crud
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
Some of my friends (who are not egg-sucking microshaft shills but nice smart people) have been critical of the OLPC, mainly because they don't trust Mr. Negroponte. They're starting to look prescient. |
| bigg Apr 27, 2007 8:58 AM EDT |
This is a "blow" to open source if your goal is to have people stop running Microsoft products. If your goal is to have choice and eliminate Microsoft's monopoly, this is an occasion to celebrate. If Microsoft really was a monopoly, they wouldn't be doing this. Open source isn't going anywhere. It will keep getting better. Microsoft is *competing* with open source software, not *destroying* it. The distinction is very important. This is one reason I hate equating success to market share. We have succeeded if Microsoft gives people a reason to use their products, however much we might disagree with that choice. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2007 9:15 AM EDT |
The goal was to create an inexpensive, rugged, portable, children-friendly, completely open at both the hardware and software-level PC, and that can get by on minimal power. Choice? Baloney. The original design spec was precise and deliberately limited. Opening it up to windows makes no sense. It raises the cost and decreases its reliability, and there goes openness and choice right out the window. You are right that Microsoft is running scared. I think my friends who think Mr. Negroponte is corrupt are also right. Or at the least dimmer than an old LED. |
| bigg Apr 27, 2007 9:25 AM EDT |
I don't disagree with the idea that this is dumb from the perspective of the OLPC project. Windows is just not a good choice for OLPC. Negroponte might be evil, or Steve Ballmer's boyfriend, or a lot of other things, for all I know. My comment is based on the community's response to the $3 version of Windows and now this. If Linux was not a threat, this would never have happened. It's an important milestone for the free software community. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 27, 2007 9:30 AM EDT |
I am deeply disappointed in OLPC. If MS wants their crap on OLPC they should foot the bill for the extra hardware. Now the 3rd world countries will be screwed $75 a piece. That's almost another laptop. Suffice to say I will not be participating in any 1-for-2 laptop program. |
| salparadise Apr 27, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
This is heartbreaking. |
| bigg Apr 27, 2007 9:51 AM EDT |
All we know from the article is this > the XO's developers have been working with Microsoft to get the OLPC up to spec for Windows. We already knew it would cost more than $100, so we don't know what if any extra cost is involved. We also do not know (from the article) that the laptops will be running proprietary software other than Windows. We do not know that they will be locked in. I know this much. It would take a lot more than $175 to run Vista or even XP. Any offering from Microsoft would be a crippled version of Windows and not include Office. We also don't know how many computers will be sold with Windows. Maybe the Windows version will be more expensive, but available for governments willing to pay the extra money. Is this good? Probably not. I'd like a lot more details before I draw any conclusions, though. |
| jsusanka Apr 27, 2007 9:55 AM EDT |
how is a 75% increase in price any help to third world countries? probably was a lot more before microsoft paid some of the bill. seems like they were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist just to get microsoft some good pr. once again microsoft makes a mockery and disaster out of a project with their bloated software and money. just throw money behind it and it will all be good. way to go! |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2007 10:00 AM EDT |
It could be an adaption of WinCE. (I still laugh at the name- it's so appropriate.) Whatever it is, they're going to have a very difficult time making a Windows that can run on the OLPC without turning it into an ordinary high-power expensive laptop. |
| henke54 Apr 27, 2007 11:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:But what about Negroponte's thesis that open-source tools will better promote education and get kids interested in technology? Is there still an argument there?http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/04/negroponte_olpc.ht... |
| NoDough Apr 27, 2007 11:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Whatever it is, they're going to have a very difficult time making a Windows that can run on the OLPC without turning it into an ordinary high-power expensive laptop. Don't underestimate MS' resolve to make it an acceptable user experience. MS pays big bucks to have people who know little or nothing about computers try the software and explain what they don't like about it. When it comes right down to it, I sort of admire MS pulling this off. It's a brilliant competitive move. If we want to play in the same sandbox with them, we'll have to stop complaining and start competing. Which reminds me; kudos to Helios and the Tux500 crew. |
| dthacker Apr 27, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
Hey, I think I just saw the giant wince. Game On! Dave |
| jsusanka Apr 27, 2007 12:18 PM EDT |
"There are a few other reports of the meeting from the AP and Reuters Engadget points to them here and here. Both of the articles play up different points of the meeting and in some ways leave out what I think were important things that were said or simply played up the wrong angles. The AP story plays up the fact that the XO (as the OLPC is called) can run Windows and that XO engineers were working with Microsoft. That's not quite what Negroponte said. My notes have it that machines were sent to Microsoft and they have some version of Windows running on it. Negroponte was unable to say what version of Windows it was, mentioned that to run Windows would require the use of the SD card reader and it was clear to me that Negroponte had as much interest in Windows on this machine as Steve Ballmer has to in Linux apps working on Vista. Negroponte did say he did believe that the $3.00 version of Windows Microsoft was offering was a "unequivocally" a direct result of the OLPC project. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft ends up co-opting this project." here is another version - at least the one I like - wonder if ballmer's fud machine is at work. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 27, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
Well, I have no trouble eating my words if I have to, but I'll wait for some more reports before I get out the ketchup and a fork :-) |
| azerthoth Apr 27, 2007 3:22 PM EDT |
In the talkbacks I think was the best thought out reply to this so far. http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&thread... Its a longish read, but it boils down to ... so what, the goal was to get computers to kids in developing nations NOT stick it to M$. The writer also brings up another point, M$ is working with the OLPC crowd ... where is Apple and their vaunted humanitarianism. The goal of OLPC isnt to spread Linux through the world, its to give these kids a leg up. I cant call this selling out or breaking the faith, and so far no one has said that they WILL be running windows, just that said laptops will be capable of running some form of it. Rheotoric be damned, its about the kids. |
| jimf Apr 27, 2007 4:08 PM EDT |
> its about the kids. With Bill Gates and MS it's never 'about the kids'.... Well rather it's about indoctrinating 'the kids' as good and faithful little MS product consumers and shills for Bill's idea of the great society. Unusable laptops and $3 windows are only the beginning of it. |
| azerthoth Apr 27, 2007 4:17 PM EDT |
I'm sorry jimf I cant agree with you on this one. To state it differently, in a land without water does it make a difference if you hand someone a bottle of Dasani or Evian? |
| jimf Apr 27, 2007 4:30 PM EDT |
> does it make a difference if you hand someone a bottle of Dasani or Evian? Your analogy is faulty. It's more like handing the child either a sandwich with his bottle of water, or, a parcel of crack. |
| moopst Apr 27, 2007 4:38 PM EDT |
With M$ it's tainted Kool-Aid |
| azerthoth Apr 27, 2007 4:43 PM EDT |
I see, so to paraphrase, its fine to introduce them to computing as long as it isnt M$, but if its M$ it would be better to leave them in complete ignorance. Yup better to have another generation of computer illiterates than it is to allow even the possibility of seeing the dreaded BSOD. Sorry, I had to take your line of reasoning to the extreme. Its not that I attribute that perspective to you, just the inanity of the FOSS or nothing mindset. |
| jimf Apr 27, 2007 5:24 PM EDT |
> if its M$ it would be better to leave them in complete ignorance Perhaps ;-) Politically incorrect as you'll think it, I'm pretty sure I don't want to see a third world filled with those who's education is guided by Bill's 'ideals'. At any rate, we aren't going to agree on this one. MS and the Gates Foundation need to stop pretending they are in any way philanthropic. It's all another promotional sales scam. |
| dcparris Apr 27, 2007 6:57 PM EDT |
As much as I would like to see kids get computers, I also see Jim's point. Things are bad enough the way they are, and MS isn't so much handing out water as the new crack cocaine. What was it Bill said about the Chinese? Something along the lines of, "they're pirating Windows, and that's o.k. We're going to let them get hooked, you know, kind of like a drug addict..." |
| jimf Apr 27, 2007 7:48 PM EDT |
A couple other thoughts here. Computers are never in and of themselves 'Education'. Computers 'can be' great educational tools. They are not, and never should be the only tool in a child's education. Don, and TC, and Dino, and I (to name a few) all grew up, and, along with millions of others, received an adequate education before the existence of the computer, so, we 'know' that's true. While supplying people with educational tools is important, contrary to some people's appearent beliefs, computers are not the 'total' answer to this problem. The idea that it's computers or illiteracy is ludicrous. |
| jsusanka Apr 27, 2007 7:50 PM EDT |
I was thinking about the discussion between jimf and azerthoth and really tried to stand back and think about it. It made me wonder where would be without microsoft. would there be false economies like the anti-virus software or anti-anything software products. would there be more education on how to do things properly like rootkit testing or spyware testing - i.e aide or snort. would there be trash on computers from companies like dell that want to sell you something on every click of the mouse. If it meant that less people would have computers and the industry did things correctly, securely, and use open standards (i.e ODF) then I would go with the less computers. There is also an argument that if the industry did things correctly, securely, and openly, I think it would make our current rate of technology progress look like a snail. So I guess in the end I would like to see less people with microsoft windows and learn how to do computing correctly and use open standards then just keep on churning the endless hamster wheel of buying microsoft windows. We need to have a solid and open base for computing without legal threats and proprietary software isn't, can't be, and won't be that base. |
| salparadise Apr 27, 2007 9:40 PM EDT |
The solution to the third world's problems is not Linux or Windows.
A profound change in attitude towards the third world is the answer. In and of itself, laptops for people with little in the way of reliable electricity, food, medical aid, an economy or hope is almost an insult. "No, we're not going to fulfill our promises to you, no we're not going to deal with the EU and others flooding your markets with cheap goods you can't compete with, no we're not going to deal with drug companies refusing to sell you drugs at a price you can afford, we're not going to deal with western corporations deliberately keeping your countries unstable in order to keep the prices of raw materials down, no we're not going to intervene while your despots and dictators commit genocide and no you're not welcome to come and live where we do, but, here's a cheap crappy laptop in the meantime, it's not as good as the ones we have but hey, you should be grateful we even thought of you- have a good time y'all." There isn't a single shred of humanity in capitalism. Else this whole subject would be meaningless as we would have dealt with these issues long ago. As a race we have to stop seeing everything as an opportunity to make money. The prime motive HAS to be the betterment of mankind. Anything less than that is inhuman. |
| moopst Apr 27, 2007 10:06 PM EDT |
> if its M$ it would be better to leave them in complete ignorance As opposed to partial? By raising the hardware requirements unnecessarily you raise the cost which will leave millions in complete ignorance. And other untold millions in partial ignorance. It's one thing to foist bloated incompetent ware on first world business, government and aunt Edna. How many hand cranks will break generating electricity wasted on AV? Do we really need bot-nets in Africa? |
| azerthoth Apr 27, 2007 10:55 PM EDT |
Couple of things: jimf: computers are a learning tool and I like you received my education without one. Unfortunately any more if you don't at least have access to one as part of your education you will be at a disadvantage that grows greater. So sticking with the tool analogy, in a world full of screws you don't want your only tool to be a hammer. You can still do the job but there will be an awful lot of waste in the process. jsusanka: where would we be without microsoft? Either right where we are now or stuck with Apple. The reason Microsoft walked away with the ring is that the various unices of the time were busier tearing each other up than they were worried about some little pissant upstart. So it begs the question who defines what "computing done right" is? You and I and the others here agree that it would be linux. Others would argue Apple or BSD or even *gasp* Microsoft, there isnt a correct answer to that question, rather a lot of opinions and no true metric to gauge with. There are lots and lots of people who use and support Linux, then something like Tux500 comes up and sets the community off like a pack of hyenas. Some for, some against, yet all making noise. We have divisiveness between distros with the mine is better than yours opinions flying freely and forever challenged. Has the *nix crowd as a group actually progressed that much from the 80's? doesnt look like it to me, we are just better at defending against outside attacks. Only we however are allowed to pick on us, and we do it to the point of immobility. salparadise: wee bit off topic and to enter into debate on those topics is way outside the terms of use. Again a point that was brought up. For all their "friendliness" and "humanitarianism" for selling colored glorified mp3 players for Aids drugs .... where is Apple? Oh yeah ... no USB port to help turn out the iLemmings. See, lots of rhetoric to be tossed around, and alot of opinions to be explored. But slashing out at OLPC for dealing with Microsoft ... I hate to say it, but thats kind of like calling Tux500 useless because car races are for rednecks ... oops someone did do that didnt they? Dont get me wrong, I'm not defending M$, I'll be the first in the line to dance a jig in the still smoldering rubble of their headquarters but the reality of computing in the world today is, at some point you WILL deal with them. |
| jimf Apr 28, 2007 12:19 AM EDT |
@azerthoth, As I said, you just have to accept that some of us just don't agree with you. In my view you're just pimping Billy's 'World Domination' theme. If MS gets their mitts on this, I have to agree with moopst's "How many hand cranks will break generating electricity wasted on AV? Do we really need bot-nets in Africa?". Then again, that's likely to happen even if we use Linux... |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 28, 2007 2:17 AM EDT |
@salparadise: I see a nice analogy with Tux500 here. You can either support the program or not, but there is no reason to burn down someone else's initiative. If you think it should be done differently, DO something, instead of whining about what other people are doing wrong. See how nicely he above fits Tux500 as well as OLPC? It's just an initiative of a bunch of people. It's not the be-all, end-all solution. BTW this is also why I have no problem with Intel et. al. trying to build their own OLPC rip-off. They aren't whining, they are doing. As opposed to e.g. MS that just whines that OLPC should be able to run Windows. |
| jsusanka Apr 28, 2007 6:16 AM EDT |
"As a race we have to stop seeing everything as an opportunity to make money. The prime motive HAS to be the betterment of mankind. Anything less than that is inhuman." yup totally agree. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2007 6:40 AM EDT |
> There isn't a single shred of humanity in capitalism. There isn't supposed to be Sal. Capitalism is an economic system. Humanity comes from people, not systems. > As a race we have to stop seeing everything as an opportunity to make money. As a race, I don't believe most of us do. |
| salparadise Apr 28, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:There isn't supposed to be Sal. Capitalism is an economic system. Humanity comes from people, not systems. Systems are made by people. Perhaps the degree of humanity present in a system is a measure of the amount of humanity present in it's founders. Sal's getting political again. My apologies. Perhaps I should start plxer for political linuxers. |
| NoDough Apr 28, 2007 10:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:There isn't a single shred of humanity in capitalism. I realize you meant this in the context of the MS/OLPC topic, but it come across as a universal statement. In that regard, I couldn't disagree with you more. However, I cannot pursue that disagreement without violating the TOS. Still, If you would like to debate the point in a private thread... (edited typo) |
| Abe Apr 28, 2007 10:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:As a race we have to stop seeing everything as an opportunity to make money. The prime motive HAS to be the betterment of mankind. Anything less than that is inhuman I agree full heartedly. Quoting:Its a longish read, but it boils down to ... so what, the goal was to get computers to kids in developing nations NOT stick it to M$. The writer also brings up another point, M$ is working with the OLPC crowd ... where is Apple and their vaunted humanitarianism. MS tried their best to kill the OLPC initiative from the very beginning. They bashed the effort, bad mouthed it and declared it a failure. They preferred a cell phone over a laptop. They tried all they can to stop it. Now they see the initiative is succeeding and killing it is not feasible. So they decided to join it. Why? to kill it from inside? Mr. Negroponte should not allow MS in. If MS wants to compete, they have all they need to start their own initiative. I don't believe Windows would work on the current design. The OLPC has been designed and built to work with FOSS and it would be a big mistake to change its original design just to accommodate Windows. Allowing MS in is like Negroponte allowing a poisonous snake to roam around him. I believe it is a big mistake. Quoting:I see, so to paraphrase, its fine to introduce them to computing as long as it isnt M$, but if its M$ it would be better to leave them in complete ignorance. Yup better to have another generation of computer illiterates than it is to allow even the possibility of seeing the dreaded BSOD. Wooow, I can't believe you said that. Are you saying that MS Windows is enlightening and FOSS is not? I think the idea of ONLY MS and nothing else but MS can do the job still lingering in the back of your mind. FOSS can and is doing the job. FOSS is all you need to run a good computer. Quoting:With Bill Gates and MS it's never 'about the kids'.... Well rather it's about indoctrinating 'the kids' as good and faithful little MS product consumers and shills for Bill's idea of the great society. Unusable laptops and $3 windows are only the beginning of it. Jim, I fully agree. Quoting:With M$ it's tainted Kool-Aid Yap, that sums it up. |
| jimf Apr 28, 2007 11:24 AM EDT |
>Capitalism is an economic system. Humanity comes from people @jdixion Unfortunately, all to many people subvert their humanity to a profit motive as soon as they get on board the Corporate ship. Not all for sure, but, it only takes a few greedy unprincipled individuals in positions of power to make it hell for everyone. When those individuals then go on to tell us that crapping on humanity is good for us all as long as it's profitable... I, for one, am not buying it. |
| salparadise Apr 28, 2007 12:14 PM EDT |
NoDough Still, If you would like to debate the point in a private thread... would love to - message sent |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2007 12:33 PM EDT |
> Perhaps the degree of humanity present in a system is a measure of the amount of humanity present in it's founders. No the humanity present in a system comes from the people in that system, and the degree to which the system allows them to work around it's restrictions. Since Capitalism, properly defined, is more a lack of restrictions than than a defined system, it's actually capable of being as or more human than any other. Unfortunately, discussing that in detail would definitely lead to violating the TOS. > Unfortunately, all to many people subvert their humanity to a profit motive as soon as they get on board the Corporate ship. Agreed, Jim. And therein lies the problem. The problem is with people, not systems. |
| jimf Apr 28, 2007 1:06 PM EDT |
> The problem is with people, not systems. Not quite that simple I'm afraid. While Capitalism and the Corporate structure have given us many benefits that probably couldn't be obtained in any other way, they also provide and promote powerful motivations for people to do the inhumane thing. So, while we have lots of physical wealth and neat toys, we also end up with a society that skews its values away from the humanity's best interest. Capitalism needs to serve Humanity and when it doesn't, 'Houston, we have a problem.'... |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2007 1:34 PM EDT |
> ...they also provide and promote powerful motivations for people to do the inhumane thing. Any system will provide those motivations. People have been making inhumane decisions throughout history, and usually finding some way to justify them to themselves and those around them. There's nothing that's unique to Capitalism in that regard. You may argue that the scale is larger, but that's merely an indicator of its success. Any other successful system would result in an equally large scale. The Corporate structure is a more debatable matter, I'll admit. However, in the end we're still talking about human beings making bad decisions. Which always has and presumably always will happen. > Capitalism needs to serve Humanity and when it doesn't, 'Houston, we have a problem. I think that a careful review of history will show that Capitalism, for all of its faults, has done a better job of serving humanity than any other system we've tried. Very much like an elected government: It's a lousy system, but all the others are worse. That doesn't mean we should stop looking for something better, of course. |
| jimf Apr 28, 2007 2:23 PM EDT |
> It's a lousy system, but all the others are worse I'm not going to argue that one, but I do think things could be put in place to make it better. In the mean time it's critical that we don't let Corporations like MS get away with the rampant exploitation of the youngest and most vulnerable of our people.... As they have for so many years. |
| hkwint Apr 28, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:In and of itself, laptops for people with little in the way of reliable electricity, food, medical aid, an economy or hope is almost an insult. Might be. On the other hand, those laptops could help a tiny bit. It would be easier for those people to organize themselves, set a common goal, organize protests against their corrupt governments etc. Look at how the Chinese government isn't able to censor the internet. Maybe, the people in those poor countries will realize what needs to be done. Maybe, they would be able to e-mail the White House and / or the WTO etc. Maybe, if they can use the internet, they can read and find out what the causes of their poverty, and the disadvantages of the current ways of development aid are. Hopefully, they will read about the 'Orange revolution' (though any government that's scared would censor that story). Hopefully, they will realize what they really need. Also, I wonder if these laptops could enable the kids to do some tele-working in the future. Anyway, a lot has to be done to help those people, and introducing the children over there to computers is a tiny part of it, I think. Also, don't forget a $175 laptop is able to _save_ a lot of costs for those people when looking at the prices of schoolbooks. My schoolbooks were about €800 for only the first year of the university. How much money and trees could have been saved if I had received those books as a PDF, readable with a laptop? And, please remember where those trees came from... So, in my opinion, the laptop is more than an effort to raise some money from poor governments. Hopefully, it will change a bit of the lives of the people over there. |
| jimf Apr 28, 2007 3:38 PM EDT |
> Hopefully, they will realize what they really need. That's real special, but I seriously doubt that any of the 'sources of wisdom' you mention have even a clue as to what those needs really are. > laptops could enable the kids to do some tele-working in the future. You mean like email scams ... That doesn't even begin to address the problem of support and training on these 'devices'. If training is by MS, they'll prob just play games, and If left to their own devices??? > introducing the children over there to computers is a tiny part of it A nearly insignificant part. This is whole OLPC project is the most oversimplified 'solution' to a problem that I've seen in a long, long time. I wish 'someone' would start thinking of solutions other than publicity stunts, or, future business opportunities. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!