Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Jim. This might actually be usefully
put into the Wiki along with Khaled Hassounah's reply.
I'm not Microsoft bashing or baiting or trolling but I am an ex-MSFT
from the Win CE Tools team (and I'm not a fan of MSFT) so I'm perhaps
more cautious than some.
Comments interspersed below. I apologize for this getting so long.
BTW, we really need an olpc-discuss for more general discussion. I
feel this mail is perhaps a bit far from olpc-software mandate
(whatever that might be).
On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Kevin,
First, to clarify a misconception: the goal of the project is kid's
learning; not open source per se'. Fundamentally, this a project to
help
the *education* of as many children as possible.
I understand that and agree.
But this isn't Microsoft's goal. Their objective is to make money by
maintaining the domiance of their operating systems and applications
and bringing new users into the fold. They can't see the OLPC's $100
laptop as anything but a threat because it takes their biggest rival
(Linux) into a new market that they don't own and need to expand
into. The $100 laptop potentially makes 25% of the laptops shipped
non-Windows (given Negroponte's estimates).
In that sense they might see HDLT running as the biggest threat
outside the First World. And potentially a big threat in the First
World if more states decide they want these laptops for their schools.
Having stated the goal in these terms, *also* understand that we
believe
strongly that a software which kids can take apart and put back
together
again is essential to learning computing, which is a key skill in
today's world. We don't believe you can learn much from things you
can't take apart, see how they work, and put back together again. For
these reasons, open source/free software and content are very
important
to achieving our goal, but the goal is that kids *learn*. Open source
and free software are an extremely important means to our end.
I agree.
And Microsoft will totally disagree because they want people to have
only "just enough" access to the hardware and software to make them
good customers. FOSS turns software into a commodity and removes
their commercial mass-market.
For example, Gates current public viewpoint is expressed in
<http://news.com.com/Gates+sizes+up+the+Webs+next+generation+-+page
+3/2008-7345_3-6051890-3.html>
where he pushes the Smartphone and shared PC as he models for
developing country. Both of course are ways of Microsoft selling
growth product (the Smartphone is the major focus of all Windows CE
work today) and existing product (of course, a shared PC would runs
Windows and Office).
Neither of these target the population the OLPC is aimed at (kids in
the developing world who need an education) or have the
"constructivist" education ideas behind them. They resemble (to use a
very loaded analogy) the tobacco industry looking for new places to
sell old stuff.
Second: I was present at Nicholas' keynote. I'm not convinced that
the
Wired article is reflecting exactly what Nicholas said yesterday. They
didn't get it badly wrong, but I also don't think they got it exactly
right.
I suspect this is true. I've now read a couple of different version.
The one sourced from AP is much more a collection of sound-bites. The
CNET News version is a bit more nuanced.
But rather than try to quibble with whose memory or writing is
correct, let this third point make it clear:
Third: We've always said, from day one, the machine is a fully *open*
platform, hardware (and from our end, software). This is why the specs
of the machine are up on the web in good detail even before the design
of the hardware is complete. How could our machine not be an open
platform, if we want kids to be able to understand how computers
really
work?????
We've stated the hardware platform is open, consistently, from day
one,
to everyone, up to and including Bill Gates and other senior
executives
at Microsoft and everywhere else. We are not in the discrimination
business, or out to get anyone; we are here to build a machine that
can
meet our goals of enabling kids all over the world to learn.
I don't disagree with that.
But I also made a distinction that the hardware design won't be 100%
"open" (whatever that means -- I think of "open" as in GPLed or Share-
and-share-alike CC license) unless Quanta will release any IPR
considerations they have. I think the latter is unlikely if it
enables their competitors to make them because that is their specific
competency.
There are degrees of openness and as you make clear I'm sure you are
going to make it as open as you can (more open than the iPaq, for
example). So long as the "model" is open so a user knows what the
peripheral chips are and where they live in the memory map or on the
IO ports then that should suffice to bing any OS to the hardware
platform.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone else came to you and Quanta and
said "We want Quanta to make 5 million of these for us to sell in
schools in the US with 30% of profits going to OLPC" everyone would
jump at the chance.
Nicholas has told Microsoft this many times. I was personally present
once when we've told Microsoft this. Whether Microsoft believes it or
not is hard for me to gage, but I can attest first hand that very
senior
Microsoft executives were told they were welcome to port Windows CE or
anything else they liked to the hardware, that we made it crystal
clear
there were no reservations when asked to clarify these statements,
and I
know we mean exactly what we say. The OLPC hardware system is an open
system. How in the world could it be a closed platform and meet our
goals????
If Microsoft wants to put CE on the machine, or Singularity, or DOS on
the machine, it's OK with us, *exactly* as if you want to put *BSD or
Java OS, or TOPS-20 running on SIMH on the machine, or something else
you want to write from scratch. So far, Microsoft hasn't asked us for
help.
Regards,
Jim Gettys
OLPC
A final worst-case speculation that reads like a conspiracy theory
(which I don't like but I did work for MSFT remember -- they do (or
did) think like this).
This scenario illustrates the potential perils of playing open
systems with Microsoft. Recall that the original PC was an
(unintentional) open system in a similar manner to the $100 laptop --
it came with schematics and then AMI reengineered the BIOS so IBM
wasn't the sole source of the hardware.
The problem for OLPC is that MSFT does wake up to the "threat" posed
to them by the HDLT. Given the current estimates when HDLTs ship they
will ship 25% of the laptops in one year and they will be Linux
based. A smart Steve or Bill might see the writing on the wall when
the realize this and figure some sort of response is needed. We've
already seen the PR response from BillG along the lines of "that's
the stupidest thing I've heard of".
The Win CE team get a BSP together for the OLPC platforms (it's a
Geode so that should be easy plus some extra hardware). Then they
build a much more regular looking Jupiter-like platform (remember the
HP620 and HP820 and the like?). Then they build a firmware image
consisting of the usual CE software with perhaps some of the already
ported packages (like Squeak). It doesn't seem like much effort to
me. The biggest efforts would be mesh networking (which they could
just junk -- let them use an AP from the local shared PC) and,
perhaps more importantly, the dynamic power management of the HDLT
hardware. And the almost complete absence of tools.
On the BizDev side they realize that this product isn't for
individual sale but purchasd by government entities in the respective
countries. This is an opportunity for a "divide and conquer" strategy
(just like the good old days). So they cozy up to the "powers that
be" in various developing countries of choice who are buying these
OLPCs. This is a good pressure point and something Microsoft
lobbyists could be rather good at. They persuade the government folks
to choose their WinCE OLPC firmware on the OLPC hardware for perhaps
a contribution or two plus some Microsoft infrastructure and maybe
integration with their Smartphone and Shared PC initiatives.
This Win CE HDLT model might "sell" even better in the First World
schools (ask a parent "Do you prefer a Microsoft Powered laptop?" and
what answer do you think might you get even if it is Windows CE)
especially if Microsoft waives the royalties as a charitable donation.
Upsides for Microsoft:
0. For a small investment you disrupt the biggest Linux roll out ever.
1. Catch them young. Sell Windows to the third world.
2. Mesh with other profitable Microsoft initiatives
3. Potential good PR when you spin it as Microsoft charity and
helping the less fortunate with donations of software and perhaps
subsidized hardware.
4. Keep the $100 laptop out of First World schools
There are multiple downsides for the OLPC project if this were to occur:
0. It disrupts the original goals of the OLPC project (constructivist
education)
1. Open source doesn't get out to the developing world (freedom to
tinker)
2. The opportunity to get Linux out to a large number of boxes is
reduced (collateral goal)
So it's an amusing (or terrifying or just demented) speculation
depending on your viewpoint. Of course this wouldn't be the end of
OLPC. I'm sure some countries would choose it. And it would go on to
be successful.
I think it's most likley that Microsoft stick to their "Shared PC and
Smartphone for the developing world" model. Maybe they'll build a Win
CE BSP for this hardware and release the firmware in a half-hearted
way but don't get the power management right and are not unsucessful
in deploying it. This approach is more likely to work in schools in
the US but it might work in some of the more developed Developing
countries too. Hopefully governments in the developing world aren't
as corrupt as I make them out to be but a recent Wired article
doesn't lead one to be very hopeful about this.
Kevin Purcell
The Devil's Advocate
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:48 -0700, Kevin Purcell wrote:
Not a technical question ... but there is a Wired News story authored
by the AP
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70584-0.html>
In which amongst the usual fodder (and errors, it's a 366MHz AMD
Geode) says:
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has criticized the computers' design,
including its lack of a hard disk drive — though many people in the
tech world believed he was more irked by the laptops' use of Linux,
the free, open-source system that competes with Gates' proprietary
Windows systems.
[...]
Negroponte expressed frustration with Gates in particular, saying
that the $100 laptop designers are still working with Microsoft to
develop a version of the Windows CE operating system that could run
the machines.
"Geez, so why criticize me in public?" Negroponte said.
Microsoft did not immediately return calls for comment.
A second OS for the $100 laptop? WTF?
Given a goal of the OLPC is open source I wonder what's going on
here. If they changed their mind now and switched to Win CE you'd see
the external software effort support drop to epsilon (though Squeak
would still be there with no porting effort :-).
Any comments from people closer to Negroponte? Did he say this? Did
he mean this?
--
Kevin Purcell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
olpc-software mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/olpc-software
--
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child
--
Kevin Purcell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
olpc-software mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/olpc-software
