OT: OLPC Imperialism


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 (60)add comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
Trevor Jones said:
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.
April 19, 2007
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.
April 20, 2007
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.
April 20, 2007
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.
April 20, 2007
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
April 22, 2007 | url
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.
April 22, 2007 | url
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.
April 23, 2007 | url
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.
April 23, 2007
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.
April 23, 2007
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.
April 23, 2007
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.
April 23, 2007
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.
April 23, 2007
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.
April 23, 2007 | url
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.
April 24, 2007 | url
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.
April 24, 2007 | url
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."
April 24, 2007
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?
April 24, 2007 | url
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.

April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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 !
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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/
April 24, 2007
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
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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?
April 24, 2007
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
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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
April 24, 2007
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?
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007 | url
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007 | url
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"
April 24, 2007 | url
Alex Singleton (GI) said:
Thanks for the ad hominem, Simon.
April 24, 2007 | url
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."
April 24, 2007 | url
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.
April 24, 2007 | url
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007 | url
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
Alex Singleton (GI) said:
That's like saying in 1981 Britain that the market had failed
because not everyone had a personal computer.
April 24, 2007 | url
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".

April 24, 2007
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."
April 24, 2007
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 ?

April 24, 2007
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
April 24, 2007
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..)
April 24, 2007
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.
April 24, 2007
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.
April 25, 2007 | url
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.
April 28, 2007 | url
P.Woods said:
The photo tells it all.
The crank was dropped ages ago!
This guy is just not keeping up.
May 01, 2007
Andrew K said:
Does anyone remember "A Car for Africa" (aka "Africar")? Made of
wood so it could be serviced/repaired by third world joiners. The
story merits googlong and reading. This looks like another example of
modish western lefties deciding what is "appropriate technology" for
poor countries...
May 02, 2007

.