[sugar] [support-gang] Microsoft
david at lang.hm
Thu May 15 20:56:31 EDT 2008
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Steve Holton wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Seth Woodworth <seth at isforinsects.com>
>> Let's look at this with a slightly different lens before we blow up on NN
>> and Microsoft.
>> What does this agreement equate to? And what are the alternatives to
>> If the XO was running a completely closed source stack with no
>> documentation on hardware, how would the Linux community feel? They would
>> feel that they were being shut out and not allowed to run whatever software
>> they wanted to or develop. This is something the linux community has
>> speared hardware companies over for years.
> ...and to which the free software (linux) community would respond with a
> reverse engineering effort, at it's own (collective) expense, and rather
> quickly have a solution. If turnabout is fair play, let Microsoft adopt the
> free software community response as well.
> (When Cisco modified their WRT54G hardware so that Linux could no longer
> run, the response was to strip-down the gnu/linux stack even more until it
> would run again.)
> It's doubtful the free software community would do what Microsoft is
> demanding: asking the manufacturer to add 5-10% to the cost of the hardware
> to facilitate their efforts, nor would the free software community charge a
> $3.00 license fee for the use thereafter.
I missed where the hardware was being changed and the cost going up to
support this. what I read was that the boot firmware was being modified so
that it could dual-boot into windows.
please point me at the additional cost involved.
> If you're going to paint us all with the same brush, at least use the same
> paint, too.
> So as a fair practice I think it's clear that no special actions can
>> ethically be made to prevent Windows or any other OS from running on the
>> machine. So a Windows port for the XO isn't something that could have been
> Agree. But that's not what is being proposed. The agreement clearly includes
> a modification of the original principles (minimum cost for the devices) to
> provide a Microsoft handicap in this game. I would not call that "fair
>> Furthermore OLPC's sale of the XO hardware doesn't come with any
>> restrictions for use. To not allow countries to install windows once they
>> take ownership would be a completely unethical move given OLPC's commitments
>> to freedom.
> OLPC has NEVER made any mention of preventing anyone (with a developer key)
> from installing whatever software they wanted to install on the XO, (which
> cannot be said of all computer system manufacturers
> cough*cough*XBOX*cough*cough) That's not what's being discussed here.
> Negroponte is taking proactive action to create a more favorable environment
> for Microsoft. Is OLPC making the same offer to Ubuntu? Debian? What about
> Red Hat?
> From scuttlebut about this deal and the way that I understand it, it's the
>> equivalent of OLPC/Quanta selling the machines to Microsoft and they doing
>> whatever they want with them. I'm not as clear on this point, but is there
>> an ethical problem with selling the machine to Microsoft?
> Not at all. The problem appears to be that Microsoft is asking/demanding
> that the OLPC principles be modified in deference to Microsoft.
>> Could OLPC ethically Not sell the machine to whoever wanted to buy them in
>> large volumes? We must remember that hardware companies have invested a
>> good deal of money on the expectation that they can at best break even on
>> the XO production. They haven't reached nearly the levels of machines sold
>> to satisfy these manufacturors.
> The hardware manufacturers are not loosing as much on the per-unit sales of
> these devices as they are gaining from the non-profit funded research and
> development which went into producing them. I was under the impression the
> hardware manufacturers weren't loosing anything on the per-unit sales.
>> Do I want to see Windows on the XO? No, never, and god I hope not. Will
>> Microsoft end up screwing us? Likely, given their history.
> It will not happen unless OLPC facilitates it. They appear to be doing just
> so. And doing so in part with the time and money I donated to the cause.
> I don't like to get angry, but....
>> Will this still give us the chance to put great hardware and content into
>> the hands of children all over the world? Yes.
> Nope. It's over.
>> But Linux and FOSS can't triumph over Microsoft by excluding them and by
>> obfusication. We need to make a better product.
> I think you are under the impression that the 'education project' has been
> somehow hindered by efforts aimed at *preventing* Microsoft from
> contributing. I do not see that as the case. Speaking as one of those 'free
> software fundamentalists", I can say I long ago wrote-off Microsoft and
> pretty much ignore what they choose to do. (They know it, and that
> dismissiveness is one of the things that keeps Microsoft up at night.)
> If Microsoft wants to shape up and join the future, only their shareholders
> will complain.
> That's not what's being discussed.
> Microsoft is begging the OLPC non-profit to make their job (of getting their
> software to run on the XO) easier, at the expense of the 'educational
> project' goals.
> (Oh wait, I forgot, this is a laptop project, isn't it?)
>> With Walter Bender on his own and dedicated to bringing Sugar to every
>> machine on a FOSS stack, and all OLPC produced software being safely GPL'ed,
>> I feel confident that Sugar can beat out Windows.
> Of course. Sugar is not dead, just OLPC. That's why the fork occurred.
> Let's focus on getting sugar and linux and what we *can* do instead of being
>> angry. I plan on staying and producing content, translations and
>> improvements for OLPC and for children.
>> Seth Woodworth
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Asheesh Laroia <
>> asheesh at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Nicholas Negroponte wrote:
>>>> One Laptop per Child is announcing an agreement with Microsoft
>>>> to make a dual boot, Linux/Windows, version of the XO laptop. In
>>>> addition, our intention is to engage one or more third parties to port
>>> Sugar to
>>>> run on Windows in order to reach a wider installed base of laptops. In
>>>> meanwhile, OLPC remains fully committed to our goal: a completely free
>>>> and open learning platform for the world's children. The mission
>>>> statement of OLPC has not changed in three years (attached).
>>> My copy of this mail (as available at
>>> http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/sugar/2008-May/005752.html ) does not
>>> have the attachment of the mission statement.
>>> -- Asheesh.
>>> Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.)
>>> -- Stafford Beer
>>> Devel mailing list
>>> Devel at lists.laptop.org
>> support-gang mailing list
>> support-gang at lists.laptop.org
-------------- next part --------------
Devel mailing list
Devel at lists.laptop.org
More information about the Sugar-devel