<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
People keep asking me:<br><br>
Yes, OLPC’s commitment to Sugar has changed. It is now larger, not
smaller. Contrary to inferences drawn by Walter’s departure, the press
and venerable sources such as OLPC News, we are scaling Sugar up, not
down. Let me explain.<br>
<br>
Sugar is a very good idea, less than perfectly executed. I attribute our
weakness to unrealistic development goals and practices. Our mission has
never changed. It has been to bring connected laptops for learning to
children in the poorest and most remote locations of the world. Our
mission has never been to advocate the perfect learning model or pure
Open Source. I believe the best educational tool is constructionism and
the best software development method is Open Source. In some cases those
are best achieved like the Trojan Horse, versus direct confrontation or
isolating ourselves with perfection. Remember the expression:
<i>perfection is the enemy of good</i>. We need to reach the most
children possible and leverage <u>them</u> as the agents of change. It
makes no sense for us to search for the perfect learning model.<br>
<br>
For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux
platforms and to run under Windows. We have been engaged in discussions
with Microsoft for several months, to explore a dual boot version of the
XO. Some of you have seen what Microsoft developed on their own for the
XO. It works well and now needs Sugar on top of it (so to speak).<br>
<br>
As a non-profit, humanitarian organization, OLPC has a unique position,
from which it can change the world for children and learning. Laptop
makers rushing into the low-end marketplace is a perfect example of
success of one kind. Another will be what kids do outside school and with
other kids around the world. A third is what we do. <br>
<br>
We are not a business, but need to be more business-like: meet schedules,
manage expectations and fulfill promises. To do that, we need to hire
more developers, work more together and spend less time arguing. Because
of public attention, anything we say will be quoted out of context. We
can only speak with our actions and those are only one: a reliable and
ubiquitous Sugar. That includes being more collaborative engineers
ourselves and engaging the community better. Our limitations are not
financial, but identifying the required human resources and resolve to do
so. <br>
<br>
What is in front of us is an opportunity for big change. Sugar is at the
core of it. To pretend otherwise would be a joke. That said, Sugar needs
to be disentangled. I keep using the omelet analogy, claiming it needs to
be a fried egg, with distinct yoke and white, rather than having the UI,
collaborative tools, power management and radios merge into one amorphous
blob. Otherwise, it is impossible to debug and will be limited to the
small, albeit growing, world of the XO hardware platform.<br>
<br>
As we reach out to engage a wider community, some purism has to morph
into pragmatism. To suggest that this forsakes Open Source or redirects
our mission is absurd. Kids will be the agents of change and our job is
to reach the most of them. That is not just selling laptops, but making
Sugar as robust and widely available as possible.<br><br>
Nicholas<br>
</font></body>
<br>
</html>