3 ms·

And let's not forget that they essentially created the tiny, cheap laptop market. People like ASUS and Intel were scared of them. If the entire project has turn

by serhei 18y ago

And let's not forget that they essentially created the tiny, cheap laptop market. People like ASUS and Intel were scared of them. If the entire project has turned out to be "a con" and jack shit has ended up being done for children, you have to admit that in that case they've at least pulled the most successful bluff in the computer industry, perhaps ever. And I still think that some of the ideas in the Sugar interface - like the Journal, and the pervasive collaboration - are potentially revolutionary. (They "just" lacked the necessary execution.)

mechanical_fish 18y ago
Two things I forgot to say: 1) As a former academic, I suspect that everyone who spends long enough in academia goes through phases of frustration where it all seems like "an enormous con". (In industry, of course, you learn that it's all an enormous con in your first week. ;) 2) they essentially created the tiny, cheap laptop market. Exactly. And that helps children worldwide as much or more as the actual OLPC does. It can be ugly to watch the R&D sausage being made. Its indirect approach is not for everyone. Every R&D project has a stated goal of "taking over the world" or "curing this disease" or "ending poverty" or something, and almost none of them ever explicitly reaches such a goal. And yet often those "failed projects" publish stuff that gets picked up by the next generation of projects and refined into something good. Or the students who worked on the "failed" project take their experience into industry where they apply it to a real product that actually succeeds.
- edw519 18y ago
  "(In industry, of course, you learn that it's all an enormous con in your first week. ;)" I sure hope that was partially tongue in cheek, because if it wasn't, I kinda feel sorry for you. Many places I have worked have been total jokes and many people I have had the misfortune to work with, let's just say, "misbehaved". But for each of those places, I found many good businesses where people got out of bed eager to do good things every day. They have produced value for others and have much to be proud of. (These are also the ones who I seek as customers.)
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    Oh, it's more than just partially tongue-in-cheek! I actually find, as you do, that industry is refreshingly direct compared to pure research, which is why I prefer it. I used to work at Agilent, a.k.a. "the good parts of the former Hewlett-Packard." And, with the usual handful of exceptions, it really was the largest collection of nice folks that you'll ever meet. So, yeah, I believe in the existence of good businesses. What I refer to is the emotional learning curve coming out of school. The part where you learn, among other things, that not everybody is trustworthy, and that not every market-leading product is worth what it costs. That the ugly method that is currently shipping is often better than the elegant but theoretical alternative. That some of your company's products are, inevitably, better than others. That any group of more than five people will face political problems, misunderstandings, and red tape. And that without those folks doing the marketing and accounting your business won't function. None of which actually means that industry is a big con. It's just real. It's not made of imaginary people living in an imaginary land. Academia is the same, actually, though when you're in an especially bitter mood -- or faced with the occasional person who really is a con artist -- you might think otherwise.
    - edw519 18y ago
      lol I went to business school because I was tired of being a cook and wanted a better future. The only thing I remember was, "A degree in business is a degree in nothing." "How strange," I thought at the time. "Truer words about business were never spoken," I think now.
- Create 18y ago
  I mostly did 1) the other way around, and it also holds true. Concerning 2), few people realise, that hw in the last years was artificially expensive due to lack of concurrence: basically x86 won the CPU arena, a few misses aside (e.g. ARM, which Intel quickly made into StrongARM etc.). This is also true on the sw side: few people realise, that the eeePC uses Xandros, which is basically subject to MS Imaginary Property[1][2], converted to hard $-s. The OLPC is "simply" being accomplished[3]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros#Collaboration_with_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros#Collaboration_with_Micr... [3] http://www.thecorporation.com/ http://www.thecorporation.com/

by serhei 18y ago

mechanical_fish 18y ago

Two things I forgot to say: 1) As a former academic, I suspect that everyone who spends long enough in academia goes through phases of frustration where it all seems like "an enormous con". (In industry, of course, you learn that it's all an enormous con in your first week. ;) 2) they essentially created the tiny, cheap laptop market. Exactly. And that helps children worldwide as much or more as the actual OLPC does. It can be ugly to watch the R&D sausage being made. Its indirect approach is not for everyone. Every R&D project has a stated goal of "taking over the world" or "curing this disease" or "ending poverty" or something, and almost none of them ever explicitly reaches such a goal. And yet often those "failed projects" publish stuff that gets picked up by the next generation of projects and refined into something good. Or the students who worked on the "failed" project take their experience into industry where they apply it to a real product that actually succeeds.

edw519 18y ago
"(In industry, of course, you learn that it's all an enormous con in your first week. ;)" I sure hope that was partially tongue in cheek, because if it wasn't, I kinda feel sorry for you. Many places I have worked have been total jokes and many people I have had the misfortune to work with, let's just say, "misbehaved". But for each of those places, I found many good businesses where people got out of bed eager to do good things every day. They have produced value for others and have much to be proud of. (These are also the ones who I seek as customers.)
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Oh, it's more than just partially tongue-in-cheek! I actually find, as you do, that industry is refreshingly direct compared to pure research, which is why I prefer it. I used to work at Agilent, a.k.a. "the good parts of the former Hewlett-Packard." And, with the usual handful of exceptions, it really was the largest collection of nice folks that you'll ever meet. So, yeah, I believe in the existence of good businesses. What I refer to is the emotional learning curve coming out of school. The part where you learn, among other things, that not everybody is trustworthy, and that not every market-leading product is worth what it costs. That the ugly method that is currently shipping is often better than the elegant but theoretical alternative. That some of your company's products are, inevitably, better than others. That any group of more than five people will face political problems, misunderstandings, and red tape. And that without those folks doing the marketing and accounting your business won't function. None of which actually means that industry is a big con. It's just real. It's not made of imaginary people living in an imaginary land. Academia is the same, actually, though when you're in an especially bitter mood -- or faced with the occasional person who really is a con artist -- you might think otherwise.
  - edw519 18y ago
    lol I went to business school because I was tired of being a cook and wanted a better future. The only thing I remember was, "A degree in business is a degree in nothing." "How strange," I thought at the time. "Truer words about business were never spoken," I think now.
Create 18y ago
I mostly did 1) the other way around, and it also holds true. Concerning 2), few people realise, that hw in the last years was artificially expensive due to lack of concurrence: basically x86 won the CPU arena, a few misses aside (e.g. ARM, which Intel quickly made into StrongARM etc.). This is also true on the sw side: few people realise, that the eeePC uses Xandros, which is basically subject to MS Imaginary Property[1][2], converted to hard $-s. The OLPC is "simply" being accomplished[3]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros#Collaboration_with_Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xandros#Collaboration_with_Micr... [3] http://www.thecorporation.com/ http://www.thecorporation.com/