Talk:Illinois Math and Science Academy Chapter: Difference between revisions
(Transition OS (Bitfrost Ideology Problematic?)) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 |
== Transition OS (Bitfrost Needing Fixes?) == |
||
Sorry, but this needed to be rewritten, as people were not understanding very clearly. I hope to spell out my intentions better this time. Bitfrost, ( http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Bitfrost ) the `security platform' for the OLPC project, is a specification for how to deal with security of a child's laptop in a totally public-driven mindset. The majority of the ideas listed in Bitfrost come from the need to keep the laptop functional for a school setting while the chance that many things can go wrong, remains high. It outlines how to centralize data from the laptops, login without passwords, connect to an specific network without cleartext identifiers, etc. To me, this seems great for the youngest of the children this project is aiming to help. Remember, though, this project's goal is to enable those who lack technology to gain a foothold in information. The very nature of this free flowing information ideology comes back around to the questions of personal freedom and security. A government purchasing these laptops would not be fond of a slogan bearing the phrase `Freedom for Insurrection;' this is probably where most readers of the past comment may be mislead. Government, although not usually willing to support rapid change, has a contract with its people to guarantee their basic human needs. In today's worldwide society, the methods for providing these needs is met first and foremost with education. We realize that by even considering the OLPC to help others in countries that lack the essential web of communication to get help. Empowering the children of a nation allows them to come up with ideas that can change not just the political stance of the country, but more importantly, to some degree, the living conditions of the entire people. Now back to security -- what happens when developing minds become extremely activated by the current technology they have? They want to use the current technology they have as a gateway to more, something `bigger' that will help more in quality, and eventually help more in quantity. Those minds need an incubation period, a time to reflect on the information they have been handed, a time to cross reference facts and generate their own opinions on the issues that surround them. That period, is also a time for greatest fear that others might judge them on their ideas, and thus a need for security comes into play. The most important thing we can teach these kids we're targeting is the ability to know how to trust, who to trust, and ways to teach others what they have learned. In my mind, this calls for a simple, yet robust system the student may be able to isolate themselves for little breaks of time, to sort out things, to talk to those people that could help them without breaching the trust that kids start to develop with their peers and adults. |
|||
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 would love to see a transitional operating system ported to the OLPC platform, as a method of rectifying the Bitfrost spec. The introduction of OpenBSD, maybe, would allow cryptographic abilities to be added to the system -- as a secondary OS to be added on when a student feels the need to go into that `incubation' period I have explained before. Once again, to make sure this is clear: I fully support the current ideas of making a public computing platform, I just see that this platform can and needs to be appended with more security features. |
|||
I'd be willing to work with any student towards rectifying these problems, as well as hearing feedback. |
|||
Anyone interested in helping in this area, or just commenting, please comment below, or give me a message, thanks! |
|||
As always, Thank you |
|||
Joel Snyder |
Joel Snyder |
||
Revision as of 23:17, 27 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 Needing Fixes?)
Sorry, but this needed to be rewritten, as people were not understanding very clearly. I hope to spell out my intentions better this time. Bitfrost, ( http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Bitfrost ) the `security platform' for the OLPC project, is a specification for how to deal with security of a child's laptop in a totally public-driven mindset. The majority of the ideas listed in Bitfrost come from the need to keep the laptop functional for a school setting while the chance that many things can go wrong, remains high. It outlines how to centralize data from the laptops, login without passwords, connect to an specific network without cleartext identifiers, etc. To me, this seems great for the youngest of the children this project is aiming to help. Remember, though, this project's goal is to enable those who lack technology to gain a foothold in information. The very nature of this free flowing information ideology comes back around to the questions of personal freedom and security. A government purchasing these laptops would not be fond of a slogan bearing the phrase `Freedom for Insurrection;' this is probably where most readers of the past comment may be mislead. Government, although not usually willing to support rapid change, has a contract with its people to guarantee their basic human needs. In today's worldwide society, the methods for providing these needs is met first and foremost with education. We realize that by even considering the OLPC to help others in countries that lack the essential web of communication to get help. Empowering the children of a nation allows them to come up with ideas that can change not just the political stance of the country, but more importantly, to some degree, the living conditions of the entire people. Now back to security -- what happens when developing minds become extremely activated by the current technology they have? They want to use the current technology they have as a gateway to more, something `bigger' that will help more in quality, and eventually help more in quantity. Those minds need an incubation period, a time to reflect on the information they have been handed, a time to cross reference facts and generate their own opinions on the issues that surround them. That period, is also a time for greatest fear that others might judge them on their ideas, and thus a need for security comes into play. The most important thing we can teach these kids we're targeting is the ability to know how to trust, who to trust, and ways to teach others what they have learned. In my mind, this calls for a simple, yet robust system the student may be able to isolate themselves for little breaks of time, to sort out things, to talk to those people that could help them without breaching the trust that kids start to develop with their peers and adults.
I would love to see a transitional operating system ported to the OLPC platform, as a method of rectifying the Bitfrost spec. The introduction of OpenBSD, maybe, would allow cryptographic abilities to be added to the system -- as a secondary OS to be added on when a student feels the need to go into that `incubation' period I have explained before. Once again, to make sure this is clear: I fully support the current ideas of making a public computing platform, I just see that this platform can and needs to be appended with more security features.
Anyone interested in helping in this area, or just commenting, please comment below, or give me a message, thanks!
Joel Snyder