Re: [GKD] The $100 Computer

[Michel J. Menou]

I am afraid this discussion tends to be focalized around the dominant
consumerist perspective of "development".

What will we do with waste resulting from 2 billion obsolete 10$
"Xputers" that might pile up in 2025?

Don Slater's points are however well taken.

Actually there was a report a few days ago that MS was going to sell its
OS and Office suite in China at much reduced prices. One can only
wonder, if the company is so much concerned with supporting development
in poor communities, or else by piracy, why such practices are not
generalized.

As to a "cheap" Office there is already one, free, Openoffice, which
runs on MS Windows as well.

Addressing the OS issue in absolute terms is often excessive. Yet there
are many instances such as education or large systems where Open Source
solutions present a clear advantage in terms of TCO. Not to mention the
dependency effect associated with initial learning. Options might need to be
considered not on the basis of "countries" but on the basis of users'
institutions or situations. Among the options is also the support of
local Open Source developers and backstoppers capacities.

Michel Menou


On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, Don Slater wrote:

> This point might seem silly, but surely a very 'sensible' alternative OS
> would be a very *cheap* Windows XP, with very cheap Office or Works
> versions? If Windows XP were sold at the price it usually commands in
> pirate markets, it would be perfectly OK. So doesn't it make just as
> much sense to pressure M$ for the equivalent of educational licences, or
> simply donated software? The demand would be for a more appropriate
> pricing structure, and would be similar to demanding that drug companies
> allow or produce very cheap generic versions of drugs that are essential
> to lives in poor countries.
> 
> I tend to get worried (particularly as an ethnographer) when I see the
> word 'only' used in these discussions - there may seem to be only one
> solution *technologically*, but there are always multiple political and
> economic strategies, and Linux is 'only' one of these.

..snip...


===
Dr. Michel J. Menou
Consultant in Information and Knowledge Management
B.P. 15
49350 Les Rosiers sur Loire, France
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +33 (0)2 41518165
Fax: +33 (0)2 41511043
http://ciber.soi.city.ac.uk/peoplemenou.php





***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:

Re: [GKD] The $100 Computer

[Edward Cherlin]

On Tuesday, 8 March 2005, Don Slater wrote:

> This point might seem silly, but surely a very 'sensible' alternative OS
> would be a very *cheap* Windows XP, with very cheap Office or Works
> versions?

XP won't run on handhelds or in embedded systems. There the alternatives
are Pocket PC and Linux.

I don't tell anyone not to buy Windows and Office or Works for their own
use, although I can make a case why they shouldn't. People can run Free
applications and development tools on Windows, which is fine as far as
it goes, but they can't fix the security problems in Windows, while the
public is heavily involved in fixing security in Linux and other Free
Software.

> If Windows XP were sold at the price it usually commands in pirate
> markets, it would be perfectly OK.

Not really. There is no practical way to get Windows into local
languages. The only way Microsoft allows this, apart from doing the
development itself (Don't hold your breath) is for a government to take
out a license, contract out the development work, and then hand the
results back to Microsoft to sell. This is not realistic for more than a
few major languages.

The true alternative is Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). This removes
all temptation to piracy and lets honest people in on the benefits.

> So doesn't it make just as much sense to pressure M$ for the equivalent
> of educational licences, or simply donated software? The demand would be
> for a more appropriate pricing structure, and would be similar to
> demanding that drug companies allow or produce very cheap generic
> versions of drugs that are essential to lives in poor countries.

This is Microsoft's strategy in taking over Digital Partners and
engineering a merger between Digital Partners and the Grameen Foundation
USA. The Gates Foundation gives away hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of software (if-sold value) to prime this market. The FOSS
movement gives away far more software, but our if-sold value is $0.

> I tend to get worried (particularly as an ethnographer) when I

So you should appreciate the value of local language support.

> see the word 'only' used in these discussions - there may seem to be
> only one solution *technologically*, but there are always multiple
> political and economic strategies, and Linux is 'only' one of these.

Free Software/Open Source software is not a technology. It is an
economic and political movement, away from The Tragedy of The
Anti-Commons. Linux runs on almost every 16-bit or better computer
architecture, including x86, M68000, PPC, Sparc, IBM 390, ARM, and many
more, and FOSS more generally runs on every major operating system,
including the many variants of Unix, Windows, Mac (native and BSD both),
and a multitude of lesser products.

> Linux makes sense for example in India which has the resources (huge
> population, armies of software engineers, vast internal market, etc) to
> generate bespoke open source solutions; it makes bugger all sense in
> small countries like Ghana (where I am doing research at the moment),
> which do not have these resources

This turns out not to be the case. Rwanda, a much smaller and poorer
country than Ghana, has created its own Linux distribution in
Kinyarwanda, the local language. I suggest you do a bit of research on
the Ghana Linux User Group.


> and which - moreover - are most concerned to develop globally valued
> computer skills, which usually means MS skills.

Linux skills currently pay better in the market than MS skills.

> Their priority is not to take on MS and ditch it because it is a nasty
> and exploitative multinational but rather to develop appropriate ICT
> resources. The key demand is *cheap* OS and software; the preference
> would be cheap MS software.

The Free in Free Software means Freedom, not just cheapness. You can
adapt Free Software to your own needs, besides having as much of it as
you like.

But just talking about cheap: I am running a set of Linux applications
that cost me nothing but the time to research which ones to install. If
I had to pay for Windows equivalents, it would easily come to $5,000,
probably more. I don't have to think about whether I can afford the next
application or the next development tool. It is not only Microsoft that
is the problem here.

> And let's not forget the very expensive overheads of developing the kind
> of northern hacker culture capable of supporting Linux in small
> countries like these - it simply does not exist there whereas MS skills
> are already abundant.

See Rwanda, above.

> I've got nothing against Linux, by the way, though I - like many other
> people - don't have the time or commitment to undergo the reskilling and
> retooling it would involve for me to use it.

That's what you have against Linux. It seems to color all the rest of
your opinions. You also don't seem to think that you have the time or
commitment to understand the Free Software culture and e

[GKD] CFP: ICTs and Development Conference Track

[Dr Richard Heeks]

Call for Papers
ICTs and Development Conference Track
Sept 2005, UK

Dear GKD Members,

We are organising a conference track on "ICTs and Development" at this
year's UK Development Studies Association conference, to be held in
Milton Keynes, 7-9 September.

If you would like to contribute a paper, then please send a 300-
500-word abstract by 22 April 2005 to myself <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AND to the conference administrators <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

The conference track - organised by the DSA's "Information, Technology
and Development" study group - can encompass a range of issues related
to information systems and technology in developing countries.

We welcome papers that specifically address the conference theme:
"Connecting People and Places: Challenges and Opportunities for
Development". Such papers are more likely to be considered for
publication in the conference-related issue of the Journal of
International Development. In particular, I would hope to solicit
enough papers to run one session on "ICTs and Connections in Remote
Regions".

Invited speakers relevant to this track include Prof. Robin Mansell from
the LSE, and Prof. Lynn Mytelka from UNU- Maastricht. We hope this
event will give an opportunity for a forum meeting of the many UK and
other researchers and development practitioners working on issues
related to information, technology and development.

If you have any queries about the event or about your own submission, do
please contact me.

Further details about the conference, including registration and fee
details, can be found at: 

Please note that funds are not currently available to support attendance
of presenters, who will need to arrange for travel, accommodation and
conference fees.


Richard Heeks
Convenor, "Information, Technology and Development" Study Group
UK Development Studies Association

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:

[GKD] UK Government Moves To Outcome Based Conditionality

[Michael Gurstein]

A potentially very important development.

MG
-

[via PRS Watch]

UK Government Moves To Outcome Based Conditionality

Report: 

The UK Government launched a new policy on conditionality this week,
which calls for outcome based conditionality and a de-linking from World
Bank and IMF lending signals. The new policy paper 'Partnerships for
Poverty Reduction: Rethinking Conditionality' notes that the UK
Government will stop making their aid conditional on specific policy
conditions, including in sensitive economic areas such as privatization
or trade liberations. Instead, the report notes that aid will be
provided on the basis of a set of jointly agreed outcome or impact based
benchmarks drawn from developing countries own national plans, where
possible. Conditionality will be limited to fiduciary concerns only and
used to ensure aid is not used corruptly or for purposes other than
those intended.

The policy states that the UK government will be steered by the
following five principles:

*Developing country ownership
*Participatory and evidence-based policy-making
*Predictability
*Harmonisation
*Transparency and accountability

Amongst other things, the policy states that the UK Government will
"work with other donors to improve aid harmonization and limit the
overall burden of conditionality". In particular, the report notes that
the UK Government will encourage the World Bank and the IMF to monitor
and streamline their combined terms and conditions. Interestingly, the
policy also notes that though the UK government will continue to use the
analysis from the IMF and the World Bank in making its assessment of
progress towards poverty reduction, it will not always follow their
funding signals. "An IMF or World Bank program going 'off-track' will
not automatically lead DFID to suspend its assistance."

Finally, the report highlights the circumstances in which the UK will
consider reducing or interrupting aid:

a) countries move significantly away from agreed poverty reduction
objectives or outcomes or the agreed objectives of a particular aid
commitment (e.g. through an unjustifiable rise in military spending, or
a substantial deviation from the agreed poverty reduction program); or

b) countries are in significant violation of human rights or other
international obligations; or

c) there is a significant breakdown in partner government financial
management and accountability.

Civil society groups have been broadly welcoming of the report, but
question whether it will actually be put into practice.





***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: