(photo by NYT May 29, 2008)

  The New York Times wrote an article on Walter Blender's split with OLPC.  What bothers me is the black and white mentality about Linux.

Sugar is based on Linux - but that does not make it the same as most Linux desktops.

Sugar was made to support constructivist learning in small children.  That's great, but does anyone know if it works?  It's a great thing to try to do, but personally I find it hard to use.  Now I'm not a non-literate small child, whereas a co-worker's 4-year old pre-reader can navigate the system intuitively. Does anyone know what research they have done on the effectiveness of Sugar vs. a more traditionally laid out operating system for different age groups? One of the unique things about OLCP is they are focusing on 1st graders.

I am currently working on a project that will put customized Linux desktops into the hands of US students and parents.  We plan on creating different home screens with different programs loaded for different age groups, but will probably start at around the middle school level.   We plan to base our operating system on Linux also so I've been looking at different options.

What I'd like the commenters on the New York Times to see is that it does not make sense to lump all Linuxes together in terms of user experience.  Here are some screenshots to make that point.

This is a customized Linux screen used in the Technology Goes Home program at the Lilla Fredrick Middle School in Boston.  It is designed for middle school students and their parents.  Some of the parents may not know english but the combination of clean icons and words seems easy to use to me.

This is Mandriva Linux, I think it would be pretty comfortable for someone with Windows experience.

Sugar has a very different look and feel. But that is because it's Sugar not because it's based on Linux!