I agree this is pretty far afield. We have such mailing lists, though I don't have a general "discuss" mailing list established.
Please see: http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo for what's set up so far. Should I establish a discuss list? Regards, - Jim On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 11:01 -0700, Kevin Purcell wrote: > 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] > > -- Jim Gettys One Laptop Per Child -- olpc-software mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/olpc-software
