Sugar: An activity-focused, open-source software learning platform for children(sugarlabs.org)
sugarlabs.org
Sugar: An activity-focused, open-source software learning platform for children
https://www.sugarlabs.org/
85 comments
Wow, so that's 18 years of maintenance and counting, congrats!
Presumably, that means that there are also people who are adults now and got started with Sugar. Are you collecting testimonials by them anywhere? That would be fun to read.
Presumably, that means that there are also people who are adults now and got started with Sugar. Are you collecting testimonials by them anywhere? That would be fun to read.
Forgot to include the link: https://youtu.be/zZ7qkZkp57c?si=1u0VQUQFAUsvMg7B
Developed as part of the One Laptop Per Child.
Uses python, so the desktop is interpreted & open for modification (not compiled).
Sugar was so incredibly far ahead of the curve. Figma & multiplayer computing? Sugar was doing this in ~2007. Local-first software, where a class-room without internet connectivity could share a canvas & collaborate together: https://help.sugarlabs.org/en/collaborating.html
The underpinnings were amazing. They used DBus for a lot of the activities to expose themselves programatically. To make things multiplayer, they used link-local XMPP to connect various DBus instances together. It was a brilliantly direct & straightforward & not-absurd way to take the FreeDesktop ideas & turn them into something connected & cross-system, without having to build a whole new stack. https://telepathy.freedesktop.org/doc/book/sect.tubes.dbus.h...
It's really easy to see all the ways Sugar and OLPC didn't accomplish their mission & to see how it didn't work. But people just pass over all the incredible competently resourceful tech choices that were made here. And seemingly no one has had the ambition to unleash FreeDesktop technologies again (also RIP Maemo). Heck, no one's made a local-first laptop ever again!
Uses python, so the desktop is interpreted & open for modification (not compiled).
Sugar was so incredibly far ahead of the curve. Figma & multiplayer computing? Sugar was doing this in ~2007. Local-first software, where a class-room without internet connectivity could share a canvas & collaborate together: https://help.sugarlabs.org/en/collaborating.html
The underpinnings were amazing. They used DBus for a lot of the activities to expose themselves programatically. To make things multiplayer, they used link-local XMPP to connect various DBus instances together. It was a brilliantly direct & straightforward & not-absurd way to take the FreeDesktop ideas & turn them into something connected & cross-system, without having to build a whole new stack. https://telepathy.freedesktop.org/doc/book/sect.tubes.dbus.h...
It's really easy to see all the ways Sugar and OLPC didn't accomplish their mission & to see how it didn't work. But people just pass over all the incredible competently resourceful tech choices that were made here. And seemingly no one has had the ambition to unleash FreeDesktop technologies again (also RIP Maemo). Heck, no one's made a local-first laptop ever again!
Sugar, and more generally the idea of using 2006-era Python to write an entire userland on a device with a pokey CPU and limited RAM, was a huge part of why OLPCs were unbearably slow to use. For all the hypothetical benefits it was a catastrophically poor decision that seriously undermined everything great about the hardware design of the XO-1.
Worth being clear, this doesn't detract from it now, where it is plenty fast on far cheaper hardware than the XO-1.
so since 2007 and 2023, we must have scientific assessment on the benefits of using computers instead of books?
It's a neat project and great that it's opensource. I'm not an expert though but when I compare this to Educational apps from my childhood like Adibou or Castle of Dr Brain, it seems the activities are not as fun with the exception of Scratch (but that's external).
I'm actually curious if there's research on how learning is impacting by the presentation of the material and how fun the activities are. Naively, I'd think those old educational software I've seen worked better because by being fun, they encouraged the child to try and solve puzzles, do activities longer.
I have a child who is soon going to be 3 and I'd like to let him play some educational software 30 minutes a week or so so I'm actually actively interested in figuring what is something that's good, fun and has the most positive impact. So if anyone has some relevant studies etc... I'm all ears
I'm actually curious if there's research on how learning is impacting by the presentation of the material and how fun the activities are. Naively, I'd think those old educational software I've seen worked better because by being fun, they encouraged the child to try and solve puzzles, do activities longer.
I have a child who is soon going to be 3 and I'd like to let him play some educational software 30 minutes a week or so so I'm actually actively interested in figuring what is something that's good, fun and has the most positive impact. So if anyone has some relevant studies etc... I'm all ears
I don't have studies but we found that "teach your monster to read" was great and enjoyed. It's UK focussed, about learning to read phonetics. It's essentially a series of mini-games tying a story together, and it was very engaging for my son at a similar age.
Also it's a one off purchase. (Edit - on android, free online it seems)
If that's not as relevant for you where you are, it might give some jumping off points for finding more like it
https://www.teachyourmonster.org/teachyourmonstertoread
Also it's a one off purchase. (Edit - on android, free online it seems)
If that's not as relevant for you where you are, it might give some jumping off points for finding more like it
https://www.teachyourmonster.org/teachyourmonstertoread
Siblings and I were given Castle of Doctor Brain at too young an age to make much progress. It took a long time for us to figure out the puzzle on the door to get into the castle, but it must have had some strong appeal for us to keep coming back. We got stuck plenty of times after that too.!
Looked it up for nostalgia and found we must have been inadvertently been playing on a harder difficulty. Feel somewhat vindicated. https://strategywiki.org/wiki/The_Castle_of_Dr._Brain/Outsid...
Looked it up for nostalgia and found we must have been inadvertently been playing on a harder difficulty. Feel somewhat vindicated. https://strategywiki.org/wiki/The_Castle_of_Dr._Brain/Outsid...
GCompris is a fantastic bit of open source educational software:
https://www.gcompris.net/index-en.html
> the activities are not as fun with the exception of Scratch (but that's external).
Sugar has the TurtleArt activity, which is very much like Scratch but with the LOGO turtle: https://help.sugarlabs.org/en/turtleart.html
My 4+ year-old doesn't seem to mind the amount of fun in these activities; the rather boring-looking Maze activity is a current favorite. That said, I do think that many of the activities in the catalogue have a user interface that I find alienating or somewhat ugly.
Sugar has the TurtleArt activity, which is very much like Scratch but with the LOGO turtle: https://help.sugarlabs.org/en/turtleart.html
My 4+ year-old doesn't seem to mind the amount of fun in these activities; the rather boring-looking Maze activity is a current favorite. That said, I do think that many of the activities in the catalogue have a user interface that I find alienating or somewhat ugly.
I loved LOGO as a kid, my father was a teacher and he had a robotic LOGO turtle mounted with a pen that could be used to trace on A3 paper. Lot's of fun but that was more around 6 years old or so.
PBS Kids has a lot of games and activities on their website:
https://pbskids.org/games
If your kids watch any PBS shows them they'll recognize the characters.
The activities were fun enough for our twins to learn how to use computer mice at age 3.
Tux Paint is also really fun for young kids and a good way to learn mouse usage:
https://tuxpaint.org/
https://pbskids.org/games
If your kids watch any PBS shows them they'll recognize the characters.
The activities were fun enough for our twins to learn how to use computer mice at age 3.
Tux Paint is also really fun for young kids and a good way to learn mouse usage:
https://tuxpaint.org/
Thanks for the Tux Paint suggestion, I played a lot with Kid Pix as a kid and it seems that Tux Paint is similar :)
Haven't looked at the PBS shows yet, right now our son has been rather obsessed in a BBC show called Maddie do you know? because it explains how things works and he's excited to see train tracks, helicopters etc... He also really liked Mickey Clubhouse which has the advantage of being translated in Cantonese (my wife's language).
Haven't looked at the PBS shows yet, right now our son has been rather obsessed in a BBC show called Maddie do you know? because it explains how things works and he's excited to see train tracks, helicopters etc... He also really liked Mickey Clubhouse which has the advantage of being translated in Cantonese (my wife's language).
I don't know about studies, but as a parent of a slightly older kid, it's 90s edutainment all the way. Zoombinis, PJ Sam, Crystal Rainforest...
Nice, I love Humongous so knew about PJ Sam (and plan to play Putt Putt together with him) but didn't know Zoombinis and Crystal Rainforest. Any other recommendations?
It seems like a great product, with a terrible name.
Out if curiosity, what's your take on the name?
I'm okay with it, despite preferring names that help frame the product's purpose in my mind, but I can see the kid appeal in a name like Sugar Lab. Maybe I am missing some negative association, though.
I'm okay with it, despite preferring names that help frame the product's purpose in my mind, but I can see the kid appeal in a name like Sugar Lab. Maybe I am missing some negative association, though.
Sugar is basically the recreational drug of children. It's normalized, but it's known to be addictive and harmful if consumed in excess (which it frequently is).
Society is now starting to recognize the addictive and harmful potential of digital/smartphone overconsumption in children. To name a digital children's product "sugar" evokes (to me) digital addiction, the attention economy, and how children need to get off their phones.
I don't read too much into names, but the branding does feel a bit obtuse at this cultural moment.
Society is now starting to recognize the addictive and harmful potential of digital/smartphone overconsumption in children. To name a digital children's product "sugar" evokes (to me) digital addiction, the attention economy, and how children need to get off their phones.
I don't read too much into names, but the branding does feel a bit obtuse at this cultural moment.
We should be treating sugar as an addictive, crave-inducing substance. See for example https://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-sugar-addiction
Sugar just conjures up all sorts of negative connotations these days, especially if you are a parent. Like, as a parent, I see one of my major tasks in life as preparing my kid to enter a world where sugar (and lots of other forms of unhealthy but pleasurable things) are much more ubiquitous than the environment in which their basic intuitions about behavior evolved. One other area beyond literal physical sugar where this is true is technology, where a huge part of the ecosystem is actively predatory on children's time and attention. So the combination of "Sugar" as a name and something vaguely related to tech just gives bad vibes all around.
I've tried Sugar out and I frankly find it somewhat condescending to children. Kid's don't need to be manipulated into using computers. They like them already and can readily appreciate that they are both fun and powerful. Rather than present to them a dumbed down interface we should be empowering them to use computers as they are, and conditioning them to expect that the computer itself be accessible to them, not hidden behind a fancy UI. When my kid was barely able to read I was showing him how to edit code and observe how it changes the behavior of characters in a game. He got it. We don't need goofy simplified user interfaces.
I've tried Sugar out and I frankly find it somewhat condescending to children. Kid's don't need to be manipulated into using computers. They like them already and can readily appreciate that they are both fun and powerful. Rather than present to them a dumbed down interface we should be empowering them to use computers as they are, and conditioning them to expect that the computer itself be accessible to them, not hidden behind a fancy UI. When my kid was barely able to read I was showing him how to edit code and observe how it changes the behavior of characters in a game. He got it. We don't need goofy simplified user interfaces.
> Kid's don't need to be manipulated into using computers. They like them already and can readily appreciate that they are both fun and powerful. Rather than present to them a dumbed down interface we should be empowering them to use computers as they are, and conditioning them to expect that the computer itself be accessible to them, not hidden behind a fancy UI.
I could not agree with this statement more. I started teaching my daughter Python and bash when she was 8. I am currently teaching my son (11) C++ and bash and he does all of his coding in emacs. They both use exwm and are eager to continue learning.
Having said that, I can see a huge challenge for non-technical parents. If those families would like to teach their children about computers, operating systems, the internet, web browsers and possibly programming, they need help from somewhere. I don't think my kids would have stuck with it if I had just handed them a link to the RFC standards [1] or the c++ getting started resources [2]. I really can't say how I would have approached ensuring my kids had a head start with technical computer knowledge had I not the knowledge myself. It is a predatory world out there, and access to your child's attention is valuable since they are the future. It must be difficult for parents who are conscious of this to find quality technical learning resources for their kids.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/standards/rfcs/
[2] https://isocpp.org/get-started
I could not agree with this statement more. I started teaching my daughter Python and bash when she was 8. I am currently teaching my son (11) C++ and bash and he does all of his coding in emacs. They both use exwm and are eager to continue learning.
Having said that, I can see a huge challenge for non-technical parents. If those families would like to teach their children about computers, operating systems, the internet, web browsers and possibly programming, they need help from somewhere. I don't think my kids would have stuck with it if I had just handed them a link to the RFC standards [1] or the c++ getting started resources [2]. I really can't say how I would have approached ensuring my kids had a head start with technical computer knowledge had I not the knowledge myself. It is a predatory world out there, and access to your child's attention is valuable since they are the future. It must be difficult for parents who are conscious of this to find quality technical learning resources for their kids.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/standards/rfcs/
[2] https://isocpp.org/get-started
I would really, really like to read more about the approaches you are taking to teaching your kids to code. My kids are all on Linux computers and I'm trying to wean them off iPads and consumption devices. But it feels like addictive apps can draw them back very quickly (looking at you, YouTube).
> My kids are all on Linux computers
That is great to hear. My kids are both on pi 4s, but we customized the Debian distribution quite a bit to optimize its hardware acceleration capabilities and to overclock the hardware as much as possible. The pi boots from a fast nvme usb drive and i/o peripherals are connected via a fast usb hub. They are cooled by the ice tower [1]. They are both using exwm [2] and do not require a mouse. They both type on plank mechanical keyboards from olkb. All of this customization they found quite exciting. Especially being able to mess with their own keyboards.
> I'm trying to wean them off iPads and consumption devices. But it feels like addictive apps can draw them back very quickly (looking at you, YouTube).
We do not own any ipads. Only desktop computers, and I own a couple of laptops, such as the librem 14 and the mnt-reform. Youtube is a bit of a problem, I agree. They need access to it for their schooling at the moment, but the use of it does need to be limited, and the content limited as well, or they will just start watching brain numbing junk. I have decided not to block anything on our network with the goal of establishing a sense of trust, but I also don't allow them to have free rein. It is an endless exercise in finding the right balance :-). To be honest, it is much more of a problem with my son, then it is with my daughter, who spends a lot of her free time drawing and writing and isn't as entertained by youtube videos.
As for teaching them to code, I have been giving them series of exercises and challenges that build up their skill with a few goals:
1. to build their own online mud (multi user dungeon)
2. to write their own compiler
3. to write their own operating system
4. to make their own computer
5. They each have come up with their own personal projects, so I tailor exercises to help them with problems that they need to solve
For our development environment, we use emacs + eglot [3], which is not surprising since the windows manager is exwm. I make them compile and debug from the command-line, because I want them to be competent with standard command-line tools. Fancy GUI-centric IDEs are distracting because all of the options are visible to them even though they lack the skill or need for such features.
I wanted this to be a happy experience, so I have never pushed them, but always challenge them to push themselves. I spend a few hours with them every weekend, then a couple of hours with them mid week to help them with challenges. But that is not how I started. I started with 1 hour first thing every morning Monday to Friday to teach them the basics and get them inspired. If they seemed drained, or I sensed that they needed a break, I just let them have a day off.
We also play erion mud [3] and sometimes hexonyx [4] because I wanted them to understand what a mud is all about and to build up interest. I am really into text-based games, so not surprisingly we play nethack (rogue like) [5]. I am also into interactive fiction and started them off on Adventure [6]. If you are interested in interactive fiction, then you might enjoy reading "Twisty Little Passages - an approach to interactive fiction" by Nick Montfort [7].
Full disclosure, I believe that the main reason I am able to pull this all off is that my wife and I home-school our children. It is a challenge though. Very few families where we are from are similar to us in our philosophy of technology and education.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/GeeekPi-Raspberry-Cooling-Cooler-Heat...
[2] https://github.com/emacs-exwm/exwm
[3] https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot
[4] https://www.erionmud.com/
[5] https://mud.hexonyx.com/
[6] https://www.nethack.org/
[7] https://quuxplusone.github.io/Advent/play.html
[8] https://www.amazon.com/Twisty-Little-Passages-Approach-Inter...
That is great to hear. My kids are both on pi 4s, but we customized the Debian distribution quite a bit to optimize its hardware acceleration capabilities and to overclock the hardware as much as possible. The pi boots from a fast nvme usb drive and i/o peripherals are connected via a fast usb hub. They are cooled by the ice tower [1]. They are both using exwm [2] and do not require a mouse. They both type on plank mechanical keyboards from olkb. All of this customization they found quite exciting. Especially being able to mess with their own keyboards.
> I'm trying to wean them off iPads and consumption devices. But it feels like addictive apps can draw them back very quickly (looking at you, YouTube).
We do not own any ipads. Only desktop computers, and I own a couple of laptops, such as the librem 14 and the mnt-reform. Youtube is a bit of a problem, I agree. They need access to it for their schooling at the moment, but the use of it does need to be limited, and the content limited as well, or they will just start watching brain numbing junk. I have decided not to block anything on our network with the goal of establishing a sense of trust, but I also don't allow them to have free rein. It is an endless exercise in finding the right balance :-). To be honest, it is much more of a problem with my son, then it is with my daughter, who spends a lot of her free time drawing and writing and isn't as entertained by youtube videos.
As for teaching them to code, I have been giving them series of exercises and challenges that build up their skill with a few goals:
1. to build their own online mud (multi user dungeon)
2. to write their own compiler
3. to write their own operating system
4. to make their own computer
5. They each have come up with their own personal projects, so I tailor exercises to help them with problems that they need to solve
For our development environment, we use emacs + eglot [3], which is not surprising since the windows manager is exwm. I make them compile and debug from the command-line, because I want them to be competent with standard command-line tools. Fancy GUI-centric IDEs are distracting because all of the options are visible to them even though they lack the skill or need for such features.
I wanted this to be a happy experience, so I have never pushed them, but always challenge them to push themselves. I spend a few hours with them every weekend, then a couple of hours with them mid week to help them with challenges. But that is not how I started. I started with 1 hour first thing every morning Monday to Friday to teach them the basics and get them inspired. If they seemed drained, or I sensed that they needed a break, I just let them have a day off.
We also play erion mud [3] and sometimes hexonyx [4] because I wanted them to understand what a mud is all about and to build up interest. I am really into text-based games, so not surprisingly we play nethack (rogue like) [5]. I am also into interactive fiction and started them off on Adventure [6]. If you are interested in interactive fiction, then you might enjoy reading "Twisty Little Passages - an approach to interactive fiction" by Nick Montfort [7].
Full disclosure, I believe that the main reason I am able to pull this all off is that my wife and I home-school our children. It is a challenge though. Very few families where we are from are similar to us in our philosophy of technology and education.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/GeeekPi-Raspberry-Cooling-Cooler-Heat...
[2] https://github.com/emacs-exwm/exwm
[3] https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot
[4] https://www.erionmud.com/
[5] https://mud.hexonyx.com/
[6] https://www.nethack.org/
[7] https://quuxplusone.github.io/Advent/play.html
[8] https://www.amazon.com/Twisty-Little-Passages-Approach-Inter...
Hey, I don't know if your kids (or you) would be interested, but there's a few hacking games and what I'd consider educational games that they (or you!) might enjoy.
[1]https://nandgame.com/
[2]https://microcorruption.com/
[3]https://amar.bornofsnails.net/login
[4]https://overthewire.org/wargames/bandit/
Just though I'd toss those your way. I also love text-based gaming, so I'll be trying out the MUDS you linked. I used to play many moons ago, and definitely miss that era of my life. Was also big into the BBS scene in those days as well. And of course, who doesn't love Nethack? Ahh, the memories.
[1]https://nandgame.com/
[2]https://microcorruption.com/
[3]https://amar.bornofsnails.net/login
[4]https://overthewire.org/wargames/bandit/
Just though I'd toss those your way. I also love text-based gaming, so I'll be trying out the MUDS you linked. I used to play many moons ago, and definitely miss that era of my life. Was also big into the BBS scene in those days as well. And of course, who doesn't love Nethack? Ahh, the memories.
Thank you for those links, I played around with the first two and they are well done. I hope you enjoy the muds, we have been using tt++ with a custom script to split up channel conversations from the main story line thread. tt++ is a nice, no frills extensible mud client. The main site has a list of scripts [1] that you can download to get some ideas from. The tabs script [2] demonstrates a nice way to organize inputs on your screen. Just make sure you have a compatible version installed.
[1]: https://tintin.mudhalla.net/scripts/
[2]: https://tintin.mudhalla.net/scripts/windowtab.php
[1]: https://tintin.mudhalla.net/scripts/
[2]: https://tintin.mudhalla.net/scripts/windowtab.php
This is really incredible. Thanks so much for writing this all up!
No problem, and good luck!
>I really can't say how I would have approached ensuring my kids had a head start with technical computer knowledge had I not the knowledge myself.
Yeah, I was wondering how to teach my kid some computer languages I never quite got the hang of
Yeah, I was wondering how to teach my kid some computer languages I never quite got the hang of
> am currently teaching my son (11) C++
I'm ok with it, but you better hope child protective services don't learn of it :)
I'm ok with it, but you better hope child protective services don't learn of it :)
i participated in the OLPC program as a tester, and i had access to a bunch of devices (after buying my own in the initial fundraising campaign).
for a while i used the OLPC XO 1.0 and later 1.5 as a daily driver when on the road. most of the work i was doing was on the terminal, but i used the occasional activities. the browser of course, the camera, and others.
i strongly disagree that the interface is dumbed down. it may look toy like, but it serves its purpose.
the initial screen is just an application starter. i see no difference in that to any others on a standard desktop. the terminal and the source of all activities are available. and the actual inner working of the computer are accessible.
there is even a switch to switch from the sugar desktop to a normal one, and back.
the only valid argument would be, to ask what is the benefit of a different interface, as opposed to using a traditional one. but with that argument we are throwing out the idea of innovating on interfaces. and also a similar argument is used in many places to push schools to teach windows, as if it was important that kids learn to work with the most used interface only.
arguing about the interface is not helpful. if the interface works, it's good. kids need to learn concepts, and understand that computers do not all have to look and work the same way. a child that learns using the sugar interface and later a traditional interface, will learn and understand much more about computers and interfaces than a child that only learns a traditional interface, and then as an adult gets confused when presented with something different because it hasn't learned the actual concepts.
it can also be argued that as a project sugar is overengineered, because it solves problems (like activity isolation) a traditional desktop doesn't (but in reality, more and more needs to do too). but retroactively the same argument could be made for things like squeak, which btw was also available on the OLPC, because it is so different from a standard desktop. to be clear, squeak is not overengineered, but it looks that way from the perspective of todays interfaces, since it duplicates all the dev tools instead of using familiar ones. which is the same problem that sugar is being accused of.
the other side of the argument however is that sugar is what we get if we allow developers and interface designers free reign in creating something new.
so to me, sugar does not represent a dumbed down interface. but it represents innovation. and whether it is better or not should be evaluated on that metric, and not on the metric of how different it is from what we already know.
for a while i used the OLPC XO 1.0 and later 1.5 as a daily driver when on the road. most of the work i was doing was on the terminal, but i used the occasional activities. the browser of course, the camera, and others.
i strongly disagree that the interface is dumbed down. it may look toy like, but it serves its purpose.
the initial screen is just an application starter. i see no difference in that to any others on a standard desktop. the terminal and the source of all activities are available. and the actual inner working of the computer are accessible.
there is even a switch to switch from the sugar desktop to a normal one, and back.
the only valid argument would be, to ask what is the benefit of a different interface, as opposed to using a traditional one. but with that argument we are throwing out the idea of innovating on interfaces. and also a similar argument is used in many places to push schools to teach windows, as if it was important that kids learn to work with the most used interface only.
arguing about the interface is not helpful. if the interface works, it's good. kids need to learn concepts, and understand that computers do not all have to look and work the same way. a child that learns using the sugar interface and later a traditional interface, will learn and understand much more about computers and interfaces than a child that only learns a traditional interface, and then as an adult gets confused when presented with something different because it hasn't learned the actual concepts.
it can also be argued that as a project sugar is overengineered, because it solves problems (like activity isolation) a traditional desktop doesn't (but in reality, more and more needs to do too). but retroactively the same argument could be made for things like squeak, which btw was also available on the OLPC, because it is so different from a standard desktop. to be clear, squeak is not overengineered, but it looks that way from the perspective of todays interfaces, since it duplicates all the dev tools instead of using familiar ones. which is the same problem that sugar is being accused of.
the other side of the argument however is that sugar is what we get if we allow developers and interface designers free reign in creating something new.
so to me, sugar does not represent a dumbed down interface. but it represents innovation. and whether it is better or not should be evaluated on that metric, and not on the metric of how different it is from what we already know.
I simply see it as search word-space collision.
In the future, whenever I search for "sugar" I will have to deal with hundreds of unrelated results for a programming language.
I see the same issue with go, d, eclipse, and a few other overloaded words.
This is also the reason why xkcd is such a great name.
In the future, whenever I search for "sugar" I will have to deal with hundreds of unrelated results for a programming language.
I see the same issue with go, d, eclipse, and a few other overloaded words.
This is also the reason why xkcd is such a great name.
Do you search for broad terms like "sugar" a lot? Honest question, since I rarely, if ever, find doing so useful, even when using Google search alternatives. Generally, I am looking for specific information about the subject. If we use edible sugar as our example, I might be looking for "how is cane sugar processed" or "temperature for sugar hard crack stage." Or, if I really want a general overview of something, it's "sugar wikipedia."
Same as you. I am trained to add Wikipedia or search in another way, because of the namespace conflict.
Even that is not enough, after a while, and more and more words are needed.
Some search engines are better or worse about this.
Even that is not enough, after a while, and more and more words are needed.
Some search engines are better or worse about this.
Try: "sugar human bone char napoleon"
I'd heard of this. Disturbing, to say the least, but not something that will frighten me away from the word "sugar" which is the root of this thread. Bone char was also used in paint, but I'm not about to decry the painters of old over it. Our modern alternatives are in place.
sheperd209(1)
Sugar Daddy?
Came to say exactly this... you want to get kids productive and head in good direction, so you name the tool for that as outright the worst possible thing they can eat. Because if you say 'lets do a bit of sugar now' kids will not immediately associate it with and imagine such junkiest food, not at all. Heck even for me as an adult my brain is just too quick.
Absolutely worst, and brutally addictive. I am sorry but that's... looking for polite word... and failing to find one as a parent.
Can I have some Heroin text editor, while writing back in my Cocaine email client, storing on Meth cluster? Of course all signed and verified by Fentanyl certificate store.
There are literally 200k+ words in just 1 single language. Lets be a bit more creative (or compose name out of 2+ words to steer meaning at least a bit).
Absolutely worst, and brutally addictive. I am sorry but that's... looking for polite word... and failing to find one as a parent.
Can I have some Heroin text editor, while writing back in my Cocaine email client, storing on Meth cluster? Of course all signed and verified by Fentanyl certificate store.
There are literally 200k+ words in just 1 single language. Lets be a bit more creative (or compose name out of 2+ words to steer meaning at least a bit).
Think of it as syntactic sugar and it kind of works, as in "some of this syntactic sugar makes it a lot easier to code."
High Fructose Corn Syrup is already taken :D
In the book "The Charisma Machine" they say that the name is a "cheekily intentional reference to something children love but adults are not so sure about". I think it's a good name.
Indeed, it is a terrible name! I feel very strongly. I would never point my kids to something like this.
worst name since "Office in a rack(TM)" ("I don't want no office in Iraq, son").
Well, actually, for French speaking people, I guess "systemd" is worse.
Well, actually, for French speaking people, I guess "systemd" is worse.
On my first day of my first job I was led around the office and introduced to my new colleagues, who were all sitting at their workstations. Then I was given my own and this was running on it. They all claimed this was the normal look and watched me try to figure out what was happening, lovely memories
I tried the demo and it seems like this is built for exclusively for children, so was that some kind of hazing?
Neat, the gears were pretty entertaining, but whose kids will sit and use this?
I think it’s incredible that people are volunteering their time to create open source learning software.
I hope it’s extensible enough to incorporate paid content. IMHO anything less can compete for attention in today’s attention economy.
I think it’s incredible that people are volunteering their time to create open source learning software.
I hope it’s extensible enough to incorporate paid content. IMHO anything less can compete for attention in today’s attention economy.
> I hope it’s extensible enough to incorporate paid content. IMHO anything less can compete for attention in today’s attention economy.
I don't want any paid content in my learning experience. We should encourage free as in beer and free as in freedom learning materials.
I don't want any paid content in my learning experience. We should encourage free as in beer and free as in freedom learning materials.
Ideally these things should be subsidized or at least run on generous donations, yes. But quality matters most to me. I'd happily pay for educational software that is proven to be better (more engaging, more fun, better learning outcomes) than free & open-source alternatives.
As a former child who had his mind blown by the utter magic that my parents' Windows 3.11 and then Windows 95 machines had, no: I want real software I can play and learn the ins-and-outs with. I want games that are made with care for the children who play them (Oregon Trail, Math Blasters, JumpStart series, etc.)
Whether it's paid or libre is irrelevant, kids literally don't care about Adult(tm) concepts like that.
Whether it's paid or libre is irrelevant, kids literally don't care about Adult(tm) concepts like that.
Yeah not mine.
The screenshot for "This is one of the many fun activities" is a black and white blocky maze!
I'm sure they mean well, but whoever made this doesn't have children.
The screenshot for "This is one of the many fun activities" is a black and white blocky maze!
I'm sure they mean well, but whoever made this doesn't have children.
I'm at the stage where I'm trying to get my kids into tech based "building", I'm a software engineer so want to start teaching them to write code asap, but don't want to start their computer journey there.
I had a click through of this out of interest; by the time I'd picked a colour for my avatar (awful gaudy colour combinations), read the half-dozen tutorial tool-tips just to get the the main ring, I was already bored stiff, as an adult with an almost limitless concentration span.
I hate to say it, but I can't imagine my children wanting to use this as it's presented, at any age.
I had a click through of this out of interest; by the time I'd picked a colour for my avatar (awful gaudy colour combinations), read the half-dozen tutorial tool-tips just to get the the main ring, I was already bored stiff, as an adult with an almost limitless concentration span.
I hate to say it, but I can't imagine my children wanting to use this as it's presented, at any age.
I tried to use this some time ago with my kids but they didn't find it interesting enough.
I noticed that all the open source learning apps that I could find were kind of amateurish and buggy.
I would pay good money for a tablet filled with software for kids that would teach the basics and be interesting at the same time.
I found some games where I was able to remove adds (one time payment) and an app used for learning reading/writing.
I noticed that all the open source learning apps that I could find were kind of amateurish and buggy.
I would pay good money for a tablet filled with software for kids that would teach the basics and be interesting at the same time.
I found some games where I was able to remove adds (one time payment) and an app used for learning reading/writing.
My kid loves the maze activity. It actually is a lot of fun to her. While I will concede that many Sugar activities lean towards the ugly side (usually when images are involved), fun things don't need to be drenched in gaudy colors to be accessible to children.
Im in my late 20s and I find the “one laptop per child” thing to be insane. It seems like we abandoned hundreds of years of education tradition overnight to sell a few extra chromebooks with zero consideration of the downsides.
Is anyone familiar with how much of the time learning is spent on the Chromebook? Is this normal in other countries?
Is anyone familiar with how much of the time learning is spent on the Chromebook? Is this normal in other countries?
1 - olpc / Sugar isn't a Chromebook at all, it's a learning OS meant for builders first, consumers second
2 - olpc was as much about making computing hardware cheaply and as accessible as possible to communities that didn't have any access to reliable electricity, let alone computers. Hence the built in hand crank
3 - to my knowledge, olpc distributed globally, but hardly addressed US or EU countries at all, so I'm not sure what you mean by "is this normal in other countries."
2 - olpc was as much about making computing hardware cheaply and as accessible as possible to communities that didn't have any access to reliable electricity, let alone computers. Hence the built in hand crank
3 - to my knowledge, olpc distributed globally, but hardly addressed US or EU countries at all, so I'm not sure what you mean by "is this normal in other countries."
To be fair, OLPC was accidentally instrumental in making people buy cheap small laptops. The Eee PC netbook emerged very soon after the OLPC, and it was definitely responding to peoples' interest in the OLPC - particularly from the "Give one get one" program. The Eee PC became netbooks, which were eventually strangled to death by Chromebooks.
The OLPC project said "we can help kids by designing $100 laptops just for them", and rich westerners heard "$100 laptops."
The mistakes happened way in the beginning, along with a certain economic downturn. In retrospect, the interest of (on-average) wealthy people in cheap disposable laptops was obscene, and it's a shame the market allowed that interest to be entertained the way it was. Netbooks happened because we are incapable of accounting for the long term costs of crap electronics outside of futile attempts to educate consumers. Thus, netbooks and then equally disposable Chromebooks were dumped into the market without scrutiny, and computers are Google now.
The OLPC project said "we can help kids by designing $100 laptops just for them", and rich westerners heard "$100 laptops."
The mistakes happened way in the beginning, along with a certain economic downturn. In retrospect, the interest of (on-average) wealthy people in cheap disposable laptops was obscene, and it's a shame the market allowed that interest to be entertained the way it was. Netbooks happened because we are incapable of accounting for the long term costs of crap electronics outside of futile attempts to educate consumers. Thus, netbooks and then equally disposable Chromebooks were dumped into the market without scrutiny, and computers are Google now.
That is indeed a fair point. I find it hard to fault OLPC for these dynamics however. OLPC had a real "hacker" mentality to it in the best senses of the word. It's easy to see the missteps in retrospect, but hard to see how they could have ended up anywhere else given the moment in time
Nit - the crank was a prototype but it didn't ship on any models, because it turned out to not work well, and it turns out that places where people can't afford much technology, people also don't have that much spare energy to spend on hand cranking things.
i thought the handcrank failed because the energy created was not enough, and turning a crank built into the laptop would create to much force that would break the laptop apart.
i don't see that people who can't afford technology would have any less spare energy than people who do.
i don't see that people who can't afford technology would have any less spare energy than people who do.
My understanding was that it never shipped as more than a concept because it turns out to be very hard to build such a thing that's not trivially breakable (a bunch of public demos had failures like that) and doesn't damage the laptop when attached, since for all their durability compared to many older and modern laptops, they're cheap plastic.
I imagine if the company hadn't gone belly-up because the predicted demand didn't really materialize, they might have refined that further, but.
It might be kind of fascinating to revisit how powerful you could make such a device in this day and age of manufacturers having spent many more years trying to improve power/performance in small form factors, but I'm not sure anyone would professionally touch such an idea now, given how visibly it went belly-up...
As far as the human energy cost not mattering - have you ever tried cranking something with mechanical resistance for 6 minutes straight to get an hour of battery life? It's draining, even with practice.
Something interesting might have been something more like a bike pedal mechanism, since that's something a lot of humans have practice at doing without exhausting themselves, but that might still have problems with the amount of resistance required to turn it into electricity...
I imagine if the company hadn't gone belly-up because the predicted demand didn't really materialize, they might have refined that further, but.
It might be kind of fascinating to revisit how powerful you could make such a device in this day and age of manufacturers having spent many more years trying to improve power/performance in small form factors, but I'm not sure anyone would professionally touch such an idea now, given how visibly it went belly-up...
As far as the human energy cost not mattering - have you ever tried cranking something with mechanical resistance for 6 minutes straight to get an hour of battery life? It's draining, even with practice.
Something interesting might have been something more like a bike pedal mechanism, since that's something a lot of humans have practice at doing without exhausting themselves, but that might still have problems with the amount of resistance required to turn it into electricity...
it never shipped as more than a concept because...
right, exactly.
As far as the human energy cost not mattering
i think you misread that, unless you are not responding to me. what i am saying is that the human energy of poor people is no different than the human energy of wealthy ones, so the argument that poor people in particular would not have the energy to use a hand crank is nonsense, because, as you rightly say, turning a handcrank is exhausting, but it is exhausting for everyone. (and i know that from experience. we used to mill our own flour with a handcrank)
bike pedal mechanisms for electricity have been spotted in some OLPC deployments, as far as i remember. but a laptop is not the only thing using electricity, so if pedal mechanisms are a good idea, i'd expect to see them more often. my impression is that they are only good as a last resort, when better options are not available.
right, exactly.
As far as the human energy cost not mattering
i think you misread that, unless you are not responding to me. what i am saying is that the human energy of poor people is no different than the human energy of wealthy ones, so the argument that poor people in particular would not have the energy to use a hand crank is nonsense, because, as you rightly say, turning a handcrank is exhausting, but it is exhausting for everyone. (and i know that from experience. we used to mill our own flour with a handcrank)
bike pedal mechanisms for electricity have been spotted in some OLPC deployments, as far as i remember. but a laptop is not the only thing using electricity, so if pedal mechanisms are a good idea, i'd expect to see them more often. my impression is that they are only good as a last resort, when better options are not available.
The remark was that in places where you cannot get reliable power, you often have a more physically intense day to day, so the "cost" of exhausting yourself to power something is "higher" compared to the less physically intensive lifestyles of many people in environments with stable electricity available.
yes, but physical activity makes your body more energetic, thus capable of spending more energy. so the less physically intensive your average day is, the less energy you have to power a handcrank because your body didn't develop the capacity to expend that kind of energy. therefore i expect the end result to be the same.
Thanks for this...tbh I haven't actually followed the project since about 2008
You can install the Sugar desktop on Guix System, too. I have a little netbook with Guix System + Sugar that my kid uses.
And it runs on Raspberry Pi!
https://www.sugarlabs.org/sugar-for-raspberry-pi/
this look suspiciously like the onelaptop for all stuff. remember those "wind up" laptops that they wanted to crowdsource for places that dont have electricity or internet.
It's exactly that. It's the software that was developed for the XO laptop.
IMHO, it was the correct pivot for them - from hardware to the OS.
I remember the OLPC hardware was harshly criticized by industry, and even the audacity of the project was widely attacked. I considered it proof they were just ahead of the market here and industry realized it was behind the 8-ball. Meanwhile OLPC spawned a new form factor, netbooks and tablets did not exist until the OLPC project was first proposed in 2005. Netbooks wouldn't materialize until 2007, and the ipad launched in 2010. Once industry caught up though it was hard to compete against that, and at the end of the day OLPC was about the mission, not the hardware - but you can't have the mission without the hardware. So pivoting to Sugar was a smart move to achieve the mission once industry caught up.
You can certainly make other arguments against some of the ideas of the project and what it was trying to achieve though. It definitely is a Western idea being applied to problems other civilizations may not have an interest in contending with. Water and food security, let alone electricity and communication infrastructure, are still real problems in the areas OLPC was targeted at.
I remember the OLPC hardware was harshly criticized by industry, and even the audacity of the project was widely attacked. I considered it proof they were just ahead of the market here and industry realized it was behind the 8-ball. Meanwhile OLPC spawned a new form factor, netbooks and tablets did not exist until the OLPC project was first proposed in 2005. Netbooks wouldn't materialize until 2007, and the ipad launched in 2010. Once industry caught up though it was hard to compete against that, and at the end of the day OLPC was about the mission, not the hardware - but you can't have the mission without the hardware. So pivoting to Sugar was a smart move to achieve the mission once industry caught up.
You can certainly make other arguments against some of the ideas of the project and what it was trying to achieve though. It definitely is a Western idea being applied to problems other civilizations may not have an interest in contending with. Water and food security, let alone electricity and communication infrastructure, are still real problems in the areas OLPC was targeted at.
> Meanwhile OLPC spawned a new form factor, netbooks and tablets did not exist until the OLPC project was first proposed in 2005.
What? they've existed for aeons, they were just not practical enough in UI to be a success in the market.
https://youtu.be/IK2bAAAdBxs?t=59
Netbook format computer (thicker than what came after the OLPC, obviously, but still well within the range of tiny machines in terms of keyboard/screen size) that converts into a tablet PC in /1993/.
https://youtu.be/ArjRjU9SSr4?t=189
The UMPC, tablet PCs from the Windows XP era.
https://youtu.be/E1r2e8ub02o?t=245
Sony's Vaio tablet PC with a slider style keyboard.
https://youtu.be/DORREhWt9x0?t=725 Sony PCG-U101, a cross in size between the netbooks and palmtop style PCs.
The fact of the matter, the iPad is still the only device in this kind of form factor that has enjoyed long term success and it is entirely due to the UI being such a good fit for the device. Netbooks entirely disappeared from the market because using linux or windows with that kind of tiny screen is absolutely unpleasant and the tiny keyboards make typing painful. The smaller chromebooks in the market tend to be 12 inches, which is far more manageable than the horrible 9 inches of the average netbook. Chromebooks aren't the successor to this device type, this device type disappeared from the market never to be seen again.
Pleasant to use was not the OLPC strong point either.
What? they've existed for aeons, they were just not practical enough in UI to be a success in the market.
https://youtu.be/IK2bAAAdBxs?t=59
Netbook format computer (thicker than what came after the OLPC, obviously, but still well within the range of tiny machines in terms of keyboard/screen size) that converts into a tablet PC in /1993/.
https://youtu.be/ArjRjU9SSr4?t=189
The UMPC, tablet PCs from the Windows XP era.
https://youtu.be/E1r2e8ub02o?t=245
Sony's Vaio tablet PC with a slider style keyboard.
https://youtu.be/DORREhWt9x0?t=725 Sony PCG-U101, a cross in size between the netbooks and palmtop style PCs.
The fact of the matter, the iPad is still the only device in this kind of form factor that has enjoyed long term success and it is entirely due to the UI being such a good fit for the device. Netbooks entirely disappeared from the market because using linux or windows with that kind of tiny screen is absolutely unpleasant and the tiny keyboards make typing painful. The smaller chromebooks in the market tend to be 12 inches, which is far more manageable than the horrible 9 inches of the average netbook. Chromebooks aren't the successor to this device type, this device type disappeared from the market never to be seen again.
Pleasant to use was not the OLPC strong point either.
Looks like! https://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar
I've got two OLPC XO and one of the mainboards, they're such neat little machines. Never got one of the crank chargers though.
Hung at new account creation.
Got past that, stuck because it demands to use third-party cookies.
Got past that, stuck because it demands to use third-party cookies.
>stuck because it demands to use third-party cookies
So like 99% of the mainstream web?
So like 99% of the mainstream web?
I thought browsers now block 3rd party cookies, in some cases by default?
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/blog/goodbye-third-party...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/blog/goodbye-third-party...
It's been a Firefox option to block them for a decade, and I've had them blocked for that long. Maybe 2%-3% of sites fail, and I've yet to find a site worth unblocking.
Then when they grow up they can upgrade to Crack by CrackLabs.
Regarding the comment that kids like computers (and will learn to use them without needing any special enticement), I couldn't agree more. Alan Kaye has been saying as much since the 1970s. But that said, while kids can learn to use computers, are they learning to use computers to learn? The latter is the goal of Sugar: to make the path of least resistance be one where kids engage with powerful ideas while constructing (not being instructed -- they already have plenty of that in their lives). So most of the activities are about building things. And the Sugar Journal is a vehicle for reflection on what they have built.
Rather than condescending to kids, we empower them: Sugar is not just "open source". The kids are only one mouse-click away from seeing the source code of whatever activity they are engaged in. And Sugar provides affordances for the kids to then modify the code -- taking full ownership of their tools. Not every kid goes this deep into Sugar, but many do.