This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Why does no one answer the question WHY this laptop will not be available to US/EU-Countries or "normal" customers??? I added a short text "Restricted availability" to the article, but it was - of course (thanks to restrictive wikipedia...haha, free information, haha!) - deleted again.
There is no discussion forum on the net where i can find information about it - so, can PLEASE anyone tell me the REASON for the decision to restrict the $100-laptop only to third world countries??? I accepted this, but I will probably buy one on ebay for $150 from one of the thousands of third world kids whose families rather like $150 for food than a laptop they cannot eat...
the MIT guys don't do a favor to anyone by restricting the $100 laptop only to third world countries, but they still do so. I could accept this, if AT LEAST, there would be A REASON WHY!!!
Can ANYONE please give me an answer to this??? (Unsigned, Nov 18)
I believe they initially said that there would not be a commercial version as they didn't want the subsidies going to people who didn't needed it. Now it looks like they realize that the profits of a commercial version can go towards subsidizing more units for third-world countries. Other companies are sure to put out their own (say with Windows or Mac OS) laptops around this ballpark in a few years.At the same time, they say they are hoping to authorize a commercial version that would sell for around $200, with a share of the profits ideally used to subsidize the educational project. "We are in talks with large, brand-name companies," Mr. Negroponte says, noting it will be up to them to decide where and how to sell it. "I would not hold my breath for it to be in Best Buy," he says.
"I think North-americans have sufficient instruction to work and buy regular desktops. Leave 100 laptop for who relly needs that."
Wrong. You forgot about the people in Nothern Canada and Alaska. The schools in the North cannot afford expensive computer equiptment, and very few electronics stores. Also, communication and connectivity is a big win for people in the Arctic. I plan on writing a letter to the Government of Canada, urging them to buy some of these laptops for students in the arctic.
--
Munchkinguy
04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
there's also been a lot of criticism of the use of linux. os x was apparently offered for free. — Omegatron 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: "...Saying that Linux isn't suitable for end users, especially children..." If an operating system can't be made "unusable" for regular people, there's a problem. However, I know for a fact that there are linux distributions made specifically for children. The positive things about free and open source (yes, I know they are different) are:
There are exceptions to theese reasons, but I think you get the point. — Munchkinguy 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Markham article does a nice job of articulating the merits of the OLPC open-source approach: "But it is mainly because it's vitally important that these children own the software as much as they own the hardware – so they can examine it, change and adapt it to their needs, and distribute those changes to their friends." — Walter Bender
Note that the biggest problem for 'end users' with linux, is installing new hardware, esp when that requires kernel or lib changes. As the HW will be set, and all drivers preinstalled, this should leave the system pretty usable. Besides, as an "80's kids", we learnt very quickly to be power users of C64's and DOS machines. In any class of kids there'll be a few who'll find their way round the system pretty quickly.
"A common critiscism is that developed countries are giving poorer children laptops before they give their own children laptops. It is claimed that many children in the United States and other developed countries would benefit much more from the use of a laptop than children in undeveloped countries." Are there some citations for these "common critiscisms"? The OLPC response has been that "our priority is to make the laptop available first where there is the greatest need." Walter.bender 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the anti-features section. Personally, I don't think it's something this article should include. It's clear by looking at the features which features are missing. It would be better IMO to include a sentence that says that this laptop does not include features commonly found in other laptops. However, I didn't simply want to remove the entire section without discussing here first. Please comment. Jacoplane 20:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
jacoplane: I added the anti-features section (along with most of the other technical information in the hardware section). The point of this section is to highlight the deliberate negative design goals of the product -- the things that you deliberately design out of the system. A primary reason to include it is because this laptop is very different to the conventional laptop designs so people assume that the OLPC laptop must have this feature because that's what they expect. If you are familiar with Design pattern (computer science) in (software) design then you might be aware of Anti-pattern which highlight common mistakes in software design. This is a similar idea. As I wasn't logged in I should mention I'm Kevinpurcell 67.171.26.8 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any kids who go to bed in broad daylight.
This handcrank thing is bullshit. Because it is a moving part, it will break down soon for dirt and worn bearing. Kids are very energetic, they will break the handle unless it is made of gun steel. The generator part will skyrocket the price, the coper wiring alone for the dinamo will cost arm and a leg.
In the USSR people in the remotest tundra used handcranked pocket radio recevers to be able to listen to communist party bullshit broadcast from Moscow. This is not the way to future, battery with tethered solar cell panel charger should be used or fuel cell.
Otherwise, if the laptop is on a desk, how do you turn the crankshaft, since he arm would hit the tabletop as you can see from the graphics. And I must agree a 100USD laptop is the last thing the third world needs. There is lack of potable water, there are colonial wars funded by imperialists who want to steal the mineral reserves of Africa, there is the global warming, etc. 195.70.32.136 15:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about the durability issue. The crank, should be made in a durable non-breakable way. On othe other hand, I believe that the crank/battery tube is actually a removable/replaceable component in the design.
I believe that the design is supposed to allow for plug in power from a solar cell, wall outlet, or other source.
I am not really against the hand-crank though. I have a 2 handcrank radios and a handcrank flashlight made by some English outfit --- I hear that the UN uses handcrank radios and such in their relief operations because power can be brought to bare rain or shine, day or night.
And for enterprising types, these computers existing could create a market place for providing non-crank supported power.
A cheap, portable, low-end laptop for students, running on flash memory? Didn't we already have that in '98 with the eMate 300? -- Munchkinguy 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To 201.58.83.61: Canada has some of the the best average living standards in the world. But in the underpopulated North, conditions are worse. Living in isolated communities means that supplies are expensive. Not to mention that all the supplies have to be flown in (often through snowstorms) in small amounts at a time (making them even more expensive). Not a lot of jobs either. Computers in schools = better modern education. Better modern education = better jobs. I'm not saying everyone in the arcitc is poor. I'm just saying there isn't as much opportunity there as in the rest of Canada. -- Munchkinguy 04:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
MIT doesn't appear to have researched the entire range of possible affects of the $100 laptop project. Their FAQ is void of any in depth information.
As Mcluhan said, our technologies work us over completely ... they reshape every part of our lives. Injecting technology on this scale into the poorest countries in the world is nothing short of a huge anthropological experiment. Social, political, religious, and family structures are bound to be affected. MIT have a responsibility to research the entire range of effects (both good and bad) before implementing this project.
Once you start the questions about the $100 laptop project go on and on and on.
Looing for advice on how to add this criticism to the article.
Everythingisok 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The criticism from Intel was widely reported and I was surprised not to see it in the article. (I know, {{ sofixit}}) - David Gerard 11:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's funny that most of the people criticizing this project are involved in companies whose competitors were chosen to supply hardware/software. Do you think they're just bitter? -- Munchkinguy 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The project itself is trying to distance itself from the $100 Laptop name. The idea being that the laptop may, in the future, be less than $100 dollars. The project's goals are not dictated by a magical price point and the dollar sign and number make that vision unclear to many.
There's also the issue of whether there should be a seperate page for the organization and the laptop. At this point (and until there is a second generation laptop being built), my sense is that one page is fine. That said, I think the page should be named OLPC. — mako 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest a diferent title such as Low Cost Laptop and to separate the article from OLPC.-- tequendamia 03:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made the bold move of redirecting to The Children's Machine, as this is the official title for the computer now ( [2]) -- Cumbiagermen 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In the wiki [4] they confirm the CPU will be a Geode. Pegua 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The photos of the laptop at the bottom of the article have been marked for deletion as copyvios.
Perhaps, someone should ask the OLPC people if they will grant us a license to these? Or, maybe, including one would be considered fair use as it is picture of their product form advertising material.
We could also ask RMS ( User:Rmstallman) if he will license the photo he took of the laptop under the GNU FDL.
Also, IMO, there should definitely be a photo in the infobox at the top.
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
OLPC has released these images under a Creative Commons Attribution2.5 License. The original images, along with the license, can be found at the OLPC download page.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Why does no one answer the question WHY this laptop will not be available to US/EU-Countries or "normal" customers??? I added a short text "Restricted availability" to the article, but it was - of course (thanks to restrictive wikipedia...haha, free information, haha!) - deleted again.
There is no discussion forum on the net where i can find information about it - so, can PLEASE anyone tell me the REASON for the decision to restrict the $100-laptop only to third world countries??? I accepted this, but I will probably buy one on ebay for $150 from one of the thousands of third world kids whose families rather like $150 for food than a laptop they cannot eat...
the MIT guys don't do a favor to anyone by restricting the $100 laptop only to third world countries, but they still do so. I could accept this, if AT LEAST, there would be A REASON WHY!!!
Can ANYONE please give me an answer to this??? (Unsigned, Nov 18)
I believe they initially said that there would not be a commercial version as they didn't want the subsidies going to people who didn't needed it. Now it looks like they realize that the profits of a commercial version can go towards subsidizing more units for third-world countries. Other companies are sure to put out their own (say with Windows or Mac OS) laptops around this ballpark in a few years.At the same time, they say they are hoping to authorize a commercial version that would sell for around $200, with a share of the profits ideally used to subsidize the educational project. "We are in talks with large, brand-name companies," Mr. Negroponte says, noting it will be up to them to decide where and how to sell it. "I would not hold my breath for it to be in Best Buy," he says.
"I think North-americans have sufficient instruction to work and buy regular desktops. Leave 100 laptop for who relly needs that."
Wrong. You forgot about the people in Nothern Canada and Alaska. The schools in the North cannot afford expensive computer equiptment, and very few electronics stores. Also, communication and connectivity is a big win for people in the Arctic. I plan on writing a letter to the Government of Canada, urging them to buy some of these laptops for students in the arctic.
--
Munchkinguy
04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
there's also been a lot of criticism of the use of linux. os x was apparently offered for free. — Omegatron 20:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: "...Saying that Linux isn't suitable for end users, especially children..." If an operating system can't be made "unusable" for regular people, there's a problem. However, I know for a fact that there are linux distributions made specifically for children. The positive things about free and open source (yes, I know they are different) are:
There are exceptions to theese reasons, but I think you get the point. — Munchkinguy 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Markham article does a nice job of articulating the merits of the OLPC open-source approach: "But it is mainly because it's vitally important that these children own the software as much as they own the hardware – so they can examine it, change and adapt it to their needs, and distribute those changes to their friends." — Walter Bender
Note that the biggest problem for 'end users' with linux, is installing new hardware, esp when that requires kernel or lib changes. As the HW will be set, and all drivers preinstalled, this should leave the system pretty usable. Besides, as an "80's kids", we learnt very quickly to be power users of C64's and DOS machines. In any class of kids there'll be a few who'll find their way round the system pretty quickly.
"A common critiscism is that developed countries are giving poorer children laptops before they give their own children laptops. It is claimed that many children in the United States and other developed countries would benefit much more from the use of a laptop than children in undeveloped countries." Are there some citations for these "common critiscisms"? The OLPC response has been that "our priority is to make the laptop available first where there is the greatest need." Walter.bender 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the anti-features section. Personally, I don't think it's something this article should include. It's clear by looking at the features which features are missing. It would be better IMO to include a sentence that says that this laptop does not include features commonly found in other laptops. However, I didn't simply want to remove the entire section without discussing here first. Please comment. Jacoplane 20:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
jacoplane: I added the anti-features section (along with most of the other technical information in the hardware section). The point of this section is to highlight the deliberate negative design goals of the product -- the things that you deliberately design out of the system. A primary reason to include it is because this laptop is very different to the conventional laptop designs so people assume that the OLPC laptop must have this feature because that's what they expect. If you are familiar with Design pattern (computer science) in (software) design then you might be aware of Anti-pattern which highlight common mistakes in software design. This is a similar idea. As I wasn't logged in I should mention I'm Kevinpurcell 67.171.26.8 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any kids who go to bed in broad daylight.
This handcrank thing is bullshit. Because it is a moving part, it will break down soon for dirt and worn bearing. Kids are very energetic, they will break the handle unless it is made of gun steel. The generator part will skyrocket the price, the coper wiring alone for the dinamo will cost arm and a leg.
In the USSR people in the remotest tundra used handcranked pocket radio recevers to be able to listen to communist party bullshit broadcast from Moscow. This is not the way to future, battery with tethered solar cell panel charger should be used or fuel cell.
Otherwise, if the laptop is on a desk, how do you turn the crankshaft, since he arm would hit the tabletop as you can see from the graphics. And I must agree a 100USD laptop is the last thing the third world needs. There is lack of potable water, there are colonial wars funded by imperialists who want to steal the mineral reserves of Africa, there is the global warming, etc. 195.70.32.136 15:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about the durability issue. The crank, should be made in a durable non-breakable way. On othe other hand, I believe that the crank/battery tube is actually a removable/replaceable component in the design.
I believe that the design is supposed to allow for plug in power from a solar cell, wall outlet, or other source.
I am not really against the hand-crank though. I have a 2 handcrank radios and a handcrank flashlight made by some English outfit --- I hear that the UN uses handcrank radios and such in their relief operations because power can be brought to bare rain or shine, day or night.
And for enterprising types, these computers existing could create a market place for providing non-crank supported power.
A cheap, portable, low-end laptop for students, running on flash memory? Didn't we already have that in '98 with the eMate 300? -- Munchkinguy 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To 201.58.83.61: Canada has some of the the best average living standards in the world. But in the underpopulated North, conditions are worse. Living in isolated communities means that supplies are expensive. Not to mention that all the supplies have to be flown in (often through snowstorms) in small amounts at a time (making them even more expensive). Not a lot of jobs either. Computers in schools = better modern education. Better modern education = better jobs. I'm not saying everyone in the arcitc is poor. I'm just saying there isn't as much opportunity there as in the rest of Canada. -- Munchkinguy 04:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
MIT doesn't appear to have researched the entire range of possible affects of the $100 laptop project. Their FAQ is void of any in depth information.
As Mcluhan said, our technologies work us over completely ... they reshape every part of our lives. Injecting technology on this scale into the poorest countries in the world is nothing short of a huge anthropological experiment. Social, political, religious, and family structures are bound to be affected. MIT have a responsibility to research the entire range of effects (both good and bad) before implementing this project.
Once you start the questions about the $100 laptop project go on and on and on.
Looing for advice on how to add this criticism to the article.
Everythingisok 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The criticism from Intel was widely reported and I was surprised not to see it in the article. (I know, {{ sofixit}}) - David Gerard 11:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's funny that most of the people criticizing this project are involved in companies whose competitors were chosen to supply hardware/software. Do you think they're just bitter? -- Munchkinguy 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The project itself is trying to distance itself from the $100 Laptop name. The idea being that the laptop may, in the future, be less than $100 dollars. The project's goals are not dictated by a magical price point and the dollar sign and number make that vision unclear to many.
There's also the issue of whether there should be a seperate page for the organization and the laptop. At this point (and until there is a second generation laptop being built), my sense is that one page is fine. That said, I think the page should be named OLPC. — mako 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest a diferent title such as Low Cost Laptop and to separate the article from OLPC.-- tequendamia 03:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made the bold move of redirecting to The Children's Machine, as this is the official title for the computer now ( [2]) -- Cumbiagermen 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In the wiki [4] they confirm the CPU will be a Geode. Pegua 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The photos of the laptop at the bottom of the article have been marked for deletion as copyvios.
Perhaps, someone should ask the OLPC people if they will grant us a license to these? Or, maybe, including one would be considered fair use as it is picture of their product form advertising material.
We could also ask RMS ( User:Rmstallman) if he will license the photo he took of the laptop under the GNU FDL.
Also, IMO, there should definitely be a photo in the infobox at the top.
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
OLPC has released these images under a Creative Commons Attribution2.5 License. The original images, along with the license, can be found at the OLPC download page.