No One Laptop Per Child Eulogy Here
May 20th, 2008 by Joanna Stern
This post is not a preemptive eulogy for One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). Over the past few days—since the announcement that Windows XP will run on OLPC’s XO laptop—we’ve noticed quite a few naysayers.
GigaOm, to pick on one in particular, said in his post that OLPC was a far-fetched idea from the start:“[I]t was being shoved down the throats of emerging economies with more dire needs, such as food, clean water and schools.” To that, I have to go with Nicholas Negroponte’s answer, which I have committed to memory at this point: “It’s not a laptop project; it’s an education project.”
Then Om, as many have said over the past few days, hits at the availability of XP on the system. “The availability of Windows XP is different from what the people behind OLPC had set out to do—build a truly open, low-cost connected computing device for kids around the world.” Isn’t an open platform one that can run any operating system? Couldn’t a truly open system run Sugar and XP side by side, just like Negroponte asserts will happen?
I have always been a fan of Sugar. I had one of the first media hands-on with the system and was blown away by Sugar features like the mesh networking. Then I sent a system to Mali and I learned first-hand that kids can pick up the Sugar operating system in a matter of seconds. A girl who had never played with a laptop before, had few problems learning how to do various tasks in the OS. Next month, with the help of LAPTOP Magazine, Mali will launch a pilot program with 30 XO laptops. The systems will run Sugar. But I also want them to run XP. Why? Because most of the world uses Microsoft’s operating systems.
I received an e-mail the other day from Walter Bender, OLPC’s former president of software and the father of the Sugar system, who has broken away from OLPC to start Sugar Labs. He explained why Sugar has to run on the laptops: “The Sugar interface, in its departure from the desktop metaphor for computing, is the first serious attempt to create a user interface that is based on both cognitive and social constructivism: learners should engage in authentic exploration and collaboration. It is based on three very simple principles about what makes us human: (1) everyone is a teacher and a learner; (2) humans by their nature are social beings; and (3) humans by their nature are expressive.”
I couldn’t agree more with Bender. When a class of Malian children use the laptops they should be able to utilize all that makes Sugar “sweet.” I want them to utilize the mesh networking that allows them to create projects and collaborate on them and I want them to explore the different open-source applications.
But it also makes sense for those same children to learn a Windows operating system, so when the time comes to go to university—certainly an underlying goal of this education-geared program—they have access to the technology used among the rest of the world. Many world leaders considered this in their discretion, if indirectly, regarding the XO, which is why some have chosen Intel’s Classmate. But with OLPC now supporting XP, OLPC and Sugar are revitalized. As Negroponte has said, “to enable the Sugar environment to reach as many children as possible, particularly in the poorest areas of the world, OLPC must be able to bid on educational technology contracts, some of which require that Microsoft Windows be able to run on our hardware.”
Om’s last point: “How will these machines compete with low-end computers and Internet devices that will run using Intel’s Atom devices?” Sure, OLPC lost in a battle with Intel and they sacrificed Intel’s strong CPU power. But I’ve seen lots of mini-notebooks in the last months, including Intel’s Classmate 2. Compared with these new systems, OLPC’s hardware is a feat. Its durable components, its dual-screen technology, its alternative power sources and its innovative design make it the best laptop for the developing nations. No OS is going to change that.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
please send me more info on the XO-2 and a Phone # to contact someone
thanks
tom redding
May 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“The systems will run Sugar. But I also want them to run XP. Why? Because most of the world uses Microsoft’s operating systems.”
That is not a very good reason. The people that are used to Microsoft’s Operating Systems want them to run Microsoft’s Operating systems, because they believe that it is necessary to interoperate.
Many schools in the U.S. teach children how to use Microsoft Word and call that teaching children how to use A Word Processor. The difference is both subtle and profound. (Children who are taught the latter know how to use any program with that functionality. Children who are taught the former only know how to use one program.)
The XO is teaching children how to use A Computer, not how to use Microsoft Windows.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“But it also makes sense for those same children to learn a Windows operating system, so when the time comes to go to university—certainly an underlying goal of this education-geared program—they have access to the technology used among the rest of the world.”
Sorry for the rant, but that’s a horrible reason. This is equivalent to saying people who use Mac and Linux are destined to not be able to get through university. Students don’t need Microsoft software anymore than they need a particular brand of calculator, or a particular brand of pencil. Can you honestly name any skill that you can learn on Microsoft that you can’t learn on Mac or Linux?
As a horrible analogy, that’s like asserting that we should only be teaching children in English or Chinese because when they leave their country, because the vast majority of people will not be speaking their local dialect. This is easily refuted: If you learn addition in Farsi, French or Swahili, you’re still learning a concept that is independent of the language in which you learn the concept.
The same thing is true for operating systems. If you learn a spreadsheet like x-tables for Mac, you have a good basis for using Openoffice calc, MSExcel or any other spreadsheet that comes along. This is poor justification for suggesting having a windows version on the OLPC is any better than a linux or mac based OS.
More importantly, In terms of cost and encouraging the children to learn to understand how the computer works, it’s a significant setback.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I’ve taken a quote from: The Xerox “Star”: A Retrospective. You can find it here: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/Go/dwnelson/XeroxStarRetrospective.html
“Every user’s initial view of Star is the Desktop, which resembles the top of an office desk, together with surrounding furniture and equipment. It represents a working environment, where current projects and accessible resources reside. On the screen are displayed pictures of familiar office objects, such as documents, folders, file drawers, in-baskets, and out-baskets. These objects are displayed as small pictures, or icons.”
Foisting this approach on the children of developing nations is Western centric thinking at its worst. If a multi billionaire decided to provide computers to Peruvian children in 1985 and contracted Xerox to design the interface, do you think it would it be based on the “desktop metaphor”? Is it good educational practice to inadvertently teach children how to be good executive secretaries in a Western culture?
One of Sugar’s best features is that it isn’t XP. It only gets better from there.
I hear the argument that these poor Sugar-indoctrinated kids will be at a great disadvantage when they finally get into the workforce. Not the way I see it. It’s the “desktop metaphor” drones who will be working for the free thinking “Sugar” leaders.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
“The systems will run Sugar. But I also want them to run XP. Why? Because most of the world uses Microsoft’s operating systems.”
Why do you want them to run an operating system that the vendor is not committed to supporting beyond this year? Will that operating system STILL be relevant and dominant in 5-10years time when these children get to university? Sugar and FOSS are the future because they evolve and adapt - they’re driven and shaped by people who make what they want to use. Surely, we should be giving them a grounding in what will be relevant for them for the future, not what is relevant for us? for now?
Microsoft’s pressure to put XP onto these laptops is, I believe, another push from a convicted monopolist to lock another generation into its clutches. Microsoft can see the future is with Sugar/XO/FOSS which it’s trying to kill/choke off from the next generation…. It’s sad to think that the requirements for learning MS are to interoperate with everyone else using MS. That’s not the future - even MS Office will support ODF soon - so lets try and get children involved with the future not the past.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
“But it also makes sense for those same children to learn a Windows operating system, so when the time comes to go to university—certainly an underlying goal of this education-geared program—they have access to the technology used among the rest of the world”
What a false conclusion! So my six-year old daughter who is doing wonderfully well at home using our Mac and several Linux laptops will be less capable to go to university than other children, based on the fact that the ‘rest of the world’ uses Windows?? Sorry, makes no sense to me. Putting money in Gates and Ballmers piggy-bank doesn’t help you in any way.
Give the next egeneration of kids time to grow up and see how much Microsoft Windows will still matter.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Let’s see some fact figure:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
Like or not, the majority of the “wonderful” business world is using Windows. As an enterprise IT guy who also deal with purchasing contracts in years, I have to speak out the not-so-welcome truth — The overall cost of hardware/software/network/server/maintenance/upgrade/training/scalability is lower. That’s why biz stuck with it. Mac and Linux haven’t really come up such package to compete against Microsoft. A couple of Mac/Linux computers at home or school have not much weight when it comes to the real business.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
@Shawn
That report by NetAppications.com is at odds with the one from W3Counter.com which puts Linux market share at 2.02%. That’s a far cry from NetApplications.com’s .68%. Do you think NA’s figure would have been closer to W3C’s if Red Hat was NA’s primary partner rather than Microsoft? The companies who fall for such wishful thinking and sponsor endorsed reports are running out of oxygen. The people creating those reports and the analysts who align themselves with them are not endearing themselves to those who have found a better way to create and market software. They will be the future employers.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:48 am
What a load of bunkum. Ms. Stern should work for Microsoft. Steve Ballmer couldn’t have written a better defense of XP in OLPC. Mr. Negroponte appears to have lost sight of the goals of the OLPC project when he says, “to enable the Sugar environment to reach as many children as possible, particularly in the poorest areas of the world, OLPC must be able to bid on educational technology contracts, some of which require that Microsoft Windows be able to run on our hardware.” So the people this project was meant to help are subordinated to the market of richer countries who can pay for it. That is a business decision which provides the best illustration of why the OLPC project is suffering. If OLPC has to make a profit first and help poor children second it has been hijacked and should be abandoned and the altruism that inspired it be allowed to reassert itself.
I heard about this really great foundation which had billions of dollars and was set up to do exactly this kind of thing. You know, fund projects so they didn’t have to rely on business principles. What was its name? The Bill and Melinda somebody foundation? I heard it had $30 billion and was given another $30 billion by some rich guy named Buffet. WOW. $60 billion. How much do you think it would cost to fund the whole OLPC project? They could do it. I wonder why I haven’t heard that story in the news?
The assertion, ‘it also makes sense for those same children to learn a Windows operating system, so when the time comes to go to university—certainly an underlying goal of this education-geared program—they have access to the technology used among the rest of the world.’ How many of these children from the poorest countries on earth are ever going to get the chance to attend university? Seriously. And by the time they do why do you believe Microsoft will still be the dominant operating system and business software? Why is it ‘certainly’ an underlying goal of the project? OLPC will never achieve that goal alone. Nor was it ever meant to achieve that goal. You seem to have a very twisted idea of what OLPC can achieve.
If you cannot write objectively become a PR agent and be as subjective as you like. Please stop wasting our time writing this kind of biased drivel.