3 ms·

Proprietary software keeps users divided and helpless. Its functioning is secret, so it is incompatible with the spirit of learning. Teaching children to use a

by Create 18y ago

Proprietary software keeps users divided and helpless. Its functioning is secret, so it is incompatible with the spirit of learning. Teaching children to use a proprietary (non-free) system such as Windows does not make the world a better place, because it puts them under the power of the system's developer -- perhaps permanently. You might as well introduce the children to an addictive drug. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows

wumi 18y ago
The opportunity cost of choosing Windows seems quite high: if countries won't buy the XO for lack of MSFT software, then it is ultimately the kids loss. I would say hordes of American children (and Chinese, Indian, et. al) grew up on Windows. Did that somehow take away the spirit of learning?
- Create 18y ago
  if countries won't buy the XO for lack of MSFT software read the Negroponte NYT quote carefully. It is basic colonial behaviour (corruption etc.): "“The people who buy the machines are not the children who use them, but government officials in most cases,” said Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the nonprofit group. “And those people are much more comfortable with Windows.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?ref=technology http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?r... "Did that somehow take away the spirit of learning?" The spirit of learning is inherently human (evolutional design), therefore not even MS can take hijack it: taking it away is even more nonsense[1]. But if you think of the real breakthroughs, they are independent of Windows (you cannot beat them by playing in accordance to the rules they dictate: this is what RMS might have meant in the quote above). Google could (have) never eclipse(d) MS, if it were built on it. Nor Facebook, or whatever "web2.00" you might think of. Nor OSX. Most "innovation" or development is as independent of Windows as it can be: though it has to leverage on the userbase. This is why it is "trendy" to consider it as a buggy device driver. Growing up with windows is a factual matter: try purchasing a PC without it: and this begs for even more questions... [1] though Adam Curtis' Century of the Self is worrying http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22century%20of%20the%20self%22 http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22century%20of%20th...
- axod 18y ago
  That's a short term view. Microsoft still has a monopoly, but it's dying. Teaching children on windows isn't a good idea IMHO. It's unlikely to be relevent to them when they are older.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  The rise of the closed and proprietary Microsoft Windows PC cut off a generation of budding hackers from easy access to programming and software independence in their formative years. It wasn't until I had access to the Internet and DJGPP (the GNU toolchain ported to DOS) that I truly was able to freely pursue my interest in programming.

by Create 18y ago

wumi 18y ago

The opportunity cost of choosing Windows seems quite high: if countries won't buy the XO for lack of MSFT software, then it is ultimately the kids loss. I would say hordes of American children (and Chinese, Indian, et. al) grew up on Windows. Did that somehow take away the spirit of learning?

Create 18y ago
if countries won't buy the XO for lack of MSFT software read the Negroponte NYT quote carefully. It is basic colonial behaviour (corruption etc.): "“The people who buy the machines are not the children who use them, but government officials in most cases,” said Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the nonprofit group. “And those people are much more comfortable with Windows.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?ref=technology http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?r... "Did that somehow take away the spirit of learning?" The spirit of learning is inherently human (evolutional design), therefore not even MS can take hijack it: taking it away is even more nonsense[1]. But if you think of the real breakthroughs, they are independent of Windows (you cannot beat them by playing in accordance to the rules they dictate: this is what RMS might have meant in the quote above). Google could (have) never eclipse(d) MS, if it were built on it. Nor Facebook, or whatever "web2.00" you might think of. Nor OSX. Most "innovation" or development is as independent of Windows as it can be: though it has to leverage on the userbase. This is why it is "trendy" to consider it as a buggy device driver. Growing up with windows is a factual matter: try purchasing a PC without it: and this begs for even more questions... [1] though Adam Curtis' Century of the Self is worrying http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22century%20of%20the%20self%22 http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22century%20of%20th...
axod 18y ago
That's a short term view. Microsoft still has a monopoly, but it's dying. Teaching children on windows isn't a good idea IMHO. It's unlikely to be relevent to them when they are older.
LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
The rise of the closed and proprietary Microsoft Windows PC cut off a generation of budding hackers from easy access to programming and software independence in their formative years. It wasn't until I had access to the Internet and DJGPP (the GNU toolchain ported to DOS) that I truly was able to freely pursue my interest in programming.