Theo de Raadt wrote on Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 02:55:22PM -0600: > Adriaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> See Jim Gettys defense at >> http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27 [...] > You can't say anything bad about the children, can you?
Just as your rhetorical question suggests, indeed you can. I still hoped OLPC might at least focus on an appropriate auditorium. For example, here in Germany we do have millions of (relatively!!) disadvantaged children who might profit from free laptops (though i suspect the same money spent on teacher salaries to have more basic language training or even spent on better public toothcare might help them better). But the following paragraph by Jim Gettys flabbergasted me: || Many or most children in the world do not have electric || power, nor do they have computer networking. Without || power being available, even if access points cost nothing, || you have no network. So we are deploying mesh networking, || to allow a child's laptop to forward packets for their || friend or neighbor's laptop; each laptop becomes, in || effect, a battery powered access point for the others. So those children will get laptops before their families have electricity? Had they any choice, how many of them would choose that way? Given the effort and money used for the OLPC project - on what would those people like to spend it? Or, to ask the question in a polemical way, would they choose Marvell, and why? The criticism voiced by Siju and others does not only apply to several situations in general, but it does indeed appear to apply to this particular project. :-( Small wonder the project exhibits other flaws, too, when even this central aspect has been screwed up... -- Ingo Schwarze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Freedom is about choice. Unless all have equal opportunities to choose, it's incomplete.
