Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Sean DALY wrote: > I have interviewed Mr. Stallman several times in the past and will > brief him on the current situation. I don't know if he wrote the > actual copy in question. It may be more effective to talk with Mako Hill. He is well known by Sugaristas/OLPC'istas past and present; he is very well informed that XOs are not shipping with Windows (with very specific exceptions of XOs _bought by MS_ long ago) and is part of the board @ FSF. AIUI, Bernie should have Mako "at hand" at this time. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
Sugar Labs suffers from OLPC's lack of interest in press communications and in combating misperceptions (in particular the wholly inaccurate meme that XO-1s are delivered with Windows). Although we manage to get mostly positive coverage for Sugar, it's two steps forward, one step back when OLPC doesn't respond to journalists and in particular when Professor Negroponte makes confusing statements about Sugar. It's my wish to find someone at OLPC willing to work with me to improve their public image, which can only be beneficial to both projects. I have interviewed Mr. Stallman several times in the past and will brief him on the current situation. I don't know if he wrote the actual copy in question. Sean On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote: > I am in personal contact with Stallman (rms) on this. Who else here > knows him? We have met several times at computing events, and > discussed other questions in e-mail. I was a factor in his choice of > the XO as his main computer, which unfortunately lasted only a short > time, because he was unaware that Nicholas had Mitch working on a > GPLed BIOS replacement. > > rms is talking nonsense still, but there remains the possibility of > progress. I'll let you know more if I hear anything positive. Our > correspondence will appear in OLPC News as an Open Letter with > whatever followup is appropriate. > > I have looked through the rest of this thread. I don't have time to > reply in detail, but I have raised all of these issues with rms, and > asked him why he won't take Yes for an answer. ^_^ > > You should understand that _we_, all of us, have failed to communicate > with the public, with the press, and with our natural allies. It isn't > just Nicholas. We need a way to put out press releases when Nicholas > says something dumb, or the Wall Street Journal runs a completely > false op-ed about our work. We should be able to get a pro bono > account at PR Newswire or some such service. > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Bill Kerr wrote: >> n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender >> wrote: >>> >>> === Sugar Digest === >> >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on >> every machine distributed by OLPC. >> >> http://windows7sins.org/#1 >> When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as a >> positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid >> interpretation) >> When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise that it >> could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well >> On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there >> If walter's interpretation is the correct one, which may well be true, then >> it's a bad choice of graphic - they should have shown windows running on the >> xo screen, not happy smiling children >> from this 2008 article RMS is supportive of sugar but ambivalent about the >> xo: >> >> Sugar is free software, and contributing to it is a good thing to do. But >> don't forget the goal: helpful contributions are those that make Sugar >> better on free operating systems. Porting to Windows is permitted by the >> license, but it isn't a good thing to do >> >> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows >> >> >> ___ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> i...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> > > > > -- > Edward Mokurai Cherlin > Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name, and > Children are > my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. > http://earthtreasury.org/ > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
I am in personal contact with Stallman (rms) on this. Who else here knows him? We have met several times at computing events, and discussed other questions in e-mail. I was a factor in his choice of the XO as his main computer, which unfortunately lasted only a short time, because he was unaware that Nicholas had Mitch working on a GPLed BIOS replacement. rms is talking nonsense still, but there remains the possibility of progress. I'll let you know more if I hear anything positive. Our correspondence will appear in OLPC News as an Open Letter with whatever followup is appropriate. I have looked through the rest of this thread. I don't have time to reply in detail, but I have raised all of these issues with rms, and asked him why he won't take Yes for an answer. ^_^ You should understand that _we_, all of us, have failed to communicate with the public, with the press, and with our natural allies. It isn't just Nicholas. We need a way to put out press releases when Nicholas says something dumb, or the Wall Street Journal runs a completely false op-ed about our work. We should be able to get a pro bono account at PR Newswire or some such service. On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Bill Kerr wrote: > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> >> === Sugar Digest === > > 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in > education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity > with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any > constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to > Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on > every machine distributed by OLPC. > > http://windows7sins.org/#1 > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as a > positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid > interpretation) > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise that it > could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there > If walter's interpretation is the correct one, which may well be true, then > it's a bad choice of graphic - they should have shown windows running on the > xo screen, not happy smiling children > from this 2008 article RMS is supportive of sugar but ambivalent about the > xo: > > Sugar is free software, and contributing to it is a good thing to do. But > don't forget the goal: helpful contributions are those that make Sugar > better on free operating systems. Porting to Windows is permitted by the > license, but it isn't a good thing to do > > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows > > > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Edward Mokurai Cherlin Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name, and Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. http://earthtreasury.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
Bill Kerr writes: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bastien wrote: > > After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really > appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. > > They will make an update - stay tuned. > > the picture is gone but the words are still there: This is good. > As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if > it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft > dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would > be better off if the OLPC project had never existed > > still over zealous, purist and FUD The FSF proposition is a normative judgement. For me I concentrate on fixing factual errors, not such judgements above, as I think it's just a time-sink. -- Bastien ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
I don't think anyone was suggesting that it is OK to smear OLPC. In fact, this thread was begun because a number of us are outraged at the smear campaign that is (presumably) largely a result of ignorance. That said, OLPC and Sugar Labs are not the same. OLPC makes hardware and currently distributes Sugar and Fedora on that hardware. Sugar Labs makes software that runs on many hardware platforms and is licensed under the GPL. Sugar will always be free. The community is working hard to ensure that there is always a free option for the OLPC hardware, since we believe (as does the FSF) that freedom is fundamental to learning and learning is fundamental to freedom. I believe that the FSF is aware of these efforts. -walter On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > bill wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bastien > wrote: > > > > > After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really > > > appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. > > i'm confused. it's okay to smear olpc, but not sugar?? > > > > > > > They will make an update - stay tuned. > > > > the picture is gone but the words are still there: > > > > > As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- > if > > > it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft > > > dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world > would be > > > better off if the OLPC project had never existed > > > > still over zealous, purist and FUD > > indeed. > > paul > =- > paul fox, p...@laptop.org > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Bill Kerr wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bastien > wrote: >> >> After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really >> appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. >> >> They will make an update - stay tuned. > > the picture is gone but the words are still there: >> >> As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if >> it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft >> dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be >> better off if the OLPC project had never existed > > > still over zealous, purist and FUD I think you are giving them too much credit :-) They simply didn't do their homework on this one. Sameer ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
bill wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bastien wrote: > > > After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really > > appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. i'm confused. it's okay to smear olpc, but not sugar?? > > > > They will make an update - stay tuned. > > the picture is gone but the words are still there: > > > As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if > > it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft > > dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would > > be > > better off if the OLPC project had never existed > > still over zealous, purist and FUD indeed. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bastien wrote: > After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really > appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. > > They will make an update - stay tuned. the picture is gone but the words are still there: > As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if > it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft > dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be > better off if the OLPC project had never existed still over zealous, purist and FUD ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
Thanks! We'd still love for them to come by GPA just for the sheer joy of seeing an entire room of old windows machines shinning with Open Source software. Caroline On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Bastien wrote: > After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really > appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. > > They will make an update - stay tuned. > > Thanks! > > -- > Bastien > -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove carol...@solutiongrove.com 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
After a discussion with the FSF, they agreed the picture was not really appropriate and that the text should clearly distinguish OLPC from Sugar. They will make an update - stay tuned. Thanks! -- Bastien ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 15:35, Walter Bender wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Caroline Meeks > wrote: >> Is the author local to Boston? Maybe we should take him over to the GPA and >> show him a room full of Windows machines all running open software. Perhaps >> seeing it for himself will >> help, the authors certainly seem to care about what kids are using for their education. > > I don't know who wrote it, but there is a large FSF community in > Boston, so let's try to arrange it. Maybe our friendly FSF sysadmins would know? Regards, Tomeu > -walter > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Walter Bender >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 14:08, Bill Kerr wrote: >>> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender >>> >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >> === Sugar Digest === >>> >>> >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in >>> >>> >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity >>> >>> >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any >>> >>> >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to >>> >>> >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on >>> >>> >> every machine distributed by OLPC. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > http://windows7sins.org/#1 >>> >>> > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as >>> >>> > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid >>> >>> > interpretation) >>> >>> > >>> >>> > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise >>> >>> > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there >>> >>> >>> >>> You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. >>> >>> >>> >>> Citing from that concoction: >>> >>> >>> >>> "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project >>> >>> -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into >>> >>> Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where >>> >>> the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. >>> >>> The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft >>> >>> exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." >>> >>> >>> >>> It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind >>> >>> zealousness. >>> >> >>> >> I see it now, thanks Bert. I agree, it's far too zealous and purist. I >>> >> agree >>> >> with Luke too. >>> >> ( I did click on that link before but it sometimes seems to just reload >>> >> the >>> >> same page) >>> >> I do give the FSF an annual donation so I'll write to them and >>> >> complain. I >>> >> thought the over zealousness came more from some FSF supporters than >>> >> the >>> >> leadership but perhaps I was wrong. >>> > >>> > What I think is bad about the campaign is that they say that the OLPC >>> > project is a vector for Microsoft when the truth is that it's being a >>> > great vector for free software, regardless of what their leaders wish >>> > or have said in the past. >>> > >>> > From reading the FSF campaign, people are supposed to think that >>> > Microsoft is evil and OLPC bowed to their pressure and abandoned their >>> > principles. This, I think can have much less impact that if people >>> > learned that they can help us so more children have a great learning >>> > experience with free software. >>> > >>> > So I wouldn't ask FSF to stop bashing MS, I would ask them to >>> > publicize those projects that can have a big impact on their mission. >>> >>> That is the point I was trying to make. I don't really care what FSF >>> does re Microsoft, but they are missing out on an opportunity to >>> promote a learning project that is aligned with FLOSS by ignoring >>> Sugar. >>> >>> -walter >>> >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > Tomeu >>> > >>> > -- >>> > «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. >>> > What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David >>> > Farning >>> > ___ >>> > Sugar-devel mailing list >>> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Walter Bender >>> Sugar Labs >>> http://www.sugarlabs.org >>> ___ >>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> >> >> -- >> Caroline Meeks >> Solution Grove >> carol...@solutiongrove.com >> >> 617-500-3488 - Office >> 505-213-3268 - Fax >> > > > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» -
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Caroline Meeks wrote: > Is the author local to Boston? Maybe we should take him over to the GPA and > show him a room full of Windows machines all running open software. Perhaps > seeing it for himself will > help, the authors certainly seem to care about what kids are using for their education. I don't know who wrote it, but there is a large FSF community in Boston, so let's try to arrange it. -walter > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 14:08, Bill Kerr wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> === Sugar Digest === >> >>> >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in >> >>> >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity >> >>> >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any >> >>> >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to >> >>> >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on >> >>> >> every machine distributed by OLPC. >> >>> > >> >>> > http://windows7sins.org/#1 >> >>> > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as >> >>> > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid >> >>> > interpretation) >> >>> > >> >>> > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise >> >>> > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well >> >>> > >> >>> > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there >> >>> >> >>> You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. >> >>> >> >>> Citing from that concoction: >> >>> >> >>> "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project >> >>> -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into >> >>> Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where >> >>> the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. >> >>> The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft >> >>> exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." >> >>> >> >>> It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind >> >>> zealousness. >> >> >> >> I see it now, thanks Bert. I agree, it's far too zealous and purist. I >> >> agree >> >> with Luke too. >> >> ( I did click on that link before but it sometimes seems to just reload >> >> the >> >> same page) >> >> I do give the FSF an annual donation so I'll write to them and >> >> complain. I >> >> thought the over zealousness came more from some FSF supporters than >> >> the >> >> leadership but perhaps I was wrong. >> > >> > What I think is bad about the campaign is that they say that the OLPC >> > project is a vector for Microsoft when the truth is that it's being a >> > great vector for free software, regardless of what their leaders wish >> > or have said in the past. >> > >> > From reading the FSF campaign, people are supposed to think that >> > Microsoft is evil and OLPC bowed to their pressure and abandoned their >> > principles. This, I think can have much less impact that if people >> > learned that they can help us so more children have a great learning >> > experience with free software. >> > >> > So I wouldn't ask FSF to stop bashing MS, I would ask them to >> > publicize those projects that can have a big impact on their mission. >> >> That is the point I was trying to make. I don't really care what FSF >> does re Microsoft, but they are missing out on an opportunity to >> promote a learning project that is aligned with FLOSS by ignoring >> Sugar. >> >> -walter >> >> > Regards, >> > >> > Tomeu >> > >> > -- >> > «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. >> > What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David >> > Farning >> > ___ >> > Sugar-devel mailing list >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> ___ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > > -- > Caroline Meeks > Solution Grove > carol...@solutiongrove.com > > 617-500-3488 - Office > 505-213-3268 - Fax > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
Is the author local to Boston? Maybe we should take him over to the GPA and show him a room full of Windows machines all running open software. Perhaps seeing it for himself will help, the authors certainly seem to care about what kids are using for their education. On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 14:08, Bill Kerr wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: > >>> > >>> > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> === Sugar Digest === > >>> >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in > >>> >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity > >>> >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any > >>> >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to > >>> >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on > >>> >> every machine distributed by OLPC. > >>> > > >>> > http://windows7sins.org/#1 > >>> > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as > >>> > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid > >>> > interpretation) > >>> > > >>> > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise > >>> > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well > >>> > > >>> > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there > >>> > >>> You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. > >>> > >>> Citing from that concoction: > >>> > >>> "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project > >>> -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into > >>> Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where > >>> the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. > >>> The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft > >>> exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." > >>> > >>> It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind > >>> zealousness. > >> > >> I see it now, thanks Bert. I agree, it's far too zealous and purist. I > agree > >> with Luke too. > >> ( I did click on that link before but it sometimes seems to just reload > the > >> same page) > >> I do give the FSF an annual donation so I'll write to them and complain. > I > >> thought the over zealousness came more from some FSF supporters than the > >> leadership but perhaps I was wrong. > > > > What I think is bad about the campaign is that they say that the OLPC > > project is a vector for Microsoft when the truth is that it's being a > > great vector for free software, regardless of what their leaders wish > > or have said in the past. > > > > From reading the FSF campaign, people are supposed to think that > > Microsoft is evil and OLPC bowed to their pressure and abandoned their > > principles. This, I think can have much less impact that if people > > learned that they can help us so more children have a great learning > > experience with free software. > > > > So I wouldn't ask FSF to stop bashing MS, I would ask them to > > publicize those projects that can have a big impact on their mission. > > That is the point I was trying to make. I don't really care what FSF > does re Microsoft, but they are missing out on an opportunity to > promote a learning project that is aligned with FLOSS by ignoring > Sugar. > > -walter > > > Regards, > > > > Tomeu > > > > -- > > «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. > > What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David > > Farning > > ___ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > > > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Caroline Meeks Solution Grove carol...@solutiongrove.com 617-500-3488 - Office 505-213-3268 - Fax ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 14:08, Bill Kerr wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg >> wrote: >>> >>> On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: >>> >>> > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender >>> > wrote: >>> >> === Sugar Digest === >>> >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in >>> >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity >>> >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any >>> >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to >>> >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on >>> >> every machine distributed by OLPC. >>> > >>> > http://windows7sins.org/#1 >>> > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as >>> > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid >>> > interpretation) >>> > >>> > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise >>> > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well >>> > >>> > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there >>> >>> You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. >>> >>> Citing from that concoction: >>> >>> "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project >>> -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into >>> Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where >>> the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. >>> The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft >>> exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." >>> >>> It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind >>> zealousness. >> >> I see it now, thanks Bert. I agree, it's far too zealous and purist. I agree >> with Luke too. >> ( I did click on that link before but it sometimes seems to just reload the >> same page) >> I do give the FSF an annual donation so I'll write to them and complain. I >> thought the over zealousness came more from some FSF supporters than the >> leadership but perhaps I was wrong. > > What I think is bad about the campaign is that they say that the OLPC > project is a vector for Microsoft when the truth is that it's being a > great vector for free software, regardless of what their leaders wish > or have said in the past. > > From reading the FSF campaign, people are supposed to think that > Microsoft is evil and OLPC bowed to their pressure and abandoned their > principles. This, I think can have much less impact that if people > learned that they can help us so more children have a great learning > experience with free software. > > So I wouldn't ask FSF to stop bashing MS, I would ask them to > publicize those projects that can have a big impact on their mission. That is the point I was trying to make. I don't really care what FSF does re Microsoft, but they are missing out on an opportunity to promote a learning project that is aligned with FLOSS by ignoring Sugar. -walter > Regards, > > Tomeu > > -- > «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. > What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David > Farning > ___ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 14:08, Bill Kerr wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg > wrote: >> >> On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: >> >> > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender >> > wrote: >> >> === Sugar Digest === >> >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in >> >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity >> >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any >> >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to >> >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on >> >> every machine distributed by OLPC. >> > >> > http://windows7sins.org/#1 >> > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as >> > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid >> > interpretation) >> > >> > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise >> > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well >> > >> > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there >> >> You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. >> >> Citing from that concoction: >> >> "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project >> -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into >> Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where >> the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. >> The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft >> exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." >> >> It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind >> zealousness. > > I see it now, thanks Bert. I agree, it's far too zealous and purist. I agree > with Luke too. > ( I did click on that link before but it sometimes seems to just reload the > same page) > I do give the FSF an annual donation so I'll write to them and complain. I > thought the over zealousness came more from some FSF supporters than the > leadership but perhaps I was wrong. What I think is bad about the campaign is that they say that the OLPC project is a vector for Microsoft when the truth is that it's being a great vector for free software, regardless of what their leaders wish or have said in the past. >From reading the FSF campaign, people are supposed to think that Microsoft is evil and OLPC bowed to their pressure and abandoned their principles. This, I think can have much less impact that if people learned that they can help us so more children have a great learning experience with free software. So I wouldn't ask FSF to stop bashing MS, I would ask them to publicize those projects that can have a big impact on their mission. Regards, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: > > > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender > > wrote: > >> === Sugar Digest === > >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in > >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity > >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any > >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to > >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on > >> every machine distributed by OLPC. > > > > http://windows7sins.org/#1 > > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as > > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid > > interpretation) > > > > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise > > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well > > > > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there > > You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. > > Citing from that concoction: > > "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project > -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into > Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where > the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. > The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft > exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." > > It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind > zealousness. I see it now, thanks Bert. I agree, it's far too zealous and purist. I agree with Luke too. ( I did click on that link before but it sometimes seems to just reload the same page) I do give the FSF an annual donation so I'll write to them and complain. I thought the over zealousness came more from some FSF supporters than the leadership but perhaps I was wrong. ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On 28/ago/2009, at 11.48, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind > zealousness. Worse than that, it's complete FUD. This is something you'd expect from MSFT, but not the FSF. The number of XOs shipped with Windows is still 0. -lf ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] FSF attitude to xo and sugar
On 28.08.2009, at 11:33, Bill Kerr wrote: > n Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> === Sugar Digest === >> 4. The recent FSF campaign condemning the use of Windows 7 in >> education (See http://windows7sins.org/) imputes OLPC in complicity >> with Microsoft. It is disappointing that the FSF is not making any >> constructive arguments in favor of free software alternatives to >> Windows such as Sugar on GNU/Linux, which is currently shipped on >> every machine distributed by OLPC. > > http://windows7sins.org/#1 > When I first saw it I interpreted that page as contrasting the xo as > a positive alternative to Windows (and still think that is a valid > interpretation) > > When I read what walter wrote above later I was shocked to realise > that it could indeed be interpreted the way walter has, as well > > On revisiting I can't see any clarifying text there You need to click the "Learn more" link next to the XO picture. Citing from that concoction: "As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom." It's tragic how they undermine their allies' efforts in their blind zealousness. - Bert - ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
