Re: disabling root and olpc passwords
On Monday 04 Feb 2008 10:11:02 pm Chas. Owens wrote: Or better yet, use sftp or scp. Your olpc user gets his/her own keys generated when you first start up. sftp and scp both require receiver to share login password with sender. nc doesn't. It just reads/writes bytestreams from/to network sockets. E.g. You can transfer sub-directories across machines with : [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ nc -lp | tar xzvf - ./src [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ tar czvf - ./src | nc -q 10 192.168.1.2 without exchanging passwords. Very handy for machines in a mesh. sftp/scp would be an overkill for such purposes. The 20KB nc is one of those utilities that makes you wonder how you ever managed without it :-). Subbu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: disabling root and olpc passwords
On Sunday 13 Jan 2008 4:48:08 am Mikus Grinbergs wrote: The 2008-1-12 OLPC News says ... so that we can finally disable the root and olpc passwords. The way I have my G1G1 system set up (I have no wireless) I *need* to ftp in. For that, I have set a password for olpc. It would be ok with me to set up a different user+password for ftp, but would *not* be ok for password support to be disabled. Mikus, Just what exactly do you need ftp for? There are much better alternatives for transfering files. You may want to use nc (from netcat package). It is smaller, easier and has none of the user/password/double-port stuff. Subbu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Classroom tools
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 9:23:55 am Y.Sonoda wrote: According to Construntionism theory OLPC relies on, any children have their own model of understanding the world (that is shema and those are all different each other. As the children interact with the real world, they learn by themselves using their shema, assimilating this model to the phenomena first, and accommodating it to adjust for better understanding next. This causes new shema, or knowledge, and these new shema will be also assimilated and accommodated repeatedly. Along with these series of interaction with the real world, children learn. On the other hand, the opposite idea is Instructionism in which teacher poses question and children answer. The way Instructionism is practiced, the child is forced to assimilate and accommodate the teacher's model of the world. Where the schema from real world conflicts with those of the teacher, it is the latter that is rewarded :-(. I have seen Instructionism work well a) when it is the student who seeks out a teacher b) when such contacts are spaced out. The former reduces frustrations and the latter limits domination by the adult. I believe a teacher (or more correctly, a guide) is essential in the learning process. Unguided constructionism doesn't work. Children left alone (see www.feralchildren.com for extreme examples) never managed to learn higher level concepts. BTW, I am confused by this discussion thread. I thought OLPC was about bringing learning environments into the reach of the neglected children - those who don't have access to well-equipped school rooms or educated guides. Does XO really make sense in environments that already have well-equipped classrooms and teachers? Subbu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Classroom tools
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 11:09:49 pm Jameson Chema Quinn wrote: BTW, I am confused by this discussion thread. I thought OLPC was about bringing learning environments into the reach of the neglected children - those who don't have access to well-equipped school rooms or educated guides. Does XO really make sense in environments that already have well-equipped classrooms and teachers? Any country in the world has dedicated, caring teachers. And in any country in the world, teachers - whether dedicated or not - are an important constituency in education decisions. If OLPC aims solely at where-there-is-no-teacher, it's aiming at precisely nowhere. (I live and teach in Guatemala, roughly middle-of-the-pack for the third world, if that's worth anything.) It is not about teachers or economic classifications. XO is described as a potent learning tool created expressly for children in developing countries, living in some of the most remote environments. Even in developed countries, I can see how XO will be welcomed by home-schoolers or schools in remote rural communities. But the classrooms being discussed here already have access to electric grids and computers with larger screens and hard disks. Would XO hit a sweet spot in such environments? I am not so sure. Subbu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
