|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

From:  "Walter Bender" <walter.bender-AT-gmail.com>
To:  community-news-AT-laptop.org
Subject:  where is Walter?
Date:  Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:22:04 -0400
Message-ID:  <fd535e260804211522i42530c49g8163b7157aeecd36@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:  devel-list <devel-AT-lists.laptop.org>, sugar <sugar-AT-lists.laptop.org>

After more than two years without a break at One Laptop per Child, I
have decided to take some time to reflect on how I can best contribute
going forward to the goal of giving children around the world
opportunities for a quality learning experience. The OLPC Association
is making headway getting laptops into the hands of children and it is
encouraging to see that other non-profit and for-profit organizations
are following suit. My personal interest is in helping build a
community of developers, educators, and learners dedicated to
advancing the quality of free and open source software for learning
and the sharing of pedagogical approaches in this community by
adopting the spirit and methodology of the open-source movement.

While my goal is to create a complementary effort to broaden the reach
of the software and pedagogy--a free and open framework in support of
"learning learning", I hope to continue working with the great team at
OLPC as well as the various groups that have formed around the world
in support of one-laptop-per-child deployments.

Thank you for all of your support over the past two years and for all
the feedback and encouragement you have given me.

regards.

-walter
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel



to post comments

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 0:42 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (10 responses)

From a month ago...  http://lwn.net/Articles/274036/
> This is terrible news.  The OLPC is really starting to smell like a dead end.

It's just bad news after bad.  The XO doesn't need much, just good software and a working
sales channel.  The demand is unarguable!  Get Fedora or Ubutnu to run well on it and sell it
worldwide.  How hard could that be?  A few months tops.

Instead, Negroponte is apparently positioning it for XP and a third-world-only sales.  I hope
the rumors are wrong.  True or not, his behavior lately has been incomprehensible.

I'm sorry little XO, your future looks rather bleak and Sugar is almost certainly a dead end.
We were all hoping for so much more.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 8:01 UTC (Tue) by skitching (guest, #36856) [Link] (2 responses)

The position on XP-on-OLPC has been clear: the OLPC is an *open* platform. And therefore
anyone has the right to port anything to it.

Nicholas Negroponte attempting to block XP on OLPC would be like Linus Torvalds trying to
prevent a specific political party using linux for their election campaign. It's just not an
option; open means open for everyone.

Of course, if you can show evidence that the OLPC staff have been spending their donations
working on an XP port, or that they are changing the design specifically to help Microsoft
then that would be different. Can you prove any such thing?

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 16:11 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Just what's on the tech/rumor sites.

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/334/C15015/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/21/olpc-head-of-software-...
Half the stories on http://olpcnews.com
etc.

A lot of people seem to be under this impression.  If they're not actually working on XP then
OLPC have a PR gaffe on their hands.  They might want to issue a press release or at least a
position statement.

Well, we'll see!  I still predict the slow demise of Sugar -- no big loss IMO -- but I love
the hardware and hope it has a bright future.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 24, 2008 3:23 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> Nicholas Negroponte attempting to block XP on OLPC would be like Linus Torvalds trying to
prevent a specific political party using linux for their election campaign.

Er, there are other options; it's not a binary choice between prevention and exclusive
endorsement... having said which, Negroponte seems to be sailing rather closer to the latter
these days, and that certainly does seem to be something of a volte-face.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 8:08 UTC (Tue) by luya (subscriber, #50741) [Link]

It's just bad news after bad. The XO doesn't need much, just good software and a working sales channel. The demand is unarguable! Get Fedora or Ubutnu to run well on it and sell it worldwide. How hard could that be? A few months tops.
I personally think Windows XP for XO will not fly for the reason the software are not free and open source. XP is too limited for task like music, internet. Frankly, it won't fly other than being a demonstration. You forgot Sugar is just an GUI desktop interface built on top of Fedora. Current version is based from Fedora 7 but will switch to 8 soon once Fedora 7 reaches EOL. Overall Sugar is still alive. As for the strategy, you will be a very bad one since the XO is primarily targeted for developing countries.

Opportunity window

Posted Apr 22, 2008 11:11 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (5 responses)

Who cares, we have the Eee. The OLPC is theoretically $200 ($400 in practice), but the low end Eee is $300 now. And new competitors are coming out every day! Life is sweet.

Opportunity window

Posted Apr 22, 2008 13:26 UTC (Tue) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] (4 responses)

Indeed.

What killed the "$100 laptop" was that it was closer to $200 on release. You can argue the
tech and the OS till the cows come home, but you better have a good reason to have such a poor
spec at a price that's quite close to other more-powerful machines.

And there is no compelling reason to get an XO over a Classmate/Eee/whatever other than a
small price difference. Even the XO's ruggedness is now open to question with the current
keyboard problems.

OLPC should have partnered with someone who knew what they were doing instead of going it
alone.

Opportunity window

Posted Apr 22, 2008 16:21 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (2 responses)

> And there is no compelling reason to get an XO over a Classmate/Eee/whatever other than a
small price difference.

Not actually true.  The screen is unequalled.  For reading black-on-white text, it's the
finest, most readable LCD I've ever seen -- indoors or out.

But, I agree, as soon as the EEE gets a halfway decent screen, there won't be a compelling
reason to struggle with the XO.  Here in the first world anyway.  :)

Opportunity window

Posted Apr 22, 2008 17:41 UTC (Tue) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] (1 responses)

> But, I agree, as soon as the EEE gets a halfway decent screen, there 
won't be a compelling reason to struggle with the XO.  Here in the first 
world anyway.  :)

The latter part is important. XO uses much less power than any other 
laptops (there are mobile devices that much do better, but not laptops).  
It's actually possible to use it outside of powergrid (using hand pull 
etc) unlike the normal laptops.  Here in the first world, I wouldn't mind 
a laptop like that at my parent's summer cottage (which doesn't have 
electricity, but could have networking through GSM).

One shouldn't forget about the mesh networking either which works even 
when the device is turned off.  Again, that's not an advantage here in the 
western land of broadband, but things are different in countries where in 
addition to powergrid, you don't have any computer network available, or 
if there is, it's very unreliable.

Opportunity window

Posted Apr 22, 2008 20:19 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Hmmm... Mesh networking is cool, but I'm not sure it is the way to go for a reliable connection. Particularly if it is used in the rural areas of the third world.

Even if the reported 1.6 km range turns out to be true, that will hardly connect all inhabitants of a village. Connections to the rest of the world will be hard to come by.

Opportunity window

Posted Apr 25, 2008 11:22 UTC (Fri) by ralphw (guest, #50262) [Link]

Just don't confuse XO, the hardware platform, with
Sugar and Linux, the software platform.

Hardware comes and goes, but software can live forever.

The hardware 'business model' of selling the same capabilities, and
watching the cost go down over time, is an interesting idea, but I don't
know how it will stand up to other innovations over time.

As to software, Smalltalk/squeak are there, and other educational platforms could easily be
made available.  How about Boxer to complement LOGO?

If sugar proves to be good for collaborative learning, it will survive.
Because the students will want it to.  The only thing that will prevent
it from getting broad adoption would be an open-source 'product management' hiccup of some
kind.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 1:02 UTC (Tue) by uravanbob (guest, #4050) [Link]

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.  The XO is a great little box - my son loves his and it
survived the drop to a concrete driveway.  Sugar - it is an interesting experiment and getting
better - there are still dedicated people working for the success of this  project - check out
the Epaati Activity bundle from Nepal.  If NN does push XP and continues to ignore the
saleability of the XO in the developed world - well then the band will probably tune up - but
until then let's not create a self-fulfilling doom.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 5:17 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (12 responses)

I have to say, now that the other shoe has dropped, that I never thought OLPC was a
particularly good idea anyway. It seemed mostly like a way to scam third world governments out
of education funds.

For one, laptops in the classroom have gone over like a lead balloon every time they've been
tried here in the States. I don't see any reason why we should expect different results
elsewhere. Also, the whole idea of the 'knowledge economy' has gotten pretty hollow. So you
get some kids in Bangladesh tech-literate so they can compete with Indians over the ever
promising field of churning out stored procedures and manning help desk lines. 

If you really think it's valuable for kids to learn tech skills, why not blast TI calculators
into third world countries instead of some new laptop? Kids can do Basic programming and
everything we used to do on Apple ][s in this country. They can also learn some math. The
calculators work for months on one set of batteries AND they already cost less than $100
retail (meaning their wholesale cost is probably something like $40). 

Well, so even though OLPC is imploding, they *have* opened up a promising new 'market' for
computer companies to pump millions of new units into, so even though the kids will be getting
classmates or whatever, they've served their purpose as far as the industry is concerned.
Can't say the kids will benefit though.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 6:50 UTC (Tue) by xorbe (guest, #3165) [Link]

I never understood the OLPC drive either.  I can understand making a cheap sturdy laptop
available for sale.  But to make the goal OLPC, it doesn't seem quite right.  $$$ Business as
usual, I guess?  I'm sure some interesting things were learned along the way.

Walter Bender's "goodbye OLPC" note

Posted Apr 22, 2008 7:53 UTC (Tue) by skitching (guest, #36856) [Link] (10 responses)

Why all the negativity?

People moving on after a long project has finally reached shipping state is normal. These are
smart people with many opportunities available to them, but they have had enough belief in
this to stick with it until it is in a finished state. Of course there is always more to do,
but there will be others who will step up to do that.

Providing kids in the third-world specifically with "computers" is not a worthwhile goal. But
the OLPC is more than that. It is a library (which many do not have) and a news source (which
many do not have) for a start. It is an interactive math tutor in places that are unlikely to
have a teacher who knows more than basic arithmetic. And many more things I am sure. 

These are all effects that do not occur when a kid in a rich country is given a laptop. They
already have access to books, news and (usually) a pool of teachers who specialise in
different subjects.

Allowing those *who are interested* to learn programming is just a fringe benefit.

Shipping containers of books to remote schools is not really an alterative, as these books
would become out-of-date, and in many cases there are not yet a lot of suitable books in their
native languages. But a decent cost-free data-distribution network should encourage authors in
many languages to write for their new audience.

The effect of exposing rural kids in poor countries to information about the rest of the world
will be interesting. It might be good or bad; but the OLPC will certainly improve education.

A cynical perspective...

Posted Apr 22, 2008 11:42 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (9 responses)

Microsoft isn't interested in the glowing idea that you've described, which was embodied by
the OLPC project in the past.

Microsoft wants cheap machines that run government purchased Windows XP. Governments can then
pay to add Microsoft's office productivity, Microsoft's classroom tools, Microsoft's
collaboration software, etc. etc.

In Microsoft's world these aren't kids learning about the world, but consumers who need to be
locked into Windows so that they can generate revenue in poor countries where Microsoft sales
projections require  long-term growth. If it has to give away a million copies of Windows this
year, that's fine, so long as it gets two million sales next year.

If OLPC winds up meaning subsidised Windows XP laptops for poor kids then we've failed, and
the money and time donated were for nothing.

It's hard to add something to a closed product which makes it open, but it's very easy to add
something to an open project like OLPC and make it closed.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 22, 2008 13:06 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (8 responses)

The problems with the OLPC is that it depends on selling a tool for subverting educational authority _to_ educational authority. The OLPC project is based on an exciting, hacker-friendly constructivist learning design -- not the kind of easily measurable drill and teaching the kids to do tricks for the computer that sells well to education bureaucrats. And besides, if MSFT can subvert standards bureaucrats, then education bureaucrats ought to be a piece of cake.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 22, 2008 13:30 UTC (Tue) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link]

True only if an OLPC-competitor doesn't succeed in classrooms over there.

These computers were teaching aids, not teacher replacements.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 22, 2008 13:37 UTC (Tue) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] (3 responses)

The problems with the OLPC is that it depends on selling a tool for subverting educational authority _to_ educational authority.
Educational authority in developing countries isn't quite as stuck in the mud as it is in the US and Western Europe.

I was in Mongolia in January deploying OLPCs to two schools there and talking to the Ministry of Education. They're very sold on the constructionist approach.

JordanB may be right that laptops in the classroom have gone down like a lead balloon in the past, in the US — but that certainly wasn't the case in Mongolia. The kids, and the teachers, are very enthusiastic.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 22, 2008 17:32 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (2 responses)

Then let me be the first to say, "I, for one, welcome our Mongolian hacker/entrepreneur
overlords."

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 23, 2008 20:41 UTC (Wed) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] (1 responses)

Don't be too quick to laugh. India went from near-zero on the technology front to virtually
obliterating the low-to-middle tiers of the programming industry in the United States. I may
not be impressed by their code, but I'm very impressed by their achievements. Very few nations
have been able to get the same level of manpower or enthusiasm.

As for the Mongols, if they are known and revered in history for anything, it is skillful use
of manpower and overwhelming enthusiasm. No, I don't see them charging across the Gobi
wielding razer-sharp Apple laptops, but I do see them turing a creative drive, a passionate
energy and their natural creative brilliance towards technology, once it becomes realistic to
use and has a realistic use. (There's plenty of evidence in Mongolia that these people have
extremely high levels of artistry, creativity and inginuity.)

I doubt the Mongols could seriously threaten the world economy with their programming might -
but I wouldn't be betting against it either. I do see them competing heavily with India with
regards central/eastern Europe and countries that are ethnically or linguistically closer to
them than to the Indian subcontinent. I could certainly see them doing well in the Open Source
world and they may end up major contributors to projects like the Open Library. I could also
see them contributing towards innovative projects aiming at getting computing out in the
field, as many inventors in the West have this nasty habit of staying where it's warm and dry.
This limits exposure to alternative ideas, alternative approaches and unconsidered situations.

Writing off a people, for any reason, is usually a bad mistake. Another group worthy of
examination are the Romanians. Their nation isn't in the best of states right now, but stop
and think about where they have been when things have gone well. They have buildings with
external frescoes - an achievement in itself - that are over 400 years old and show no signs
of fading even in intense sunlight. Name me a regular external paint with that kind of
warranty. Sure, paints don't make a computer, but it shows an innate nature to experiment and
invent, a curiosity to see what will happen if. If you can establish how to feed that kind of
fire, stoke it up a bit, provide it a means to run rampant, I could see things getting
interesting there very quickly.

Now, regardless of whether what I expect would be remotely likely to be the consequence of
getting technology to them, I would point out that social engineering rarely works as expected
(if at all), culture shock and concerns of outside interference can drastically alter the
outcome, and accelerated cultural development has never worked but has almost invariably been
a catastrophic disaster.

It follows that any introduction of new technology must be with an eye to how the recipient
thinks and feels, and it must also be very hands-off. There must be no pressure to use the
system the way an "outsider" might want them to, or to use it at all. It has to be "their"
thing, or it won't work.

(This is why Microsoft's involvement with OLPC is so scary to me. Yes, scary. Once you have a
dominating overlord in the picture, the natural suspicion of outsiders is going to create
problems. Not just for Microsoft but for everyone. We might be ok with Microsoft controlling
what we learn, but you'd be a fool to think they'd passively accept it. A nation indoctrinated
during the Cold War that the West are a bunch of imperialists discovers their education system
is being run by a Western megacompany that does have a habit of coming across, well,
imperially, and that said company has bought out their beaurocrats as well. That generally
produces Very Bad Reactions, especially in poor or unstable regions. At best it would be a
social disaster - at worst, it would be catastrophic on par with every similar example in
history.)

Yes, but consider the USA's future

Posted May 7, 2008 15:57 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Looking at the US trade deficit, it's likely that a majority of MSFT shares will be Chinese-owned by the time today's high school students enter the work force -- so the USA will be in the same boat as the current OLPC countries.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 23, 2008 0:14 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (2 responses)

The value of the OLPC wasn't as technology, but in that it was a way to deliver EXPENSIVE
textbooks to children. Textbooks in poor countries are purchased very infrequently because the
cost of dead trees delivered to every remote village with any kind of frequency to keep the
books updated is a huge burden for the education in these countries. IIRC countries like
Mongolia and Peru spend over 3/4's of their education budget on textbooks. The value of the XO
was that with a single network connection in each village the textbooks could be written and
delivered electronically. The screen on the XO allowed the computer to switch to black-white
mode and consume almost no power while in ebook mode. 

Now expand that out, a single XO could be given to a child and remain with that child from
grade school till the end of education, during all that time the cost of books no longer
impacts the countries education budget, not only that but with the mesh networking and the
shared network connections the machines could provide more information than the children have
ever had access to, opening their horizons and educating them to a far greater level than in
the past. 

It wasn't about a laptop, it was about technology that in the long run would save these
countries millions of dollars in textbook costs while delivering the highest quality education
for the money spent. We take for granted in the west that a textbook is relatively inexpensive
by western standards. Those same costs in the developing world are not, a single textbook can
cost more than the teachers yearly wage in some countries. Creating, printing and delivering a
100lb's of processed paper to the remote areas of the world is not cheap.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 23, 2008 3:05 UTC (Wed) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

IIRC countries like Mongolia and Peru spend over 3/4's of their education budget on textbooks.

I call this number. The claim is 75% of the nation's elementary education budget being spent on textbooks.

I don't speak Spanish so I couldn't check Peru. I've had a look at the English-language budgets for India and Papua New Guinea and I don't see that they spend anywhere near that proportion on textbooks. As you'd expect the majority of those two budgets is consumed by people and buildings.

The figure for Mongolia is interesting. Japan, World Bank, ADB and national aid agencies have all poured funds into Mongolian education. A large part of those funds to go textbook development and production (but still not 75%, as far as I can tell from a quick look at UNICEF figures). But this is a product of Mongolia's history. Tibetan monks didn't use textbooks, Soviet-era textbooks are old and are wildly inaccurate in some fields, and there is no other country which is going to create Mongolian-language textbooks. The figures on expenditure on textbook authoring and publication in Mongolia are an outlier --- the circumstances leading to that expenditure are unlikely to appear elsewhere.

Bureaucrats

Posted Apr 23, 2008 5:37 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]

Textbooks aren't expensive because of printing costs. They're expensive because the business
is a racket.

I have a copy of the Unicode standard sitting on my desk right now, 1,500 pages, hard cover,
well-bound. It cost $60 with free shipping. I have the Chicago Encyclopedia in my bookshelf.
Over 1,000 pages, very well printed with a *lot* of plates. I can't remember how much it cost
but it wasn't much over $50. I also have a very slim book from school (about 250 pages,
printed practically on magazine stock) about computational theory, $120. 

I compare technical books, printed using expensive methods, being offered on the open market
with those being offered for consumption in classrooms and every time there's a *good* 50%
markup on the latter. Why is the dragon book so fucking expensive? Because it's a hardcover?
Because it's *so* expensive to print 800 pages? 

Hardly. It's because it's intended as a textbook, where the people who are buying it are doing
so because they're forced to rather than because it's a good value. For the record I got my
copy of the Dragon book used, and if I had to pay full price I wouldn't own it, I would have
chosen one of the many more reasonably priced compiler books.

Had the OLPC really taken off and had it really been used as a textbook operating platform, it
wouldn't have saved one *red cent* on the cost of the books. The publishers still would have
demanded their cut. They would have insisted on DRM that would have made the MPAA blush before
they would even *consider* such a platform. And then the selection of which e-book for what
absurd price would have gone through the same corrupt process that occurs now for the dead
tree variety. 

In fact after they got greedy with the DRM and started nickel and dimeing (you have to pay
extra for the kids to read them after school hours!) it probably would have ended up costing
quite a bit more, on top of the investment in the computer.


Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds