hang out and goof around at one of the kids' house because his dad had a PC. needless to say, because the readiness and abundance of information was not immediately available to us (DANG LACK OF INTERWEBZ), our growth was not like the quantum evolution that can happen now by hopping around the web to a few blogs where, within an hour of a coding question is asked and fleshed out, amazing advances in programming occur. aaaaand on an equally valid sidenote, the 95% of students that DON'T take an interest in being 1337 with their machines, they will be not be all thumbs when and if their life occurrences places them in front of a computer. hell, that gained experience for the ones that never pursue a life that uses computers will at least validate or spurn an approval towards (perhaps even a mere tolerance) of a desire of one of their children to pursue a life that utilizes these machines. i'll wind this up here by saying (in regards to all the different viewpoints on this issue): you can bring a horse to water, but the last thing a thirsty horse needs is to be delayed his drink due to all the townsfolk showing up and arguing about what well the horse should go to and why. there's my (albeit self-indulgent) two cents. |
M.Miyojim
said:
| Many people here imagine that the countries to which these OLPCs are destined have all starving children, who have nothing at all. The majority of poor people have food and shelter, but are suffering psychologically due to the artificial consumer needs such as fancy clothes, jewels, cosmetics, electronic gadgets, home appliances, electrical and electronic tools, cars, motorcycles, boats, etc. People can live without these things, but they crave them nonetheless, due to the wealthy countries that export those ideas. For this reason, I really think that Negroponte knows what he is doing, and as far as I know about the OLPC project, the hardware is going to be rugged, long-lasting, reliable, and the software looks really conducive to the development of young minds. I remember my childhood; I would have loved and utilized the OLPC in the same way as I loved the books that I had access despite my poverty. I simply didn't know I was poor; so I was happy and learned. The OLPC will provide a bridge to wisdom, which is in short supply to the world leaders today. |
Anton
said:
| Before hand: two of the people i know are working on this project, one of them is responsible for porting a text editor. I talked to them and it seams obvious why the choose open source over mac. Because the hardware is pretty crappy(what can you do for a $100) they needed full control over OS, which Mac probably wont give them . For example they came up with an idea of what they called wireless mesh where each laptop acts as an access point for for the other laptops. i am pretty sure mac wouldn't waste their time and money on developing that. Thats why open source is a great choice. |
miket
said:
| This is a short sighted, biased and view based on some very flawed, half-assed arguments. "Western academics can't know the specific needs of two billion users." This is exactly why open source is the best option here, it allows users maximum freedom. When the time comes for more functionality upgrading is easy and free. If you a recipient of a free computer, I doubt you will be buying Adobe software - a free, opensource alternative is more realistic. ""What happens if these laptops aren't very reliable?" This has been a priority with those designing these computers. They will be more reliable than alternatives. "wasteful use of money when there are more important priorities" Allowing children access to the learning potentials on the internet is perhaps the best step we could be taking in this regard. |
David
said:
| The OLPC laptop and interface was designed from the ground up around children as its primary users; Microsoft and Apple cannot say the same for their own operating systems. For example,the security architecture for the devices does not require passwords but uses its own "bitfrost" architecture to make the device usable only to its owner. Do some research for more info on that topic. An advantage that was levered from its open-source base has also been the inclusion of the ability to change any program at the source level--as its running--giving kids a system that they can change, make mistakes on, and learn from, much in the same way I did when I was a kid by opening up HTML source code in web pages and copying everyone else's code to play around with in making web sites for fun--something that became more than just for fun after moving out of the third world country that is the Idaho Republic and making a career out of it. The OLPC, via the legal channels of open source licensing, I believe, will help do for others what the loose enforcement of websites' source code in the late 90s did for me. Except they will be able to customize their entire operating system, something that some kid, somewhere will probably become quite good at and attract a lot of attention from his (maybe her!) peers and maybe, just maybe, in a few decades, venture capital. |
Bob
said:
| I found it interesting that this OLPC project is labeled anti-free market. the people doing it are not trying to prevent competitors. In fact, they are using published standards for most of the data formats. The manufacturers are expecting a profit. the designers work for major universities, and they expect to get a certain amount of recognition, just as they would when working for projects the author approves of. The marketing of the computers seems to rely on volume sales, just as Wal Mart does. I fail to see where there is any element of anti free market bias in this project. The competition on the other hand uses coercion, threats and bribery (as recently in Massachusetts and Florida) to prevent any competition. They have been convicted twice in US courts of anti competetive behavior, and of abuse of monopoly position. They are currently loosing another such case in Europe (not the first time there either.) They have also been so found by courts in Japan and Korea. How can you (the author) side against one project that is in it's infancy when you don't even know what it is really like, and take the side of Microsoft? This isn't Free Market, it is corruption that you stand for. Where you stand doesn't really matter. In the end, a real free market system will prevail. I don't know if it will be based on OLPC, that is currently just an interesting experiment, that if successful will greatly lower the cost of education everywhere. Some established industries will loose a lot of business entrenched inflexible (Textbook publishers, overpriced Software and hardware vendors). Some new and existing businesses will gain (innovative publishers and reasonable software and hardware vendors). Just like everything else in the market. Things change. You are only whining that your horse isn't really in the race. The market is the race. Better get moving. |
Ben
said:
| What a biased article. Where the hell is the market in this? Your arguments would make sense if we saw multiple computer companies trying to develop markets in the third world and selling products AS WELL as people being able to buy it. Thats not how it is though is it. The "market" had its chance... now MIT/Google are having to pick up the slack where the market has failed. If anything this will spur more competition because companies will want to get a piece of this developing industry once people become well versed with new tech. |
David Lawson
said:
| But the market *is* working. It's just that many developing countries have other priorities than buying expensive laptops. And in China there are cheaper computers being sold. |
Market
said:
| They are not stoping the 'marketplace'. They have proven that the 'marketplace' has failed and they are filling in that hole. If the marketplace was successful companies like Intel, AMD, TI, Dell, Microsoft, Apple etc would have already created products that these people would be using. But they have not...so the market has failed them and Negroponti has filled that void. |
Alex Singleton (GI)
said:
| That's like saying in 1981 Britain that the market had failed because not everyone had a personal computer. |
Lou
said:
| I disagree. It may fail, but not for those reasons. Go and search for "My search laptop" or any company that sells electronic hardware for kids. They're not running Windows, Mac or even Linux. Most likely it is an embedded system running a Z80 or some other micro controller. Why? because to teach basic of arithmetic and doodling, OLPC is an upgrade from those embedded systems, and from that point of view, it is a quite an advancement. Comparing the needs of a child to the needs of an adolecent or young adult are two different animals. Yes, as you grow up, you may want to do more capable things and honestly, using GIMP and Lillypond will teach the concepts to the adolecent, but eventually the plan is for them to grow out of them for the next generation. So, what will it make it fail? 1. Government fraud and black market. If dad needs to provide food, dad will sell id, Governments may requisition these, and then sell them for a profit. I've seen too many of those in Puerto Rico in which laptops destined for teaching dissapear from closed lockers. This is probably the largest contributor for the project to fail. 2. The elitist approach of giving these and the lack of availability to purchase one. I can't buy one. You can't buy one, If you're a teacher and would like to purchase those, can't buy those. Not all goverments will go for those, so you're stuck paying 500 dollars for a cheap laptop, even if you install RedHat and Sugar so you do not have to pay for the hardware, it is enough to make a difference between a full classroom and "only the front row". |
diskotek
said:
| i can't see the point here? "Open source software should compete against non-open source variants. Different hardware, similarly, should compete. The one-size-fits-all approach is flawed because Western academics can't know the specific needs of two billion users. The African child who desperately wants to be a graphic designer for the African subsidiary of global company might want a computer that can run Adobe software. A child musician might want a computer that can run Sibelius, the music composition software used by famous composers and American and European schools. The one-size-fits-all laptop won't run these programs." |
Mig the frog
said:
| So let's see: Evil monopolistic communist open source advocates are trying to push their one-size-fits-all laptop solution to kids all over the world. Except that: 1- Nobody is giving the laptops for free 2- Nobody is forcing the governments of said countries to buy the laptops 3- The user interface can be modified, and a new OS installed 4- Most important, since this is the core argument of your article: There already is competition: try googling "Classmate PC", "Longmeng", or "openbook project" for starters If anything, the OLPC project already kickstarted a whole new market of cheap education-oriented laptops. You can bet that many more companies will jump on the fray if it proves a success, driving prices down and increasing competition. There. What was your point again ? |
Alex Chejlyk
said:
| Open-source is free, giving these people freedom to explore, modify and innovate. OSX and MS Windows are not free, as in freedom, they are designed to lock users into a system that can generate profits for the corporation. Free software is free, you can generate a profit from it if you'd like, or you can choose not to generate a profit from it.. Sad that people do not see this is a step in the right direction. Cheers, Alex Chejlyk |
Jonah Libster
said:
| Well, let's see, weak points in this argument: 1. The IT Market does NOT compete on reliability. This is a false marketing motion to give people a false sense of security. It competes on new features and more power/capacity, glitter and mostly...price. MS Windows is a perfect example (minus the features and price which are few and way behind linux): Its designed to either break easily or leak information as MS has holes in it by design. Hard Drives are another great example: How many Hard drives last the 3 year on the warranty (and the warranty was reduced to 1 year for awhile). How many Hardware resellers have put to take the reported MTBF (Mean Time between Failures) which is barely 3-5 years on average from recent experience (I work in the IT field and there is an article on this in CDN computer news magazine)? Oh and don't even get me started on power supplies. Capacitors burn out over time, even on high grade power supplies (although they last longer). Motherboards, well again capacitors only RECENTLY went solid state (last 1 year ago). You could argue on motherboards (maybe, the active cooling on the north bridge of course ALWAYS dies) but hard drives and power supplies don't compete on reliability (Western Digital is one great example who use to have among the highest rates of failure with their IDE's). When Hard Drives when to 7400 RPMs, they started dropping like flies initially due to warpped plates due to the heat they generated. So big weak point there. Manufacturers make more when parts fail, so long as you can make them fail slowly enough. MS keeps leaving security holes to be "fixed" (even when the breach can be see a mile away), and then uses it as a selling point for a new OS, then they add nearly double the hardware requirements of the previous OS version to promote hardware sales. (The Mac OS X at least really WAS competing on reliability as has...wait for it....Linux. Why? Because without that they had NOTHING to compete with MS Windows. So, point 1, misleading, not even weak. Point 2: what happens if the laptops aren't reliable? Well you can ask the same question of ANY technology and double for MS Windows (which is the king unreliable OS's yet I don't see you attacking MS's effort to saturate the market with cheap (not free) OS licenses. (We'll come back to that point in a minute). Well..you fix it. Now the fact that the technology in these laptops is not only well founded but proven in the field from several generations of computer users. Or do you suggest we tell 3rd world countries they cannot join with the age of computers if they want to. Fact is that LCD technology is proven. Laptops are one of the few technologies that don't die as fast as desktop (hard drives of the old laptops generated less heat although they are often unable to run the next generation MS WIndows). They has lower power CPUs which are MORE reliable than modern CPUs as they generate less heat, and Linux needs less CPU power to do the same as MS windows. So aside from the "what if" arguments (and this design I believe is among the most reliable I've seen and am green with envy) every step to make these laptops reliable seems to be better covered than most commercial products out there. 3. Open Source is FAR less a step to a monopoly than Mac OS or ESPECIALLY MS windows as its open source, and those who learn enough could create their own distro compatible with the laptop. The information to do it is there for open source OS's (unlike...MS Windows or even Mac OS X (partially open source I believe)). With Open Source, using another distro or even MAKING another distro is an option. If you went, as you suggest, using Apple or MS OS's you really DO create a monopoly. Which brings me to my next point: Are you getting any favors or grant from MS? Because your arguments actually work against themselves and are telling countries to pay more money to corporate organizations for OS's when the open source communities offer them for free with the ability to see how its done. Basically this whole argument comes across like a "Get the Facts" campaign from MS (which is full of omissions and arguments which, like yours, actually contradict themselves. Since we all know MS is taking a full frontal assault to stop the new surge in the Open Source movement, I suspect you have becoming knowingly or unknowingly a tool in this attempt to make every world computer pay tribute to the MS gods. Oh, using PC Magazine is HARDLY a reliable source of information about the IT market or trends. We in the IT community laugh every time we see these. Their article about what firefox plugins not to use was a riot (told people not to install ad blocking plugins....right..) |
Alexq
said:
| Just because we in 3rd world countries are poor, doesn't mean we are stupid or want less than everyone else. If this "Laptops For Poor People" scheme is the western academic's grand idea to solve the problem, maybe you should try giving these to the poor people in the south in the United States or the poor in New York first and see if they get any use out of it. I doubt they will. |
Ben Francis
said:
| Alex, Explain to me how extending the western monopolies of proprietary software and legacy UI design metaphors like the desktop to the third world is superior to an open source operating system with an innovative user interface. I think your article completely misses the point of the project and goes a long way to harming an important and well meaning initiative. I don't care what magazines you've written for, your article is badly researched and defies common sense. |
Motorcycle Guy
said:
| Its sort of ironic that every kid in the U.S. doesn't have a computer.... but yet we're doing this. I would say the kids in the U.S. who don't have a computer are probably more likely to be able to make something out of it. However, I wouldn't doubt that out of 2 billion kids a few will do something worthwhile, still a waste of money though. |
Write comment
