Talk:Illinois Math and Science Academy Chapter: Difference between revisions
ScottSwanson (talk | contribs) (Proper wiki protocol!) |
(Transition OS (Bitfrost Ideology Problematic?)) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Please please please please please log in before editing wiki pages. Also, if at all possible, use the comments field; it's there for a reason. -- [[User:ScottSwanson|ScottSwanson]] 02:22, 23 January 2008 (EST) |
Please please please please please log in before editing wiki pages. Also, if at all possible, use the comments field; it's there for a reason. -- [[User:ScottSwanson|ScottSwanson]] 02:22, 23 January 2008 (EST) |
||
== Transition OS (Bitfrost Ideology Problematic?) == |
|||
Hey everyone at IMSA and on-lookers ;) I have been looking at this page frequently over the past few weeks, preparing myself, if you will, to jump into the water of the upper realm programming (the Sugar interface, the great applications needed for educating young ones, through the mixture of python and other scripting languages). I was meaning to join earlier, but being an advocate of F/OSS, sporadically changing views between those of RMS and Theo de Raadt's, several glaring `artifacts' cloud the pristine movement of the OLPC. To begin with, there is the proprietary firmware still guarded by Marvell (disputed with Theo and Red Hat in various letters, to learn more start here -> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=116007094304009&w=2 ). The entire purpose of enabling children to communicate better with their peers for a dramatic sense of public knowledge seems to be tainted with this fact, that will need to be sorted out. I leave the reasoning for this to be ascertained by others to spark a discussion in the IMSA community. Also, are the issues surrounding Bitfrost, the `security platform' of the OLPC ( Read here for more info -> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Bitfrost ) . To me, the Bitfrost specs should only be temporary, as they provide no means of cryptography, essential for the budding programmer, political thinker, revolutionist that these laptops are meant to bring out. It is a twist of thought trying to make out the `real' goals of the spec. From a paranoid level, it seems to bring out a sense of `public view' into everything, making the laptop essentially the property of the State, in which there _is_ the possibility for censorship or other oppressive influence. On the other hand, it does set nice goals of allowing upgrading be a public process, it makes sure everyone has a fair starting place on the field. But what happens when that child who needed that fair start want to be different? What if that child wants to use their abilities to go further and become individualized. In my mind, this calls for a `transitional operating system.' I think the best route would be to ammend the Bitfrost spec to include fair transitions, allowing students to grab the latest source of OpenBSD, perchance, build it, and run it, complete with the cryptography solutions it comes with. Student interests are what we are trying to protect, not _just_ a F/OSS production. |
|||
I'd be willing to work with any student towards rectifying these problems, as well as hearing feedback. |
|||
As always, Thank you |
|||
Joel Snyder |
|||
Revision as of 21:41, 25 January 2008
Proper wiki protocol!
Please please please please please log in before editing wiki pages. Also, if at all possible, use the comments field; it's there for a reason. -- ScottSwanson 02:22, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Transition OS (Bitfrost Ideology Problematic?)
Hey everyone at IMSA and on-lookers ;) I have been looking at this page frequently over the past few weeks, preparing myself, if you will, to jump into the water of the upper realm programming (the Sugar interface, the great applications needed for educating young ones, through the mixture of python and other scripting languages). I was meaning to join earlier, but being an advocate of F/OSS, sporadically changing views between those of RMS and Theo de Raadt's, several glaring `artifacts' cloud the pristine movement of the OLPC. To begin with, there is the proprietary firmware still guarded by Marvell (disputed with Theo and Red Hat in various letters, to learn more start here -> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=116007094304009&w=2 ). The entire purpose of enabling children to communicate better with their peers for a dramatic sense of public knowledge seems to be tainted with this fact, that will need to be sorted out. I leave the reasoning for this to be ascertained by others to spark a discussion in the IMSA community. Also, are the issues surrounding Bitfrost, the `security platform' of the OLPC ( Read here for more info -> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Bitfrost ) . To me, the Bitfrost specs should only be temporary, as they provide no means of cryptography, essential for the budding programmer, political thinker, revolutionist that these laptops are meant to bring out. It is a twist of thought trying to make out the `real' goals of the spec. From a paranoid level, it seems to bring out a sense of `public view' into everything, making the laptop essentially the property of the State, in which there _is_ the possibility for censorship or other oppressive influence. On the other hand, it does set nice goals of allowing upgrading be a public process, it makes sure everyone has a fair starting place on the field. But what happens when that child who needed that fair start want to be different? What if that child wants to use their abilities to go further and become individualized. In my mind, this calls for a `transitional operating system.' I think the best route would be to ammend the Bitfrost spec to include fair transitions, allowing students to grab the latest source of OpenBSD, perchance, build it, and run it, complete with the cryptography solutions it comes with. Student interests are what we are trying to protect, not _just_ a F/OSS production.
I'd be willing to work with any student towards rectifying these problems, as well as hearing feedback.
As always, Thank you
Joel Snyder