Re: "giving kids a platform to create their future"
I'm not sure what you're saying is completely accurate.. I've seen versions of sugar (i just can't remember which version) that has in the activities option (run, erase, etc) has the "modify" option which allows you to modify the source code. I'll have to admit that none of those things are available in the stable branch so far, but they will Regarding the journal and file system, well, the logics of "date" and "type" are a lot easier to understand than the filesystem structure, for a kid.. at least for my 5-years-old son. I think you should look at it this way.. the XO primrly designed for a kids between 6 to 12.. from 12 years to a work-type envoiroment, i think there are a couple of grades in between.. in which we (developers) can certainly put a different OS in the XO, to suit their need I must admit that some issues really bug me about sugar.. but perhaps insted of placing the sugar in my context, i should put mi mind in the sugar context, like my kid does. Sometimes we try to make everything look more like the things that we know, but sometimes, reordering, although slow at the beggining, it could lead to more efficiente work, like the KDE4 project for example By the way.. i use gnome.. hehehe :-) cheers.. R On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:18 PM, John Gilmore wrote: >> > Personally, I feel it is a mistake for the OLPC project to continue with >> > the >> > concept of the Sugar platform as its exclusive model for an educational >> > computer. The Sugar applications (activities) could just as well be run >> > from the Ubuntu desktop. Then students would actually be learning in an >> > environment that can take them into the real-world that grown-ups occupy on >> > computers, when they are ready to go beyond the Sugar applications. >> ... >> Instead of making children do what *we* think is right (I am running >> 34 years behind my daughter), how about giving *them* a platform and >> asking *them* to create what they think will be their future? > > Sounds like a great idea. OLPC hasn't done that. > > Kids who have never heard of a "file" or a "file system" are not going > to be able to edit source code. Source code exists in files which > exist in file systems. The Sugar interface deliberately obscures the > file system in favor of blog-like chronological ordering of "activities". > No source code control system or interpreter works like that -- > including the one the OLPC software is written in, Python. > > If Sugar taught the kids how to navigate among and examine the > thousands of files already sitting on their laptops -- or merely > enabled the kids to explore it on their own -- then there might be > some case for the Sugar XO being a "platform for kids to create their > own software". Today that promise remains unfulfilled. > > John > > PS: The kids can hack in little, quirky, restrictive environments > like TurtleArt or eToys, and what they learn there is useful. But > it certainly doesn't prepare them to hack the Python GUI (or any > other conventional interpreted or compiled program), nor to take > over some or all of the job of evolving the XO operating software. > ___ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: "giving kids a platform to create their future"
> > Personally, I feel it is a mistake for the OLPC project to continue with the > > concept of the Sugar platform as its exclusive model for an educational > > computer. The Sugar applications (activities) could just as well be run > > from the Ubuntu desktop. Then students would actually be learning in an > > environment that can take them into the real-world that grown-ups occupy on > > computers, when they are ready to go beyond the Sugar applications. > ... > Instead of making children do what *we* think is right (I am running > 34 years behind my daughter), how about giving *them* a platform and > asking *them* to create what they think will be their future? Sounds like a great idea. OLPC hasn't done that. Kids who have never heard of a "file" or a "file system" are not going to be able to edit source code. Source code exists in files which exist in file systems. The Sugar interface deliberately obscures the file system in favor of blog-like chronological ordering of "activities". No source code control system or interpreter works like that -- including the one the OLPC software is written in, Python. If Sugar taught the kids how to navigate among and examine the thousands of files already sitting on their laptops -- or merely enabled the kids to explore it on their own -- then there might be some case for the Sugar XO being a "platform for kids to create their own software". Today that promise remains unfulfilled. John PS: The kids can hack in little, quirky, restrictive environments like TurtleArt or eToys, and what they learn there is useful. But it certainly doesn't prepare them to hack the Python GUI (or any other conventional interpreted or compiled program), nor to take over some or all of the job of evolving the XO operating software. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [OT] Test run of 2009/05/25 image
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Stanley Sokolow wrote: > Mikus, > > I've been using the Ubuntu version customized for the XO for a couple of > days now. (See www.olpcnews.com for info about "Teapot's" XO-customized > Ubuntu 8.10 release.) It is a little slow compared with my other > computers, as expected for a computer running at less than .5 GHz, but much > more comfortable and responsive than running the standard Sugar/Fedora > system on the XO. I personally can't stand some of the human interface > aspects of Sugar, such as the time delay before a menu appears instead of > right-clicking to get a popup menu in context and especially the annoyance > of the frame appearing when I get too close to the trigger point in the > upper left corner, not being able to use non-full-screen windowing to see > multiple programs at same time, etc.. All together the stripped down xfce4 > based version of Ubuntu with Firefox, FlashPlayer10 plugin, OpenOffice > writer,impress,& draw, and other utilities, occupies about 1.7 GB of a 2.0 > GB SD chip in the XO's slot. It is fast enough not to annoy me, unlike the > Sugar/Fedora system on the XO. I can even do 2-way video and 2-way audio > web conferencing with whiteboard using www.vyew.com, a FlashPlayer-based web > application. I could not do that with the XO's standard operating system. > This all fits on and runs well from a cheap (US$6) SD card that I got at my > local office supply store. > > What the XO hardware has over the netbooks is its great screen -- high > resolution, color or monochrome reflective for outdoor viewing, with matte > finish instead of the highly glare-producing high-gloss screens that are > almost universal these days. > > Personally, I feel it is a mistake for the OLPC project to continue with the > concept of the Sugar platform as its exclusive model for an educational > computer. The Sugar applications (activities) could just as well be run > from the Ubuntu desktop. Then students would actually be learning in an > environment that can take them into the real-world that grown-ups occupy on > computers, when they are ready to go beyond the Sugar applications. Stan, That's like telling a 3 year old to wear grown-up pants and simply roll up the pant legs because some day he will have to wear "grown up" pants and might as well get used to it. Here's another flaw in this approach. If we used this approach in 1992 with a 5 year old, then we would ask him to use Windows 3.1 Fast forward to 2002. He would be 15, and would be faced with Windows XP. His skills gained on Win 3.1 would be of little use. Instead of making children do what *we* think is right (I am running 34 years behind my daughter), how about giving *them* a platform and asking *them* to create what they think will be their future? That way, it will be current! Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ > The > knowledge of the operating system's interface would be transferrable to > other Linux/Mac/Windows systems when they outgrow the XO. A Linux desktop > is not harder to learn than Sugar and it's a heck of a lot more comfortable > to use. Moreover, there isa lot of educational software available for it > that won't run in the Sugar environment. > > Stan Sokolow > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >> >> Disclaimer: This post contains Off-Topic meta discussion >> >> >> >>> Conclusion: >> >>> >> >>> fedora-olpc, to be a sucess, needs a much slimmer UI than that >> >>> of GNOME. >> >> >> >> "Success" needs to be defined. Seems to me the OLPC was envisioned >> >> mainly for a single-application environment. Except for being slow at >> >> processing, I think it succeeds admirably. >> > >> > I'm not talking about the sugar interface, which is what you're talking >> > about. >> > >> > Non-sugar interface is something I'm also interested. >> >> The reason for my enthusiasm: I think the OLPC offers the bringing >> of technological assistance to economically disadvantaged locations. >> >> I think that people who focus on "slimming" the OLPC are missing the >> point. What they end up with is a slow, small Linux system. But if >> what they want is a small Linux system, today's 'netbooks' offer >> more capability (and as netbooks continue to be produced by the >> millions, I expect tomorrow's models to cost less than the OLPC). >> >> For those who are interested in using the OLPC to bring conventional >> applications to people who already have access to technology - why >> not work with a netbook instead? For those who think the OLPC *is* >> suited to the environments in which it is being deployed - let's >> work on developing OLPC-scale applications to assist 'the things >> people do' wherever such "computerization" could improve matters. >> >> >> mikus >> >> _
Re: libertas private ioctls
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 08:42 +, Deepak Saxena wrote: > My quick answer is to move these forward from our old kernel. We can try > pushing them upstream too but I would like to understand why we need them > and if there are alternatives such as sysfs that we could use. Would it be appropriate to include that specific command (ledgpio 1 1 2 12 3 16, whatever it is) in the kernel so that no userspace intervention is needed to turn the LEDs on? Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [OT] Test run of 2009/05/25 image
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:44:11AM -0700, Stanley Sokolow wrote: > Personally, I feel it is a mistake for the OLPC project to continue with the > concept of the Sugar platform as its exclusive model for an educational > computer.The Sugar applications (activities) could just as well be run > from the Ubuntu desktop. Then students would actually be learning in an > environment that can take them into the real-world that grown-ups occupy on > computers, when they are ready to go beyond the Sugar applications. Remember, part of the point of Sugar is that the "real-world" UIs will become more Sugar-like as they adapt to the way (designers think) people think about using computers: http://lwn.net/Articles/334911/ The point of sugar is far from "preparing kids for the real world". It's probably more about "helping kids learn [about many more things than computers]". But this is quite well-trodden ground, so I don't think we're going to contribute much new. > Stan Sokolow Martin pgpfOOatLjlNk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: libertas private ioctls
On Jun 10 2009, at 11:48, Daniel Drake was caught saying: > Hi Deepak, > > In OLPC OS 8.2, libertas had private ioctls > which /etc/init.d/olpc-configure used to configure the LEDs: > iwpriv eth0 ledgpio 1 1 2 12 3 16 > > These aren't present in the 2.6.30-rc5 kernel I am running on my XO-1, > and presumably neither on the xo-1.5 kernel. > > I think the ledgpio command is needed for correct behavior of the LEDs > on the mesh. I have mesh working with NM-0.7/F11 but the LEDs are > silent. How should we solve this? My quick answer is to move these forward from our old kernel. We can try pushing them upstream too but I would like to understand why we need them and if there are alternatives such as sysfs that we could use. ~Deepak ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
