Microsoft’s John Gunabal (left) and Bohdan Raciborski (front) demoing Windows XP on the XO to Walter Bender (in green), Richard Smith (in red) and myself. Picture via Microsoft’s James Utzschneider.
People were already making a fuss about Nicholas’ claim that we’re working with Microsoft on supporting dual-boot with Windows XP, and now Bruce Perens writes a lachrymal — if entirely misinformed — missive about OLPC selling out to Microsoft.
Let’s briefly clarify the facts. Bruce claims “Microsoft approach[ed OLPC] with money and technical help,” which is incorrect on both counts. OLPC is not taking Microsoft’s money, and we are not being assisted in any way technically by the company. Bruce also claims that “original OLPC prototypes ran Debian … Once Red Hat offered money and resources, Debian disappeared from the system. Now it’s Red Hat’s turn to disappear.” So many falsities in so few words! OLPC XO prototypes never officially ran Debian — we were Fedora-based from the moment the first α-test motherboards arrived at the Cambridge OLPC office. (I’ve been a Debian user since before Bruce replaced Ian Murdock as the Debian project leader in 1996, so the choice of Fedora was not mine; this does not, however, change the facts.) It’s true that one could always run Debian unofficially on XO hardware, which remains the case today — and in fact, I rolled a customized, XFCE4-based, unofficial Debian 4.0 “etch” build for the XO just last month. With Red Hat continuing to sit on our board of directors and employing several full-time engineers working on core OLPC software, it strains credulity to claim they’re about to disappear from the project.
What, then, is true?
Yes, we’ve been meeting with Microsoft about their XP port. OLPC has not dedicated resources to this work. We are not contributing engineering time to it, considering it as part of our strategy, or getting ready to replace Sugar. The extent of our involvement is having several meetings with the Microsoft staff and allowing a Microsoft-paid technical writer to work from our offices in order to produce specifications that will aid the port — on the condition that the specifications are also released publicly (they’re being posted to our wiki.)
The meetings are important. Microsoft decided to do a port, and they would have done it with us or without us — but they did something remarkable: they asked us to work with them so we don’t wind up with walled gardens. They did not set out merely to make XP boot on the XO and declare victory; they actually want to partake in as much of our learning philosophy as they can. They won’t make XP open source, but they’re building mesh support, going to great lengths to support our security and theft deterrence model, and working on allowing Sugar and Windows XOs to collaborate and share seamlessly.
The folks running this work on the Microsoft side are good people. They have left no doubt in my mind that they believe in what we’re doing and want to play along. I am also confident we have made the right decision at OLPC by embracing their work instead of stonewalling it.
To set the dual-boot issue straight: Microsoft has not been working on an actual, side-by-side dual-boot system. We’re jointly making it possible to install XP on an arbitrary XO — subject to the constraints of the Bitfrost theft deterrence system — and then convert the machine back to Linux easily. I have made it clear that the XP port will not receive my security signoff without this Linux rollback feature, and have no reason to believe it won’t be implemented.
One commonly-forgotten truth about OLPC is that our commitment to open source and free software isn’t religious, but pragmatic — we believe Linux and Sugar constitute a better software platform and, much more importantly, a better learning platform. Our existing customers agree, and we think new ones will continue to make the right decision while being reassured by the availability of Windows as a fall-back. To claim we should prohibit XO customers from running XP in the interest of freedom is to claim everyone should be free to make a choice — as long as it’s a choice we agree with.
Bruce Perens said,
January 10, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Ivan, I saw one of the first OLPC prototypes at the UN World Summit in Tunis, Tunisia, in 2005. I was a guest of UNDP, and OLPC was showing in the UNDP area. It was running Debian.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that Microsoft’s intent toward the OLPC project is at all benign. They will promote their OLPC software load for DRM-locked content with the help of proprietary publishers who are threatened enough by open content to throw some zero cost but DRM locked e-books to the third world. If they can get governments to commit to the DRM-locked content on your platform, a non-Microsoft OS is going to be out of the race.
Also, nobody who wants an open platform for the third world is being “religious” about it, promoting sound public policy is not religion. I’m really tired of hearing that old saw brought up, please stop it.
Bruce
Richard Chapman said,
January 10, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
It’s nice to see Microsoft embrace the OLPC technology. I see too that they’re interested in your mesh network, possibly they could extend it, (mesh+ anyone?). And as we all know, the final ‘e’ word is extinguish.
I’m sorry, but the last cell in my body that could trust Microsoft died a long time ago. I’m sure the guys Microsoft sent over were great, and the resources they’re willing to give them, wonderful. To a company with tens of billions in the bank, that’s not even a pixel on the screen.
I’m not angry at OLPC and I don’t see you as “selling out”. For all I know, which isn’t much, you really don’t have much choice. You have already given Microsoft, and Intel a wonderful gift. You illuminated a huge market for small, third world friendly laptops. Now I think they’re sensitive to the issues and understand that they cannot administer their business as usual tactics and simply crush the nonprofit competition. But life will not be easy with these gorillas dancing around the room.
I think what’s getting Microsoft and Intel so excited is that the OLPC represents a vector into the heart of one of the last frontiers of growth. Think of all those kids who’ve never seen a can of Coke.
David Sugar said,
January 10, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
When one speaks of working “with” Microsoft, does that include things like “confidentiality agreements” or other similar sorts of things? If so, then I think such an effort is particularly fruitless and potentially damanging. Microsoft as a company has consistently shown it’s respect for such agreement in much the way the U.S. government honors it’s Indian treaties. Furthermore, for them, such agreements are tools they believe are to be used against others, not as a means for mutual cooperation. I see no future in this effort, and much sorrow that can potentially come from it.
Ivan Krstić said,
January 10, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Bruce — what you saw in Tunis was not XO hardware; it was a mockup of the early industrial design. The OS running was, to my knowledge, the first thing that was handy to throw on there. XO hardware has never officially run anything other than Fedora.
Regarding DRM textbooks, it’s possible you’re correct, but I don’t see how random hand-waving helps the situation and you certainly fail to propose any kind of solution. OLPC was never in a position to outright block an XP port — at best, we could’ve chosen to ignore it. To assert this would have derailed Microsoft’s effort is incredibly naïve; I counter that it would have been actively detrimental to OLPC’s goals.
John Drinkwater said,
January 10, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
The problem is, you’re providing a choice that doesn’t promote choice. Which comes back to giving children laptops with XP where they’ll not have choice, and you’ve shot yourself in the foot.
I’m all for allowing companies to experiment with the XO, and bring more learning tools to these children as a platform. But some companies want it for is a vector to lock your children into their products. I hope you can live with XP-XO pushing OOXML and C# and WMV and Silverlight etc, because it’s *you* allowing these children to be enslaved, not MS. I’m very wary of them because I don’t recall one thing they have done honestly and without fault.
Sidenote: Will the signed copies of XP be able to update over the internet? What control do you have over the installs once you’ve signed the master and given the laptops out? Can the rollback be blocked after the event? I know BitFrost is meant to prevent that, what’s the likelihood of a flaw being discovered by your friends?
Wayan @ OLPC News said,
January 10, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
I pray to the motherboard that you are right, that Microsoft does see the XO, with Sugar, as viable, but the pragmatist in me is already seeing a repeat of history. IBM once was a great computer manufacturer, seemingly invincible even, but then a bright guy with a grand ambition got between them and the end user with his new-fangled “GUI.” Now Lenovo makes computers, IBM is into services, and Microsoft just found a platform to invade a whole new population.
Coming in late 2008: millions of XO-ish laptops, all running Windows. Sugar? That’s for tea. Me? I will cry in mine.
Pandu Rao said,
January 10, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
I have read Bruce’s article, your points and his counterpoints.
I am afraid I have to agree with Bruce here.
Having grown up in a developing country without access to computing resources, then having gone on the acquire them, I can vouch for the difference it made to my life and that of those around me.
I can also vouch for the difference that Free Software made.
Anyway, I meant to write in to OLPC with questions about Microsoft’s involvement. So here goes:
1. This collaboration with Microsoft (to whatever extent), did they approach OLPC or was it the other way around?
2. When did Microsoft first offer to help with the OLPC project? When the idea was first conceived? During the prototype phase? Or well after the prototype was proven?
3. What is the point of Microsoft releasing the specifications publicly? The hardware is OLPC and those specifications are public anyway. As for what they release, what is it good for other than running XP?
4. “…we don’t wind up with walled gardens”. You mean the kind they built with OEM licensing contracts? How did you miss the irony here?
If Microsoft would have done a port without the involvement of the OLPC organization, it would have been obvious that it is trying to muscle its way into the third world. By collaborating with Microsoft, you offer a veneer of legitimacy to the effort.
I am very disappointed with the fact that OLPC is using Microsoft resources in the XO effort.
I have donated (not g1g1) one XO laptop early in December last year. The fact that XO runs Free Software is what convinced me to contribute to it. I saw a chance for next generation in developing countries to grow up with access to computing resources regardless of their financial capacity. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft’s corporate goals.
I hate to say this, but if I had known about Microsoft’s involvement earlier, I might have simply donated my money to the Free Software Foundation instead.
Kevin Mark said,
January 10, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
Hi Ivan,
I should be getting my little green thing in less than a month and I can’t wait. The last week has felt like a star-wars ‘disturbance in the force’ before Leia’s planet gets blown up. It has got folks talking. Intel has helped the FLOSS world some but their and Bill’s goals …, well, all I hope for is that RMS is practicing his XKCD-inspired martial arts for the coming siege. If only the leaders of the countries could understand that having an XO with XP with MS Word is not an educational tool and that XP is not useful to learn ‘computer science’. A friend of mine made a great point by saying that calling it a laptop was the biggest mistake. No one gets a ‘leapfrog’ or a ’speak-n-spell’ and says “without an Intel CPU, XP and Word, this is worthless’ or says ‘the leapfrog needs to run Word or I won’t buy it’ They are framed by their language as ‘not laptops’ and parents are fine with that. But the ‘laptop’ tags is an opening a mile-wide for Governments to compare it to a ‘real laptop’ and think that they are getting cheated by this paltry also-ran. I read about Skoelinux having the same issue and saying that their software was not meant for developing business skills which is why they don´t use Word and that OpenOffice was educational software because it helps students learning writing. Skoelinux would seem like a ‘next step’ in places that use the XO. I just hope that those kids don’t get $300 classmates and get cheated out of an education experience. I and the rest of the FLOSS world will pray that 2008 will see 3d world leaders see the light that the XO provides and not shackle their people with lock-in and DRM.
Gabe Terry said,
January 10, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Ivan,
Are you going to make changes to the BIOS (as James Utzschneider said would be needed on his technet blog) of the XO to accomodate microsoft? Wouldn’t that mean changing the design of the XO to support microsoft?
Are these changes going to be made at the factory, meaning that the OLPC laptops will be rolling off the assembly lines “windows ready”?
What are your thoughts about Nicholas Negroponte telling the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
“I think the change in culture at Microsoft over the past couple of years — nothing to do with OLPC, just their own movement — has made it much easier for us because, as recently as two years ago, if we had put a stake in the ground with Microsoft, all the people at OLPC would have walked out.”
Sounds to me like now that you’ve gotten the work done, you’ve decided to change the pretense on which the tireless commitment of the design engineers based their long hours of work. I have purchased and donated an XO, and I will feel cheated if BIOS or any other modifications are made at the factory, or supported by the OLPC foundation in the field, to allow Microsoft to throw in the trash all of the hardwork done by truly dedicated engineers, volunteers, and contributors.
This “rollback” feature is a real insult as well, and it isn’t fooling anyone. The OLPC foundation waited until they had taken the give-1-get-1 orders. Now they release the doublespeak and do not honor past statements such as the one made in April 07 by Kyle Austin to Wired that the OLPC hasn’t changed the XO’s design to support Windows, and has no formal partnership with Microsoft.
Any BIOS change most definitely would qualify as a design change. And any factory level modifications, or special field support, would demonstrate an extremely formal relationship.
Please leave the doublespeak, excuses and spin to Microsoft. They are very good at it, and it appears that the OLPC foundation may be learning the wrong things from them. No one is asking you to prohibit microsoft from changing XP to run on the XO laptop. The objection is that you seem to be offering to change the XO to accomodate Microsoft, at the expense of the open operating system and software developed by people dedicated to more than just money (and the software is beatiful).
If you are going to betray the trust and goodwill of a whole community of sincere people, at least tell them straight on that you’ve sold them out.
Wayan @ OLPC News said,
January 10, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Kevin,
I agree with you, that the “laptop” name opens too much a comparison with an adult computer. Worse, by calling it a “$100 laptop” it suggested that the XO was a fully-functional adult laptop, at a lower cost.
Better would have been “the best educational tool ever devised, and its affordable too”. That would have kept the focus on education, not technology or price. Sadly, this tact was not taken.
But let’s not take Ivan’s post off topic. He’s holding out hope that Windows + XO = choice and a hope that choice = Sugar. On this, I have long thought that if you lay down with Microsoft you wake up with bugs – of all types.
Tom said,
January 11, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Maybe Microsoft could support the project by providing information to allow Wine to properly run certain applications. If MS helped the OLPC project to run Visual Basic 6.0 on Wine it would benefit nearly everyone as older applications would run under Linux, VB Classic would continue to have some life to it, and thousands of children around the world would have access to learning to program on VB.
Sounds like a Win, Win, Win to me.
Tom from MA
Marcelo Entas said,
January 11, 2008 @ 5:51 am
“The folks running this work on the Microsoft side are good people. They have left no doubt in my mind that they believe in what we’re doing and want to play along.”
sorry but … i don’t share this optimistic view of things
this is how MS “feels” the OLPC: as a rival: don’t be fooled by the “good people” that talk with you, fear the people on top of MS… they are who *drives* this company, not the “good” ones:
”
Gates: OLPC hasn’t done that well. Emerging markets are growing for PCs, people are doing cheap PCs. We’ve always believed in cheap PCs. If the hardware were free, we’d be happy. We’re about the software. We’re in literally over 100 countries with special versions of Windows, including Starter Edition. OLPC is nowhere compared to where we are on this thing. If that form factor, some people want to use that, we’ll make sure Windows is available on that.
”
( extracted from http://www.news.com/beyond-binary/8301-13860_3-9843783-56.html , news.com recent interview )
–Marcelo
Paul Boddie said,
January 11, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Ivan writes, “One commonly-forgotten truth about OLPC is that our commitment to open source and free software isn’t religious, but pragmatic — we believe Linux and Sugar constitute a better software platform and, much more importantly, a better learning platform.” Bruce then correctly points out that “promoting sound public policy is not religion.”
Bruce of all people (having been connected with the Open Source Initiative to begin with) should know that it’s at the point that one ignores the ethical dimension (which Ivan erroneously calls “religious”) that the erosion of the argument to use what’s then labelled as open source software begins: people start to argue that it’s all about writing better software, that the bazaar is better than the cathedral, that more eyeballs make for better or more secure code, or whatever. Now, whilst some or all of that may be true, the resulting arguments detract from the genuine unarguable benefit that Free Software has for the end-user: that they may retain control over their systems and their data.
In any case, I think it’s difficult for people to believe the argument that OLPC is all about the educational value of the project (the sum of the hardware, the software and the methodology) when the strategy as (potentially incorrectly) reported in the media recently seems to point towards getting as many units out there even if most of them run Windows. Sure, some governments are going to be inclined to say that there’s less risk of going with something they know (especially if dumped below cost, even more so if kickbacks enter the picture), meaning that if the computers don’t work out in schools “as is”, they can end up running MSN Messenger and no-one senior gets fired in the education ministry. But if 90% of XO devices run Windows XP, along with the usual lock-in and hassle that this entails, I hardly think that the project can claim as much in the way of success as they otherwise might, especially with respect to the educational goals of the project.
The question is whether the OLPC project should be inclined to shed part of its stated mission to play along with this short-sighted (and arguably corrupt) way of procurement, or whether a better way of countering it would be to also target other hardware platforms with the OLPC software. If the software platform is better for education, why not ride on the success of things like the Eee PC in markets where less robust devices are required? Why drop the core of the project’s mission for something as cheap as pragmatism?
Andrea Rota said,
January 11, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Ivan,
of course Microsoft can port whatever software they want to the XO platform, with or without support from OLPC: one of the biggest accomplishments of OLPC so far has been the development of an almost open hardware platform (I hope the few proprietary bits left will be replaced by free components as soon as possible), and obviously anyone can port whatever code they please to an open platform.
But there is no “paradox of choice”: OLPC has chosen GNU/Linux and the Sugar interface, and the XO laptops will be (almost) free learning tools. The choice, as millions of people had understood through the media reporting on the OLPC project, is made, and has been applauded by many for being bold and for granting freedom to kids and educators.
Choice became a paradox only when the openness of a platform has been considered an excuse to justify whatever leg-pulling could be proposed by those who can afford to buy the attention of the media. It is very sad to see that technological determinism underlies some words of some highly respected people working in an educational project: if education is (also) about empowering people and letting them be agents of (cultural, artistic, social, techological, etc.) change, it’s quite ironic that OLPC somehow believes in a sort of fatalistic path of technology: “it can be done, so we can’t prevent it from being done”.
But Negroponte and OLPC can at least avoid appearing to be endorsing some of the things that can (and will) be done. OLPC has gained respect and trust from millions of lay people around the world, and whatever position OLPC takes in respect to proposed external developments on the XO is going to have an huge impact and reach through the media. OLPC *can* in fact avoid that “whatever cold be done will be done”: by not even remotely appearing to be approving or endorsing it, by not making it more relevant that it would be without OLPC’s statements, by not giving a free ride to multinational corporations’ marketing departments.
The paradox of choice here is about OLPC’s choice: to stand by the principles of freedom through which it gained respect and trust, or to let things unfold as others plan and wish. This would be a very sad paradox.
And as a final note, choice of free software and hardware is not a pragmatic choice; it is simply a choice between granting freedom to users, or letting them be controlled by technology. And this is not religious zealotry at all: it’s simply a matter of ethics and respect for people.
I hope that Negroponte and OLPC will be more considerate in pondering the power that their words carry before committing lightly to questionable choices and then having to hide behind techological determinism rather than putting ethics first and simply say “we’re sorry, we’re all humans, it was a mistake, we have learnt something new”.
Charbax said,
January 11, 2008 @ 8:45 am
I think that this work Microsoft is doing to release a light version of Windows XP is fantastic. Thanks to all your work, to this OLPC project, soon enough Windows XP Light will have to be open-source. I see this happening within 2 years. There is no other way Microsoft could compete with Linux.
Actually first step is Windows XP Light will be available for nearly a free price not only in the developped countries (as this $3 Windows XP licence announcement was about), since $200 PC and laptops will become popular in developped countries, Microsoft will firstly have to provide their OS super super cheap if they want people to use it. Then in terms of competing in optimizations, optimized new software, customizations, Microsoft eventually will have to release an open-source and free version of Windows XP Light.
Can you just boot the XO with a Microsoft 2GB or so SD card and it shows the dual boot screen? Or do you have to load the Microsoft OS off the SD card and into the internal memory and replace Sugar for it to boot? Cause I would find it perfect if the students simply can insert the Microsoft branded SD card they got for free from Microsoft to have somekind of experience of the OS that most people in the developped world have been using for the past 10 years. As long as the complete Bitfrost comes with it so you can’t run Windows XP Light off an SD card neigther on a stolen XO.
John Klaus said,
January 11, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Ivan,
This is a wonderful machine. Linux is indeed the OS of freedom and innovation and that freedom and capability have greatly helped you realize your vision. I’ve no doubt the people from Microsoft are good people. But they do not run the company. The fundamental, inescapable purpose of Microsoft the corporation is to control revenue streams and direct maximum profit to investors. That’s how the decisions ultimately get made. You yourself mention that XP will never be open source. Well of course it will never be open source. That is how they control the revenue. FOLLOW THE MONEY. It’s astonishing to me how the smartest people can be so easily deceived by the puppet master. Of course you have very satisfying interaction with very like-minded people from Microsoft. Everyone decries the ‘bean counters’ and insist that it will not be that way this time. And, sadly, of course the people pulling the strings know this. They encourage it because they know it works. But one thing those like-minded people you are dealing with will never have is the authority to make XP open source or in fact have the authority to make any decision that compromises the revenue stream. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
In the end, try as they might, Microsoft will lose. The open source nature of Linux protects freedom in the same sense that copyright protects control and revenue. Look at the history of innovation in the software developed in the open source world against the products of the corporate world and it is clear which model benefits We the People. The xo does not exist without open source and Linux. Copyright protects revenue. Open source protects freedom and innovation. It’s just that simple and the two are at war. The digital signature protects you. The puppet master understands all of this. If you sign XP, your battle is over.
Micah Roth said,
January 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
The heart of Open Source and related projects – the very reason that people can get “religious” about it (and yes, there are some who are religious about it) – is because it represents something that we all learn as a community survival tactic at an early age. Sharing.
That’s what this entire project was about – share the incredible technology that has been generated in developed countries with those in lesser developed areas. It was dreamed up as a way to allow the big guy to give something to the little guy, to even the playing field a little – to let all of humanity move forward. Sharing code, specs, details, tactics – these are the actions of a truly transparent and open-source minded project.
Unfortunately, this business/social/governmental/economic model tends to not work very well in humanity, because some part of the group that such a model is implemented in inevitably turns away from freedom of development towards greed for profit.
OLPC appears to be, as I said, truly open-source and open-minded. But naivete is a great danger to projects like this. Greed and corruption can come in many, many forms. The pawns that a corporate ‘gorilla’ like MS employs do NOT represent the company’s ultimate goals.
Think of where many popular Open Source projects have come from – wine, ooo, pidgin. They all perform functions on similar bases as their closed-source counterparts. Capable, talented people have been able to essentially reverse-engineer these functions based on extrapolation and conjecture, to re-license the ultimate product for freedom. Imagine what might’ve happened if instead of guessing and conjecture, that every detail of the blueprints for each closed program had been suddenly laid out for the community to view, update and upgrade. And then imagine that all of that effort was instead being funnelled into a new way to close up a now-superior product and sell it at profit, to the detriment of the end user (humanity).
Be wary – now that MS knows how your mesh system works they’ll try to re-build a system that’s similiar but has some dumb bell-and-whistle that really gets end-users excited about MS products (think about how amazing it was when tabbed browsing was introduced in IE – the MS community did a backflip like sliced bread had just been superseded, without so much as checking to see if any other product had had that feature – and for years). They’ll license that new system and sell it at a profit, and once they’ve developed enough dependency on their locked products, could quite easily stomp OLPC into the ground.
Ultimately I’m expressing my opinion that OLPC is a noble cause, but that MS has the opportunity and most certainly the demonstrable historic trends that exhibit motive to corrupt it. Just be careful.
Bruce Perens said,
January 11, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Ivan,
You wrote “but I don’t see how random hand-waving helps the situation and you certainly fail to propose any kind of solution.”
The only solution I can propose at this time is vigilance. One alerts people to be vigilant with a warning, that’s why I wrote. Many people dislike this sort of vigilance because it appears to be negative, but such is often the essence of defense. If you want a positive activity that can help, it is the production of open content for textbooks so that DRM-locked textbooks are not desirable. My book series has produced 24 such texts and has proven that they can be produced profitably.
I doubt you’d argue the point that MS has been Machiavelian in the past when a technology shows potential to encroach upon their monopoly, many would point to the recent activity around ISO and OOXML as evidence that they continue to do so.
The paradox of choice is indeed that a choice which enables the continuation of a monopoly turns out to have been no choice at all.
James Utzschneider said,
January 11, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Thanks Ivan, nice note.
James
Joshua Gay said,
January 11, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
From the The Five Principles (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Core_principles/lang-en), one of which is “Free and Open Source,” it states:
“A world of great software and content is necessary to make this project succeed, both open and proprietary. Children need to be able to choose from all of it. In our context of learning where knowledge must be appropriated in order to be used, it is most appropriate for knowledge to be free. Further, every child has something to contribute; we need a free and open framework that supports and encourages the very basic human need to express. ”
So, I see that OLPC certainly acknowledges that users can install proprietary content and/or software onto their XOs, but it seems that the belief that “it is is most appropriate for knowledge to be free,” where this includes software, and that it is meant in the sense of freedom to redistribute, change, and redistribute changes. That seems like a pretty strong stance, and one that is, well one of the five core principals of the project.
This kind of core principal doesn’t seem to jive well with your statement that these good folks at Microsoft, “have left no doubt in my mind that they believe in what we’re doing and want to play along.” I’m not sure what you mean by “they believe,” is it just that they understand what you are doing? I guess that is fine, in that they understand what you are doing, but, just don’t agree with your principles or your methods.
Maybe this kind of view of beliefs is similar to the use of your word “religious,” when you say: “One commonly-forgotten truth about OLPC is that our commitment to open source and free software isn’t religious, but pragmatic — we believe Linux and Sugar constitute a better software platform and, much more importantly, a better learning platform.”
It’s funny that the common-forgotten truths of the project should have such a disconnect with the mission statement and the core principals of the project. Perhaps it’s just whose truths and who it is that is forgetting that we don’t know.
Also, it is a little unclear how you’ve decided that “Linux and Sugar” are a “better learning platform.” We know that it’s not based on religion. I don’t think you meant organized religion here or a any sort of discussion of God. Perhaps you mean “better,” in the sense that each user can use it however they like, learn from it and look at the source code, share it with friends and neighbors, and modify it and redistribute their changes so the whole community can benefit. If this is why it makes up a better learning environment, then this would match up nicely with the definition of free software.
If not being able to use the software however you wish, not being able to share it with friends and neighbors, not being able to examine and learn from it, and not being able to modify it and share those changes with your neighbors seems a bit antithetical to this, well it is exactly what Windows XP carries with it for freedoms.
So, I’m not really surprised that people, especially those who really care about the underlying mission and core principles of the project, will make a fuss when they read that “we’re jointly making it possible to install XP on an arbitrary XO.”
I understand that getting a really good spec published is actually beneficial to the world, and that if Microsoft does it, then so be it. And you obviously don’t want to prevent proprietary software from being installed on a machine, that would be an assault on user-freedom. But, come one — you passed off Bruce’s comments as a “lachrymal — if entirely misinformed — missive,” based on the fact that he got the terms agreement on why the Microsoft employee is allowed to sit in the OLPC office, and the he got it wrong on Debian thing. You don’t care to respond to his real concerns, which aren’t about how you are “jointly making it possible to install XP on an arbitrary XO,” but what the consequence he fears will be if XP on the XO becomes widespread. Sure, he got upset with Negroponte’s comments, and he maybe took some dig at the organization, but do you really think that your statements are going to help repair the confidence of those who care deeply about free content, free software, and the ability for kids to share and learn together, whether it is to fix the bugs in their software, or to adapt it however they see fit to improve their learning environment?
So yes, Bruce’s comments ultimately were lachrymal — they related to his tears, his sadness. I’m afraid that perhaps my statements are of the same substance. Maybe, I like Bruce, have even made some mistakes in my details about contracts, about statements, semantics, or logic. Feel free to respond to the all of those points I got wrong, and ignore all the ones that really matter most: that some of us are really worried that what Microsoft is doing could seriously, and ultimately work against the core principles and ultimate goals of this most amazing project.
Sincerely,
Joshua Gay
[The above statement represents my personal views and do not necessarily reflect those opinions or views of my employers.]
Anders Troberg said,
January 12, 2008 @ 4:57 am
As far as I can see, it’s easy to maintain freedom and still keep MS out of it. Just stick to the principle of “only open stuff on the OLPC”. Invite MS in, but require them to put anything they put on it to be under GPL and open patents. If they agree, I have no problem with it, if not, well, then they are not promoting freedom and are not welcome.
Nick Mailer said,
January 12, 2008 @ 5:29 am
That photograph disturbs me. The OLPC attendees there seem to be in ego-stroking ecstasy, interpreting their invitation as a sign of how influential and successful they are. “Look where I am, mom!”. It is sad that otherwise intelligent people can be so naive, as have been the OLPC people who have cooperated in the construction of this Trojan Horse.
Yes, of course the MS people with whom you’ve had direct contact appear to be sincere and enthusiastic. Indeed, they may well be. But the motivations from on high which led them to dedicate company resources to the port certainly are not. You should have had nothing to do with this mendacious attempt. Microsoft are quick to ignore or frustrate others who want to make MS proprietary tools work with open systems. It took a European court to force them, kicking and screaming, to reveal their networking protocols. Do you think the same corporate body is suddenly a benevolent, benign entity?
The “it’s not a religion” epithet is, as Bruce says, a tired and unthinking cliche, used to throw flack and chafe against those who dare to examine too careful ethical problems and their eventual utilitarian consequences. Whilst projects like the OLPC are not a religion in the sense of evoking a deity, they do take on certain moral axioms and ethical prescriptions and proscriptions which may well be termed religion-like. Indeed, the OLPC is a clear descendant of the more benign aspects of religious missionary work. If you promote XP as an equal-citizen in this panoply, either explicitly or tacitly (as you are doing now), then you instead allow the OLPC to become a descendant of the malign aspects of missionary zeal. I certainly would want no part of such a project whose eventual de-facto success was merely in bring proprietary and enslaving software and DRM to the “Natives”. So rather than put your fingers in your ears and shout it’s “not a religious issue”, which is a lazy way of trying to abrogate yourself from making coherent ethical decisions, you should decide what exactly are your “religious” precepts in this venture, and make sure they are for the good (if not for the Good!).
Jose Lorenz said,
January 12, 2008 @ 10:24 am
From Linux Today
*****
The XO needs to get itself a real Linux that is mature (works for both adults and kids) for dual booting purposes (the blog gives an example). As much as OLPC may believe in their approach to learning, you can’t keep factories idle and Sugar is not yet refined enough.
I hear that Puppy LiveCD can run on 128 (256?) MB entirely and be very fast. It would have to be adjusted for the hardware.
Come on OLPC. Wake up. Not only is Windows (assuming it works with existing Win apps without a ton of bugs) unhealthy and subversive, there are very good light Linux that are virtually ready to go.
I’m sure that OLPC will try and sell Sugar to US schools. Great, but Sugar is not as mature as some other Linux interfaces. Don’t sell the hardware short on account of stubbornness. There are factories to think of. If Sugar gets in the door, however, that is a win. And even groups that don’t like it today may like it tomorrow. Kids can learn off Puppy, btw. I mean “puppy.” You don’t get much cuter than that.
The pup is here today and it is designed to run entirely in ram (other small distros should be able to add this feature in without too much trouble I would hope).
And kids need a transition into boring adulthood. Puppies can work here.
…AND I hope people that hate distro propagation are taking notes. [Hopefully, there will be many more opportunities this year to take notes, so don't put the paper and pen too far away.]
*****
Additionally, I hope no one needs to be reminded that Microsoft is a monopolist. Regardless of their past, it’s in their best interest each and every day to subvert Linux because a monopoly (a multitude of them) are extremely lucrative.
For those that care, you can check out a few more naughty words on Microsoft here: http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2008011200126OPMS . Again, Microsoft needs to execute Business 101. They will never be able to satisfy their stockholders and be a friend of FOSS so long as they are in the monopoly position because that position dictates they behave a certain way.
Also, for underdeveloped countries, a solution of XO for kids only might be a deal breaker because of the otherwise failed opportunity to get something just a tad more X to help lift their economies. I mean, imagine you are out of a job and living light. How would you feel about a $10,000 gift for your child? .. a gift that could otherwise almost help get you a job to put food in mouths. Clearly, there has to be a compromise somewhere to make this more practical. It’s more important that children have access to laptops (especially during school hours) period, than that they have access under X or Y terms and conditions.
Jose Lorenz said,
January 12, 2008 @ 10:43 am
I forgot to say some things in my earlier comment.
Intel is now is in a better position to produce hardware that can better compete with the XO and run Windows. The XO may or may not be needed. To extend someone else’s argument.. the XO with Linux would be so bad for Microsoft that better would be for Microsoft to strike an exclusivity deal elsewhere (eg, Intel) to keep Linux off and make sure that the XO fails completely. Microsoft’s “we’ll get there soon” and Intel’s unhelpful anti-sell job double as delay tactics. Eventually, Quanta might abort the XO, for example.
Something like Puppy can change a lot of potential buyers’ minds. Many may not know that Linux runs like Windows and is not just Sugar.
OLPC may be able to go on for a long time (the software and educational parts of it), but it’s partners can’t afford that. If the OLPC doesn’t care and wants to leave the market to others, that’s not my business, but is this the case? And helping put a low-priced Windows into hundreds of millions more hands is hurtful to the Linux community at large, the Linux/FOSS community that has been supporting you.
Don’t delay and add a practical and open source educational operating system as a dual boot today.
[Many have interests in Microsoft/Intel (or represent those that do) and not in the nonprofit OLPC, so expect the bad mouthing and words of disencouragement to continue non-stop for as long as the OLPC's doors are open (and the XO is viable and/or in question). Companies like Intel and Microsoft are not in the business of holding hands to save the kids. They will have none of that hugging and cooperation. What matters to their business are the dollars, and they will do everything possible in the course of business to get the dollars into their accounts. Competing bank accounts spoil the fest for their stockholders.]
John Kustoff said,
January 12, 2008 @ 11:37 am
The moment a laptop from OLPC ships with MS stuff on it, the moment I will start recommending everyone not to support OLPC.
“One commonly-forgotten truth about OLPC is that our commitment to open source and free software isn’t religious, but pragmatic — we believe Linux and Sugar constitute a better software platform and, much more importantly, a better learning platform.”
So be pragmatic! Analyze what MS has done for education last few years, what has done for the security of their users, what has done for interoperability, what has done to good projects that vanished in no time, and what it can do to the OLPC project. OLPC has a lot of “emotions” behind it. Contributing in any way, even if it just the marketing it gets from OLPC, to some company that tries every now and then to destroy user’s freedom around the world is NOT a good emotion.
“The folks running this work on the Microsoft side are good people. They have left no doubt in my mind that they believe in what we’re doing and want to play along. I am also confident we have made the right decision at OLPC by embracing their work instead of stonewalling it.”
Ahah! Sure sure… They can be good people but the ones who support them are the company shareholders. If they see an opportunity for making more money, they take it. And remember! Please do remember:
“Embrace it; Destroy it”
Please wake up.
It is not about religion. It is about ethics. Until MS proves throughout the years it can have ethics on what it does, I don’t believe in any “good intention” it might try to “sell.”
Santiago Gala said,
January 12, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Something that could definitely work in the system software area is to make it easy for linux distributions to add sugar as an alternate session manager to gnome, kde, etc.
I’m not sure how difficult it would be to have it running, but any effort to make it, and the interaction style that it enforces, more popular in the “conventional” community will help us for sure.
I think a lot of the “bad” press between the free software community are coming from ignorance, and showing the software is surely helping a lot to keep the phantoms out of sight.
JJMacey said,
January 12, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Hi All,
I’ve been following the OLPC project for some time. In fact, I do know some people in Brazil, and those other third-world (not) countries.
I’m sure that this project in viable, but seems to be lacking in terms of marketing. IMHO.
Regards,
JJMacey
Phoenix, Arizona
http://www.jjmacey.net
Martin Dengler said,
January 12, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Ivan,
I think you guys just got it wrong, here:
1) What is OLPC getting? I’m not sure what OLPC will be getting out of helping Microsoft: you say that you’re not dedicating resources to it, but I bet if 5 random developers showed up and asked for the same amount of time from you (meetings + technical writer) they wouldn’t get the same reception.
2) What are you losing? Your time (meetings) and others’ support for the project (bad PR), but most importantly, the ability of the laptops in the field to be used for OLPC core principles (trivially, the 5th, but given the state of mesh networking now, I can’t imagine trying to get things working with Windows will speed up achieving saturation and connection). I agree with Bruce about the “paradox of choice” that you seem to ignore (or straw man the other side – “To claim we should prohibit XO customers from running XP”) is that the choice that removes your ability to choose is no choice. I know you said they must be able to switch back to a free alternative (Linux), but if you really believe that once officials have the choice to distribute Windows the sales (bribery?) pressure won’t kick in and leave kids with Windows laptops that their parents can sell or DRM’ed textbooks they need to have, I submit Intel’s latest antics as the obvious riposte.
3) Your point about the Microsoft people you’re dealing with being “good people”, and want to “play along”, goes nowhere concrete so I assume it’s meant to convince you/us that this is all a warm, fuzzy, help-the-kids-first project. If so, doesn’t that seem a bit naive? If not, please help me understand where you were taking that point (I assume it wasn’t “MS supports OLPC’s five core principles; look, these nice people are just the beginning”).
I only hope this is just a friendly, developer-to-developer set of interactions that got too much press. Given Microsoft have had 40 people working on this for a year, I doubt it, and I think you’ve gone too far. Let Microsoft employees join the devel list and exchange their ideas in the open, at least, on the same playing field as everybody else.
Martin
PS – you also lost me when you said OLPC’s “commitment to open source and free software isn’t religious, but pragmatic” – if one of your five goals can be cast aside so easily for “pragmatic” reasons, I think you’re going to lose a bit of people’s trust and goodwill. I would have expected one of your core goals would be adhered to except in extraordinary circumstances (c.f. the Marvell firmware). These are hardly extraordinary circumstances, except in the naivite that what Microsoft has done with other OS competitors won’t be done to OLPC.
Wendell Anderson said,
January 12, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
I laud Ivan for his work and commitment to OLPC project, However one point he has not mentioned and that has been a critical factor in many issues of the past involving Microsoft. It is the technology patent and copyrights matters. If Microsoft chose to use the innovative technologies learned from OLPC project – which I suspect is their only interest – they can re-implement those technologies as their own patented technologies, and no matter how much Nicholas, Ivan and the wholeOLPC gang – including their lawyers jump up and down and cry foul and law-suit, they do not have the finances or other resources to see their justice through the USA legal system for next five to seven years, probably at costs exceeding twenty million dollars. Just ask SCO.
Meanwhile, Microsoft can probably get an injunction against OLPC to halt production of said technologies OR have OLPC pay them huge sums to continue production. This possible position has been vetted by several attorney associates who are expert in this area and KNOW the probabilities of similar actions by Microsoft and/or Intel.
Get real Ivan, and understand the world as it is, not from the few “good” Microsoft folks you have gotten to know or some Utopian view of “choice, better technology or common-sense”. Remember the old adage: If a fish is rotting from the head, the whole fish must be discarded’ And that means the good Microsoft people as well, since they are not policy, business decision makers.
I generally agree with Bruce Perens’ stance – for factual/historical reasons.
Good luck at not getting kicked in the butt.
W. Anderson
wanderson@nac.net
Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves said,
January 12, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Ivan, is it possible to mention to the Microsoft representant that their port should also support files created by other non-Windows XO machines, namely Vorbis, Theora, Speex, and OpenDocument Text? Interacting with Mesh is one thing; being able to open files created by normal XOs is another.
Marc Lavallée said,
January 12, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Kevin Mark wrote :
“No one gets a ‘leapfrog’ or a ’speak-n-spell’ and says “without an Intel CPU, XP and Word, this is worthless’ or says ‘the leapfrog needs to run Word or I won’t buy it’”
Here’s a little reminder. Microsoft’s motto is :
“A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software.”
The XO is definitely a computer, not a leapfrog. So for Microsoft the XO must run with their software. Since Microsoft is monopolistic, Windows users who minimally care about the OLPC mission will want to see Windows running on the XO. Because computer = Windows, computer users are Windows users, that’s logical, right?
The only way to prevent Windows on the XO is to educate the OLPC target audiences (the educators and their governements) about free software. My feeling is that the XO will run whatever can run on it, despite its educational mission, and time will tell if XO user communities will do better using free software than Microsoft non-free software.
Like Mr. Krstić, I believe Gnu/Linux+Sugar is a much better learning platform, especially for children as early adopters because Sugar will evolve with them instead of them having to fit in Microsoft’s boxes to please the vast majority of adults who never learned about computing.
Like Mr. Perens, I’m fed up of reading about free software being a religion. We all use computers for pragmatic reasons. If we want children of the world to *also* learn about computing, then free software is the logical choice. If we just want those children to become clueless consumers, then using Microsoft software is the logical choice.
eduardo said,
January 12, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Ivan,
I had a similar argument with a friend of mine in the past. He is known in your area and He was planning to be part of OLPC at that time.
I tried to explain him that OLPC is _not_ a technical challenge, is _not_ charity as much people might see it. Its something that can change, indeed It changes the balance of power in the near future.
You can’t be romantic or pragmatic when you are trying to take a couple of bananas from a group of 800 lb gorrilas. (Intel, M$, Asus, etc.), so, you should be very careful and please, don’t let technical aspects decide it.
** You have to understand that you are doing politics in here, not science. **
** If you don’t understand this, they will thief your project just after all your hard work. **
Eduardo
PS: I hope it helps, email me and we can talk further if you found my comment useful.
Geoff Dutton said,
January 12, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
I’m just a dad and Eminance Gris of my kid’s G1G1 XO, and have no open source credentials, but I smell a rat and its name is Bll. Or Steve. Or those great people at M$ who want to get to know the XO. It seems to me that if they want to port XP to XO, they will whether you work with them or not. What in God’s green earth could that ever do to promote OLPC’s program by giving them assistance, especially if no money is involved? My intuition says stay away from those people and take steps to make it harder for them to usurp the XO, not easier.
Aiban Stout said,
January 12, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
This appears to be a common dilemma for organizations that strive to be open and inclusive. OLPC wants to be as open and inclusive as possible, but by including inherently un-open and exclusive organizations, does that make the overall OLPC endeavor more open or less? I think the answer to this question is another question. Does OLPC’s inclusion of less open organizations result in OLPC modifying its overall guiding principles?
I think the answer is simple. OLPC should include everyone, as long as all the contributions are also open. MS, of course, will do whatever it pleases, but if OLPC endorses a closed contribution from MS, OLPC has become a significantly less open and inclusive organization.
Of course, real world solutions must be pragmatic and the mesh network drivers decision represented a pragmatic compromise of principle to reap great gains to the project. However, endorsing XP on the XO goes far beyond pragmatism. OLPC’s response should be that contributions from MS would be welcome, as long as the source is included . . . just like 99.9% of all the other software on the XO.
But let’s not be too hard on Ivan. He has probably expressed the strongest opinion he possibly could against XP on the XO as the security guru for the organization, without giving an ultimatum, and the project is probably better because of it. This is not his decision to make and his attempt to clarify some points on the issue is noble.
Ed Montgomery said,
January 12, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
And will MS be making all of this ‘generousity’ of theirs open source? I.e. will they be publishing open source code for the mesh info that they have ‘learned’ from you? Will all of the security and theft deterrence, sugar and windoze collaboration and sharing source code be ’shared’ or ‘open’? Just how ’seamless’, does ’seamless’ mean to you? I think MS is once again taking a naive group of people, i.e. current XO people, and will be taking them to the cleaners in the future. And will MS be placing patent, copyright, EULA restrictions, etc. on any of this? Methinks thou will be sorry for this ‘collaboration and sharing of the XO’. I hope I’m very wrong (but I doubt it). Let’s see MS claim up front that all of this work will be open source and free from encumberment of any kind. I’d recommend at least GPLing any ‘collaboration’, etc. Actions speak louder than words.
“they actually want to partake in as much of our learning philosophy as they can. They won’t make XP open source, but they’re building mesh support, going to great lengths to support our security and theft deterrence model, and working on allowing Sugar and Windows XOs to collaborate and share seamlessly.”
Scott Martin said,
January 13, 2008 @ 4:56 am
I’m with Bruce.
I don’t care how “good” the people are you working with from Microsoft or how they “get” what the OLPC is doing. Behind these smiling faces stands the corporation, Microsoft. It’s very existence. at least as it has been managed to-date, dictates that it must attempt to disrupt the use of any operating system other than its own on the XO.
That it does so by “playing nice” up front does not change what will eventually happen when Microsoft salespeople “help” the OLPC by using their existing licensing agreements with countries to gain acceptance of their “close enough” solution for students. And, being legitimized by the OLPC, will only make things easier.
Any number of difficult, thoughtful choices went into producing the XP. That the OLPC is “endorsing” Microsoft’s efforts, IMHO, actually lessens the likelihood that your customers will agree with you that “Linux and Sugar constitute a better software platform and, much more importantly, a better learning platform”. As it is, you seem to be telling your customers that the only really important thing is BitFrost, which you have taken a stand on.
Anyway, this is my initial read on the situation.
Grant Rettke said,
January 13, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
OLPC is pitched as a learning project, but it is so much more than that. When you learn, you change; you make opinions and get ideas and live your life differently. It is a personal growth project. You will collaborate, exchange ideas, and make decisions. You will develop your own personal philosophy, hear others, and end up living your life on your own terms.
Whatever path you take on this journey will lead you to the same destination.
Whether or not Microsoft prospers from this journey is immaterial.
Jim Showalter said,
January 13, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
You set-up a straw man when you say “To claim we should prohibit XO customers from running XP in the interest of freedom is to claim everyone should be free to make a choice — as long as it’s a choice we agree with.”
Who supposedly made such a claim? – certainly not Bruce Perrens. And who on this planet (besides you) is naive enough to believe that if the XO doesn’t ship with Windows XP, recipients are denied freedom?
What is there to prevent Microsoft from offering an XP install for the XO independently? The entire Linux movement was built in this way.
Dave Crossland said,
January 13, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Stonewalling Microsoft in the interest of software freedom seems straightforward to me. How can helping the biggest organisation threatening free software today be helping software freedom?
Yes, to prohibit XO customers from running XP would be monopolistic and anti-competitive. But freedom of choice goes hand in hand with responsibility of choice. We are free to make poor choices, and when we do we ought to be criticised. When XO customers run proprietary software, they ought to be calmly criticised and, as you note, that includes informing them of an alternative choice that is better.
Software freedom is not a religious issue, it is an idealistic issue and in the long term the most pragmatic view of software. Please consider not framing the debate in “religious” terms.
Also, please consider calling the operating system GNU/Linux; doing this really does help spread the idea of software freedom :-)
Ignas Galvelis said,
January 14, 2008 @ 5:11 am
With the current selling capabilities of OLPC, it might be a good idea to start work on XO OS running on the Classmate instead for Windows on XO.
Peteris Krisjanis said,
January 14, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Bruce, why are you going so long with words when you can simply say it in one sentence: “I don’t trust Microsoft, period”.
You claim that Microsoft intend with OLPC are evil. OK, so what do you suggest to OLPC project then? Reject any contacts or contributors from Microsoft? OLPC doesn’t officially work together with Microsoft, aka there is no legalese involved, except Microsoft pays one man extra that he writes spec for Windows XP to be run on OLPC and he can check with OLPC people about issues. But almost everyone can do that, not even Microsoft. OLPC has been very open about everything they do and this is seems like following their rules.
Bruce, all you suggest to OLPC is to ignore Microsoft. However, as Ivan said, it is very naive to think that it will stop Microsoft. XO is very open platform and almost anyone can try to tweak it as it please. If Microsoft will try to convice some country who have bought XOs to put Microsoft, well, it’s their call.
For all open source “paranoids” – I understand your reasoning, I understand why are you have doubts, BUT I think this is not right way of dealing with it. You have to face your fears. Microsoft can be defeated only in open field, not putting your head in the sand and singing “I ignore Microsoft, there is nothing for them here, la la la”. You CAN’T defeat Microsoft with it’s own rules. You have to play open. Like OLPC does.
Sorry for a little rant, but scaremongering is not what we need in our community. Bruce, you have been better in the past.
Malcolm Jarrett said,
January 15, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Like many others, I’m wary of Microsoft, but I think it’s better to collaborate than fight them.
From my (U.K.) perspective, Intel’s recent attempt to upstage OLPC has shown them to be selfish and predatory in a market where sharing and generosity are essential.
Would Microsoft be as stupid as Intel? Maybe they would, but a little adverse PR could be very harmful.
Wang-Lo said,
January 15, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Your experience with Intel should have taught you that who would sup with the Devil must needs a long spoon, but here you are at table with a far more treacherous guest. I have no doubt that future events will prove that you should have ignored Microsoft’s overtures.
I’m not suggesting that you try to block MS from booting Windows on the XO. You shouldn’t, and you can’t. The XO is open, and MS can port anything the architecture allows.
I’m suggesting that you should not share photo-ops, office space, and press releases with them. MS would love nothing more than to appear to be officially invited and sanctioned to replace the toy OS on the XO with something people can actually use.
-Wang-Lo.
Bill Weisgerber said,
January 15, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
It seens obvious to me that Microsoft is always interested in being in the lead and they are quick to adopt any winning strategy, ever so willing to switch rather than fight. Being quick to market with a well-recognized brand is the key to their success. Being rich as well as famous lets them take a flyer on anything that shows promise, including the XO and OLPC.
I do not see where offering XP to users along with Fedora is any disadvantage to anyone and it would seem to me that OLPC has made effective and fully legitimate decisions in this regard.
Mr. Perens seems irresponsible in making specific claims that OLPC was for sale, first to Red Hat and then to Microsoft without any evidence and should apologize rather than try to shift the focus from his untruths to some nebulous universal suspicion of Microsoft’s motives.
Tomm Storjord said,
January 15, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Bruce,
This is the first time in my life that I have disagreed with you. The worst part is that I mostly agree with you, but at the same time I have been in the shoes of the OLPC makers.
We need enforcers like you, a lot! But this is a philosophy, and yes sometimes a religion if you will. The philosophy/religion/Openness!
We cannot descend to their level; Ever! Will they screw us? probably!
f hartzell said,
January 15, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
Hi-I’m not a fully functioning techie but I worked with IBM 1620s and 360s during the late 1960s and computers have stayed a hobbie now through maybe 10 or more generations of computers and almost infinite software generations and permutations.
I’m writing this on an xo while sitting in a hot tub. I have also written while in a jacussi bath indoors. I don’t know of any other computer that I would have felt safe doing this with.
What I’m saying is this little thing is amazing for moisture and temperature and unlike any laptop or desktop in this sense. they have survived 140 degrees Fahrenheit. I think that intel and microsoft are smart enough to benefit from all the free R and D of native intelligence all around the world. Firefox actually helps microsoft in many ways, for example. also,look at the Gates foundation. It is the biggest and most philanthropic foundation on earth. I bet if people looked deep enough they might even see funding from the gates foundation getting this off the ground. Oh,one other thing. I like how one can tilt the screen to light the keys when it’s dark out like now.. My only complaint: the keys don’t fit adult hands. thanks.
Floyd James said,
January 18, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
I am stunned by now many even think they can work with Microsoft in any form or function and the result will be beneficial or at the very least benign. Ok, sure if you are a Microsoft shop and produce products ONLY form Microsoft’s platform but the OLPC/XO is running around with a bullseye on its forehead the size of Mt Rushmore. It has Linux on it, it has open source software, and it’s goal is to let kids learn by examination. Do you even see how that is a threat to Microsoft? Have you ever heard of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”? Microsoft lives by the rule that any small success is a threat to them if it is not powered by Microsoft software and therefore controlled by them.
Letting some very nice Microsoft people into your office so they can write about your project sounds just no naive. They are there purely to learn as much about your device, your people, your business plan and anything else they can figure out which will help them end the project. Anyone who has been in this market and looked outside a few times knows how Microsoft operates and knows that they don’t care about “the children”. My goodness, just look at that Nigerian Classmate PC deal where Linux was originally spec’ed with Linux installed. Microsoft came in and poured money on the deal and they were going to get Linux replaced with Windows after the fact. Everything with Linux and open source software is a threat to them.
You may not realize it but by letting Microsoft in, you have probably decreased your likelihood of success by about 50%. Letting them know how your mesh system works also gives them ammo to stop your sales with a replacement of their own. Low power configurations another. Sugar app sharing, another. They were all great features which differentiate what you have from what others trying to stop you have. Yes, these others are trying to stop you because you can not be allowed to succeed without being a threat to their business/profits. Again, look into “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. Sorry but Microsoft has done this to hundreds of businesses since the 1980’s. You are not special because you are doing it for the kids.
I believe Bruce and the others who have posted also understand this. Unfortunately, it always sound like a conspiracy or something since it really requires a longish term of observation to see the tactics used. Trust me, OLPC and the XO is seen as a threat to Microsoft as long as it is shipped without Microsoft Windows. Sugar is also seen as a threat to Microsoft because it is all about open access to software which is not controlled or tied to Microsoft or its products. They are harmful to the success of the project.
PS, contact via email requires the word “feedback” in the subject and please edit this out of the posted comment if it is posted. Thanks.
Ivan Krstić said,
January 22, 2008 @ 1:02 am
All — thank you for the comments. I hope to write another post in the near future responding to some of the points you’ve raised.
Jordan C said,
January 26, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Although I comprehend this development and collaboration with Microsoft. One thing that I have to say is that this incident has revealed in very clear terms — Microsoft does not like ANYONE to undermine their future prospects. A child in another country to them is a future prospect leading to a sale.
For freedom issues and general morality, Windows XP would be best in a gulog, shot in the back of the head.
Jose Lorenz said,
February 15, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
I think it’s only fair that Microsoft check-in their source code at the door. Otherwise, they are dealing in bad faith. You can rip out line after line of conditional checks that otherwise would allow an environment to support third party applications fairly efficiently and securely in exchange for speeding up responsiveness and bringing the size of the environment down. I am not alleging Microsoft neutered XP for the XO (I can’t know), but there are many things that one cannot observe (much less verify without source code) in a span of minutes or even hours of testing.
Do not fall for the “Wow” factor. It is marketing.
I ordered XO’s during GoGo/G1G1 because I believe in what the program is trying to accomplish BUT with a significant part of that being the spreading of FOSS and FOSS ideals.
[FWIW, I did buy 5 pairs of the machines, not because I am flush with money (quite the opposite), but as a "token of appreciation" for taking risks and trying to push such a valuable program through.]
Did you guys check out the Microsoft ads that appeared some weeks back? Referring to some hosting offer that Microsoft felt they needed to point to (because it is news whenever they give anything away for free, even things worth much less than source code), the ads said: “Two for None: Get both. Pay nothing.”
How nice! They mock you as they rob you. [Yeah, innocent fun yadda yadda] The image is one of “don’t follow that other guy that wants you to pay double for 1, follow us and pay nothing for twice.”
FOSS gives a lot more than twice for free. What a shame to deny that to any child that gets an XO because of the short-sighted deal-making of adults. Microsoft is one to tout their twice for zero as a way to steal market share from those giving 1000 for zero. They are a for-profit business (are they ever) not a charity that cares about customers beyond the dollars these customers represent. That is the law. If the OLPC thinks they need Microsoft, they should bring this out into the open so that the community can offer its advice.
The OLPC should re-evaluate with whom they do business. Don’t you guys have some minimal standards you expect from partners? Do you value respect and trust so little?
Might as well mention while I am here that I think the XO really needs swap space (absent more RAM) because I have not been able to keep the machines stable for too long when I start up various of the larger applications at once. I think it has to do with memory pressure/failure. [I know swap and flash mem don't currently mix very well.]
Another important note someone made a while back was to make it easier to save information hierarchically. No hierarchy is ideal, but there is a reason new and old societies have had this notion so well established. It is a useful exercise to practice groupings and categorizations. It also helps with memory recall (not to take away from other organizational structures.. but this one is one of the fundamental ones).
Don’t want to end on a down note.
Three cheers for OLPC once again for defying the odds to do what is best!!!
Nigel Barker said,
March 27, 2008 @ 5:10 am
People have made some very powerful statements and compelling arguments in these comments. I hope they find their way to the top decision makers of OLPC.
» Comments are now closed.