3 ms·

Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

5 points by xirium 18y ago

krschultz 18y ago
As someone who bought the buy 2 get 1, I feel betrayed by the Windows fiasco. That is NOT what I was supporting, it is like giving money to a candidate that said they were pro choice and then they support Roberts nomination. I would love to know more details about the deal, Microsoft has to be funding them in some way, even if it was free $ wise, why would they go with Windows over Linux after investing all that time into Sugar?
- wmf 18y ago
  Maybe you read some of the wrong press coverage. OLPC will be offering a choice of Linux-only or dual-boot laptops, so every one will still have Linux (which may or may not be used). Some customers demanded Windows or nothing and OLPC choose to deliver dual-boot instead of nothing; hopefully those dual-boot laptops will create volume and help OLPC bring the price down for everyone. I don't think dual-boot will lead to fewer users of Linux/Sugar; people who want Linux will still use Linux and people who want Windows will apparently never use Linux and you can't force them to. It's anti-freedom to ban customers from running Windows on hardware that they own.
mattmaroon 18y ago
I'm sure I'm in the minority here for thinking this (and by all means, downmod away) but Stallman is clearly a touch insane. His obsession with free software is far beyond the bounds of reason. The Windows on XO issue aside, disabling Wi-Fi just to not run one proprietary piece of code is silly, even if you wouldn't use Wi-Fi anyway. Everyone needs a religion I guess, even people who surf the web by sending mail to demons.
- xirium 18y ago
  > His obsession with free software is far beyond the bounds of reason. He's far-sighted and he defends rights before they become important to the mainstream. He has taken what some people view as an extreme position because if he was more moderate then those rights would be more easily eroded. When the Lispers at the MIT AI Lab split into two proprietary factions ( http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Chapter_7:_A_Stark_Moral_Choice http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Chapter_7:_A_Stark... ), Richard Stallman stayed behind and wrote an open source version of their developments. You may have a descendant of this code installed on your desktop. When Richard Stallman's story called The Right To Read appeared in the Feb 1997 issue of The Communications Of The ACM ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ), people thought this was an unlikely dystopian future. However, 11 years later, DRM is a real and present situation which affects anyone who uses a DVD player, a Tivo, an iPod, an iPhone, a Kindle and Windows Media Player - and many more who don't.
- greyman 18y ago
  I modded you up. In my opinion it is good to have an XP in OLPC. Children can learn Windows, which is a de-facto standard in corporate world, so they will be prepared better for their professional future.
  - xirium 18y ago
    I'm not modding you but I strongly disagree. > Children can learn Windows, which is a de-facto standard in corporate world, so they will be prepared better for their professional future. Teaching a seven year child how to use XP is of no benefit because XP will be obsolete before the child leaves school. The de-facto argument is circular and isn't in the best interests of the child.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    I think it's good to have the option. I can't really have a problem with kids being able but not forced to use Windows. XP might not still be in action by the time they graduate to a normal PC, but it will probably somewhat resemble whichever one does.
    - xirium 18y ago
      There's plenty of open source software that resembles XP. Why not use that? Indeed, the initial version of OLPC was designed specifically to be below the specification to run XP and now Microsoft has a small team hacking up the stock version of XP so that it will run in a smaller space and with less processing power. Even then, as I understand, an XP install requires an additional 1GB memory stick. This increases price, decreases the number of children who benefit, decreases the "de-facto" aspect and allows proprietary interests to jeopardise the initiative. All this is for the benefit of cautious beaucrats who can easily find other reasons against purchase.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Well, there is a near infinite amount of freeware and shareware that only runs on Windows. Why not give people access to that? I can't see any reason not to give people the option. I guess I don't view it the same way because I'm not as anti-proprietary. The goal of the XO seems, to me, not so much to further open source software (it hardly needs the help) but to further the education of the poor. I don't see how giving them more options could not do so.
bdfh42 18y ago
It is my impression that both Stallman and Negroponte have completely lost the plot on the OLPC. Surely, the whole point of the project was to deliver an educational tool to children - in particular the children of the poor who would otherwise be denied access to good teaching and effective learning experiences. It looks to me that Negroponte just wants to ship boxes and somehow "beat" competitors in the new ultra low cost market that the OLPC has created. Stallman just wants it to use software that meets his definition of "free". All focus on education seems to have been lost. I had strong doubts about the educational value of the project up front but without that component being the most important then the project has lost it's purpose. Simply making "third world" children familiar with XP or a Linux distro does not seem worth the effort - the project needs to re-evaluate itself and focus again on it's original stated goal.

5 points by xirium 18y ago

As someone who bought the buy 2 get 1, I feel betrayed by the Windows fiasco. That is NOT what I was supporting, it is like giving money to a candidate that said they were pro choice and then they support Roberts nomination. I would love to know more details about the deal, Microsoft has to be funding them in some way, even if it was free $ wise, why would they go with Windows over Linux after investing all that time into Sugar?

wmf 18y ago
Maybe you read some of the wrong press coverage. OLPC will be offering a choice of Linux-only or dual-boot laptops, so every one will still have Linux (which may or may not be used). Some customers demanded Windows or nothing and OLPC choose to deliver dual-boot instead of nothing; hopefully those dual-boot laptops will create volume and help OLPC bring the price down for everyone. I don't think dual-boot will lead to fewer users of Linux/Sugar; people who want Linux will still use Linux and people who want Windows will apparently never use Linux and you can't force them to. It's anti-freedom to ban customers from running Windows on hardware that they own.

mattmaroon 18y ago

I'm sure I'm in the minority here for thinking this (and by all means, downmod away) but Stallman is clearly a touch insane. His obsession with free software is far beyond the bounds of reason. The Windows on XO issue aside, disabling Wi-Fi just to not run one proprietary piece of code is silly, even if you wouldn't use Wi-Fi anyway. Everyone needs a religion I guess, even people who surf the web by sending mail to demons.

xirium 18y ago
> His obsession with free software is far beyond the bounds of reason. He's far-sighted and he defends rights before they become important to the mainstream. He has taken what some people view as an extreme position because if he was more moderate then those rights would be more easily eroded. When the Lispers at the MIT AI Lab split into two proprietary factions ( http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Chapter_7:_A_Stark_Moral_Choice http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Chapter_7:_A_Stark... ), Richard Stallman stayed behind and wrote an open source version of their developments. You may have a descendant of this code installed on your desktop. When Richard Stallman's story called The Right To Read appeared in the Feb 1997 issue of The Communications Of The ACM ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ), people thought this was an unlikely dystopian future. However, 11 years later, DRM is a real and present situation which affects anyone who uses a DVD player, a Tivo, an iPod, an iPhone, a Kindle and Windows Media Player - and many more who don't.
greyman 18y ago
I modded you up. In my opinion it is good to have an XP in OLPC. Children can learn Windows, which is a de-facto standard in corporate world, so they will be prepared better for their professional future.
- xirium 18y ago
  I'm not modding you but I strongly disagree. > Children can learn Windows, which is a de-facto standard in corporate world, so they will be prepared better for their professional future. Teaching a seven year child how to use XP is of no benefit because XP will be obsolete before the child leaves school. The de-facto argument is circular and isn't in the best interests of the child.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  I think it's good to have the option. I can't really have a problem with kids being able but not forced to use Windows. XP might not still be in action by the time they graduate to a normal PC, but it will probably somewhat resemble whichever one does.
  - xirium 18y ago
    There's plenty of open source software that resembles XP. Why not use that? Indeed, the initial version of OLPC was designed specifically to be below the specification to run XP and now Microsoft has a small team hacking up the stock version of XP so that it will run in a smaller space and with less processing power. Even then, as I understand, an XP install requires an additional 1GB memory stick. This increases price, decreases the number of children who benefit, decreases the "de-facto" aspect and allows proprietary interests to jeopardise the initiative. All this is for the benefit of cautious beaucrats who can easily find other reasons against purchase.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Well, there is a near infinite amount of freeware and shareware that only runs on Windows. Why not give people access to that? I can't see any reason not to give people the option. I guess I don't view it the same way because I'm not as anti-proprietary. The goal of the XO seems, to me, not so much to further open source software (it hardly needs the help) but to further the education of the poor. I don't see how giving them more options could not do so.

bdfh42 18y ago

It is my impression that both Stallman and Negroponte have completely lost the plot on the OLPC. Surely, the whole point of the project was to deliver an educational tool to children - in particular the children of the poor who would otherwise be denied access to good teaching and effective learning experiences. It looks to me that Negroponte just wants to ship boxes and somehow "beat" competitors in the new ultra low cost market that the OLPC has created. Stallman just wants it to use software that meets his definition of "free". All focus on education seems to have been lost. I had strong doubts about the educational value of the project up front but without that component being the most important then the project has lost it's purpose. Simply making "third world" children familiar with XP or a Linux distro does not seem worth the effort - the project needs to re-evaluate itself and focus again on it's original stated goal.