For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs a Big Debate

[Christopher Browne]

On 11/30/06, Rick Tomaschuk <rickl-ZACYGPecefkm4kRHVhTciCwD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 16:56 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > Rick Tomaschuk wrote:
> > > North America has so many 'obsolete' computers it seems a waste to send them to China, etc. to be broken down for scrap when they could be used
> > > in developing countries. $150 laptop??? How about an obsolete PIII for $25.00 running Linux and a $10.00 obsolete monitor.
> > Add the cost to pack and ship that large, heavy PC and bulky, fragile
> > monitor (for which the original packaging almost certainly doesn't
> > exist), and the price balloons pretty quickly.
> >
> Yet the PC's are still shipped overseas as we speak to be broken down
> into reusable scrap.

When shipped in *that* form, they require no "tender loving care;"
they need only throw them at a bin, because nobody cares if the
computers survive the trip intact.

It shouldn't take pointing out that expecting a shipment of computers
to survive a trip overseas will require considerable packing effort
and cost.  Common sense should make that obvious.

> > > many of the people in non-war torn countries are quite content not to have a McDonalds at every third street corner. They value their way of life.
> > And yet ... there they are, buying Big Macs.
>
> Some do many don't.

But the point is that McDonalds has been viable in such countries, as
have been various other sorts of franchises, demonstrating their
economic importance and power.

> So what you are advocating is we build (at our expense and expertise) a
> better machine for developing countries to use than what we have
> available for ourselves?? That makes a lot of sense. Maybe we can send
> them superior nuclear technology too.

Evidently you haven't examined the specifications of the OLPC.  It's
only a "better" machine based on metrics that assume local
infrastructure involves regular power losses.

> > The OLPC draws less than five watts per hour, a small fraction of what a
> > conventional laptop requires (let alone a big PC and screen). It can
> > thus be self-powered (the hand crank and foot pedal were rejected in
> > favour of something resembling a salad spinner). Its power and network
> > systems were designed for areas without much existing electrical or
> > communucations infrastructure. And it can probably tolerate drops and
> > spills better than your average laptop.
> >
> > - Evan
> >
> As I said earlier charity is a noble undertaking but we need to look
> after our countries needs. Charity begins at home.

Nonsense.  Charity begins with those that have the wherewithal to be charitable.

Starving Africans aren't in any position to "begin" charitable programs.

In any case, why should you care what people at some foreign
charitable foundation might choose to do?  The organizations behind
the OLPC program are throwing *American* money at the matter; if
"charity begins at home," well, that's not "home."
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"...  memory leaks  are  quite acceptable  in  many applications  ..."
(Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists