To focus in on one of the many flawed points in Teemu Leinonen's post "Thank you OLPC - Maybe now we may start to talk about education again":
As silly as simply asking every child to have a laptop, so that they can program and play with it as much as they want, would be to ask every student to have a canvas and oil colors so that they could do as many landscape paintings as they would like to. Computers are good in education, but so are many other instruments from clay, paper and pen to hardware tools and musical instrument. They are all needed in schools....The schools that OLPC seeks to reach generally don't have the resources Teemu recommends, probably with limited supplies of paper and pencils, let alone art supplies and musical instruments. Of course, one can argue that they should have them, but then in practice arguing that it would be more cost effective to distribute a volume of paper, art supplies, musical instruments, blocks, scientific instruments and supplies, books, etc. to schools in the developing world than to give them computers. I don't believe this.
What makes a well designed programmable computer unique among educational resources is that it is one device can fill in all these roles and more, and with free software, add new functions at no marginal cost. The XO is a musical instrument that can mimic almost any other, an infinitely thick drawing pad, a camera, a phone, a book, a typewriter, a calculator, an oscilloscope, etc., etc. It may do each of these things less well than a dedicated device, but schools it is designed for simply cannot afford all those tools and resources.
I find it completely baffling and depressing that this point has to be made to an instructional designer in 2008.