[Its.an.education.project] Ivan's latest blog entry on OLPC

[Edward Cherlin]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Ivan Krstić
<krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Hi Pamela,
>
> On May 15, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Pamela Jones wrote:
>>
>> You attack Stallman for being such a purist about openness and freedom of
>> the code. But at the end, you say essentially the same thing, that Microsoft
>> stuff isn't really appropriate as far as the goals of OLPC are concerned.
>
> Not in the least. Stallman is a black-and-whiteist; issues to him have no
> shades of grey. The issue of OLPC and open source is an issue of shades of
> grey: I claim OLPC has a responsibility to openness for computers it ships
> and software it writes, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with also
> working to make its software available on as wide a range of platforms as
> possible, including proprietary ones. Stallman thinks making Sugar available
> for a proprietary platform is morally reprehensible, and I in turn think
> calling it morally reprehensible is evil.
>
>> So, I'm saying all this to say that falling in love with computers is an
>> unpredictable gift. We don't know which kids will do it, but we know some
>> will, if you let them. I don't think it can happen unless you can look at
>> the workings *and control them*.   I couldn't do it until I could look at
>> the workings behind the screen, which Microsoft tries to mask from view, and
>> Apple tries to control no matter what you can see, and could change it to
>> suit myself.  On Linux, you are free to be yourself and to decide what you
>> want to do, how much you wish to learn, and nothing, nothing, nothing blocks
>> you but your own interest and time.
>
> I really hope you didn't read my essay as saying I somehow think this is
> bad. The only point I was making about free software is that it's a means,
> not an end, and that if there are tens or hundreds of millions of children
> who can benefit from the Sugar vision of _learning_ with their Windows
> (non-XO!) computers, then we should be working to make it possible. I really
> didn't think this point was that controversial.
>
>> I think if OLPC switches to XP lite or whatever, it will end up the
>> largest botnet in the world.  How could it not?
>
> Nowhere in my essay do I suggest OLPC should ship Windows. It's neither what
> I think nor what I wrote. In fact, I wrote I'm absolutely opposed to it!

See, this is where I get confused. As I read what you said, we should
work to make Sugar on Windows possible, and you don't see that as
controversial, but you are definitely opposed to OLPC shipping
Windows.

I don't see how you can slice it that fine. Windows is a technical
disaster, and Microsoft is several other kinds of disaster. Why should
we do anything at all to support Windows? Letting them get on with
what they do anyway shouldn't be controversial, because we have no
legal authority to tell them to do otherwise. But let's be clear. They
aren't going to do the dual-boot that Nicholas keeps going on about,
and as far as I can tell Microsoft has no interest in porting Sugar to
Windows. So if we don't do it, it won't happen. That's fine with me.
Did I miss something?

What would you like to see happen with Sugar on Windows that has any
actual chance of happening?

>> Now, as to the strategy part:  I think it's a mistake to trash OLPC, even
>> now.  Yes, leave, yes, do something better, yes point out issues, but
>> trashing isn't helpful.
>
> I've thought this through very carefully. Saddened and disappointed as I am
> about the self-destructive path I see OLPC taking, I have thus far been
> loath to discuss in detail the organization's implosion. But by naming
> itself One Laptop per Child, I fear it has just about made certain that its
> failure to accomplish its original mission will be discussed, written about,
> and remembered in history as a failure of the concept of one laptop per
> child, not the eponymous company.
>
> Then I realized it's exactly the absence of transparency about the innards
> of OLPC that would lead the public to conclude that it was the concept that
> was failing. A clear account of the goings-on would, if anything, make the
> dichotomy between organization and idea more stark in the public eye. So I
> wrote one. Yes, it's angry. It's about as angry as if it was written by
> someone who worked 18-hour days for two years to make OLPC succeed against
> all odds, and then woke up one day to discover that the company's Chief
> Astronaut has landed and taken the company on a 180-degree turnaround about
> its mission, goals, and core values. And he's selling it to the press as if
> it were business as usual.

He says so, but he can't. Microsoft won't cooperate with his Trojan
Horse plan. Nobody wants to port Sugar to Windows. Not us, not
Microsoft. Windows on the XO would be a bad joke apart from
Microsoft's criminal abuse of its monopoly power. But Illinois is
planning to hold a bake-off. Nicholas may hate it, but it isn't his
choice to make. I'm trying to get hold of people who can make sure
that the bake-off gives meaningful results, and gives us a benchmark
for Sugar and collaboration vs. Windows, among other things. Do you
want in? If we can get our act together, we might even be able to make
the results tell us something about the value of Constructionism more
generally.

It is always good to leave something written in the heat of anger
until the anger subsides. If it doesn't subside, then other measures
can be considered. How are you doing?

> --
> Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | http://radian.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Its.an.education.project mailing list
> Its.an.education.project at tema.lo-res.org
> http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project
>



-- 
Edward Cherlin
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
http://www.EarthTreasury.org/
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."--Alan Kay