Good analysis Tony. I live in the Get1 world that started me to work on the Give1 world. In fact the Give1 world has changed to Loan1 world. With that I could try to predict the chance of success before scaling up or saying No.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64216380/OLPdisAbledC-N-1 We will have alot to do with Bernie/XSCE/mOLP when we meet in 3 weeks time. Fixing lot of arrangements and playtime followups of the mOLC Project. http://www.scribd.com/doc/219619484/mobile-Open-Learning-Chest-mOLC-Project Cheers and olpc 2.015! >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Anderson [mailto:tony_ander...@usa.net] >Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 09:35 AM >To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org >Subject: Re: [IAEP] IAEP Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2 > >Hi, Sean > >I thought the strategy of OLPC was very clear - sell national >governments on providing laptops to all of their children. However, >OLPC, independent of this strategy, made two critical decisions: G1G1 >and using open software that have made all the difference. > >The open software decision led to the development of the our current >community, Nicholas Negroponte's famous 'software' mistake. > >The G1G1 model defines our community problem today. The Give 1 part gave >focus on the need to provide and support the laptops at community >schools in the developing world where electricity is a problem, internet >is unknown, and hands-on experience with computers is minimal. The Get 1 >model gave focus on the use of the XO by one's grandchildren in the home >where internet access is ubiquitous and everyone has hands-on experience >with computers. > >This is analogous to the difference between teaching a Spanish speaking >child English as a second language in Massachusetts and in rural Peru. > >The XO-1 is still viable in the Give 1 world. Outside of hardware >problems, it delivers the same educational experience it did in 2007. > >Naturally, the XO-1 is not marketable in the Get 1 world. The developers >and supporting volunteers live in the Get 1 world. As a consequence >going to a software model which jettisons etoys in the interest of >keeping up with Fedora seems a reasonable tradeoff. Someone in Give 1, >who has never before had a computer in their hands, is unlikely to know >or care what model of Fedora is installed. > >This begs the question, what has changed between Sugar 0.82 and 0.104 >that significantly improves the value of the XO in primary school >education in the Give 1 world? > >We should consider the real model of deployments (aside of the national >ones). Some individual or group in the Get 1 world decides to sponsor a >set of laptops for a specific school or library in the Give 1 world, the >deployment. > >The role of the sponsor is to coordinate with the deployment, develop a >plan to provide electrical power (e.g. agreeing to pay for utility bill >or getting an agreement that the deployment will pay), acquire the >laptops, arrange for the laptops to be delivered to the deployment >(often in luggage), and arrange for someone with technical skills to go >to the deployment to set up the system and show the staff how it works. >Naturally, my personal interest is that the sponsor should supply a >school server and one or more routers to provide the XOs with access to >some of the information the Get 1 world routinely obtains from the internet. > >Normally, installation of software is not an issue. The sponsor handles >that. The ongoing problem is that the community assumes the deployment >has a similar familiarity with computers as is common in the Get 1 >world. The only introduction to computers is typically a few day >workshop at the deployment when the laptops are delivered and installed. >Further, the clear pedagogical vision is not communicated leaving the >deployment to figure out how the XOs are to used effectively. The >laptops are not used to provide continuing education in their use. The >consequence is the often observed drift at the deployment into limbo >(i.e. the computers spend most of thier time in the packing boxes). > >If we need a marketing program, it is to find sponsors to fund and >support deployments in the Give 1 world. This program should be >accompanied by an effort to find unused XOs and get them deployed for >the simple reason that the initial $200 investment is paid and they are >immediately usable. Where are the XOs given to Mongolia? The program >should include particular attention to making the task of sponsorship as >easy as possible and on giving the sponsor a clear understanding of the >pedagogical goal of the program. > >Should we encourage or recommend deployments of computers/tablets/smart >phones other than the XO? So far as I am aware there are no Sugar-based >deployments on laptops other than the XO (Classmate in Argentina?). The >initial reaction to Raspberry Pi is that when you added the essential >peripherals (monitor, keyboard, camera, microphone) and packaged them in >a portable package - the cost would be comparable to that of an XO. I >have seen nothing to change that judgement. > >If we are willing to accept a computer lab model in which the XOs never >leave the school - the 'thin-client' model may be useful. In this model, >the computer may be a Raspberry Pi with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. >Since it never leaves the lab, the packaging is not important. The 'thin >clients' could be connected to the school server by an ethernet switch. >One obvious consequence is that the learners will never have a chance to >read ebooks, listen to music, listen to native English speakers, >complete KA Lite exercises, or explore what they can do in Scratch or >Turtle Blocks. They will get access to the computers on a schedule set >by the school and will be expected to stay 'on task' while in the lab. > >HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript certainly need to be supported by Sugar at >the level of Python. Does this require replacing Python? Is Python ready >to join APL and Basic in computer museums? A simple localhost (software >feature) enables javascript to launch Sugar activities or resume them >from the Journal. Lionel Laske's Sugarizer works on an XO as far as I know. > >I think the concern about making Sugar viable on any platform is >reasonable if Sugar is viewed as one computer application among many. It >is certainly what the Get 1 world expects. However, how does this help >the mission of providing a laptop to every child in a community school >in the developing world (the 60% without internet)? > >This issue of the plan for the future of Sugar and the olpc initiative >is not simple and it does not have any easy answers. > >Tony > >On 03/02/2015 06:36 PM, iaep-requ...@lists.sugarlabs.org wrote: >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 22:57:57 +0100 >> From: Sean DALY<sdaly...@gmail.com> >> To: Samuel Greenfeld<sam...@greenfeld.org> >> Cc: IAEP SugarLabs<iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org> >> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Planning for the future >> Message-ID: >> <canny+gn+qav1jqiujh380rq7gfzoed0_xf4z_ifqmav9cse...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Hi Samuel, >> >> thanks for this >> >> I believe Sugar has had a clear pedagogical vision from day one, but has >> not had a strategy for some time. >> >> Outside the XO, Sugar's historical technical architecture has unfortunately >> kept it out of reach from all but the most determined and tech-savvy >> teachers (and journalists). Without a pancake button download and one-click >> installer, the installation barrier is too high. OLPC's historical focus on >> the hardware was never helpful either, and the main reason OLPC got mauled >> by incorrect memes was they didn't want to accompany journalists past the >> unfamiliarity barrier of the XO (hardware+software). >> >> In my view there are only a few ways to overcome this issue: >> >> * Develop 1-click installers for Windows / MacOS / GNU/Linux. I had >> suggested maintaining a matrix of preconfigured (i.e. languages/keyboards, >> prepopulated Journal, selection of Activities) VMs over Oracle VirtualBox, >> whose license allows free distribution for nonprofit and educational >> purposes. Upsides were immediate fullscreen Sugar experience without >> touching the configuration of the host computer. The downsides were huge VM >> images and the effort required to build and maintain the matrix. At the >> time I suggested we approach Oracle for corporate sponsorship, but some >> community members voiced objections. >> >> * Arrange for Sugar to be preinstalled on low-cost, reliable machines other >> than XOs. This is complex and would require a sales force (or working with >> a partner's) since no OEM will make that investment without a prospect of >> selling many thousands of units. As an alternative I had suggested we ride >> the wave of Raspberry Pi units (five million sold in three years) by >> developing an SD card for it based on Sugar on a Stick, but there was no >> interest in that effort. I still believe a Sugar-branded version (case + >> teacher starters kit -documentation) could have an impact. >> >> * Migrate to a web-based Sugar compatible with browsers on any platform. >> Lionel's Sugarizer is I think a fabulous solution. >> >> >> I've heard it suggested that marketing could do fund-raising, but donors >> large and small won't want to contribute unless there is a plan. I've been >> bewildered what the plan is for some time. >> >> Sean > >_______________________________________________ >IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep