I have a natural interest in the technology rather than the social policy, which is why I focused on it. I’d be happy with that article if it kept to the social policy issues analysis and away from poor quality technical review.

The software problems that they point out are typical of currently-in-major-development software, and that kind of software is typically available from both proprietary and free software developers these days. You don’t need to be part of the software freedom movement to have heard of “alpha” and “beta” software releases. Not only is the OLPC software currently in major development, but it is also no where near finished; a major update, akin to the move from Panther to Leopard for Apple users, is due imminently.

I’d expect a fair review to comment on current problems but balance that with the above.

This is saddening because bad press for OLPC, to an audience of influential people, is not good. In an ironic postmodern way it is good though - more evidence of the death of journalism through ignorance continuing unabated; the sit-at-your-desk-reading-press-releases journalism ‘submarine’ has had the plug pulled on its water tank and is quickly being exposed for the crock it is.

You don’t actually criticise what was actually written… but yoy put it in the “bad” shoe box. Not much defending going on there, really.

To me, an outsider (but one who does have some degree of technological fluency), the author seems to raise valid points, like who the real audience of the computers is (the people who buy them in bulk for their nations’ children) and why those people may or may not be happy with the product. So I don’t understand the dismissal.

The author seems to me to be someone who just isn’t necessarily a member of the whole “movement.” Why do you call that bad journalism? This project will not succeeded if only the believers push for its adoption.

Articles I don’t agree with can be good journalism. In this case, I think there was poor journalism. I also disagree with critics of the project who make cogent arguments against it, because I think it is a net gain for those it touches.

I don’t see anything in what I wrote that speaks to the reporter and his editors’ freedom of speech; I disagree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it.

Articles you don’t agree with = bad journalism?

What about the reporter and his editors’ ‘freedom’?