From: Ann Barcomb Date: 07:08 on 20 Jan 2008 Subject: The subversive 'open' on the OLPC I borrowed my mother's OLPC. I thought it would be perfect for all those documents that I have to read but don't want to print out. It's cute and tiny and has a really nice reader mode. I copied the files I needed to read to the laptop using scp. I tried and tried to figure out how to open them using 'Write', which is based on Abiword. I couldn't figure out how to open the documents. I searched for documentation on Write and found out how to save documents, how to share documents, etc, but not how to open documents (see http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Write). Eventually I saw http://wiki.laptop.org/go/New_Users and learnt that "No activity can open a file. You have to use the Journal activity to open a saved file." The Journal is an application which keeps track of everything you've done before. You may open anything you've already opened. I'm a little confused by this. The hardware is clearly designed to support reading documents you didn't write yourself, as there's not much use in having a reader mode to review your own prose. I also can't imagine that someone would create a word processor and not get around to implementing this functionality. So it must have been done deliberately to 'protect' me. We all know just how dangerous the written word can be. However, there's a simple solution. Use the browser to open the local file, and it will launch Write to view the document. There are a couple of problems with this. First, why introduce such a stupid security measure? Second, why make it so easy to circumvent? I acknowledge that I'm personally in a better position because it is easy to circumvent, but the programmer in me believes that if you're going to prevent something, you should damn well do the job right. Is the goal to teach children how to get around lame security measures? Is it really a project to create the next generation of DRM hackers? I like to believe that there's a reason, but I suspect that it's the usual reason: someone didn't clearly think through an idea before implementing it.
From: Smylers Date: 07:55 on 20 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: The subversive 'open' on the OLPC Ann Barcomb writes: > Eventually I saw http://wiki.laptop.org/go/New_Users and learnt that > "No activity can open a file. You have to use the Journal activity to > open a saved file." The Journal is an application which keeps track > of everything you've done before. You may open anything you've > already opened. > > ... it must have been done deliberately to 'protect' me. We all know > just how dangerous the written word can be. This review suggests that some of the UI idiosyncrasies have been done intentionally in the belief it'll help the target audience (children in developing countries) -- so I suspect it's poor usability rather than misguided security: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/17/review_xo_laptop_hands_on/ > ... why make it so easy to circumvent? ... Is the goal to teach > children how to get around lame security measures? Is it really a > project to create the next generation of DRM hackers? I believe that a goal of the project is that the users get involved with the software's source code, so it would be contradictory for the project also to include features specifically to limit what the users can do: if the 'source code' goal succeeds then they'll just remove the limits themselves! Smylers
From: Shawn P. Stanley Date: 16:30 on 20 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: The subversive 'open' on the OLPC Good points, but I think you failed to detect her sarcasm. On Jan 20, 2008 1:55 AM, Smylers <Smylers@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Ann Barcomb writes: > > > Eventually I saw http://wiki.laptop.org/go/New_Users and learnt that > > "No activity can open a file. You have to use the Journal activity to > > open a saved file." The Journal is an application which keeps track > > of everything you've done before. You may open anything you've > > already opened. > > > > ... it must have been done deliberately to 'protect' me. We all know > > just how dangerous the written word can be. > > This review suggests that some of the UI idiosyncrasies have been done > intentionally in the belief it'll help the target audience (children in > developing countries) -- so I suspect it's poor usability rather than > misguided security: > > http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/17/review_xo_laptop_hands_on/ > > > ... why make it so easy to circumvent? ... Is the goal to teach > > children how to get around lame security measures? Is it really a > > project to create the next generation of DRM hackers? > > I believe that a goal of the project is that the users get involved with > the software's source code, so it would be contradictory for the project > also to include features specifically to limit what the users can do: if > the 'source code' goal succeeds then they'll just remove the limits > themselves! > > Smylers > >
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi