digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

fsf.org — FSF president Richard Stallman calls on Negroponte and the OLPC project leadership to reject overtures by Microsoft and recognize the importance of free software to its core educational mission. RMS has just started using one as his main machine.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • makosharkattack, on 04/30/2008, -9/+43I wrote a related article that in some ways is very complimentary to RMS'. My article talks builds on this one and talks more about why free software is the right choice for education and for OLPC educational philosophy in particular. You can read it here: http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20080429-00
    • trogdor282, on 04/30/2008, -8/+39Seriously, how can you justify adding a $100 piece of software to a $100 laptop, when there's absolutely no benefit in doing so? Or if MS is offering it for less then it's nothing more than bait-and-switch.

      MS is like AOL ten years ago. Nothing going for it except a pre-existing, addicted userbase.
      • sadilak, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2wait a minute, you mean to say that MS is not offering XP for free in OLPC laptops?? If not, then screw them, I guess MS is scared because the younger generation is mass rejecting MS products
        • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5"the OLPC laptop will now be able to run Windows in addition to its home-grown, open-source interface. This could have major repercussions for Linux and the open-source movement. Especially since Microsoft has annouced its intention to make Windows available for $3 in emerging markets"

          http://www.etre.com/blog/2007/04/olpc_microsoft_tr ...
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/30/2008, -0/+9Microsoft offers Windows for a few dollars in some geographies. They could and probably are doing the same for OLPC.
      • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3$100?

        "By now, you've probably heard that Nicholas Negroponte has increased the price of the OLPC "$100 laptop" to $175. "

        http://www.etre.com/blog/2007/04/olpc_microsoft_tr ...
    • kipmartin, on 04/30/2008, -13/+3good article. free software has been around a long time and it is not dominating the workplace yet. why?

      maybe use in education will start folks off on the right foot?

      by the way--ive never paid for MS Office, yet i have it. how is that possible? well, make friends with the inhouse IT guys.
      • Rikkochet, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6Sure, that worked for Apple. Remember all those computer labs full of heavily-discounted Mac Pluses? (Which no one ever bought for home)
      • darkamster07, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1...or pirate it
        • bejayel, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1Maybe you should develop a product as robust and powerful and MS Office and watch people pirate it. I can understand wanting to try it then buy. Either way, you should support software developers and their products. Otherwise we move nowhere because nobody wants to make a product that will just be pirated anyway.
          • theaceoffire, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Selling the support can be more profitable with less impact on public opinion.
      • redxxx, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7Your IT friends don't care about their jobs much.
        • insertAliasHere, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Really. I might let someone know about µTorrent and thepiratebay.org (quietly, with the threat that if I find them using it at work I'll bust them on it) but I'd never just hand out copies of our volume licensed software.
  • FreeDeb, on 04/30/2008, -8/+84I wonder if Negroponte would give everyone who funded his "free software project" their money back?
    • Phocion55, on 04/30/2008, -14/+4Why? I purchased and donated through their Give1Get1 program in the hopes of further educating someone who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity.

      As much as I loathe the thought of a 7 year old OS being hacked up and desperately jammed onto the OLPC......if I angrily asked for my money back, I wouldn't be staying true to my original cause.
      • rmxz, on 04/30/2008, -2/+13OTOH some people donated because the "cause" they contributed to was
        "give them a computer that they can learn a lot from - even extending to learning how operating systems work"

        not

        "getting kids locked in to some expensive system that'll tax all of their future projects should they ever become self-sufficient.

        Putting Windows on those is just like the allegations about Nestle who was accused of giving African Mothers formula to feed their newborns with the knowledge that this could *cause* them to produce less breast milk (milk production adjusts to how much the babies consume) making them buy even more formula for their babies.
        • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -15/+5Or maybe it is about giving them Real World Tools.

          I'm sorry if I offend when I tell you that Linux is NOT the #1 used OS out there. I'm sorry if you hate Windows so much that you can't see that it is needed to teach kids how to use the TYPICAL computer.

          You're too biased and blind to see that this is a good thing. It will be installed on an SD card and will still allow the systems to run the original open OS.

          How can it hurt having both? Are you so much a fan boy that you cannot see the good side of this?
          • Fartag, on 04/30/2008, -3/+12Please learn why Windows and Microsoft are hated first, it's terribly tiring to reexplain to people that shill for Microsoft as a hobby or worse. Vendor lock-in is not a good thing, fostering dependency is not a good thing, removing control from the user and pursuing all manner of anticompetitive actions are not good things. Active opponents to free (as in freedom) software (while on the other hand "embracing" it) and all the other things are _not_ qualities that lead to a bright future. Supporting them in any way is therefore resisted by people that know better. Hopefully this is obvious!

            Secondly, Linux is far more highly powered out of the box than Windows. Free software is absolutely the way to go here, so I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would want to anchor it down with underpowered, expensive, proprietary, closed source software. Where's the upside? That more people happen to use an inferior product and it's hard for them to all switch so join them?
    • haiduz, on 04/30/2008, -29/+16Just to put this in perspective for you M$ hatorz out there....

      This project is about bridging the digital divide and providing computer technology to those who would not otherwise have it. This project's is NOT about free software. It has never been to its leaders, and its quite obvious that it will not be because they are embrasing microsoft's help.

      I think its almost funny how as soon everyone hears that MSFT is donating its operating system tlicenses to the project, everyone is eager to decry and abandon it. I goes to show that in your world of relative priveledge, you linux nerds care lot more about the operating system and the free software movement than the little kids getting livelong educational benefits from a laptop that runs windows.
      • aywwts4, on 04/30/2008, -6/+23Is microsoft donating a lifetime subscription to an antivirus software?, is microsoft donating a good firewall? Is microsoft donating the double the hardware required to run all that additional overhead just to keep the system secure?

        I have never run antivirus or a firewall on a linux box, and I have never had an issue ever. Now try connecting directly to the internet and take your firewall down... Installing windows and throwing it to the wolves is basically just saying you want a OLPC botnet out there.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -11/+3These things aren't being used on cable modems, they are being used in remote areas that have no internet connection, and where they do, there is a local server providing the data to each machine, and that server likely has a firewall.
          • RoboDonut, on 04/30/2008, -1/+11A firewall doesn't really do much.
            As terrible as it sounds, the biggest threat to an OS is its users.
            Windows doesn't have access controls. If a user accidentally executes something, there's nothing to stop it from infecting the system.
            On a Linux machine, the infection could not spread outside ~/ or /tmp/. It could not alter any vital applications.

            If I recall correctly, the OLPC was supposed to have ad-hoc wireless networking. A virus could spread very easily over such a connection.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -10/+2A virus from where? and for what purpose?

            You think people make malware just for fun? where is the revenue model? whats the route of infection? these machines were supposed to be walled off from the entire world in remote areas that DIDNT EVEN HAVE RUNNING WATER.
          • aywwts4, on 04/30/2008, -0/+8If there was no internet access then what would the point of a laptop be, the web browsers, and the wifi cards, and the mesh network functionality?

            People DO write viruses for kicks, some of the most disastrous viruses have been teens who just thought it would be funny.

            While I'm sure there is enough internet to attack these PCs, I doubt there is enough bandwidth to download service pack X or whatever new fix comes out, You never notice on highspeed its a blink of an eye, but updating a pc on dialup, "crap, microsoft is running an update, that's why my internet stopped working, and there is no way to pause it without killing the process I guess I will try using it again in a few hours." So these PCs will likely remain perpetually venerable to whatever new automated holes are found in the OS.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1You are twisting the situation, these things don't need to download service packs, a single machine can serve them to the OLPCs or they can even fly it in on a CD along with a food shipment or something. Not a problem.

            The internet isn't everything, and it doesn't exist some places. They can put Wikipedia or any number of other educational tools on a server and leave it with the students.

            These machines are going to be all but walled off from the rest of the world, malware isn't an issue.
          • aywwts4, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2I'm twisting the situation? Your the one making up things about "walled off" computers, most of these schools are getting satellite links to the real connected to everything internet. If the school doesn't get the internet, Negroponte considers the installation incomplete.

            Windows computers need to download sometimes hefty updates or else they are completely insecure, you are the one making things up about flying in service packs or schools that can barely get a wifi access point running apparently creating service pack servers, the teachers don't even have personal computers! They don't even have support infrastructure, the kids are expected to be able to repair these laptops themselves, I don't think dealing with the latest and greatest computer worm that nukes their PCs is within a reasonable scope for children.
      • RoboDonut, on 04/30/2008, -4/+13A laptop doesn't last a lifetime and Windows licenses aren't cheap.
        How long do you think the average Windows installation lasts? A few months?
        It might seem "free", but it really isn't.
        • PaleGhost, on 04/30/2008, -9/+2and how long does a linux install last? probably about the same time. Go ***** yourself, moron.
      • theOster, on 04/30/2008, -0/+16if kids learn on linux, they'll do fine adapting to windows...or mac...or unix....
      • mizike, on 04/30/2008, -9/+4couldn't agree more; is this project supposed to be about helping children in developing countries, or ramming linux down their throats? If the company which has approximately 90% of the desktop computing market wants to provide their OS for an extra ~$3 on top of the $200 price tag, so that the recipients get experience with the OS used by roughly everybody in the world instead of some one off linux distro that they will NEVER use on another machine, I don't think that's a bad thing.....then again I haven't drank the "anything that isn't free is bad" koolaid, so digg me down you dopey *****...
        • PaleGhost, on 04/30/2008, -6/+0Here's what I want to know. In what language are these laptops in???? Do children of the poorest countries even know what a computer is? Can they read and write? If not, now in the hgell are they going to learn to use a computer, regardless of the OS.

          Are they going to even care about this POS laptop? What's more important: Having enough food, enough clean water, medicine, a safe home and community, free from fear of attack by warlords, having clothes, not being scared all the time, an education, OR having this POS laptop? Oh wait, if they are hungry enough, MAYBE they can eat part of it, or use it as a shield while some bastard is trying to rape/disfigure/murder this kid....

          Hmmm. If it were me, I know what I would want... Then again these ***** liberal morons don't have a clue.
          • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -9/+1You will see these laptops on eBay within a few days of the kids getting them.

            That may sound harsh but it's true. These people are going to choose food and medical care over these laptops and therefore will be selling them off as fast as they get them.

            That's assuming they even get to the kids. More than likely the governments will get them and sell them off and pocket the cash.
          • aywwts4, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7cdahlkvist:

            Do you have any evidence for your claims?

            Ebay turns up 32 OLPC PCs, all but two of them are in the united states. the remaining two are being sold from the UK. That doesn't sound anything like widespread third world ebaying to me. I would expect to see something being sold from peru if your scenario were true.

            Finally, the governments are Paying for them, these aren't world bank subsidized handouts, why would they buy them to sell them off? To whom, Other governments?
          • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2ayww:

            Would history be evidence enough?

            "As development economist Jeffrey Sachs used to recognize, poor countries tend to have governments with a lot of power (see his "Growth in Africa: It Can Be Done," The Economist, June 29, 1996, pp. 19-21). That's one main reason they remain poor. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in his classic cautionary book, The Road to Serfdom, in countries where governments have a lot of power, the worst tend to get on top. Thus, the powerful bureaucrat who is charged with distributing the computers is not likely to be a particularly ethical or caring person, as maintaining his power is more important to him than raising his people out of poverty. In fact, this bureaucrat is likely to give the computers to his friends or to others who are politically powerful. In many countries, he may even try to sell them."

            Of course there are many more who agree and see the many problems with the OLPC. It's nearly 6 months of salary for many families in third world countries. Even Negroponte saw the potential risks.

            You say the governments are paying for these but the people in charge of handing them out may see the potential income of selling them.

            I'm glad you're optimistic but you are not being realistic.

            http://jotman.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

            Plenty of OLPC issues there...scroll down.
        • newwatch51, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Have you even tried the Linux distribution that's on the OLPC? It's about as easy as can be. They do a very good job at hiding the system from the user. They designed that interface for the project, and if the computers ran Windows, they'd probably have that same interface. Why then have the underlying system be Windows, when it can be Linux for free?
    • Adelie, 12 hr 41 min ago, -0/+1Jackie Lustig is head of Press relations. We should all call and express our opinions on this issue (781) 487-4664
  • keito, on 04/30/2008, -27/+12God, I just love Root Mean Square.

    Seriously though, go Stallman, this deviation from Free Software to WinBlow$ is insane/hilarious/suicidal.
  • foxhaze, on 04/30/2008, -63/+4FSF
    Richard Stallman
    Negroponte
    OLPC
    RMS

    What the ***** are these things? Negroponte sounds like some NAACP Black Panther *****. WTF?
    • Sammi84, on 04/30/2008, -2/+23Not our fault that you have been living under a stone.
    • PleaseJustDie, on 04/30/2008, -1/+27FSF = Free Software Foundation
      Richard Stallman = FSF President
      Negroponte = founder of OLPC project
      OLPC = One Laptop Per Child
      RMS = Richard Matthew Stallman (Richard Stallman's initials and a common abbreviation for him.)
    • kipmartin, on 04/30/2008, -1/+18have you heard of Wikipedia yet? its an online encyclopedia. look all that stuff up there--you might learn something.

      and dugg down for mentioning NAACP and Black Panthers together. you pinhead..
  • aajjcckk, on 04/30/2008, -50/+23Windows is ***** and must not be allowed to go forward into the future - at any cost. Evolution of the personal computer will see Windows, and Microsoft fade away and die out. Thank God.
    • drjekelmrhyde, on 04/30/2008, -23/+6you forgot to hit the sarcasm button
    • mirunit, on 04/30/2008, -9/+15Yes, because Linux is so unified.
      • grimward, on 04/30/2008, -5/+7Actually with the inception of ubuntu, it would seem that the linux community is actually clustering around this distro and you know that's going to spell out more applications and more drivers and more ease of use. It's quite surprising, had you told me three years ago that ubuntu would be a *nix focal point, I would have laughed you in the face.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6Had you told me 3 years ago that Ubuntu wasn't planning on fixing any of the serious deficiencies in Linux i wouldn't have been surprised at all, though I hoped they would fix things like X11 before moving on to flashy cubes and wiggly windows.
          • theaceoffire, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I love the expose plugin. Makes managing multiple desktops easier/faster.
          • grimward, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1mrsteveman1, babysteps my man, babysteps, they're getting there.. in the meantime, why won't you try out windows Vista SP1 X64? :D
      • RoboDonut, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Diversity is a GOOD thing.
      • srg13, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Is that a problem? All it means is more choices.. There are hardly any downsides, because applications written for one distro, toolkit, window manager etc. should work on pretty much any Linux machine, or at least just with a recompile,

        Most distros will even do it for you, so you can get software binaries that is sure to work on your system from the distros repositories.
    • broodking, on 04/30/2008, -6/+13wtf did microsoft do to u?
      • digjam, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Let him keep his pirated copy instead of arresting him
    • sliksta, on 04/30/2008, -12/+6Well I dug you up. I also believe M$ is a disease. Even ballmer called vista a "work in progress" over a year after it was released. Why should a convicted monopolist have their OS on a OLPC machine??? What makes people think windows is "the premiere choice".
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+9Linux is also a work in progress, and is significantly behind Windows in a number of areas.

        Want an example? This laptop has a 945gm chip in it, in Vista or XP connecting an external monitor requires connecting it, and continuing to work. The same task in linux requires restarting X11 entirely, meaning you get to close all the stuff you had open. Intel wrote and supports the driver on all three operating systems, yet on Linux it is crippled by X11.

        Work in progress for sure, i just don't see it progressing all that much.
        • trogdoor, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6"
          Want an example? This laptop has a 945gm chip in it, in Vista or XP connecting an external monitor requires connecting it, and continuing to work. The same task in linux requires restarting X11 entirely, meaning you get to close all the stuff you had open. Intel wrote and supports the driver on all three operating systems, yet on Linux it is crippled by X11."

          With xrandr this should be entirely possible without restarting X, as long as the driver supports it ( which I thought the intel driver did )
    • Rikkochet, on 04/30/2008, -5/+9Sorry, Windows runs the majority of the business world and that won't change any time soon. You can rage about Linux all you want, it won't take over until hardcore Linux IT people and a full decade has passed since there is a real Linux replacement for Exchange, Active Directory, and Grou pPolicy.
      • theaceoffire, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Quite possible.
        However, you won't hear them praising windows much either.
        Just because we HAVE to use it doesn't mean we have to love it.
    • Stroggoth, on 04/30/2008, -6/+12>Windows is ***** and must not be allowed to go forward into the future - at any cost.

      So much for capitalism, free markets and competition... so you believe that certain products should just be eliminated? By what, government mandate?

      I think Linux is pretty rough around the edges and does not have the support I want, so without Windows, what am I supposed to use? BSD and OSX?
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -4/+9How dare you put your own selfish usability concerns above freedom

        Freedom hater, you hate freedom admit it. I saw you punch a bald eagle yesterday too.
        • Stroggoth, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6I admit it, I punched an eagle AND a stepped on a rare flower.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4It's ok you're among friends, i bent lady liberty over a table the other day
        • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6Admittedly, it was a FALCON PUNCH!
    • RoboDonut, on 04/30/2008, -3/+9Microsoft isn't going anywhere soon.
    • darkamster07, on 04/30/2008, -8/+2I really don't think it's fair to criticize any OS for shortcomings that are the result of other OS's dominance, IE it isn't fair to criticize Linux or OS X for lack of software support when Microsoft stole it all through sheer numbers, not a better OS.
  • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -33/+21Here's an example of zealousness that turns people off to FOSS:

    "I made this decision for one specific reason: freedom. The IBM T23s that I have used for many years are adequate in practice, and the system and applications running on them are entirely free software, but the BIOS is not. I want to use a laptop with a free software BIOS, and the XO is the only one.

    The XO's usual software load is not 100% free; it has a non-free firmware program to run the wireless chip. That means I cannot fully promote the XO as it stands, but it was easy for me solve that problem for my own machine: I just deleted that file. That made the internal wireless chip inoperative, but I can do without it."

    Yeah buddy. You're willing to die for the cause. Seriously - I love Linux, FOSS and the whole philosophy...but you're psycho. The average person thinks that is unreasonable and doesn't understand that level of commitment. Even pragmatists towards FOSS find you an embarrassing hindrance more than an an asset. Seek professional help.
    • Stonekeeper, on 04/30/2008, -10/+23It's his right to do what he wants with his own damn laptop. Not everyone agrees with his position, but most will agree that the world is better off because of him.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -7/+9I didn't say he wrong. In fact I clearly stated that I'm all for FOSS. I'm criticising his fascist viewpoint towards something decidedly un-fascist, which is FOSS. His rights or what the fate of the world is has nothing to do with how he expressed his philosophy.

        Thanks for semi-reading what little I actually wrote in my post.
    • wiresjr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+8"zeal"
    • grimward, on 04/30/2008, -2/+12I was surprised when I read that, because I've always found RS to be an intelligent person, but now I view him as a zealot too :(
    • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+9Heres a question, why the ***** do all these people want the source for bios? you can't randomly change it on the chip, and if you do you can likely brick your machine. Most users can't even read C code, and yet we have millions of them demanding the source for things.

      Is BIOS spying on you mister Stallman? Really? 16-bit real mode code running on a rom chip that can barely bootstrap a modern OS reliably is spying on you?

      And the firmware thing, the FCC requires that software controlled radios be incapable of tuning frequencies they aren't approved for. This means closed source firmware in some cases, so stop ***** demanding the source for things they CAN'T GIVE TO YOU.
      • Chandon, on 04/30/2008, -4/+6That's a good question. Luckily for you, Mr. Stallman has written a number of articles - available online - that explain his position in detail. Unlike posting randomly on Digg, reading those articles will actually get you a useful answer.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3I've read all of it. Heres an excerpt:

          "In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem.

          Since that time, the situation has changed. Today the BIOS is no longer burned in ROM; it is stored in nonvolatile writable memory that users can rewrite.

          So far, that is just barely enough to excuse treating it as hardware. "

          So because BIOS is technically software, he wants the source for it, and if it weren't possible for the user to replace it, he wouldn't care? He specifically says before when it was read only, it wasn't a problem. Now that its technically writable software its a problem? Why? Because all 6 of the users who give a ***** about editing the bios want the source code?
          • Chandon, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4If you had actually read all of Mr Stallman's articles (which is what my post mentioned), you wouldn't need to ask that question.
          • mrsteveman1, on 05/01/2008, -3/+1No I understand fully, and he's a moron. You suggest that because i don't "get it" i must not have read the articles. I have, and I still think he's an idiot.

            RMS and sometimes the FSF itself are a vocal minority who don't reflect the concerns and needs of normal users by a long shot.
          • daftman, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3You can think what ever the ***** you want. The man has his position and you are free not to share his. Fortunately, he's actually doing something about his position while you on the other hand sit on your ass calling him an idiot.
            Bios is a software. Open sourcing the bios has nothing to do with whether the fact only 6 people care about the bios. It's about allowing people opportunity to learn about the BIOS, people like my students who have to write a bios for their Motorola chip. It also allow people to implement a BETTER BIOS if the current one is flawed. Yes BIOS do suffer from bugs.

            Again, you're free to think that RMS is an idiot as I am also free to think that you're this insignificant little moron who can't see beyond his nose.
          • mrsteveman1, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1Yea thats my point, BIOS is HIGHLY specific to each and every motherboard its used on. This isn't software you can run anywhere you want. The LinuxBIOS people ARE writing an open bios and look how far they are getting? Know why? Because that little bios, which is 16-bit real mode code, has to have low level drivers for every specific chip on the board. Manufacturers aren't going to give out that stuff.

            And if you flash it wrong, or you yourself cause a problem because you have no clue what you are doing, that board is now worthless and will require buying a pre-loaded replacement rom chip to fix it.

            Look, I would agree BIOS should be open source, but not for the reasons FSF thinks it should. Open = transparency = i know what its doing. I have no interest in modifying the BIOS, and it would be incredibly difficult to do so even if i wanted to because it is specific to each model mainboard. Most users don't care.
      • daftman, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1> Heres a question, why the ***** do all these people want the source for bios? you can't randomly change it on the chip, and if you do you can likely brick your machine.
        You can' randomly change ***** all on anything and you are likely to ***** up anything you that randomly change. Therefore people who change things like these don't do them randomly. So your statement is ***** dumb.

        > Most users can't even read C code, and yet we have millions of them demanding the source for things.
        Most people can't read. Why the ***** do we bother having books? So that people who can read would be able to read. Get the point?

        > Is BIOS spying on you mister Stallman? Really? 16-bit real mode code running on a rom chip that can barely bootstrap a modern OS reliably is spying on you?
        First of all, it's not about spying. It's about sharing knowledge and education. Second of all, ask yourself why the NSA is afraid of getting hardware and cpus from china? If spying is all you can think of then you're ***** stupid. Providing backdoor is enough risk. You would be ***** amaze what people can do on a 16bit real mode chip. I can ***** put an embedded webserver on an 8bit chip.

        > And the firmware thing, the FCC requires that software controlled radios be incapable of tuning frequencies they aren't approved for. This means closed source firmware in some cases, so stop ***** demanding the source for things they CAN'T GIVE TO YOU.
        What the ***** does that even mean? There are open source BIOS out there. Does that mean it's illegal? Furthermore, this isn't for ***** the US. This is for 3rd world countries. Are you going to say FCC dictate what other countries should be using?

        Please kindly go sodomize yourself.
        • mrsteveman1, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1You were so quick to rant you ignored what i said.

          Users who can't read C code AREN'T GOING TO BE MODIFYING IT, they don't care if they have the freedom to tinker with the code because THEY CAN'T. This is not GPL linux desktop software any user can run anywhere, this is machine specific code that can only be used on the motherboard it was intended for. You know what that means? Even third party mods are machine specific and likely won't be of any use to users, and there is real potential to brick the machine permanently, requiring a replacement ROM. You can't just uninstall this stuff.

          BIOS isn't spying on anyone, it would bloat the code and be pointless. This can be done in the operating system much easier. Demand the source for your operating system kernel and i will 100% agree with you. BIOS isn't a problem, and FOSS developers aren't going to be ABLE to fix it even if they had the source code, because its machine specific. You honestly think FOSS developers are going to spend the time to release bios firmware for all these motherboards? Why would they want to? They aren't being paid to do it thats for sure.

          Next, with the firmware thing, that was about wireless chip firmware, not the BIOS. If you had read the original post i responded to, Stallman *DISABLED* his wireless chip because it was non-free firmware. Yes, the FCC requires that software defined radios be restricted. Most of these companies are headquartered in the US as well, the FCC has lots of say in what they do. The same is true other places around the world, chips like this are restricted to the frequencies they are approved for. I'm not even talking about third world countries here, people *IN THE US* are demanding the firmware source for wireless chips the companies can't legally give to them.
        • mrsteveman1, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Oh yea, your book analogy fails. You dont need THIS SPECIFIC source code to be able to learn C. You can learn how to program without it just fine, so your implying that people are going to be unable to learn C unless all code is open source makes no sense.
  • Sarki, on 04/30/2008, -22/+10Negroponte INVITED Microsoft into this. Now you want him to kick them out? Good luck with that. This is what he wanted.
  • Stonekeeper, on 04/30/2008, -22/+4wrong place. Digg me down please.
    • afx1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4giant squid story is the other way dude
  • jacekpoplawski, on 04/30/2008, -26/+7If you want to sell the product, use free market way, not the communist way. Small and cheap laptop with free software exist and works - it's called eeepc. If you can do something better - give money and collect your profit. If you can't - stop telling others what to do with their money.
    • paintpro, on 04/30/2008, -1/+16The XO and the eee are very different. The XO is cheaper at $188. It has mesh network capability. ( It can connect to the internet through another XO, even if it out of range of the wireless router) It has this really cool e-ink mode that allows you to turn the backlight off and still read the screen. Speaking of the screen, it flips around for ebook mode and it has better resolution. Oh, and I spilled a 32 oz coke on my XO and cleaned it up with a wet rag with no negative side effects. You also don't have to pay $50 extra for a webcam.
    • mckooiker, on 04/30/2008, -6/+18It has nothing to do with communism, I know it's difficult to understand, but it's about freedom. Freedom to do what you want with a product you bought. Buying a computer with windows and change the system is illegal. You could be sued. Isn't that rediculous? Being a slave of the big proprietary corporations?
      Free yourself! Eepc is not completely free, besides the BIOS (sincerely there are only a few persons who know/mind the non-free BIOS) there are several non-free software packages......
      • fkr3, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Freedom to do what you want...... unless you're Negroponte right?
        • daftman, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1OOoo one liner. You're so ***** smart.
          Freedom as in being free from in any proprietary product that would likely to change in price and in architecture once they see a peak of interest.
      • Stroggoth, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3>Buying a computer with windows and change the system is illegal.

        Who told you that? There is no statute that says that. You are spewing bullsh*t.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -4/+5You know what, most users can't read C code, they couldn't modify the code if they wanted to. They want stuff to work and thats about it.

        If knowing that every piece of code on a system is free software makes you feel better, fine. Perhaps you should check into the firmware running on the various chips in this hypothetical fully free system. Its technically software, so why don't you demand the source for it? Sure you can't actually modify that software because the chips can't be reflashed but hey if it makes you feel better.
        • daftman, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1You are living under the impression that since most people can't read something, there's no point in providing information about it. That's right. Most people can't read java code, why the ***** do sun open source java? Most people can't read C# code, whe the ***** do Microsoft submit it to the ECMA standards?
          Open source is not about giving something that everyone can read. That's ***** impossible. It's about giving the OPTION so that who ever have the knowledge to read CAN read.
      • SamuelHenderson, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4>Buying a computer with windows and change the system is illegal. You could be sued. Isn't that rediculous?

        It is, and it's also false. I can't recall the exact wording of that EULA clause and am not sure what EULA it appeared in, but I do remember the gist of what it 'actually' meant.

        It was basically some tricky wording implying that installing anything but a Microsoft OS was illegal... But what it was actually meant to convey was that in the event you wished to upgrade/downgrade to a different Windows you would need the license for the upgrade/downgrade version (ie, you can't install an unlicensed Microsoft OS over top the currently installed one). It only applies to Microsoft Operating Systems and not Linux, Unix, BSD, etc etc. Those you are free to install over Windows whenever you want and Microsoft can't do squat about it.

      • redxxx, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2>Buying a computer with windows and change the system is illegal. You could be sued. Isn't that rediculous?
        what a ridiculous pile of claptrap. Pro-FLOSS FUD is just as bad as the garbage spewed by the opposition.
  • insomniac8400, on 04/30/2008, -22/+11OLPC has already failed. Move along.
    • mirunit, on 04/30/2008, -8/+3The XO is trash, I support Intels endeavor in the field personally. They have the money and technical basis in order to make it work.

      You are correct, regardless of whether people here want to hear it or not. Alot of the leaders have already jumped ship. It is really at this point one man holding onto a broken dream.
  • paintpro, on 04/30/2008, -7/+39It makes me really happy to see such a big name in FOSS take up the OLPC cause. Forums such as olpcnews.com have been against the windows change since it was first brought up. If OLPC will accept the help of experienced linux developers, then I have no doubt we will be able to save program and return it to its original goals of education through free software.
    • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5They've had the help of experienced developers since the project started.

      You know what they developed? An absolutely ***** insane interface that even children who have seen computers before don't know what to do with.
      • mizike, on 04/30/2008, -8/+3I agree; it's been clear from the get go that this project has been more about hooking kids on linux, than helping them.....after the uproar from Negroponte over the intel classmate daring to do the same thing he's trying to (much more successfully I might add), I don't think there's even an argument to the contrary anymore (hint: someone who cared about helping children would be happy that another organization was trying to do the same thing, not ***** off that they're offering XP -- which will actually give them exposure to something they're likely to see in the real world -- and not some sugar linux *****)....
        • srg13, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"I agree; it's been clear from the get go that this project has been more about hooking kids on linux, than helping them"

          By making an interface completly different to any other Linux window manager or desktop environment? Yeah right...
        • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2"someone who cared about helping children would be happy that another organization was trying to do the same thing"

          Microsoft is "helping" children get addicted to Microsoft software. But I guess you would be happy if drug pushers would "help children" by giving the first dose for free.
      • misterjangles, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5I have one of the laptops. The concept is awesome but it did confuse me why they decided to go with a totally radically non-standard window manager. I suppose the kids can just go directly to the browser or the shell prompt, though.

        Having used the computer myself, I can say if RMS is using this as his main laptop, he is really suffering for his cause. My machine is so slow it's just barely usable. I wanted to use it for traveling, but ultimately it just sits on my desk.
      • directive0, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Yeah sorry there, Mrsteveman have to disagree. It's nothing amazing, but I am learning to like Sugar. It's hard to really judge an OS whose last stable build lacked any power management or really honed interface. However I've noticed, especially after 703, it's improved in leaps and bounds. Sure if you're resistant to anything different it's a little "scary" I guess. Nowhere near completed as their are several bugs that cause severe problems. I love your "An absolutely ***** insane interface that even children who have seen computers before don't know what to do with." comment when there are reviews WRITTEN by children who figured out the OS on their own on the net available. That being said, its much easier to simply discount something and write it off as an insane concept then actually trying it or learning to adapt to something new, it requires very little sacrifice and you get to come off as cynical and well informed.
        I will say that there is a problem with Sugar, it's the Journal. The journal needs to be either refined (which happens with every new joyride it seems) or scrapped entirely. Its easy to understand as a concept, but in execution it might be better to have something more complicated with directories and hierarchy.

        @misterjangles: What did you plan on using it for? I run mine constantly with Firefox and Pidgin going and its been alright. What build are you running? I've noticed that the build I'm running has improved web viewing considerably, for whatever reason. It's no macbook air, but thats one of the reasons I wanted one. If you are unsatisfied I know there are people looking to buy one, you should consider selling it to recoup your losses.

        • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1I was quoting someone in the tech world who had showed the laptop to his kids, who couldn't figure it out. I've seen the same sort of opinion from a lot of people "i showed it to my kids and they hate it"
          • directive0, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Completely anecdotal. I've heard the opposite from some parents I know. Doesn't prove me right and you wrong. These are merely opinions, and they mean dick all.
        • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1@mrsteveman1

          Those kids have probably already been conditioned on Windows, which coincidentally also means that they'll mindlessly reject everything else.
  • dtzitz, on 04/30/2008, -16/+8Short answer: No
    Shortish answer: This is Negroponte's baby and he will most likely do the right thing. Developing countries don't have to sign on to the OLPC project. It is out of our hands. I don't think this project needs rescuing from anything.

    Incidentally, I just noticed the title has Windows in it. I am sure the conversation here will not devolve into fanboi OS flamewars... i think digg is in need of rescuing.
    • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Well thats the subject here though, which OS is more suitable for the project and why.

      I don't think it really matters what OS they use as long as fanatical idiots don't get in the way of the core goal, educating children. And no, using free software is not necessary to educate children, they seem to get along just fine in most countries regardless of the operating system in use because its just a tool to accomplish the end goal.
      • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"its just a tool to accomplish the end goal."

        A tool to hook them on a lifetime addiction to Microsoft software, making them into flaming Microsoft fanboys just like yourself.
  • Coldz, on 04/30/2008, -12/+7Im just wondering if anyone of you has used or even seen these laptop first hand to be discussing what OS it should use or be replaced with
    • newwatch51, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I've seen an XO, and used the software. Not together, though.
  • BXRWXR, on 04/30/2008, -19/+5Jeez, just spend some money already, you cheap bastard.
    • leszek, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5it has nothing to do with money, everything to do with freedom.
      • Rikkochet, on 04/30/2008, -3/+5No, Braveheart, it has to do with education and empowerment. Stop using this initiative as a way to force Linux down the throats of third world children - this is exactly what MS is doing. You can decry one another all you want but you're both coming from the same position.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4Why is the freedom to screw with the software running on the OLPC required to educate children in third world countries?

        Get over yourself, the OLPC project has been abused by fanatics since it was started and it shows.
    • Chassit, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4Why spend money on an inferior product?
      • intellimouse, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Exactly. That's why Linux is free.
  • stubear, on 04/30/2008, -16/+6I thought the Open and Free Software communities were all about competition?
    • possiblyneil, on 04/30/2008, -5/+9Monopoly is not competition.
      • zombo, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4Neither is commercial success.
        • RoboDonut, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4That statement is vague and irrelevant.
          • zombo, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I meant to say that commercial success does not imply a monopoly.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Microsoft has a monopoly in third world countries where children haven't even seen a computer before?

        OLPC makes the hardware, they have the source for almost everything in the system, they designed an interface JUST FOR THIS PROJECT. That is a lot they had going for them, it should have been PLENTY to overcome any possible problems caused by Microsofts influence.

        If they can't compete with Windows in third world countries where Microsofts monopoly doesn't even exist and has no influence on anything, after having all this going for them, then something is seriously wrong with the project or its leaders.
        • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"Microsoft has a monopoly in third world countries where children haven't even seen a computer before?"

          No, but they'd surely like to, and they will do everything they can, legal or not, to stop anyone from using non-Microsoft software.
    • pilobilus, on 04/30/2008, -6/+4M$ is all about stomping down competition. Like Intel, which signed on as an OLPC "partner" for just long enough to get the rolodex, so they could bribe/bully 3rd world politicians into canceling sales contracts and purchasing higher priced less functional Wintel "student laptops".
      • Stroggoth, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6>M$ is all about stomping down competition

        Also known as "competing". The problem is that people like competition until someone wins the football game. Once the game is won, they complain about the winning team. ("oh they used steriods", etc.). Bottom line is that someone needs to make a good football team and compete, and the Linux football team consisting of random charity players will always lose to a well-organized and talented team.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Yea but this is a new market, one OLPC could have walked in and owned from the start, and they screwed it up somehow.
    • Rikkochet, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I thought they were about cooperation, but maybe I missed something.
  • billessig, on 04/30/2008, -10/+4His fingers fit on the keyboard?
  • wylfing, on 04/30/2008, -18/+66Many people will say "Who cares what the underlying OS is?" It matters. A lot. Microsoft wants to kill OLPC, and will use all their dirty tricks (esp. vaporware teases) to accomplish it. But even if MS was a good citizen and initially tried to do the right thing, who's to say that a future manager wouldn't try to poison the well? OLPC is about "teaching a man to fish." Getting MS involved just breaks the poor guy's fishing pole.
    • possiblyneil, on 04/30/2008, -5/+15And then charges they guy for the privilege.
    • blakyce, on 04/30/2008, -10/+3Microsoft is pure evil and should not be allowed in. Even if they are saying that they want to help, it can only be that devil Bill Gates trying to harm the third world. I am sure that his donating so much of his fortune to help the AIDS problem in Africa can only be a gateway drug to him trying to do more harm.

      Get over your noble selves and allow Microsoft to try and help the project.
    • mrsteveman1, on 04/30/2008, -4/+11Since when is this about attacking Microsoft and protecting Linux?

      This is supposed to be about educating children.
      • possiblyneil, on 04/30/2008, -6/+6I agree but people are so often polarized. Microsoft is a big easy target ripe for attacking while Linux is the plucky underdog who people want to see succeed.
        Microsoft doesn't see the OLPC project as a charity but as an opportunity to cultivate a market in the future. Microsoft is one of the biggest corporations in the world, it didn't get there by giving stuff away but by making and seizing opportunities for itself.
        OLPC is only business.
        • dilbertmouse, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Won't you think of the children? Kill Microsoft already!
          /s
    • digjam, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7"Microsoft wants to kill OLPC" CITATION F KING NEEDED!
  • Isoptera4, on 04/30/2008, -28/+10I have an OLPC and the OS is pure *****. Even a kid would hate it. A stripped down windows could only make it better.
    • newwatch51, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2I've used the OS and it's really great.
  • nickcozy, on 04/30/2008, -14/+6How can we believe this guy with beard.
    • afx1, on 04/30/2008, -2/+13your argument is strong and makes many valid points
    • RoboDonut, on 04/30/2008, -1/+10A programmer's skill is directly proportional to the size of his beard.
  • TheUngod, on 04/30/2008, -22/+9Oh no, poor kids will get to learn on the most widespread, common OS. Learning skills that can be widely used is apparently bad when it deals with MS.
    • Phocion55, on 04/30/2008, -9/+8You're right. Let's teach 6 years olds how to create spreadsheets in Excel, rather then letting them use their imagination to create music, videos, and drawings and share over OLPC's mesh network.
      • TheUngod, on 04/30/2008, -3/+9Are you a ***** mac commercial??? Windows does more than spreadsheets if you didn't notice.
        • Phocion55, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5What I'm saying is that the OLPC as it is now comes with customized applications that allow a child to unleash their imagination by sharing images, video, and music over a special mesh network protocol (remember chances are Internet connectivity is non-existent in these places).

          A bare-bones WinXP installation will have nothing remotely close to this.
        • kretik, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Hahah, will someone think of the children please??? Children can "unleash" their imagination with some rocks and a stick, no computers necessary. You're just regurgitating the FSF party line, like all zealots.
          • Phocion55, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4Seeing as how I made a donation through their Give1Get1 program the very day it became available for this exact reason, I'm hardly "regurgitating" anything.

            But hey, it's easy to run your mouth and troll about things you have no experience with, am I right?
          • kretik, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3I bought one as well, to play with it. But I didn't need it to "unleash" any child's imagination. Imagination does that on its own quite well. And I don't need it to come up with bogus argument about why an operating system I dislike on religious grounds shouldn't run on it. Next time, just say that or don't say anything at all.
          • Phocion55, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Interesting. Please show me exactly where I said I was against XP going on the OLPC. I'd love to see that quote.

            If you have to validate your own arguments by putting words into my mouth, that's pretty sad.
        • Roy911, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I suppose Phocion55 forgot the calculator application.
  • mkriss5681, on 04/30/2008, -10/+3Does opensource mean lower gas prices?
    • afx1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5i replaced the bios in my local station's pump with a FOSS bios and yeah it was lower
    • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8No. . It means increased OS stability/safety.
  • levelwave, on 04/30/2008, -17/+8the OS on OLPC is getting really bad reviews for being extremely unintuitive. XP would most likely improve the damn things...
    • sliksta, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3I sure don't believe that. Maybe just shoehorn vista into it? M$ just needs to qualify the OLPC as vista capable. They've did it with the intel machines that did not have a powerful enough IGP to run the vista bloatware. That's why there is now a class-action lawsuit.
    • Chandon, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Unintuitive to random office drones who have years of experience with MS Office, or unintuitive to kids who have never seen a computer before?
    • newwatch51, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but I doubt you've even tried it yet. It's different, but it makes sense.
  • SleighBoy, on 04/30/2008, -16/+11Stallman is a troll. He does minimal research before jumping to a conclusion and defending it beyond the point of absurdity. Google up "stallman openbsd" , read some of the discussion on the misc@ OpenBSD mailing list. He pushes the GPL, but criticizes people who release code on a license that is more free than GPL.
    • mattlee, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7The point with OpenBSD was not that he was critical of code released under the BSD license, but rather that there was non-free software in the OpenBSD ports system. I don't think that it's fair to say the BSD license is more free than GPL.. I think it has less restrictions for developers, as it allows for non-free forks of software, but that results in a lack of essential freedoms for the users of those proprietary forks.
      • Stroggoth, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3Freedom is prison and prison is freedom! Doubleplus good dear brother!

        BSD is a tiny license with basically no restrictions. The GPL is pages long and includes all sorts of "can do" and "can't do" clauses. No matter how you roll it, the GPL is more restrictive. You have to be conditioned to think otherwise!
        • 4321234, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1As I understand it, the only restrictions in the GPL are that any code used, altered must stay open source. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
        • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"No matter how you roll it, the GPL is more restrictive."

          Sure it is. BSD is like a free for all where you are free to do whatever you want, including kill everyone you don't like. The GPL is like the laws of most western countries, in that you are free to do many things, but not free to remove other people's freedomj, e.g. by killing them.

          I don't know about you, but I personally like the restriction on removing my freedom. Not being allowed to kill other people isn't a restriction that severely impacts my life, and I'm very thankful that other people does not have this right with regards to me. The result is a net gain.
      • SleighBoy, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3I know, it was about the software linked to via the Ports tree. If people want to use proprietary stuff that is their choice, it's up to advocates of free software to raise awareness of alternatives. Richard Stallman is just an unreliable voice. He admits he bases decisions strictly on what people tell him, what he has heard and not verified. This is forgivable if you're not up on a soapbox shouting misinformation.
    • joshuagay, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Your statement is either a purely ad hominem* attack. Or you didn't actually read the article where he states: "On Friday, when I discussed some technical problems with the OLPC staff, we also discussed how to save the future of the project."

      * In case you don't know, the latin phrase "ad hominem," means to attack ones character rather than his or her argument directly.
      • SleighBoy, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2My statement has nothing to do with the OLPC project. It is about Richard Stallman and his poorly researched conclusions. His habit of such actions should dilute in the minds of all readers his clout and relevance on these matters. Look into his history, and read the entire discussion on the misc@ list, you'll see he is made to look like a fool when the statements he made are compared with facts he did not bother to check.
    • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I don't know anything about that specific debate, but knowing the abrasiveness of the OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt, I wouldn't be surprised if it would have been a great flame war, with both sides equally guilty.
  • Mufonix, on 04/30/2008, -21/+16I received six OLPCs for schools I work with in the Peace Corps and think the software is completely counter productive. Out there, knowing windows is a marketable skill set for youth and the sort of poorly thought out linux variant installed on the laptops does not help them with social upward mobility.
    • mizike, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7agree 100%, don't see how anyone who actually cares about helping children as opposed to dogmatically defending their OS choice could disagree with you....
      • LinuxKitty, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Because Windows limits choice and there are long-term effects to consider. Sure it doesn't matter for the kids now. It may matter for their society in twenty years, however. It has little to do with dogma.
    • jabelar, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3But what if we want them to grow up into geeks, instead of social upward mobility?
    • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2"Out there, knowing windows is a marketable skill set"

      It won't be when those kids grow up, just like my skills in MS-DOS and CP/M (the OSes I used in grade school) isn't really a valuable skill set today.
  • magamiako, on 04/30/2008, -16/+11The simple fact of the matter is this guy shows how out of touch with the project's goal he is. The goal of the OLPC was never to "have a vector to give these poor kids free software to mess with and tinker with!" Because that's not what they need to be learning. The goal is to give them the ability to experience modern technology in a world where they might not have the capability to do.

    The only reason I'm sure Linux was even looked at from the start was because initially Microsoft wasn't signing onto the project. After all, it'd be hard to be an upstart and convince one of the largest software makers in the world to give you droves of free software.

    It's moving to Windows because now that the project is large enough and proven itself capable but hitting some obvious roadblocks, Microsoft, and through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, can put these computers in the hands of the children who need it.

    The reality is that Bill Gates himself could put more of these machines in the hands of those children than the entirety of the basement dwelling, college-aged, penny pinching free software champions.
    • reedatschool, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5The reality is MS can participate without replacing Linux with XP. They can work towards interoperability with wine so all there apps work perfectly.

      Microsoft is not in the business of creating a spirit of ubuntu that we need so desperately in the third world and arguably right here at home. The fact they are trying to push XP on the XO only shows that they are disingenuous to the whole mission to begin with.

      Take Bill's money yes, take his OS and all the restrictions and abuses that come with it, NO

      Just say no to lock-in products

      SARE - Software Abuse Resistance Education
  • joe90210, on 04/30/2008, -11/+4not using Windows in the first place is why the OLPC has failed so bad, the OS they use is primitive, simplistic, slow and nothing like how real a OS is, the kids learn nothing by using it because none of the knowledge applies to anything else
    • Phocion55, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4So a 'real OS' is the one that had to be hacked up, reduced in functionality, and desperately crammed onto the OLPC just so it would function properly?
    • sliksta, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Sounds like they should have put more time/money/effort into a better Linux distro for the machine. But the OLPC OS problem is not because they didn't use windows, give me a break. Nothing wrong with any person preferring windows if that's what they like. But Linux is more efficient(code-wise), faster, more secure system. NO WAY is OLCP "slow" like you say because Linux was chosen instead of window$.
  • ncc74656m, on 04/30/2008, -9/+3Guys, the XO is already gone in terms of its goal. Why? Several reasons.

    1) The concept of "Buy one, give one." This should be optional, not mandated.
    2) The cost. $200 for a "$100 Laptop"? Yes, I know it was the concept, and may still yet come to fruition. But for the actual capabilities of it compared to the cost, it's not really that worth it, when you consider that it will actually cost you $400 to get just one. (See above)
    3) The intention was always to get MS onboard. Now MS sees that the project has potential, and they want their hand in the well (for whatever reason). This also will wind up increasing the cost in all likelihood. Think about the Microsoft schools in India. They did what they did to create a willing source of cheap labor for them, and a whole generation of Microsoft dependents.

    My take on the whole mess is that the BEST way they could've encouraged use and spread of the OLPC is to drop or make optional the "Get one give one" concept. Forced altruism is not the best way to encourage people, especially when most people who would purchase them here are "just playing." Meanwhile, if they were to allow us to just buy one outright, it would be an incredible method to encourage development for the OLPC. I'm sure that many of the best hackers and creators in the past started out doing something someone else did, and expanding on that idea, or porting it to another system.

    They killed themselves. Cry your tears, then move on. Someone will be able to take this idea in the future and build upon it, and maybe they will make a real success from it.
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2But the purpose is the altruism.

      I guess some people just don't get it.
    • ncc74656m, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1::sigh:: Ya'll just don't get it.
  • grimward, on 04/30/2008, -7/+8I actually don't get why anything needs "saving" from microsoft, if the creators of the laptop want MS software on it, even as an alternative to open source, who can argue against them? I'm sorry but Richard Stallman is very deluded if he thinks that allowing microsoft to make an operating system for this platform will automagically mean that everybody will want one with ONLY that operating system. And as it's been said earlier in this article thread, it would seem that RS has gone off the deep end by choosing to render the main feature of the laptop useless just because it's firmware was semi open. Seriously, how can anyone trust an argument to be fair from a guy with that amount of FOSS fundamentalism?
    • andafrouse, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2If it CAN be shipped with Windows, MS might put some pressure on resellers to only sell Windows model, etc. We all know this stuff.
      • grimward, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Yes they might do that, but it doesn't automatically mean that everybody has to buy it that way, or that they have to keep having that windows version on it either. It's all about choice, I thought RS was for choice because he advocated FOSS software, but with this article he's proven that he's just another fundamentalist out there with an agenda to push.
        • Talung, on 05/01/2008, -1/+0People assume you have choice with Microsoft. You don't.
          If Windows gets put onto the machine, that is what it will sell with. Why do you think the laptop market is like it is now. OEM's etc have never been allowed to do anything different. Once they allow Microsoft in there, it is the beginning of the end for the machine.
        • init100, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1"It's all about choice"

          Yeah, where the choices are Microsoft, Microsoft or Microsoft. That's like the Microsoft front "Americans for Software Choice", which always argue for "choice", except "choice" for them always mean everyone need to only have the choice of Microsoft.
  • Commodus, on 04/30/2008, -14/+21"Rescue it from Windows?" Especially when people link it to Stallman, that makes me want to install Windows on it, run MS Office, and stick to Internet Explorer just to spite the "FOSS or die" crowd.

    Choose the OS that works best for the goal and the platform. That could be Sugar, Windows XP, or Mac OS X. Arbitrarily limiting yourself based on an ideal can be just as damaging as choosing Windows without awareness of alternatives.
    • diggn_it, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1I think the idea of open source is a good one (in some cases), but I'm getting so sick of the die hard free software people that I kinda want to use close source software just to spite them. It's about choice, not whatever faboyism you are personally into.
      • init100, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1"I kinda want to use close source software just to spite them."

        That you stick it up your a** won't hurt us, but if you enjoy it, well, go ahead.
  • ZeRux, on 04/30/2008, -20/+14I think we should rescue it from Linux instead.
  • renski13, on 04/30/2008, -12/+12the ultimate fanboy article
  • backbyter, on 04/30/2008, -4/+0One day soon...I might see an XO as a result of the G1G1 program...
    I wonder what color it will be, what OS will be on it...
  • zombo, on 04/30/2008, -11/+4Stallman and ilk have killed the OLPC. Haven't you diggers got other commies beard to groom.
  • pilobilus, on 04/30/2008, -7/+16Astroturf troll brigade hard at work, I see. Anyhow... the only reason M$ would be interested in "partnering" with OLPC is the same reason Intel "partnered" with them: To get inside access to sales contract negotiations. This will enable them to identify opportunities to stomp down the OLPC project. It's all about future market share, and knowing exactly who to bribe to break contracts with the OLPC project is the key. Then they sell them fragile, low-function Wintel "student laptops". Intel was the first to do this, now M$ wants to have their turn.
    • digjam, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2WHAAAAAAAAT? Lets put it in a different way....if all those children get used to windows... DONT YOU THINK THEY WILL STICK WITH IT WHEN THEY GROW UP AS EDUCATED INDIVIDUALS ????? AND INTURN INCREASE THE SALES ????
      Any company will try to sneak into a new market for creating awareness of their product...so that would create sales in future
    • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"the only reason M$ would be interested in "partnering" with OLPC is the same reason Intel "partnered" with them"

      Except that Microsoft is also trying to get the kids on a lifetime addiction to their software. This is not the case with Intel, as you don't get hooked on a specific CPU brand.
  • bingobongony, on 04/30/2008, -10/+3Face the facts...really...OLPC was destined for failure from the VERY BEGINNING.
    • directive0, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Too bad it actually has laptops out in the field working and helping kids study. Pretty effective for a failure.
      • bingobongony, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Give me a ***** break. It doesn't have anywhere NEAR the reach that they were hoping for. Not even close. THAT is a failure.

        Basically, what you are saying is the same as saying that the 2007-2008 Knicks season was a success because it got 23 wins.
        • directive0, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1You know what, buddy? Why don't you give your own armchair cynicism a ***** break. You have no idea what you are talking about and take this attitude to try and sound angry and informed. You may be the former, but are far from the latter. If you had any concept of the scale at which these people are accomplishing real good you'd stay quiet instead of opening your mouth and showcasing your ignorance for the entire world. Here's a fun experiment, what numbers were they hoping for by now (I want a direct quote), and how far are they off?

          So far, you're the only failure I see here.
  • xenix, on 04/30/2008, -8/+14Oh noes it's Windows... Run for your lives

    :P
  • MattBD, on 04/30/2008, -8/+17I seem to recall that Steve Jobs offered them OS X and they declined it. Now they want to have Windows?
    I'm not a great fan of OS X, I prefer Linux, but I think OS X would be a much better choice than Windows for the OLPC. Of course, Linux would be the best of the lot, but Windows? No way.
    • naio, on 04/30/2008, -9/+4Right, so all the poor kids could photoshop all their way to digital inclusion and education, right?
      • MattBD, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3Now you're just being silly! It's not like if they had Windows on they'd be playing Halo 3 either.
        • Ademan, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7It's not like that's what we WANT anyways, the point is to help them learn, not to teach them how to jump-crouch.
        • digjam, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5But atleast with windows they can get most of the free software ( considering they have internet ) if they want unlike OS X...
          • diggn_it, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1YAY! truth-less stereotypes are fun! macs have no free software and one-button mice and windows gets a blue screen of death all the time! linux is only for hackers lol!

            Just go away.


    • digjam, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4And WHY do you think WINDOWS IS NOT OK? CAN YOU GIVE ME ONE VALID REASON?
      • MattBD, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Windows, even XP, is decidedly bloated. They'd have a lot of trouble shoehorning it into the OLPC. I bet that if you took the original OLPC and one with XP on it, you'd see a drastic difference in performance.
        At least with OS X, they've done some of the work already for the iPhone/iPod Touch OS, so any version of OS X that was used on the OLPC could be based on that and would probably be better suited than Windows.
        My main argument against Windows is of course that it's proprietary software so they can't adapt it themselves if necessary, but of course that does also apply to OS X (and before someone says that OS X includes free software, it's not entirely free software whereas Linux is).
        Seriously, I'm not pulling the OS advocacy angle here. Linux is the most suitable OS for it, by quite a long way, and unless Microsoft were to write a whole new version of Windows for the OLPC, that's not likely to change any time soon.
        • MattBD, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Actually, it would be cool if ReactOS was sufficiently useable for this, since that's easily light enough to run on the OLPC, and is open-source, but also maintains a degree of Windows compatibility. If only...
        • digjam, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2in that case ....make it oipc...one iphone per child...atleast they can make calls and brag about it on digg for years!
          • MattBD, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and spam Digg saying "Just get a OIPC!"
      • possiblyneil, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Four words:
        Blue screen of death.
  • CycloneTH, on 04/30/2008, -16/+11Buried for thinking OLPC needs "saved" from windows.
  • naio, on 04/30/2008, -16/+6Can we rescue OLPC from Teh Freetards?
  • zadadka, on 04/30/2008, -8/+14Microsoft's stance is simple and obvious : all Open Source / freeware products that offer a viable alternative to their own products represents a loss of revenue stream.
    Education has so far been solid repeat business for Microsoft, and the more that this is undermined by Open Source, the smaller the Quarterlies become.
    Worse, if the children grow up with OLPC demonstrating the flexibility of non-Microsoft products, they will be the generation that seeks off-the-shelf Open Source as first choice, a software house that will bespoke such a product as second choice, and Microsoft only if they have to.

    School and Education is about giving our children a good grounding to later be able to make good choices, personally, professionally and otherwise.
    It should not in any way make a brand synonymous with a particular activity, and IT should not be regarded differently in this respect.
    It therefore makes complete sense for Open Souce to be the OPLC platform.
  • derek20cali, on 04/30/2008, -11/+7RMS needs to get laid.
    • pilobilus, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4That sounds like a call to arms! Penguinistas, man your modems - we must find RMS a hot date!
    • mentaldingo, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3He gave a lecture at my university today, and I think he must have gotten laid some time in the last 9 months as he looks very heavily pregnant ;-) Oh, and it is indeed true he uses an OLPC - he brought one to the theatre.

      That said, why the ***** would OLPC want windows on their laptops?
  • lickmyback, on 04/30/2008, -4/+11I always respect RMS for promoting free software quietly behind the scenes while Torvalds and Shuttleworth soak up the limelight. I'm yet to see a review of Ubuntu that mentions "...and by the way, by using this software you liberate yourself from all manner of EULAs and proprietary restrictions". What happened to people wanting to learn from and contribute to these things?
  • compaqdrew, on 04/30/2008, -14/+9"You might as well introduce the children to an addictive drug."
    This is the part where I stopped reading. Comparing an operating system to a group of substances that kill millions of people a year is completely uncalled for. Microsoft may have a lot of problems, but being somehow related to a drug cartel isn't one of them. Personally I'd like to see OLPC go back to Linux too, but nobody's going to die over it. People do die over cocaine.
    Low blow, RMS.
  • dfiguero, on 04/30/2008, -12/+11Man so many Microsoft fanbois today. Just because you're used to Windows and can't learn to use something else don't prevent other people from doing so. This is not about the OS in itself. It's about the freedom in education. The fact that MS could kill it with stuff like DRM!
    • wheresaldo, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4Everyone used DRM, Apple, DVDs, any movie online provider, record companies, movie companies, etc. Why Microsoft has all the blame? Oh, you must be one of the Microsoft haters
  • xevidentx, on 04/30/2008, -9/+4more waaaaahmbulance here...
  • moo083, on 04/30/2008, -5/+6What does it say about how much RMS takes advantage of his computer that an OLPC is sufficient to be his main computer?
    • cramstick, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4That he doesn't run Windows Vista?

      Are you seriously suggesting that this guy doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to computers?
      • kretik, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3He's saying that he's completely and utterly out of touch with the way normal people use computers, and has been since the beginning. The man has never produced a piece of software intended for people other than developers or sys admins. His idea of the perfect computer is a 486 running "GNU/Linux" and fwwm or whatever the crappies window manager is, and on top of that he runs emacs, if that. That's his vision, and he wants everybody to partake in it, whether we like it or not.
  • WoollyMittens, on 04/30/2008, -8/+10Embrace, extend, extinguish...

    That's how Microsoft destroys.
    • wheresaldo, on 04/30/2008, -4/+2Oh, please... Are you being a little dramatic. Destroy what?
  • rmxz, on 04/30/2008, -5/+18Putting Windows on an OLPC really reminds me of the allegations against Nestle who's accused of giving "aid" including infant formula to babies in third world countries, knowing that this would interfere with the mother's natural lactation so that the family would have to continue buying the formula. [ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott]

    Microsoft "helping" here is exactly the same. While they pretend to be helping, their goal is to hook the victims of the Windows-OLPC so that if they ever do become successful Microsoft can tax their future profits.
    • intellimouse, on 04/30/2008, -7/+4So? Who are you to tell some company that they can't try and make some money? Besides that, your Nestle comparison is a strawman because Microsoft Windows will not cause women to stop lactating and it's not physically addicting. It's called CHOICE.
      • rmxz, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7The idea behind OLPC "one laptop per child" was to do something to benefit the children.
        Not exploit them financially.
        • intellimouse, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3Once again, how is adding the OPTION of Windows not helping? Microsoft can make money AND help people... If they learn Windows, they can steal some jobs from US software developers and "information workers" and then they'll have enough money to buy more Windows. They're not taking away the option of Linsux. They're ADDING the option of Windows. Think before you post dude.
        • Atomic1fire, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1heh
          one side says microsoft is exploting them by making them get hooked to windows
          the other says microsoft is just making profit and is helping them with future tools
      • init100, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2"Who are you to tell some company that they can't try and make some money?"

        Sure, but they shouldn't dress it up like it would be a charitable donation.

        "It's called CHOICE."

        In the world of Microsoft, "choice" means that there should be only one choice - Microsoft.
      • Jorin, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"So? Who are you to tell some company that they can't try and make some money?"

        I think this issue will be among the most important of this century. Companies do a lot of harm in the name of profit. I think the ability for people to stand up and tell them to stop is a matter of human survival. If a company "trying to make money" is going to harm people or hurt our environment, then yes, someone has to stand up and tell them "you can't make money off this".
  • ohplease, on 04/30/2008, -8/+1

    If you want these kids to ever use their computer knowledge to enter the business world, then let them learn windows. Linux has no place in a large corporation because of it's complete lack of integrated enterprise desktop management. It's not there. It has not been written.
    • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"If you want these kids to ever use their computer knowledge to enter the business world, then let them learn windows."

      Windows knowledge will be obsolete by the time today's kids enter the business world, just like my knowledge of MS-DOS and CP/M that I learned in grade school is obsolete today.

      "it's complete lack of integrated enterprise desktop management. It's not there. It has not been written."

      It is there, but there is no fancy GUI for people like you who cannot use a keyboard and require a mouse to work.
  • abstractrude, on 04/30/2008, -14/+8Here goes RMS again.This is the problem with open source. There are people that just run the train into the ground. RMS puts forward the notion that free software is good software, WRONG! Good software is good software. If you can modify that software, that makes it even better software. Do some reading on stallman, he is a ***** disaster, he has even gone after Linus Torvaldus. He is behind totally retarted projects like GNU Herd. Honestly the only thing he has ever done was develop emacs, and he gave that up recently to go around the world doing god knows ***** what. OLPC is in serious trouble, and RMS and his people are gonna put the nail in the coffin.

    RMS is anti free market, he belives everything should be free. Unforunatley the software and computer industry have never followed that model. The major successes of free,open source software, is because companies such as Sun, Novell, Red Hat, IBM, HP, Oracle, Apple have used it as a catalyst for profit and have sold solutions around that software.These companies give the software legitamcy that an overweight ungroomed communist cant.

    Plus companies like sun and Red Hat have contributed greatly to the developement and furthering of software such as Linux. I read an article once that said most Linux Distributions contain 30% Sun code.

    Oh and a few interesting notes. The designer of Sugar, Walter Bender (Not the Robot) has left OLPC. So has Mary Lou Jepsen and Ivan Krstić, the designer of Bitfrost (OLPC sandboxing software) He had a great blog on how the orginization is just falling apart.
    http://radian.org/notebook/maintaining-clarity#res ...

    Sorry for writing so much, but I woke up to this article and It just ***** me off.
    • maninalift, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Don't dig abstractrude down, you might not agreee but he is making an intelligent comment.

      I agree RMS is a zealot and whether or not the influence of such people on open source is a positive one is not clear. But the fact that OLPC is falling apart is exactly why it might need to be "saved" from microsoft. If it were in a strong position the board could make a decision based on the long term benefits of the project.
    • init100, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2"OLPC is in serious trouble, and RMS and his people are gonna put the nail in the coffin."

      A dead project is far better than an undead zombie project in Microsoft's voodoo hands. :P
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.