Re: [sugar] Microsoft
Very typical modus operandi for leviathan -- Convenient errors in the news. Convenient to leviathan, at any rate, not to the poor mucks whose work they intend to capitalize. Is someone who can claim more authority and give better information than I going to notify the NYTimes of the error? On 平成 20/05/17, at 18:16, Edward Cherlin wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot. No, Windows costs about $7 extra for the flash card plus $3 for the license. Countries wouldn't save anything by removing Linux + Sugar, which is all free. Dual-boot and Windows-only would have the same cost. According to the recent nytimes.com article: NYT: Windows will add a bit to the price of the machines, NYT: about $3, the licensing fee Microsoft charges to some NYT: developing nations under a program called Unlimited Potential. NYT: For those nations that want models that can run both Windows NYT: and Linux, the extra hardware required will add another $7 or NYT: so to the cost of the machines, Mr. Negroponte said. I can parse that two different ways, neither of which agrees with you: True, but the press release is wrong, on this and on other points. Linux-only is $0 extra. Correct. Windows-only is $3 extra. No, $10 extra. XP does not fit in the 1G flash on the stock XO. It requires the additional SD card. Dual-boot is either $7 extra or $10 extra. $10 extra compared with Linux-only, as I said. (depending on if another means adding the $7 to the price of the laptop, or to the price after already adding $3) -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Sugar mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar Joel Rees (waiting for a 3+GHz ARM processor to come out, to test Steve's willingness to switch again.) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot. No, Windows costs about $7 extra for the flash card plus $3 for the license. Countries wouldn't save anything by removing Linux + Sugar, which is all free. Dual-boot and Windows-only would have the same cost. According to the recent nytimes.com article: NYT: Windows will add a bit to the price of the machines, NYT: about $3, the licensing fee Microsoft charges to some NYT: developing nations under a program called Unlimited Potential. NYT: For those nations that want models that can run both Windows NYT: and Linux, the extra hardware required will add another $7 or NYT: so to the cost of the machines, Mr. Negroponte said. I can parse that two different ways, neither of which agrees with you: True, but the press release is wrong, on this and on other points. Linux-only is $0 extra. Correct. Windows-only is $3 extra. No, $10 extra. XP does not fit in the 1G flash on the stock XO. It requires the additional SD card. Dual-boot is either $7 extra or $10 extra. $10 extra compared with Linux-only, as I said. (depending on if another means adding the $7 to the price of the laptop, or to the price after already adding $3) -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 22:19 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: Windows-only is $3 extra. No, you can't fit Windows in 1 Gig of NAND. You get to pay the $7 for an SD card no matter what, to run Windows, for $10 total. - Jim -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seth Woodworth writes: 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 preventative. Wrong. It's called tit-for-tat, otherwise known as fair-is-fair. It's perfectly ethical to defend oneself against an adversary who has no qualms about anything. Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot. No, Windows costs about $7 extra for the flash card plus $3 for the license. Countries wouldn't save anything by removing Linux + Sugar, which is all free. Dual-boot and Windows-only would have the same cost. I do believe in fairness. The XO should run Windows about as well as the Xbox 360 runs Linux. Note that the Xbox 360 has numerous hardware features which were purposely designed to impede Linux. Fairness mandates that we have hardware to lock out Windows. Hardware is costly of course. A slightly weaker solution would be to have the firmware use SMM/SMI tricks to regularly get a bit of CPU time to scan for Windows in memory. If the firmware finds that Windows is running, then it silently corrupts RAM. The ideal would be to make Windows survive about an hour before crashing. (keep the feature secret of course, to make debugging painful) It would have been a lot simpler to have left OFW as it was, unable to support a Windows boot. But the point is now moot. ___ Sugar mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would have been a lot simpler to have left OFW as it was, unable to support a Windows boot. But the point is now moot. No, actually that would have forced the Windows scenario to require a BIOS to be flashed in place of OFW. Then we lose the simple dual boot capability. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
At 07:27 PM 5/15/2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote: My copy of this mail does not have the attachment of the mission statement. Mission statement.doc Description: MS-Word document ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
2008/5/16 Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (word document attached) For those who can't or won't open the word document, it contains simply this: Mission statement of OLPC To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a human right and cost free to them. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
We could still boot Linux on a conventional BIOS, like on every other machine in the world. But then we give up fast suspend/resume, and distribution channel security. It seems to me that having Linux able to work better than Windows in fundamental ways is wise ;-). - Jim On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 12:08 +0200, Morgan Collett wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would have been a lot simpler to have left OFW as it was, unable to support a Windows boot. But the point is now moot. No, actually that would have forced the Windows scenario to require a BIOS to be flashed in place of OFW. Then we lose the simple dual boot capability. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
Morgan Collett wrote: 2008/5/16 Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (word document attached) For those who can't or won't open the word document, it contains simply this: Mission statement of OLPC To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a human right and cost free to them. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel Its nothing like what I see at http://laptop.org/vision/mission/ Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Sameer Verma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Morgan Collett wrote: 2008/5/16 Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (word document attached) For those who can't or won't open the word document, it contains simply this: Mission statement of OLPC To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a human right and cost free to them. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel The phrase making them more active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative activities appears to be code for Constructionism. Or maybe weasel-wording. Its nothing like what I see at http://laptop.org/vision/mission/ Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel Quite right. http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/new_olpc_mission_statement.html Another New OLPC Mission Statement?! Posted on May 16, 2008 by Wayan Vota in People: Negroponte In the midst of the latest Windows on the XO controversy, Nicholas Negroponte seems to have announced a third new mission statement for One Laptop Per Child. From his email to the OLPC Sugar list serve he says that the OLPC mission hasn't changed in three years, and then points to this statement: olpc mission To eliminate poverty and create world peace by providing education to the poorest and most remote children on the planet by making them more active in their own learning, through collaborative and creative activities, connected to the Internet, with their own laptop, as a human right and cost free to them. Now unless I just came down with Negropontism, the current OLPC mission statement on Laptop.org doesn't look anything like that. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any mention of free laptops and Internet access as basic human right when I read: OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an end—an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community. Let's also not forget that the current OLPC mission, whichever one it is, was not the first mission espoused by One Laptop Per Child. The orginal OLPC mission was much more revolutionary, and to use a word from Walter Bender, prescriptive: OLPC is not at heart a technology program and the XO is not a product in any conventional sense of the word. We are non-profit: constructionism is our goal; XO is our means of getting there. It is a very cool, even revolutionary machine, and we are very proud of it. But we would also be delighted if someone built something better, and at a lower price. I wonder, does Windows XO count as better? -- Edward Cherlin End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ The best way to predict the future is to invent it.--Alan Kay ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot. No, Windows costs about $7 extra for the flash card plus $3 for the license. Countries wouldn't save anything by removing Linux + Sugar, which is all free. Dual-boot and Windows-only would have the same cost. According to the recent nytimes.com article: NYT: Windows will add a bit to the price of the machines, NYT: about $3, the licensing fee Microsoft charges to some NYT: developing nations under a program called Unlimited Potential. NYT: For those nations that want models that can run both Windows NYT: and Linux, the extra hardware required will add another $7 or NYT: so to the cost of the machines, Mr. Negroponte said. I can parse that two different ways, neither of which agrees with you: Linux-only is $0 extra. Windows-only is $3 extra. Dual-boot is either $7 extra or $10 extra. (depending on if another means adding the $7 to the price of the laptop, or to the price after already adding $3) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
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 the 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@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
Dear Nicholas, You made very strong points in your keynotes about the XO outlining exactly (and correctly) WHY you were staying away from Microsoft.? Also, if you think Microsoft has any long-term interest in dual boot systems, you don't know them very well. I'm saddened by your announcement because it is anti-kid.? If the grown-ups don't stop thinking of kids as small adults, they will never get the computers they need.? 36 million kids will be using Linux in Brazil by the end of the year (in labs), so we have lots of independent verification that there is life without Microsoft.? You told us that the XO was specifically designed to avoid the need to carry the huge Windows overhead.? And, while we're at it, don't forget that Microsoft already charges many schools $100 per computer per year for the privilege of running their software. This is a sad state of affairs, indeed. David Thornburg -Original Message- From: Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nicholas Negroponte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 15 May 2008 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [sugar] Microsoft 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 the 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 ___ Sugar mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [sugar] Microsoft
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 Microsoft? 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. 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 preventative. 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. 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? 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. 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. Will this still give us the chance to put great hardware and content into the hands of children all over the world? Yes. But Linux and FOSS can't triumph over Microsoft by excluding them and by obfusication. We need to make a better product. 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. 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. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org Seth Woodworth On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Asheesh Laroia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 the 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@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
