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
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Ah, Windows needs more than 1GB to be useful; so to run Windows you need
to pay extra for a SD card big enough to hold it.
Doesn't add any cost for Linux, which fits nicely on the internal 1GB
flash.
- Jim
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 02:57 +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Simon Schampijer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
