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
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
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
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
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
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
...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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
