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 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
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
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
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
___
Sugar mailing list
Sugar@lists.laptop.org
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
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
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
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
, 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
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?
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,
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.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- Ghandi
___
Sugar mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
