What is Digg?95 Comments
- mithrasinvictus, on 08/11/2008, -2/+31I'm missing the part where they made the mistake to make it run XP.
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -8/+31Even more shocking news: The sun came up this morning.
- vincentweber, on 08/11/2008, -2/+21That was a little bit expected. But I like the OLPC. They created competition. If it wasn't for that device I would not be posting this comment on my ASUS Eee PC :)
Oh and it is Intel powered, so intel should only thank the OLPC project for widening their market. I already had a PC and a laptop and bought a netbook. So that's one extra Intel CPU bought. - inactive, on 08/11/2008, -1/+20so in other words intel and microsoft hate children?
- falafelkiosken, on 08/11/2008, -5/+20Bill, do you call this philanthropy?
- HonoredMule, on 08/11/2008, -7/+20Can't read, too much righteous rhetoric. For all the truth the article may carry, who would find it amongst all the raving fanaticism?
- nickc321, on 08/11/2008, -2/+14Sounds like the script to the next 'who killed the electric car' except thankfully this one is still alive.
My favorite quotes:
"AMD and Intel hate each other with a hatred as hard as that of Hamas and the Israelis."
"...Windows operating system is the industry standard. Apple’s system is much better..."... hence the reason they were/are against the OPLC.
"Linux, the Open Source operating system, is, if you are geek enough, free."
"Computers are like drugs, literally..." or as the article says, technology companies act like drug companies in who their target audience is.
but as with any conspiracy piece the best repeating quote of the day: "No comment"
anyways..... curious to see the face of the new XO. - MacParrot, on 08/11/2008, -2/+12...and puppies. Don't forget the puppies.
- gincarnated, on 08/11/2008, -2/+12Great article. It really is disappointing for humanity when you see that companies like these are more than willing to jeopardize the efforts being made to give those in poverty a fighting chance all because it threatens their profit margin. Actually it's not just disappointing, disgusting is much more fitting.
- vroom101, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8Article on one page: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_ ... (technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4472654.ece?print=yes)
- linuxpenguin, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7The XO isn't stripped down at all. It can run Windows or Linux just like any other laptop. If you're talking about the interface. . . it's meant for kids, not power users.
By the way, those "ears" are antennas as well as dust covers for the USB ports. Believe it or not, having an actual physical antenna outside of the laptop can help boost reception, and in third-world countries I could see where the USB dust covers would be a good idea.
Aside from the idea of giving poor countries laptops, the real genius is the laptop itself - almost everything in it is designed completely different in order to make it more energy-efficient. - ripple123, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8its like a joke, but without the funny bit. i feel cheated.
- Genma, on 08/11/2008, -0/+6so intel profits, while olpc suffers. the rest of the world gets some new toys to play with, while the poor kids can sit around flipping their abacus's and *****. sure you can call it "competition", or "killing others to make more money". intel gives thanks by crushing them, see how that works.
- linuxpenguin, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5When OLPC was looking for supporters, Intel wouldn't support them, and Gates and Microsoft downplayed it as being a useless machine. MS and Intel are two huge leaders, and much of the computer industry follows their lead. Had Intel given their approval, and Gates not knocked their effort, things could have turned out very differently for the project.
MS now supports the project, which suggests that they didn't like it simply because it ran Linux - now that it is being changed to use Windows, they like it. Don't tell me that's normal - I know MS is a giant, but they still release products for the Mac, so there's no reason why they should feel like they're being threatened when a different OS is popular in another country. Believe it or not, they do make products for Unix-type systems - they could have taken the other route and taken the initiative to make something for Linux that these kids might want to use - if Linux really is lacking something that MS can provide. In fact MS used to make Internet Explorer for Linux - something tells me they stopped when they realized it might make switching to Linux easier for some users. - gincarnated, on 08/11/2008, -4/+8You're a ***** idiot. His point was what these companies are willing to roadblock efforts to lift those disadvantaged people out of poverty simply because it threatens their profits.
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -1/+5Exactly. They thought that by killing the OLPC they would stop the entire subnotebook phenomenon altogether. They were wrong.
- MacParrot, on 08/11/2008, -1/+5***** you! Two of my friends were killed in the Amish Space Program while trying to plant fake footprints on the moon which were obviously generated in an Amish movie studio.
In Amish Pennsylvania, OLPC laptops brute force YOU!
Have I missed any? - inactive, on 08/11/2008, -7/+11You can only fail to see anything wrong if you are of the belief that companies have the right to make profit over and above humanitarian concerns, that money matters more than the well-being of your fellow man. This is the thrust of the article, that monopolistic, money-hungry entitites have killed a project designed to be of benefit to some of the most disadvantaged people on the planet, who might possibly have had those laptops now without said interference.
Or in other words, you have no soul. - MacParrot, on 08/11/2008, -0/+4The Vulcan High Command takes great offense at you referring to OLPC laptops as neon green toys with ears
- thungurknifur, on 08/11/2008, -2/+6Though I agree with the general idea that the OLPC was (and is) perceived as a threat by Intel and Microsoft, the author of this article is clueless and heavily biased: "Windows operating system is the industry standard. Apple’s system is much better, but Windows, through sheer Microsoft muscle, has been made to appear necessary. "
- Wakuko, on 08/11/2008, -4/+8He gives a ***** about philanthropy if it doesn't serves his interests.
- facereplacer, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3Boy, Scatterblak... you seem like a real dick.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 08/11/2008, -9/+12Buried for "Apple’s system is much better, but Windows, through sheer Microsoft muscle, has been made to appear necessary" Opinionist crap. Digg me down. I don't care.
- Darksider, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Yep...you missed one....
But can the Amish run Crysis - meruru, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3@GrantTLC That was a bit harsh, but yah, Kamujin kind of missed the point. No one said that Intel and Microsoft caused poverty in those countries.
I have a hard time getting mad at Microsoft for not joining the project. I mean how many charities and projects do you think ask them for funding/resources? It would be like criticizing a person for not donating to EVERY charity. ie You are a bad person because you donated to the Darfur fund but not to Red Cross.
As for Intel: what were the goals of the OLPC program? To get cheap laptops to poor countries. Intel made theirs and is targeting it at the same group. The countries are still getting cheap laptops. You could make the case that the XO is the better laptop, but regardless competition is good for this market. It will push companies to make cheaper and better products. - ChayesFSS, on 08/11/2008, -6/+8If you fail, it's always the fault of someone else, amirite
- Charbax, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2The worst part of it is Intel has been trash talking OLPC in all of the countries in which OLPC was going to be deployed. Not only has Intel been trash talking the OLPC, Intel representatives have even been threatening the different politicians in each of those countries. Or more blatant, Intel has been selling their classmate in low quantities at a loss.
It's like if you are a multi-billion dollar company and I'm a 23-man startup. I make a really good product, but then to try to drive me out of business, you take your old market-leading product, sell a few thousand special versions at a loss to any of my potential customers, you offer them "free customer support" and stuff like that on top, and this way you are trying to delay my effective expansion with my product which is in fact much better and cheaper then your market leading product.
Selling products at a loss to drive out competition is illegal. But since the sales are happening so far away, in palces like Nigeria and Lybia, I guess the courts in the western world don't have much they can do to stop Intel from using those types of practices.
This is not competition, this is unfair competition. - vincentweber, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3The Olpc project does not suffer. The entire idea is that every child should have a laptop. Given the fact that the project is non-profit they don't care if kids get their laptops or ASUS laptops.
What it all boils down to is that there was not a single netbook that was cheap enough for governments to buy. Netbooks back then were not cheaper than $800 anyway and were to difficult to learn.
And Olpcs are not really meant to compete in developped western countries and that is where ASUS competes. - linuxpenguin, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2First off, when I used to donate to Red Cross at school I not only got to skip class but also eat a few of those cookies. They limit you IIRC but they don't limit you to one, and they only do it because they aren't really making a lot of money.
Second of all, Intel and MS didn't want to offer a more competitive machine - in fact, MS has changed its position on the XO now that it uses Windows. Neither Intel nor MS had any plans for such a machine until after they heard about OLPC's project, and they talked down the idea of an "underpowered" laptop until they noticed others talking it up and saying how much they liked the idea. The OLPC isn't all about cheap laptops, it's about giving computers to kids who can't afford them - OLPC is looking to sell laptops, but not in the same way that Intel or any other company would. Also OLPC was looking to come out with technology that poorer countries can really use - those kids probably don't have power outlets at home, so they decided to try and make their laptop more energy-efficient and have add-ons like foot pedals and solar panels so that they don't necessarily need to be plugged in. - Charbax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Intel selling low quantities of worse laptops at a loss is not competition. Intel is selling at a loss to try to stop the competition.
Intel Atom based laptops cost twice the price of the OLPC XO-1 or more. Even Asus seems to be moving over to more expensive Eee since they do not especially like loosing money on the first Eee that was introduced. - linuxpenguin, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1@init100: actually, you're right - it was for UNIX, but not just for Solaris. Other UNIX-compatible systems could run it (and they didn't design it specifically for Solaris either).
- bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Standard MO for Intel but I'm sure they weren't looking to profit. Microsoft on the other hand wanted a more functional platform, at least their own idea of what that might be. I have no doubt that Microsoft would have given their software away for a project but it may not have been wanted for a number of good reasons and I'm sure they felt slighted. This was a Linux project from the get go and there is nothing wrong with that. Microsoft is certainly under no obligation to open source their software for such a project. If anything this represents a difference of opinion rather than a witch hunt to kill the system. The Gates foundation has done far more for the lives of the third world than any $200.00 laptop. I'm all for freedom of information but it's kind of moot without improving mortality rates through bonified quality of life improvements.
- Charbax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Journalists should say what they really mean. That is what journalism should be about.
This journalist, unlike a bunch of OLPC-slamming bloggers, really researched the facts as well and contacted all the companies involved in this story. - catbeller, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Monopolies don't operate under the same laws as "companies". Microsoft is a monopoly, ruled as such as a matter of fact, and therefore by law is regulated from doing just what did with OLPC - extending its dominance into other markets by leveraging its monopoly. We don't let that happen because they can eventually own, well, everything, and because it's bad for US - the people that license corporations to exist in their splendor. The world has no OLPC in its future because MS decided to smash it down enough to prevent its success.
- Charbax, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1OSX could work on it. Steve Jobs would just need to provide a version of OSX that can run on a 433mhz processor, 256mb ram and SD memory card for storage. Right now OSX requires much more processing, ram and storage then that to run, and OSX is not made available on any other hardware then Apple's own.
- Charbax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1You just put all the billions of kids of the developing countries in one category. As if they all desperately need clothes and food or else they would all have enough money to buy computers and play grand theft auto on them all day.
The Internet is about spreading information, knowledge, it's about communications, it's about learning, it's about news, information. Perhaps you didn't notice all this?
Why would you spend your time on Digg if you didn't think computers and the Internet were worth using? - Charbax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Most Eee PC laptops sold are sold at $399 or more.
Eee PC is more then twice the price of OLPC, Eee pc has 3-4 times lower battery life, eee pc has 3-4 times lower WiFi range, no mesh-networking. Eee PC is not sunlight readable, cannot be used as an ebook reader thus worthless for education in third world countries.
Eee pc is not water proof and sand proof.
If Asus wants to make a real $100 laptop, that would be great, but for now what Asus is doing, is simply riding on OLPC's free blog marketing coattails. Eee PC was announced at $199, it is now still mostly available at $399 or more. - inactive, on 08/11/2008, -2/+3@ Kamujin: Perhaps, but you need to now get over acting like a child. I'm quite happy to participate in reasoned, intelligent debate but all I've seen from you is the usual moronic Diggtard commentary. "FU" as your opening line? Please. I got over that kind of sub-literate smack-talk when I was SIX, and now you're just trying to act tough because you think that makes you look big and tough and strong on the big bad Internet. Sorry to disillusion, but it really doesn't.
@Meruru: What gets me about MS and Intel is not their refusal to participate. If they'd left it at that - "No thanks" - then fair enough. But it's their actions against the project, the negative PR campaigns, the hostility they showed to an idea they originally didn't want to even consider, Intel's attempt to parcel up the world into easy markets for them and difficult markets for the OLPC, that has significantly damaged the OLPC's ability to deliver on their ideals; THAT I find hard to stomach. That kids in impoverished countries could have funky little laptops RIGHT NOW but don't because these companies believed there was money to be made. Greed and the desire for profit placed above a decent education for millions.
And I take issue aginst the idea of 'markets'. This was a charitable enterprise, not an excuse to make shareholders rich. Intel may have thrown together a cheap alternative in competition, but what was wrong with the original project, exactly? With Intel's help OLPC could have done much more towards keeping the costs lower and giving these children the learning tools they need. Instead Intel saw dollar signs and tried to smash all opposition in their rampant cash-lust. - Charbax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1The laptops and the Internet is about education, knowledge, communications. How can anyone say that poor people shouldn't have access to that?
- troye, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I wish they had an option to configure the website so that the entire story is on one page, double spaced, and in a serif font. I hate having to click through multiple stories just to read the story; I'm not lazy at all, but it ruins my reading experience. Just my 2 cents.
- bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry but physiological needs trump those of information. What good is a laptop going to do if you don't have access to clean water? You need a minimal amount of physical resources before you can pursue a higher plane of existence.
The developed world may in fact have the opposite problem. To many resources and not enough utilization of information. - bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1This strikes me as a "feel good" Linux "freedom" project and they wanted nothing to with Intel or Microsoft based at least partly on what they stand for. AMD/Linux has always been the preferred open source fanboy wet dream.
- init100, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1"In fact MS used to make Internet Explorer for Linux"
They did? I know they once made a version for Solaris, but I never heard of a version for Linux. - Atomic1fire, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Make fun of the amish
???
profit - TheMachine1, on 08/11/2008, -1/+2Simple lesson piss off just one big evil corporation and you can make it piss off two big evil corporations and your dead.
- Charbax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1It's not a next version, it's the same version. The "next" version of OLPC just comes with a 2GB SD card that has Windows XP on it. So if you boot the laptop with the SD card inside it goes into Windows, and if you boot while the SD card is removed it boots into the default Linux Sugar OS. Thus the OLPC XO-1 laptop is dual-booting.
It could also triple boot into OSX if Steve Jobs gave a version of OSX to fit on a 2GB SD card and which was optimized to run on the 433mhz and 235mb of ram, with specially built drivers for the wifi mesh and other special components that the OLPC laptop has. - bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1This isn't about money. There are few people in business who don't think their product is the best and are going to recommend it over a competitors. They may even want to give it away and feel proud doing so. Frankly I don't think they wanted Intel onboard at all. If you don't believe that then maybe AMD actually HAD a cheaper processor and Intel didn't see any competitive advantage to "undercutting" them on essentially a non-profit venture. I think it's far more believable that they simply didn't want intel inside. And I'm pretty damn sure they didn't want Microsoft anywhere near it because it's a more noble/true/free/responsible project to have it 100% open source when it really doesn't NEED to be. Heaven forbid that the third-world use "the mans" closed source software. It almost implies that Microsoft is exploiting people by GIVING AWAY closed source software simply because it's not open which wouldn't be a stretch within the community where open source equals freedom and not as in beer.
- bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Computer are like drugs? I supose you could argue for a phcological addiction if they happen to have a piece of fruit on them.
- bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Perhaps not the best way to put it but Intel and Microsoft have mostly had a cozy relationship and its not hard to see why. Microsoft has however been shown to be CPU agnostic when it doesn't otherwise fit their interest. Intels rolling over for Microsoft when they went with AMD64 was pretty unique but then Microsoft did invest significant development resources into Itaniam which I'm sure they were kind of pissed about. Microsoft has enough work just moving their vast amount of software to 64bit without spending time on Intel's pet projects.
- MrFurious2k, on 08/11/2008, -2/+3I wonder why people believe that companies are required to support things that are directly in contrast with their interests (or they don't believe in).
That being said, I always wondered why people were always so desperate to send PCs to developing countries that need more infrastructure first. For example, I read one article in which the author was saying that villagers getting the PCs had no electricity and were more concerned about clean running water than running Open Office. Sometimes I wonder if we have our priorities figured out. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is