Back in the 80s my school had about 10 BBC Micros. This was the computer lab where about 30 of us would have the occassional lesson which mainly involved using software written by our Physics teacher.
I don't recall ever being taught to program until I did a Computer Studies O-Level, and by then most of us kids already knew more about programming than our teacher.
So when I first heard of the RPi and the idea it was the 21st equivalent of a BBC Micro, I naturally thought in terms of a new "home computer" i.e. something that kids would learn to program with in their own time, because that is how I and most of us brought up in the 80s learnt to program.
But I can see the Foundation and Mr Gove and lots of teachers assume it will be the schools that take the primary role in teaching the kids to program.
This leads to two quite different approaches: in the school version, RPi's can be quite "boring" and kids can be taught very traditionally using command lines, text editors, standard computer algorithms, and programs that do exciting tasks like bubble sorts. So the RPi can just be more or less a replica of a BBC Micro as it was 30 years ago.
In the "self-learning at home" version, the RPi needs to be "compelling" and attract kids away from the myriad other things they could choose to do with their time. So it needs to embrace the new and be a 21st century reimagining of an 80s home computer, using 3D, web dev, game coding, robotics, and proper tools like IDEs and GUIs.
Most of my thoughts expressed on these forums have assumed the RPi should aim for the latter, as home is where I did the vast majority of my "training", but I can see a significant proportion of posters take the contrary view, especially those who think "what was good enough for me is good enough today".
So which is it to be?