I think there are two reasons for sugar.

1. It's lower power than Gnome, K, and even XFCE. I don't know fluxbox would have done, but that flux is pretty odd.

2. It's universal. It doesn't rely on text or a specific language.

Reply

Hopefully the children will learn to make effective use of computers as adaptable tools rather than merely learning whatever operating system and core software is extant at the time they are at school. It is vital that people realise that a start button in the bottom left hand corner is not the be all and end all of what computers are about.

I wish these computers every success as a tool for education rather than marketing.

Reply

"It's pretty cool looking, until you start to wonder whether it wouldn't have made more sense to include a Gnome or KDE desktop."

Remember that these are 500MHz machines with 128 MB RAM, 500 MB of flash memory, and no hard drive.

Reply

Honestly, I wouldn't say this interface is unlike anything else kids will encounter. It shares a great many common elements such as menus, tool bars, dialog boxes, etc. with both Windows and Mac. Much smaller differences than when I switched from my Apple II+ to a Mac many years ago, and somehow I managed to cope.

Reply

I think it will ruin computing for children, it will just make it harder.

The keyboard-mouse-pointer interface is completely new and probably very foreign to the children. It doesn't mimic anything in the real world they can relate to. That's a big reason why "folders", "desktop", "trash can" were used. Do these children have the same?

Wouldn't it be better to have it all be pen/stylus based and look more like book or piece of paper? I look at the icons and they don't make sense to me.

Maybe it can be customized for each location to match a common visual element. Who knows. I continue to applaud the idea and until the first pilot rollout (or any kind of real-world testing) is successful, I will continue to have doubts.

Reply

I don't think it will ruin computing for children, it will just make it harder.

The keyboard-mouse-pointer interface is completely new and probably very foreign to the children. It doesn't mimic anything in the real world they can relate to. That's a big reason why "folders", "desktop", "trash can" were used.

Do these children have the same?
Wouldn't it be better to have it all be pen/stylus based and look more like book or piece of paper?

I look at the icons and they don't make sense to me.Maybe it can be customized for each location
to match a common visual element. Who knows. I continue to applaud the idea and until the first pilot rollout (or any kind of real-world testing) is successful, I will continue to have doubts.

Reply

"Of course, it's also possible that if enough countries distribute these laptops to children, the Sugar UI could one day become the dominant user interface."

I don't really think that Sugar has the potential to make all the next gen kids forget about other UI's.... You need to understand that Sugar, while simplistic and somehow "functional" this UI is just not enough for their needs... they will just end up getting higher ended systems running other UIs.

Unless they learn how to develop software on their own (is open source right?) But for an undeveloped country like Africa for example, thats is not going to be easy....

Good post though..........

btw, I love this site
Keep up the good work!

Reply

The first computer i hade windows 3.1 and I have never had trouble over the past few years getting used to new operating systems. i dont see why someone that uses suger on thier fist computer would any different.

Reply

As many have said, jumping from one operating system to another is a task itself, but I think this project achieves the much greater task of introducing children to computers of any sort. That is a much more steep learning curve, but once you're familiar with computing at all, then changes within that area are relatively painless.

Reply

From what I can see this thing doesn't teach them anything about file structure or anything like that. And why doesn't the web browser have an address bar? Surely that's a quite essential part of a web browser?

Reply

There's a lot of ignorant talk and negative framing of OLPC going around. Not only do Intel, Microsoft and Bill Gates personally want to see The Little Green Laptop fail, but the whole existing hardware ecosystem reviles the threat of a successful $100 machine. I understand Scott McNealy buys into this thinking too, for whatever reason.

There is a great deal of innovatitive and different thinking driving the design of the hardware & software in OLPC -- largely because it is an EDUCATION and not a COMPUTER project. Accordingly the project is constantly being defined by our own experiences in the so-called First World. Some of the comments already address the interesting work to mitigate the power constraints, a portion of which guides the choices behind software UI design & experience. (I'm more inclined to see Sugar as the more "natural" and "correct" UI than the GNOME, KDR or Windows UIs, particularly considering the language/symbol work-arounds.)

The title of this post falls into that same catagory as negative, derogatory framing. Shame shame, Brad! It is incumbent upon readers to pause and absorb enough detail about the objectives of OLPC to establish independent opinions of any decent quality. Sadly, of late, this is like swimming against the current.

I think OLPC will have its hiccups: undoubtedly the chorus will cheer these. It is, however, likely to surprise favorably a good many more than it disappoints -- not least the kids in the favellas.

Reply

I agree with Sam here. The idea of the project is to provide kids everywhere with a tool to access the sources of information that everyone in the developed world takes for granted.

I'll just give another example here. The Palm OS was like nothing we saw on a "real" computer. For that matter, no mobile OS is anything like we see on a desktop computer. Yet, these devices are incredibly popular and useful. Why are they popular? Same reasons as the OLPC project - they provide access to information that was previously locked up with big desktop computers.

The point of OLPC is not to mimic Windows or Linux desktops. The point is to provide access to information, where previously there was none. Lets take everything in context.

Reply

"Unless they learn how to develop software on their own (is open source right?) But for an undeveloped country like Africa for example, thats is not going to be easy...."

Africa a country? I didn't know there were still people who refer to the entire continent of Africa as a 'country'.

I agree with the statements that the point is only to make new information accessible. Children who bridge this gap will have no problem adapting to more 'sophisticated' UI's later on; maybe having an easier time than someone who's never touched a computer suddenly picking up Vista.

Reply

I certianly agree with the general consensus here. Any debate regarding whether this OS is a good one or not is an elitist argument in my opinion. ANY computer that gets into those kid's hands will be better than no computer at all.

Reply

I like the UI. What I don't understand is the floppy icon for saving a file. These kids probably have never seen a floppy. The system does not use floppies. The symbol has no meaning to them. Wouldn't a cupboard be a better symbol for a place to store things?

Reply

First of all, who ever said that the OLPC is expected to promote "the same skill sets as children in wealthier nations"? I don't think this is the goal at all. Rather that it is expected to provide tools that enhance learning opportunities in a very general sense. Sam Hines and other posters point out what Negroponte and other OLPC people have said over and over again - the OLPC is not a tech project, it is an education project. This post, as with so much OLPC commentary, ignores this point, and I think doesn't even "get it".

Reply

My mistake Craig S. Huge typo

I meant continent.....

Reply

Rephrase:
"kids who learn how to write and study and share with a pen will be getting used to unlike anything they're likely to encounter on any other computer system."

So, what's the point if it's conceptually different?

The target of OLPC is bringing information, sharing and communication power, it ISN'T to allow kids to learn how to use a computer.

The critique is pointless. It's like saying the sentence above.

Reply

As others have said, the coice of OS or GUI isn't the point. The point is to get a device out that can acclimate children in developing countries to technology.

Now other question that really should've been asked is, should we really be acclimating children - impoverished or not - to technology when basic humanitarian needs have not first been satisfied?

Wouldn't that $100 per child be better spent on establishing self-sustaining agro or water infrastructures? Or perhaps a better use of that money would be towards disease prevention and cure?

Reply

Rob O'Daniel: In the context of development I consider "self-sustaining" to be virtually synonymous with "education". How do you expect people to maintain the infrastructures that you mention without education? Remember, OLPC is an education project, not a technology project. That $100 is an investment in education.

Reply