> Steven Black wrote:
> > 1. Linux, Children and Edutainment: How young is too young?
> 1. As soon as possible. Hook 'em while they're young. I grew up on DOS
> (first computer in '88, when I was 3) and it only messed me up a little.
> :) The kde-edu suite of apps would be a good place to start.
Yeah. I gew up on DOS as well. That was mostly just because there were
a lot of games for it, though. I even wrote Batch files. In fact, I used
the rebranded 4DOS (command.com alternative) that was bundled with Norton
Utilities (IIRC), right up until I moved to Linux. I nearly wet myself
when I discovered the power of BASH.
I did have early exposure to UNIX-like operating systems, though.
> > 2. Children and programming: Best first language before age 10?
> 2. Start with Logo (the turtle scripting language). There are free Logo
> environments for pretty much every platform out there. Move onto Python
> after mastering the basics like loops and variables.
Yeah, Logo is popular. I remember it from when I was young, though. I
thought it was crap. You couldn't do anything "real" with it. So why
bother learning it first?
I cut my teeth on Borland's Turbo Basic. Don't get me wrong, this was a
great product and *much* better than the then-current MS alternative.
However, I always felt shackled by it. I knew it wasn't powerful enough
to do some of the things I wanted to do, and it was just a matter of
time until I was forced to learn something better.
I left Basic wholesale. I uninstalled the IDE and I wiped all my old
code the day I decided to learn C. I never went back. Instead I wondered
why I didn't just learn C to start with.
These days there are other options for first languages. You can do
"real" things with Python, and there are rich libraries to draw from.
Why recommend someone learn something that is ultimately valueless?
That's like recommending my kid start out with FreeDOS and Command.com,
so they think BASH is super cool once they move on to it. Where's the
value? It only adds to the confusion, and prevents early mastery of the
best practices.
> > 3. Content filtering: [...]
> 3. It works up to a point. Whitelisting is more effective, but much more
> restrictive. If you use it to protect your children on the 'net, be glad
> when they figure out how to circumvent it because it shows they have
> good problem solving skills.
That's where transparent proxies fall in to place. Out-going ports are
filtered so everything gets properly proxied and monitored or they get
nothing.
You *can* do content filtering, and it is possible to do it so that it
actually works as designed. The problem though is that it rarely prevents
kids from getting where they want to go. The easiest solution is to just
go to a friend's house.
My goal is to be that friend's house. Allow them to get the information
they want and need. However, if something comes up that I should be aware
of, I should be able to find out.
People worry about sex and drugs and preditors. Sometimes they totally
fail to spot things like anorexia (or the fact that there is a whole
"pro-anna" community online that encourages the anorexic look). Then you
have the fact that some of the kids themselves act like preditors...
Ultimately the goal is for my kid to think for herself and make the
right decisions. Correct decisions are rarely made in an information
vacuum.
> > 4. An on-going report grading distributions for comparison purposes.
> 4. Distrowatch is the closest thing I know of, but it doesn't do what
> you're looking for. Maybe someone else can help.
This would be why it would qualify as an idea for if not a series
of meetings topics, than an on-going BLUG-related project with
regular status updates. Plus a lot of folks like to try out the latest
distributions. Some of the work happens on its own, and it is only the
"scorecard" that really needs to be standardized upon.
> > 5. Dumb terminals, X terminals, and thin clients on the family network.
> 5. I don't know where to get one, but I've seen very small ARM-based
> linux boxes that bolt onto the VESA mount on flatscreen monitors. It's a
> little more powerful than a dumb terminal, but it only consumes 10W of
> power. Jon "maddog" Hall is a huge fan of these.
Yeah, these are neat. I've seen them priced online. The ones I've seen
are surprisingly expensive when compared to potential uses of otherwise
junked hardware.
--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E
No comments:
Post a Comment