Remember the $100 laptop? That was the original description of Nicholas Negroponte's dream for a cheap computer that would be distributed by governments to millions of students in dozens of countries. A combination of open source software, low-power hardware, and some of the leading educational researchers in the world made for a great story, and for a seemingly unstoppable force fighting against illiteracy and poverty.
The "One Laptop Per Child," or OLPC, project started with a bang, and has gotten a lot of press. Unfortunately, this scintillating story has been plagued by many practical problems, starting with the price of the systems, which has risen to about $180. Commercial software and hardware companies, such as Microsoft and Intel, have publicly lampooned the OLPC, saying that it is underpowered and (not surprisingly) incompatible with their current systems.
As if that weren't enough, many of the governments that had originally pledged to buy one million or more computers ended up backing out of the project, or pledging to buy many fewer. Seymour Papert, the researcher who was providing much of the educational vision for the project, was critically injured in a traffic accident. Just a few months ago, Mary Lou Jepsen, who designed the high-resolution, low-powered screens that are essential to OLPC's success, resigned from the project. And an effort to jumpstart the project by selling OLPC computers to Americans seems to have encountered some hardware problems.
The latest blow occurred earlier this month, when Walter Bender resigned from the presidency of OLPC, announced via an e-mail message released yesterday. Bender didn't point to any problems with the project per se, but indicated that his interest is in creating a "community of developers, educators, and learners dedicated to advancing the quality of free and open source software for learning."
The OLPC news site said that Bender's resignation might be because Negroponte is warming up to the idea of using Microsoft's proprietary software on the OLPC, making it more marketable, by bringing in Microsoft's name, money, and compatibility. This would obviously be a terrible blow to the open source community which has encouraged the OLPC project, and to Red Hat, which has dedicated resources to it.
David Pogue reviewed the OLPC back in October, indicating that the OLPC does not compete with regular business laptops -- but it is not designed to do so. Rather, it is designed to be an educational tool for children. If you consider it in that context, the OLPC is a terrific success, Pogue declared.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the OLPC project, from its inception until now. But the project's many internal problems, including the loss of key staff, might prove even more deadly than any attacks that external forces might have waged.
What do you think about OLPC? Will it make a difference if the project switches to proprietary software?
Comments
Add CommentI guess if getting laptops into the hands of kids is the goal, than the matter of whether it's open source or not isn't particularly relevant (though it would be awesome if they did ship with an open source OS :-).
I guess the thing that troubles me more than whether the XO ships with Windows or not is what seems to be the total disintegration of the organization itself. I mean, look at how many people have left since January. It's really a shame.
By Joe Mendis on Apr. 22, 2008
OLPC is a great goal. As 3 billion people (25% children) come of age on the developing world, it would seriously help reduce the knowledge gap by introducing them to technology, especially at an earlier age.
I think, open source software would help to bring the costs down and participation up by quickly 'localizing' and evolving the software.
However, it would be just as good to get it out there, with even proprietary software if that's what could be done. Since every passing year is denying opportunity to another large number of kids.
By an anonymous user on Apr. 22, 2008
Asus is also offering Windows as an option on the Eee PCs, which were Linux only. Seems to be the trend with the low-end notebooks.
Well, it seems there's another possibility depending on how you read this statement: "advancing the quality of free and open source software." Part of the problem with OLPC has been just how tied it is to this specific hardware and OS platform, as opposed to building, say, a suite of software solutions that would work anywhere. Don't get me wrong -- I think the hardware is likewise vitally important. I guess where I get confused is why it always has to be both, in one, one-size-fits-all unit rather than a series of technologies that could be adapted elsewhere. I don't know that that'd be better, but it is another option, particularly if the OLPC XO proves not to be a hit in its current state.
Also, Microsoft aside, some flexibility on OSS could have helped this project. For instance, the creators resisted using Java SE on OLPC, even though that would have made development more flexible and built groundwork for moving to the open source OpenJDK. Instead, the team pretended Java was completely "proprietary", ignored the massive momentum behind OpenJDK, and now are light-years behind of where they could be on Java development.
I have thought for a while now that the project suffered from academic arrogance.
Cross-compatibility on the unique, low-cost hardware should have been the core principle of the project, if the objective was to reduce the global digital divide.
Ideally a child using the OLPC should be able to acquire the skills and knowledge to easily transition to conventional systems (see peterkirn's comment, above), and that clearly isn't happening.
Microsoft's current marketing strategy is "does not work or play well with others," so I cannot begin to imagine a move in that direction would help achieve that goal.
Share Your Comments