Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. ...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. 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 preventative. 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 practice. 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
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. He's not declaring a policy of ethical inaction. He made an announcement called Microsoft wherein he describes an OLPC-supported firmware modification that will allow Windows to boot on the XO-1. He p it to an OLPC mailing list. He then claimed no OLPC resources would be devoted to the project. I'm left wondering how many of those resources went into this firmware mod. 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. If XO sales are so unrestricted, why can't I buy one at laptop.org? 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. Those people knew what they were getting into before they signed on. If they didn't like the prospect of non-profit hardware projects, they should have passed on the deal. I understand they put a lot into this deal -- and I appreciate their support of a project whose (originally-stated) goals are dear to my heart. But let's be honest -- it was never in their contract for OLPC to start shipping a monopolist's code to pull their asses out of the fire. Will this still give us the chance to put great hardware and content into the hands of children all over the world? Yes. Hardware is useless without control. Remember when this was an education project? Where'd all *that* rhetoric go? In this country, we complain about vendor lock-in -- on everything from terrible ISO standards (remember who was behind subverting THAT open process) to our mobile phones. But this isn't some abstract problem that prevents us from using Google Maps on our Blackberries. These kids don't *have* anything else, and we should not hand control of their education over to *any* for-profit company. In fact, we should *actively oppose* the idea. But Linux and FOSS can't triumph over Microsoft by excluding them and by obfusication. We need to make a better product. I don't care who triumphs over whom. I did not donate to the OLPC foundation to fund a market-assault vector for a convicted monopolist. 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. Sugar can't beat out Windows if it's busy running on top of Windows. On a final note: Additionally, the Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu software environments run on the XO-1, adding support for tens of thousands of free software applications. I am terrified at the thought that the rest of this press release might be anywhere near as disingenuous as this statement. No part of it is actually untrue, but all of it is misleading. Hell, there has yet to be a single build of the OLPC distro that is feature-complete -- and I can tell you from personal experience that Debian, Fedora, Slackware, and many other operating systems can *run* but aren't *practical.* How is this relevant? When Microsoft sits down and throws its vast resources at making Windows just work on the XO-1, it's going to blow our current FOSS distributions out of the water. *That's* what worries me. We don't have suspend and resume working without breaking SD cards. We're retooling Sugar's datastore. OLPC3 is being born. A couple million dollars from Microsoft could turn out a Windows install that *works*, and then no country on the planet would bother even looking at a feature-incomplete FOSS alternative. Please don't mistake me. Among the OLPC developers -- past and present -- are some of my personal heroes. They are doing a phenomenal job with this project, and I have complete faith in them. However, the software we have is not ready to go against competition from Microsoft, especially with untapped emerging markets on the line. You can't fight a corporation by turning the other cheek
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Steve Holton wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. ...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. David Lang 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 preventative. 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 practice. 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
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 17:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Huh? We haven't changed the hardware Jim -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
He's not declaring a policy of ethical inaction. He made an announcement called Microsoft wherein he describes an OLPC-supported firmware modification that will allow Windows to boot on the XO-1. He p it to an OLPC mailing list. He then claimed no OLPC resources would be devoted to the project. I'm left wondering how many of those resources went into this firmware mod. No OLPC resources would be involved in porting Sugar to Windows. So his statement was true, if a bit misleading. If XO sales are so unrestricted, why can't I buy one at laptop.org? Are you willing to buy 100 or more? Will this still give us the chance to put great hardware and content into the hands of children all over the world? Yes. Hardware is useless without control. Remember when this was an education project? Where'd all *that* rhetoric go? In this country, we complain about vendor lock-in -- on everything from terrible ISO standards (remember who was behind subverting THAT open process) to our mobile phones. But this isn't some abstract problem that prevents us from using Google Maps on our Blackberries. These kids don't *have* anything else, and we should not hand control of their education over to *any* for-profit company. In fact, we should *actively oppose* the idea. Be realisitic. Our software isn't customizable beyond a hypothetical. We offer no man pages, no GCC, no source on board, and no training on how to use program. Before we can make the argument of being more customizeable we need to actually document how to change things and supply such information on the XO. A Kindle can still allow you to read a book. Is closed source as useful as open source? No. Is DRM a good thing for children in the third workd? No. But is a calculator better than nothing? Yes. Keep that in mind. But Linux and FOSS can't triumph over Microsoft by excluding them and by obfusication. We need to make a better product. I don't care who triumphs over whom. I did not donate to the OLPC foundation to fund a market-assault vector for a convicted monopolist. I'm not clear how much OLPC is benefitting from this deal, other than laptops sold. You make a good point. A large fraction of the OLPC community is going to see this as a sellout to microsoft. And as completely changing the goals of the project. A lot of developers are going to leave the project, and a lot of the community is going to leave because they care as much about FOSS in education as Laptops in Education. And that's not a bad belief. Open materials and tools are greatly superior to closed ones. 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. Sugar can't beat out Windows if it's busy running on top of Windows. I wholeheartedly believe that Sugar on a FOSS stack will preform better than Sugar on a Windows stack. And I think that this development community can prove that. Now, that proof may well happen at sugarlabs and possibly even on different hardware. I think that it is fairly safe to say that Sugarlabs isn't going to be spending a lot of time porting sugar to windows. Additionally, the Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu software environments run on the XO-1, adding support for tens of thousands of free software applications. I am terrified at the thought that the rest of this press release might be anywhere near as disingenuous as this statement. It sounds like typical marketing doublethink. The people and community of OLPC that I have worked with have been very open and truthful like a FREE AND OPEN project should be. NN however neglests to really have a dialog with the community. There is a big disconnect between the CEO and the community that supports it. This isn't how Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth work. However, the software we have is not ready to go against competition from Microsoft, especially with untapped emerging markets on the line. You can't fight a corporation by turning the other cheek -- much less by giving them a key to your house. Let's also remember that the OLPC project was orignally planned to be open hardware as well. If that had happened, as it should, we would be in the same boat now. Sugar on a free stack has to beat windows by it's quality. This is my goal and this is my belief. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
2008/5/16 Steve Holton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Steve, there is *no* fork. The reason sugarlabs.org is born is that, to be able to broaden Sugar's reach as Nicholas has pointed out in his note, we need to give it a stronger and more independent identity. There are no changes nor disagreements between the Sugar developers. And as you probably know some of them are contracted by OLPC. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
...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. The golden rule doesn't say: Treat others as you have been treated, It says to treat others as you would like to be treated. 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. 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 practice. What is being proposed is that if you want it to run Microsoft apps then countries can pay an extra $10. This gives *them* a handycap in the game and makes it that much easier for us. 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? I agree. Let's start a dialog with Ubuntu! Mark Shuttleworth has mentioned OLPC favorably on this blog a few times, and much of the community has been interested in getting Ubuntu running on the XO. There is a need for a full desktop as well as a sugar UI for these machines. I run Debian on my XO personally and I would love to have a fast Xubuntu going on it. Not at all. The problem appears to be that Microsoft is asking/demanding that the OLPC principles be modified in deference to Microsoft. I don't agree with that statement. If the extra $10 is optional if countries insist on Microsoft anyway. If that's not the case (which of course isn't clear with the meager amount of information we're given) then you are right. I was under the impression the hardware manufacturers weren't loosing anything on the per-unit sales. I may very well be wrong. But I do know that Quanta isn't going to let OLPC open source the hardware schematics that they own until sale volumes are much higher. 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. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not going to argue if that's the way you feel. I hope that you get involved in Sugarlabs, which is all safely GPL'd or maybe work with me on Open / Creative Commons content. There is a lot of work that can be done that can still help and not help OLPC+Microsoft. 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.) I don't understand how that follows? 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. Sugarlabs isn't a fork. The code bases are still the same and aren't going to change. It's more like upstream sources now. Or a forking of management, not code. 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 ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
seth wrote: Of course. Sugar is not dead, just OLPC. That's why the fork occurred. Sugarlabs isn't a fork. The code bases are still the same and aren't going to change. It's more like upstream sources now. Or a forking of management, not code. devil's advocate: how would someone on the outside (of either OLPC, or sugarlabs) know that that is the case? all that has happened (from the public view of things) is that this new wiki has sprung up, claiming essentially that this is where sugar lives. there's been no announcement (that i've seen), and no corresponding announcement from OLPC, so an observer is sort of left to wonder what's going on. paul =- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 57.4 degrees) ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
devil's advocate: how would someone on the outside (of either OLPC, or sugarlabs) know that that is the case? all that has happened (from the public view of things) is that this new wiki has sprung up, claiming essentially that this is where sugar lives. there's been no announcement (that i've seen), and no corresponding announcement from OLPC, so an observer is sort of left to wonder what's going on. The wiki's barely up. AFAIK Walter and the rest of the mailing list are still deciding what the group is and isn't. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
There has been some mention of a new community initiative to carry on the development of Sugar. A number of community members have set up SugarLabs.org in order to further extend Sugar. Sugar Labs will focus on providing a software ecosystem that enhances learning on the XO laptop as well as other laptops distributed by other companies, such as the ASUS Eee PC. Consistent with the OLPC mission to provide opportunities for learning (as just outlined by Nicholas in is posting to this list), an independent Sugar Labs Foundation can deliver learning software to other hardware vendors and, consequently, reach more children. We have every expectation of a positive, cooperative relationship with OLPC and we expect to form additional relationships with other laptop distributors. See http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Announcing_SugarLabs for more details. -walter 2008/5/15 Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: devil's advocate: how would someone on the outside (of either OLPC, or sugarlabs) know that that is the case? all that has happened (from the public view of things) is that this new wiki has sprung up, claiming essentially that this is where sugar lives. there's been no announcement (that i've seen), and no corresponding announcement from OLPC, so an observer is sort of left to wonder what's going on. The wiki's barely up. AFAIK Walter and the rest of the mailing list are still deciding what the group is and isn't. ___ 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
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
If XO sales are so unrestricted, why can't I buy one at laptop.org? Are you willing to buy 100 or more? Willing? Yes. Able? No. Are you willing to let free-market capitalism drive a not-for-profit project aimed at developing nations? Be realisitic. Our software isn't customizable beyond a hypothetical. We offer no man pages, no GCC, no source on board, and no training on how to use program. Before we can make the argument of being more customizeable we need to actually document how to change things and supply such information on the XO. A Kindle can still allow you to read a book. Is closed source as useful as open source? No. Is DRM a good thing for children in the third workd? No. But is a calculator better than nothing? Yes. Keep that in mind. A book can also allow you to read a book. I'd rather provide children with royalty-free slide rules than annually-licensed graphing calculators. Let's also remember that the OLPC project was orignally planned to be open hardware as well. If that had happened, as it should, we would be in the same boat now. Yeah. Let's look at RT -- and all the issues with connectivity, which would be WAY easier to root out if we had access to the wifi firmware. Third-party startups could be turning out replacement parts -- if we had access to schematics. G1G1 donors and at least one target nation were unsatisfied with gnash, but Flash is non-free. Every single time proprietary ANYTHING wormed its way in under a banner of practicality, it bit us in the ass later. And so how do we work toward openness? By working hard to let in *more* proprietary garbage. Sugar on a free stack has to beat windows by it's quality. This is my goal and this is my belief. I agree. On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The golden rule doesn't say: Treat others as you have been treated, It says to treat others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule also has absolutely nothing to do with reality when you're dealing with a global megacorporation with a proven track record of illicitly stamping out anything that even almost threatened it. What is being proposed is that if you want it to run Microsoft apps then countries can pay an extra $10. This gives *them* a handycap in the game and makes it that much easier for us. A handicap which microsoft can spin into huge savings and cheap vocational training to produce a generation of Visual Basic coders and outsourced Office support drones. Sorry, but that's what happened in all of Microsoft's other outreach zones. I agree. Let's start a dialog with Ubuntu! Mark Shuttleworth has mentioned OLPC favorably on this blog a few times, and much of the community has been interested in getting Ubuntu running on the XO. There is a need for a full desktop as well as a sugar UI for these machines. I run Debian on my XO personally and I would love to have a fast Xubuntu going on it. I am a million percent behind this and I will do whatever I can to help you with this idea. But I do know that Quanta isn't going to let OLPC open source the hardware schematics that they own until sale volumes are much higher. Quanta isn't going to release anything ever. Just like Marvell. -- # Kurt H Maier ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [support-gang] [sugar] Microsoft
Hi All, On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Seth Woodworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The golden rule doesn't say: Treat others as you have been treated, It says to treat others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule also has absolutely nothing to do with reality when you're dealing with a global megacorporation with a proven track record of illicitly stamping out anything that even almost threatened it. And we are plainly seeing the modern golden rule in effect, to wit: he who has the gold rules. But I do know that Quanta isn't going to let OLPC open source the hardware schematics that they own until sale volumes are much higher. Quanta isn't going to release anything ever. Just like Marvell. Atheros took that position, and they lost... ahemmm, ath5k anyone? A little well placed reverse engineering goes a LONG way. Enjoy, Scott -- # Kurt H Maier ___ 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
