Hi folks, > I read Negroponte's statement presenting the OLPC XO as a platform for > Windows in the most ironic circumstances possible: during a week of > preparing, under a deadline, to migrate personally to an XO. > > 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. > > As always happens, problems arose, which delayed the migration until last > week. On Friday, when I discussed some technical problems with the OLPC > staff, we also discussed how to save the future of the project. > > Some enthusiasts of the GNU/Linux system are extremely disappointed by the > prospect that the XO, if it is a success, will not be a platform for the > system they love. Those who have supported the OLPC project with their > effort or their money may well feel betrayed. However, those concerns are > dwarfed by what is at stake here: whether the XO is an influence for freedom > or an influence for subjection.
One of prime reason I was told OLPC Nepal[1] disbanded was because XO is heading towards proprietary path; Microsoft Windows path. > Since the OLPC was first announced we have envisioned it as a way to lead > millions of children around the world to a life in which they do computing > in freedom. The project announced its intention to give children a path to > learn about computers by allowing them to study and tinker with the > software. It may yet do that, but there is a danger that it will not. If > most of the XOs that are actually used run Windows, the overall effect will > be the opposite. Exactly Richard! > 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. If the XO turns out to be a platform for spreading the > use of proprietary software, its overall effect on the world will be > negative. But how do we as a netizen FOSSians help XO not use Windows? Funding? Coding? How? When OLPC Nepal has it's own problem of funding from the government, and then this mishap comes up that XO -> Windows, it instills a bad vibe and becomes a real annoyance to developers working on getting those laptops out to the kids. > It is also superfluous. The OLPC has already inspired other cheap computers; > if the goal is only to make cheap computers available, the OLPC project has > succeeded whether or not more XOs are built. So why build more XOs? > Delivering freedom would be a good reason. Yes Sir! That is true. The wave of cheap laptops seen today like EeePC, Nova NetPC and others have certainly had big influence from XO in the OSS market segment to actually make laptops affordable to be able to distribute to kids. > The project's decision is not final; the free software community must do > everything possible to convince OLPC to continue being (aside from one > firmware package) a force for freedom. How? > Part of what we can do is offer to help with the project's own free > software. OLPC hoped for contribution from the community to its interface, > Sugar, but this has not happened much. Partly that's because OLPC has not > structured its development so as to reach out to the community for help -- > which means, when viewed in constructive terms, that OLPC can obtain more > contribution by starting to do this. > > Sugar is free software, and contributing to it is a good thing to do. But > don't forget the goal: helpful contributions are those that make Sugar > better on free operating systems. Porting to Windows is permitted by the > license, but it isn't a good thing to do. All well-thought out but Richard and I as any other FOSSian or Freedom lover would agree but you don't say the answer to how. :) We need answers to -how-to-solve-the-issue at hand. [1] http://www.olpcnepal.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ FOSS Nepal mailing list: [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
