I predicted this [technocrat.net] a while
ago when they were just talking about "dual boot".
OLPC can go two ways: one of the two is enough of a threat to book publishers
and Microsoft that there will be a lot of force waged against it. The other
way is just good for world freedom and doesn't have nearly as much power on its
side.
The purpose of OLPC is not to give third world kids a laptop. It's to
give them books. You see, those third world countries don't have an
annual budget of $100/student to buy kids textbooks. So, OLPC is an efficient
means to deliver e-texts to those kids.
The Microsoft way to do this is to have pervasive DRM as part of the OLPC
framework. Microsoft will partner with textbook publishers to make free or
low-cost but time-locked and otherwise DRM-encumbered electronic versions
of their textbooks available on OLPC. Thus, there will be less reason for the
development of fully free e-Texts under licensing that permits redistribution
and derivative works. This way, the
markets of those textbook publishers in more developed
countries won't be threatened by the presence of those free texts, and
Microsoft won't be threatened by a large force of youth trained on Linux.
The Open Source way is to direct the efforts of academic communities toward
the creation of fully free e-texts under licensing that permits redistribution
and derivative works. This is already well under way. OLPC would run Sugar
on top of Linux, and would not in general be a DRM platform. Open texts would
become a main stream in education, as would Open Source software. This is
obviously a threat to textbook publishers and Microsoft.
The good news is that OLPC is not the only possible platform, and we can keep
working on this without them. The bad news is that OLPC has the mind-share,
and that's going to be hard to fight, especially with Microsoft behind them.
Microsoft has just essentially killed OpenDocument. They have made it
redundant as a standard and showed that people who lobby for its use
lose their jobs for their efforts. They did whatever was necesssary to win,
with much dirty fighting and no shame about it. The folks at
ISO and national organizations didn't show any shame about the perversion
of their process, either. Expect to see similar in this case.
Microsoft's behavior has been DRM agnostic much of the time. I'm pretty sure that they see a formidable business case for cow-towing to big content producers(i.e., playing back DVDs makes their platforms more attractive for consumers) and thus work to provide non-trivial DRM solutions, but right up until HDCP, they have always had a parallel unmanaged path for playback of content. (and given that HDCP is an industry wide attack on the consumer, it's hard to argue for singling out Microsoft for supporting it
Microsoft's behavior has been DRM agnostic much of the time.
Well, you excuse Vista, I guess, as just going along with HDCP as an industry-wide effort against the consumer? Consider that Microsoft was an important part of the development of HDCP.
Microsoft's behavior has been DRM agnostic much of the time.
I don't think this is a supportable assertion. They created several of the most popular DRM schemes in use.
I'm pretty sure that they see a formidable business case for cow-towing[sic] to big content producers
I disagree. I think they see a business case for kowtowing to the big content producers, but also see an opportunity to protect their monopolies by further making it more difficult for consumers to migrate away, since their data is locked into MS proprietary DRM and formats.
(and given that HDCP is an industry wide attack on the consumer, it's hard to argue for singling out Microsoft for supporting it
Two points here, so far Apple has resisted implementing HDCP, although they may have to comply eventually for their OS, if
Agnostic to DRM simply means that they are perfectly willing to provide the technology, but they are also perfectly willing to allow playback of unmanaged files.
Agnostic normally means you neither support nor hinder any given DRM. MS certainly does support and advocate particular DRM.
Name a Microsoft DRM technology that is not allowed to be used on a device or platform that supports playback of unencumbered files.
How about playing PlaysForSure files on Linux. MS is about making suer that if you're using any device, they make sure it gives you motivation to use Windows on your computer... this profits them.
I understand that people see the potential for bait and switch, but guess what, that's why I don't buy media with onerous DRM(I buy a DVD once in a while).
I absolutely understand that Microsoft profits from DRM, but they wouldn't profit from DRM if there wasn't anybody more willing to sell encumbered media than they were to sell unencumbered media.
In some cases Microsoft is doing the selling. In other cases MS has profited from adding DRM to content themselves, such as adding DRM by default to songs users ripped themselves from their CD collection or providing adding DRM to office documents.
I'm not saying that they are the good guys, I'm saying that the interpretation that they want to control all media isn't supported by their behavior so far.
Perhaps so, perhaps not, but that was not the original topic of discussion here. MS pushed DRM for profit and works hand in glove with those content producers even when it hurts their customers. Whether their long term goals are the same as the current media
Not the topic of discussion? What's the freaking subject line of these posts? "Why MS...MUST CONTROL...".
I think you mean, "Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLPC." OLPC is not media. MS uses DRM to lock people into their OS. Content publishers use DRM to lock people into their control channels and for planned obsolescence. MS needs to control OLPC for the same reason they implement DRM to keep people locked into their OS, partly through having DRM'd content that will only work on Windows.
I'm pretty sure that they see a formidable business case for cow-towing to big content producers
Not a perticularly good case, though, since the entire US film industry has lower total revenues than Microsoft's profit. Whatever small margin they could skim (and with hollywood accounting...) from that wouldn't come anywhere close to being worth alienating their existing customer base.
I was wondering where you got the idea that Microsoft would put DRM onto their OLPC/XP for e-books so I checked out your linked blog post. "Now, it is likely that third world students will be running DRM-locked textbooks that are only acessable under Windows."
In other words, you made it all up and are just spreading FUD. Every time Microsoft is involved people start seeing creepy characters lurking in the shadows.
Yes, Microsoft should be frightened that the third world will grow up using Linux. Apple shoul
Every time Microsoft is involved people start seeing creepy characters lurking in the shadows.
Unfortunately the creepy characters are not just lurking in shadows. Around the OOXML process they were quite visible in stuffing the ballot box, subverting votes entirely, etc.
Yes, they haven't proposed DRM yet. When rumors of dual-boot on OLPC first came out, I predicted that Negroponte would get closer to Microsoft. He did. I also predicted that there would be DRM on the platform. It's not there yet, but it will be if OLPC continues on this path, and it will be Microsoft's DRM.
I also predicted that there would be DRM on the platform. It's not there yet, but it will be if OLPC continues on this path, and it will be Microsoft's DRM.
If we go by history, it will be Microsoft's DRM. I see no reason to wait for it to appear before raising the issue and question.
I'd happily say "Oh, Ok, I'll shut up now" if Microsoft came out and pledged that anything bundled with their OLPC XP will be DRM free.
Every time I ponder the possibility of that happening, I keep coming back to "snowball's chance in hell".
Could someone tell me why teaching a child to share is a bad idea? Giving them DRM laced educational materials is effectively teaching the chil
Considering that such a move would be absolutely in character and a natural move for a company with the motto "embrace, extend, and extinguish", why shouldn't we?
It's a fundamental instinctive rule of thumb that usually serves us well. The guy who stole from you all last week probably intends to do it again today.
Monopolists are not known for their spirit of freely giving. If you don't see the catch, that just means it is hidden. If it's hidden, it means they believe you'd find it unacceptable if you saw it up front.
The alternative is an OS that is known to work well on small platforms and has been given freely since it's creation. In what way is that not a safer choice?
I disagree. I think widespread usage of Linux is significantly to Apple's advantage. Any market-share taken from Microsoft means less applications will be Windows or IE only. That makes people who are bound to certain applications more likely to feel able to switch. Also, while many/.ers are often torn between OSX and Linux, it's really a quite different market. Apple's drivers and general hardware compatibility will always, I think, be superior to Linux's. That's what they've specialized on from the beginning. Using OSX and Apple computers is easy. If you have any problems, their support center is excellent--and even available in person. I don't see Shuttleworth (or anyone else) investing in that for Linux. The more MS's monopoly is lessened, the greater this difference will be.
Why should it matter to some poor kid, just needing a way to afford schoolbooks, what OS his laptop is running?
800 years ago, Moses Maimonides enumerated the forms of charity, from best to least:
1. Giving a pauper independence so that he will not have to depend on charity.
Maimonides enumerates four forms of this, from the greatest to the weakest:
a. Giving a poor person work.
b. Making a partnership with him or her (this is lower than work, as the recipient might feel he doesn't put enough into the partnership).
c. Giving a loan.
d. Giving a gift.
2. Giving charity anonymously to an unknown recipient.
3. Giving charity anonymously to a known recipient.
4. Giving charity publicly to an unknown recipient.
5. Giving charity before being asked.
6. Giving adequately after being asked.
7. Giving willingly, but inadequately.
8. Giving unwillingly.
[Text from Wikipedia]
OLPC with Linux and other Open Source is #1 on Maimonides list. It not only gives them textbooks, it gives them a structure that they can use to control their nation's own destiny - the free software on the system that they can use to communicate, plan, write, etc., and it gives them control over that structure so that they have independence.
In contrast, giving them a Microsoft framework is giving them an addictive dependence. Not charity at all.
Unfortunately, Bruce, that does not the match reality of how these laptops are being used. I don't see teachers in sufficient numbers being prepared to take advantage of open source. In Brazil (where I live), I see teachers that can barely teach their subject with a blackboard and white chalk.
What I see is cool and nice that kids have it, but it is miles away form Seymour Papert's dream. Or Alan Kay's dream.
I don't see teachers in sufficient numbers being prepared to take advantage of open source.
No, they aren't. The very best path to take is to give the children a path to learn those things without teachers. This is not only the case in the third world. Certainly when I was a young person in a wealthy suburb of New York, no teacher available to me was able to spend very much time on the advanced technology that I was interested in. I had to self-teach. That's why the laptop goes home with them. In observation of children and OLPC it's been clear that there is a lot of child-led activity, both collaborative and independent.
I recently keynoted the Latinoware conference at the Itaipu Binational of Brazil and Paraguay. I stayed in Foz do Iguacu. The differentiation between rich and poor was very clear. It was heartening to see 2500 people from all over Latin America there taking classes on Free Software.
the GPL license does not, and will not, empower people
I've got to disagree with you on this. Most people view GPL only from the perspective of the party receiving the software. For the party producing the software, GPL keeps large companies from running away with it while BSD makes it essentially an unrestricted gift to those large companies. Dual-licensing provides an opportunity to charge those who don't want to play by the Open Source rules, and to support the Open Source development with that money. It is true that there are a lot of companies that dual-license and don't really run a convincing community development at all, they are abusing the process.
I've had similar experiences. I didn't learn most of what I know in the classrooms. I went to the poorly funded urban schools which didn't even have books in some cases.
But I had access to the library, and I went to the library every single day to use the computer and access the internet. Eventually I got my own computer and through my own determination I taught myself what I needed to know to get into community college and now university.
If these laptops are given to children in the third world, with today
It is true that there are a lot of companies that dual-license and don't really run a convincing community development at all, they are abusing the process.
Abusing what process? Abusing it the way you define it? Not everyone defines it the same way, in your opinion it is 'abuse', but they don't have to make their software GPL, they could come up with their own license that says you can look at it but you cant' use it in anything at all, ever. Or they could be completely closed source. Just because they
While I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with this:
It is true that there are a lot of companies that dual-license and don't really run a convincing community development at all, they are abusing the process.
Offering software under the GPL -- either exclusively or in a dual-licensing arrangement -- doesn't obligate (even morally) the licensor to run a community development process ("convincing" or otherwise). Its not "abusing" the process not to run a community development process, or not to
The very best path to take is to give the children a path to learn those things without teachers.
This ideal - its limits and its failures - can be traced at least as far back as The New Math of the 1950's:
Before the results could even be measured, new math became a near religion, complete with its own high priests and heresies. Chief among the hierophants were the University of Illinois's Max Beberman and Stanford's Edward Begle. Together...they took aim at the mindless rigidity of traditional mathematic
The last point I would like to make is that the GPL license does not, and will not, empower people in India, Brazil, or any other developing nation.
You're absolutely right. If some kid decides he wants to take some code from the OLPC, commercialize it, and make a mint, he won't be able to do it. OTOH, *who cares*?
If some kid decides he wants to take some code from the OLPC, commercialize it, and make a mint, he won't be able to do it.
Untrue. Its quite possible to build a business around OSS and make money; you don't make the money by selling software licenses, of course, but that doesn't stop you from making money from your understanding of the code (either as the initial developer or just someone who has made good use of the availability of the code) and your own business acumen, writing skills, ability to provid
Sorry, allow me to rephrase, "close it and commercialize it" (given Redhat makes money on OSS, it's pretty obvious that money can be made with GPL software, specifically by providing value-added services). Regardless, my point still stands.
Its possible, its just extremely difficult. There are countless examples of profitable proprietary software companies. For profitable open source companies there's Red Hat and maybe Suse? Maybe a handful of others?
To paraphrase a famous quote: It's the software, stupid!
The OLPC is much more than a library, it's also an easy-to-learn graphical development environment [squeakland.org]. You're right: an EEE with Squeak would be almost as good (I say almost, because the OS might not be modifiable). But even the most powerful laptop in the world without Squeak would be utterly useless.
Let them broaden their horizons first. Then perhaps they will come up with some problem or solution that they could use the computer for. Otherwise you're just putting the cart before the horse.
Playing with their new toy in a very fancy manner isn't going to be so helpful.
Did you look at the link I provided? If you had, you'd see that, through this simple graphical programming (that the kids don't even really realize they're doing), they can learn things like math [squeakland.org]:
Clearly, something interesting has been captured here by these 10 year olds. Going a little and turning a little over and over seems to make circles. Adults may remember something complicated about x2 + y2 = r2 and wonder why this way is so simple. It's because when looked at from the view of an ant on the rim of
I don't see teachers in sufficient numbers being prepared to take advantage of open source. In Brazil (where I live), I see teachers that can barely teach their subject with a blackboard and white chalk.
So what? Teachers aren't required. The potential is built into the machine itself; the kids will discover it.
[Youtube link]
I don't get it; aside from the horrible translation, that looks like a successful start to me! Granted, they were only using the thing for research (as opposed to simulation and colla
Unfortunately, Bruce, that does not the match reality of how these laptops are being used.
I don't see teachers in sufficient numbers being prepared to take advantage of open source. In Brazil (where I live), I see teachers that can barely teach their subject with a blackboard and white chalk.
What I see is cool and nice that kids have it, but it is miles away form Seymour Papert's dream. Or Alan Kay's dream.
When I was in 5th grade, I was taught Logo. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world. These kids have Squeak. Squeak has the potential to blow your mind, because Squeak is multimedia-ready (and cool projects like Scratch have been developed on top of it).
But it seems that it ammounts to having a cool little laptop that can network.
There's nothing intrinsic to it that demands open source OS. Unfortunately, because ideally one would want to be able to go very, very deep. The project seems to fall short in that respect.
What are these kids learning that will teach them that it is the human that makes the computer?
That, to me, is the true "technological transfer."
So, the way the project has been led has been self-defeating, IMHO.
The last point I would like to make is that the GPL license does not, and will not, empower people in India, Brazil, or any other developing nation. This was a big mistake. Only a liberal license like the BSD license can empower people, permiting them to compete in a hostile commercial environment, contributing to a common source but not naively exposing one self to bigger corporations that would crush their businesses (unless they want to play the hypocritical "dual-licensing" - an euphemism to proprietary licensing).
You don't make sense. If I had a laptop when I was growing up, I would have used it to learn whatever I wanted.
You assume that kids who have these laptops can ONLY use them in the context of a western style classroom where a teacher gives them instructions on what to learn and how.
Did you consider that there might be some students who for lack of a better word, are geniuses, who can teach the class themselves? And their friends?
If you give an intelligent person access to unlimited information, and combine it with free time, and tools such as this laptop, learning will happen.
Just like if you give a kid a TV, the kid can find ways to learn from that for good or bad, if you give a kid a laptop, the kid can learn how to write code, how computers work, how the internet works, and eventually they'll be able to get on the internet and learn how the world works through wikipedia or whatever else happens to be on the internet.
I don't think this would be as powerful under windows because first of all, no one knows what the windows source code is. If I were a kid and I wanted to learn how windows works, I couldn't look at the code to find out.
How can you claim something is built for educational purposes if it's closed source? That's the anti-thesis of what you are trying to do with the project.
There's nothing intrinsic to it that demands open source OS. Unfortunately, because ideally one would want to be able to go very, very deep. The project seems to fall short in that respect.
1. Giving a pauper independence so that he will not have to depend on charity.
When they have to phone up the indian womman, to keep relicensing thier key they still rely on us When they have to phone up the MS 'support' hotline they still rely on us. When all their pacthces come for MS they still rely on us etc
when they have an OSS, they can learn how to fix things, how to patch things, how to make things.
the BSD license doesnt keep the source open, meaning that all somebody has to do is offer OLPC+1feature, close it up, then they rely on them instead of MS, sure its their fault for
OLPC with Linux and other Open Source is #1 on Maimonides list.
The first item in the list is give them independence - but what OLPC creates is dependence on a technological infrastructure whose sole source in the whim of OLPC and their national government. At best, OLPC is 1d, at worst... 6 or 7.
It not only gives them textbooks, it gives them a structure that they can use to control their nation's own destiny - the free software on the system that they can use to communicate, plan, write,
The first item in the list is give them independence - but what OLPC creates is dependence on a technological infrastructure whose sole source in the whim of OLPC and their national government.
How so? The entire platform is open. Literally, all the source, the specs for the hardware, *everything*. If OLPC vanished today, right now, people could still get along just fine. Can you say the same if MS vanished and left XP behind?
Additionally, I've always found the "they can modify it" argument a but specio
The first item in the list is give them independence - but what OLPC creates is dependence on a technological infrastructure whose sole source in the whim of OLPC and their national government.
How so? The entire platform is open. Literally, all the source, the specs for the hardware, *everything*. If OLPC vanished today, right now, people could still get along just fine. Can you say the same if MS vanished and left XP behind?
How, EXACTLY will a village in the Amazon continue to support their OLPC compute
Any other charitable organization is fully capable of picking up where the OLPC left off should the OLPC organization instantly vanish tomorrow and leave no support infrastructure. Individual governments would able to hire some programmers to pick up the pieces and continue on. Individual people would be able to extend the core and continue to introduce new features. If Microsoft goes bankrupt, or even simply loses interest in this project, nobody has the background resources necessary to support it unless
How, EXACTLY will a village in the Amazon continue to support their OLPC computers if OLPC were to vanish?
They wouldn't. That wasn't the point. The OLPC organization merely isn't locking itself in the equation. Some first-world donors would still have to sponsor the hardware, but they could have the work done anywhere, by anyone, and supply compatible parts.
On the other hand if this was running MS software and MS vanished it wouldn't be legal to continue duplicating WinXP.
The OLPC project could continue without OLPC, but a similar project run by MS/Intel couldn't continue without their ongoing cooperation. It'
For clarity, grandparent: Additionally, I've always found the "they can modify it" argument a but specious
Parent:
To you. Millions of kids growing up with computers with BASIC on them would tend to disagree.
Having been a kid who grew up with a computer with BASIC and is a programmer today in no small part because of it, I disagree with you and agree with the grandparent. It's not like you can't do development on a WinXP machine.
Further, how many of the 'BASIC generation' grew up with computers with open sour
Hardware addiction? If it's Linux based then just about any hardware on the planet will do. This idea is where the Linux versus Windows question really becomes relevant.
Free software is... well, free. It is zero cost and free to re-distribute. It can also be adapted by anyone to whatever hardware you want to run it on. Much of this work has already been done for you because there are lots of relevant interested parties.
This is where the object that "you can't personally modify it because it's too hard" falls flat
If it's Linux based then just about any hardware on the planet will do. This idea is where the Linux versus Windows question really becomes relevant.
In the same sense that "shall we have steak or lobster for dinner" only become relevant when one has sufficient wealth and free time to choose. The target market of the OLPC is being given computers because they cannot afford to buy them. If don't have money - it doesn't matter what obscure hardware the OS will run on.
> In the same sense that "shall we have steak or lobster for dinner" only become > relevant when one has sufficient wealth and free time to choose. The target market > of the OLPC is being given computers because they cannot afford to buy them. If don't > have money - it doesn't matter what obscure hardware the OS will run on. Just like with free software, an open project doesn't have to end with the "visionary" that started it. The next guy with an interest can pick up the idea and run with it.
800 years ago, Moses Maimonides enumerated the forms of charity, from best to least:
Unfortunately, it is the year 2008, and the best charity you can give is helping poor people understand that their government is involved in economically ignorant regulations that are keeping them poor, and that they should either put a stop to them in the ballot box or bullet box depending on the form of government.
Giving will likely just be appropriated by corrupt government officials.
1) Is it really charity at all if the children's country pays for the hardware? Granted the software is given freely, but that begs the question why must the software be free, but not the hardware? 2) If we accept that one of the greatest benefits to the children is that they can modify the software, then why do we not expect them to be equally able to modify the hardware?
3) Do we expect a greater percentage of these children to have an interest in engineering than the children in countries such as the US? I
1) Is it really charity at all if the children's country pays for the hardware? Granted the software is given freely, but that begs the question why must the software be free, but not the hardware?
Well Hardware requires materials, to reproduce. Software does not. So hardware will need to be sold. Software need not. Well OLPC is not a Bill Gates type of charity. The guys don't have money. But it is a higher form of charity, because the guys (and gals) are putting their own effort and money to do it. They have been working for a number of years without any compensation for this.
Compared to Bill Gates who gives a part of his ill-gotten gains (he is a convicted monopolist), as a bribe to the public to f
I'm a support volunteer for OLPC. I'm not officially affiliated with them, but I've been volunteering for them since last year.
You're misrepresenting the project. I am not accusing you of making disingenuous posts, but I suspect you're either underinformed or you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Yes, the XO-1 laptop is a wonderful e-book platform. However, you don't need most of the stuff it comes with on an e-book reader. For instance, you don't need a webcam to read a book. The fact is, textbooks are one small part of the ideas that constitute Sugar, which is based on constructivist [wikipedia.org] education practices.
I'm sure you've heard the "it's not a laptop project, it's an education project" quote a million times. Well, it's not an e-book project either. It's an education project, and reading isn't the only way kids learn. We're not talking about the sort of education we receive here in the States, where we listen to an orator and take notes. It's self-directed. The XO-1 is a learning and exploration platform.
As to Microsoft, I have been assured by higher-ups at OLPC that they're not going to devote any resources to porting Sugar to Windows, or Windows to the XO-1. They just don't have the resources; they're too busy deploying [radian.org] laptops [radian.org]. Negroponte's point is that if someone wants to get it done, OLPC shouldn't stand in their way, which is entirely different from "let's drop linux." He's made other comments in the past about how Firefox wouldn't have gained the marketshare it has if it weren't for Windows. Likewise, a Sugar that is platform-ambivalent would rapidly gain mindshare in the educational world.
Sugar is not OLPC. OLPC is not the XO-1. Microsoft doesn't control any of those three things, and I doubt they will. Hell, in current builds, Sugar doesn't even start without NetworkManager, which isn't exactly Windows-compatible software.
You're a luminary in the FOSS world, and a geek hero. I'm sure you know that. I hope you're also aware when you start forecasting things based on insufficient information, a lot of people just take your word for it. I suggest you contact OLPC with your concerns, so they can be suitably allayed.
Well, I wish I could believe that it will go the way you say. With folks quitting over philosophical differences, I suspect there is some internal struggle over these ideas that you may not be party to. I'd be happy to meet with the current OLPC staff (do I just send Negroponte an email?) and hear their side.
Trust me, the OLPC support gang has been following the plot. It's important to remember that Negroponte is a visionary -- not just as a label meaning "he comes up with Big Ideas," either. He just looks at everything that way, with a long-term worldview and a high-altitude perspective. It leads to scuffles like this between the head-shed and his field commanders, if that makes sense.
Plenty of people send him e-mail, and even us "little guys" get responses. Another great person there is their Technology Manager, Kim Quirk [kim at laptop dot o r g].
I also don't understand your "Microsoft gamed the ISO for OOXML, therefore OLPC is next" rhetoric. The ISO is a flawed quasi-democratic construct, and Microsoft beat them with money. OLPC is a corporate, not-for-profit entity. Are you suggesting they'll be paid to port Windows to the XO-1? Somehow that Sugar will be suddenly close-sourced? The whole point of the GPL and licenses like it is to prevent exactly what you're describing. Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs? Furthermore, and more to the point, if an educational body does choose a closed MS platform over a FOSS platform, isn't that their right? If they don't make such mistakes, how will they learn?:) And when the DRM becomes unbearable, Sugar will still be there, still running on Fedora -- and an easy migration destination, if they've spent a year or so running Sugar on Windows.
Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs?
Customers have, on occasion, inexplicably chosen Windows [pcworld.com] over Linux at a seemingly late stage in deployment, so it should be a genuine source of worry for anyone supplying Linux machines in large quantities.
maybe a better example is the Thailand government funded cheap laptops. The ones where HP couldn't keep up with sales of the Linux loaded laptops and when Dell was brought in to help with providing more hardware, Microsoft stepped in and funded a switch to Windows with some big $$$ service deal. It was also that beginning the Windows XP Starter Edition and probably the Microsoft department in charge of fighting off open source in emerging markets. Here's a good start at learning all about this one example: ht [google.com]
Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs?
The lure of zero-cost, but DRM-locked, proprietary textbooks.
if an educational body does choose a closed MS platform over a FOSS platform, isn't that their right? If
It's my duty - and that of others who care about freedom - to tell such educational bodies that they're harming their own people, and why.
And when the DRM becomes unbearable, Sugar will still be there, still running on Fedora -- and an easy migration destination, if they've spent a year or so running Sugar on Windows.
You think they're just going to be able to boot an installation system and run it? It takes just a little firmware tweak to make that system boot only signed binaries - and we won't have the signing key.
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? Its a product. You want it, you pay for it and then you can use it. What more is there to consider? Open source is only of value to those who either want to freeload, or like to tinker without paying for access. There is no "freedom" issue here. Thats like saying a people cannot be free as long as they're expected to pay for food, or electricity, or a car, or pens and pencils. What is it about software that makes it different from any other product in our economy th
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? Its a product. You want it, you pay for it and then you can use it. What more is there to consider? Open source is only of value to those who either want to freeload, or like to tinker without paying for access.
Bruce can certainly answer this better than I can, but I'll give a shot.
"Freedom", in the variety which Bruce and open-source devotees care about, is not about "I don't have to pay for this" (though, that IS nice), but rather "I am free to tinker with this,
I know the rhetoric of the free software movement. Its just that its blown out of the water by one very simple fact. Most people don't know HOW to program. Its a very tiny and small percentage of humanity that does. Its akin to how many people know how to fix their own cars. Thats why we have auto mechanics who fix other people's cars. Most people while they COULD, don't want to bother learning how to fix their own cars. Same with software. So this "Freedom" that free software is protecting is a "freedom" m
I know the rhetoric of the free software movement.
Then why on earth did your post focus on cost?
Most people while they COULD, don't want to bother learning how to fix their own cars.
True but even non-mechanics appreciate the ability to have work done by whatever mechanic they want rather than having to go to the dealer. Would you buy a car with a EULA that only allowed you to have work performed by the dealer?
Same with software. So this "Freedom" that free software is protecting is a "freedom" most people
I know the rhetoric of the free software movement. Its just that its blown out of the water by one very simple fact. Most people don't know HOW to program.
Which is blown out of the water with this 'fact': virtually anyone can LEARN. It goes further than that as the types of programs intended for the OLPC program are encouraging people to become 'life long learners'. Sure, not every single box is going to become the cornerstone of a programming genius, but the more people that understand the process, the mo
The OLPC is meant mainly for third world children. They don't have TIME to learn how to program. They'll be too busy building a society. Its incredibly idealistic to think that this is some golden opportunity for open source to "save" these people from the evils of proprietary software practices. If there was some proprietary software package that could help them farm more effectively and avoid future famines they'd buy it in a heartbeat. Proprietary software is in no way shape or form an impedance to indepe
Not all of the FOSS proponents are trying to make proprietary software illegal, but we do wish it to be fair. As I see, it does not currently seem to be fair.
There are movements for these things, you are not looking in the right places... and because of the nature of the product they tend to be local. Secondly, they are either products that cost x to reproduce, or services of supply of a relatively dangerous energy. Software, once it is created, costs minimally to reproduce. And yes, the programmers deser
Your argument reminds me of a radio show where the host was questioning a Chinese citizen about the use of the internet. The Chinese man was saying "... China is free! Using the internet in China is free* . You can do anything you like on the internet, as long as you don't query these matters the government decides is bad for you...."
Yeah RMS suffered a great injustice there with his printer. He couldn't have bought a new printer or anything. If your software has been EOL'ed and you already have it you don't have to stop using it. You can continue using it until you absolutely have to upgrade. Again, not a big deal except to those who want something for nothing. The movement for proprietary software comes from the masses. They want something worth using. Not something to use just because its free. They've already made their choice loud a
The injustice is in not being allowed to fix a system you paid for/obtained legally. That is written into the licenses.
Passive EOL, sure. When companies actively EOL products... that is mean-spirited and touches on stealing back products. When program files get corrupted and you can't get your data out because the latest version doesn't work with your old version... there is something inherently wrong there.
I agree that the distribution is a different story, and my preference is for sharing and collabora
I'm not anti-free software. What I am against is people thinking they're on a noble quest or have a noble cause when in reality their cause isn't as important as they think it is. If someone were to compile a list of causes open source would rank near the bottom, but maybe above the 9/11 Truthers. I'm not threatened by free software so I don't hate it. Any fear anyone in the proprietary world had against open source has long since gone away because of the systematic failure of Linux to achieve any footholds
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? Its a product. You want it, you pay for it and then you can use it. What more is there to consider?
Small metaphor: The freedom stays in the difference between a product and a toolbox. The first you use. The second you use to make your very own product.
Selling them OLPC running on Windows would be selling them one more product just like food, electricity etc. It does the job and that's it.
Selling them OLPC Linux is about empowering them.
Have the children grow and get use on Windows, they'll start developing their skills on a foreign product that they'll never own. They grow up, they apply the skill they've
I don't see a mechanic or engineer calling the company that makes their tools evil. Why should it be any different for software? Name a startup that Microsoft shut down using some secret back door in Windows.
Aside from that having children grow up on Linux does not assurance they'll learn how to program. Its a very hard skill to learn. Its why so few do it. There's no promise here that their lives or industry will develop any differently than if they use Windows. Its more wishful thinking than anything else.
I don't see a mechanic or engineer calling the company that makes their tools evil.
Because it's their tools. It's material that they acquire and can do pretty much everything that pleases them.
In the proprietary software realm you never actually own software. You merely have purchase a license that give you limited right of what you can do with the software, on a platform that you don't control at all.
The same difference exists between selling drinkable water to Africa - it's only a product ! - and helping African countries build their own infrastructure to have water - to make them inde
It has nothing to do with paying for it or not. It's *precisely* about being able to use it -- or the fruits of it. And I think you're well aware of that, given the way you're oh so carefully trying to link the "free" of freedom with the "free" of zero price. What it's more like is Staples forbidding you from trying to build your own office equipment or from using what you buy from them in any way that they don't approve of. If I buy a pencil from Staples, they don't forbid me from extracting the core
Red Hat and Novell make money from SERVICES not the software itself. There's a limited market for that. For most examples commercial software IS proprietary. With proprietary software, say Microsoft's Visual Studio you could use that proprietary tool to write open source software. Nothing in the world stopping you from doing so. Yes you are forbidden from repurposing some proprietary software. My point is that that is not a big deal. Its not a civil rights issue. Its a case of a group of people (free softwar
You can buy a boxed OpenSUSE system. That's selling software. In any event, what difference does it make whether you're selling "software" or "service"? Money's fungible, and what difference does it make what you're technically selling? As far as I'm concerned, if I buy something, it should be mine, pure and simple. Yes, it is an issue of rights if I'm not allowed to do whatever I damn well please with something I buy -- a straight purchase transaction.
As far as something for nothing: I'm the project lea
Yes you can buy a boxed OpenSUSE system. No one really has any incentive to though seeing as how you can download it for free. The difference between selling software or a service is that you make more money selling proprietary software then you do selling services for open source software. The only entities making large amounts of money servicing open source software are IBM and SUN. They're using the product of YOUR labor as a loss leader. Great you personally are contributing. That puts you in the tiny mi
The lure of zero-cost, but DRM-locked, proprietary textbooks.
You're saying that in order to save money on textbooks, they're going to decide to pay the Microsoft tax? Unlikely. This isn't coporate America we're talking about. These are underfunded governments. When choosing between "pay for the hard ware and our software and we'll give you the texts free" and "pay for the hardware and all of the software is free and so are the textbooks," they're going to choose the one that doesn't require nonexisten
When choosing between "pay for the hard ware and our software and we'll give you the texts free" and "pay for the hardware and all of the software is free and so are the textbooks," they're going to choose the one that doesn't require nonexistent money.
I think his point is that the real choice is between "pay for the hardware and all of the software is free and so are the textbooks" and "pay only half as much for the hardware, the software, and the textbooks because we'll subsidize the rest for you (which w
Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs?
Answer your question with a question: Why is OOXML an ISO standard?
Microsoft has billions of dollars it actively uses to corrupt whom ever they can. Allowing XP to run on OLPC allows Microsoft leverage to corrupt even more.
If XP does not run on the OLPC, Microsoft's corruptive influence is shut out of the discussions. If
Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs?
Has it been so long since OOXML that that question can be asked with a straight face?
Microsoft is completely capable of essentially bribing a country to run it's OS on the OLPC. (or it's ministers) Then MS has a platform to introduce their DRM. Once a country has paid for DRM encumbered books, they won't be able to switch back without loosing their sizable investment.
Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs?
try offering to pay/offer that government millions of dollars in free( as in beer ) Microsoft software and training centers and/or services.
This is they tactic and it has been used many many times to stall the threat.
These are the things people who have been in the market for years AND had their eyes open to see Microsoft's business tactics in action. Bruce has good reason for his concerns and very little to believe things will play out differently.
Here's how I see it from the perspective of a person in Taiwan with some familiarity with the OEM industry which makes practically all notebooks in the world including the OLPC.
A lot of people outside of Taiwan don't really grasp what the whole OEM/ODM industrial ecosystem is about. OEM stands for Original Equipment Manufacturer which is a vague title. What it really means is that there are these vast manufacturing plants owned by companies with names mostly unknown in the West that take design specifications from brands like Apple, HP, Compaq etc. and actually make the products in massive swaths of like a minimum of ten thousand units.
Now these OEMs profit by working on massive scales and have relatively thin margins. In order to profit, they have this basic minimum order number and they can't afford to negotiate below a certain unit number of say ten thousand units.
By the same token, this minimum order requirement means that there can only be so many players in market because there's only so much capacity and the granularity of the minimum order is set really high so there is something of a zero sum game in this. There is always room for future expansion of sales stay high for prolonged periods, but quarter to quarter things are pretty fixed.
Now, last year something big happened that had never happened before and that was the OLPC got enough orders that they were able to tie up a manufacturing unit of one of these OEMs. Again, this is a big deal because you can't just magically create more all of a sudden --there's a set amount. And what that meant was for the first time there was all this manufacturing in the notebook market that was being taken out of the windows market and being dedicated to the open source. Now there can be little doubt that MS had assumed for so many years that this market was their property.
To make matters worse, it was only a few months later when Asus hit the market with the EeePc and soon a whole flood of these little fuckers who weren't paying the tax were springing up like bamboo shoots after a spring rain.
No doubt this was a huge concern in Redmond. Then CNet attacked Vista and things were just seeming to go to shit and suddenly out of the blue --now come on, is it really out of the blue-- Negroponte announces that XP is probably just as good as Linux for the OLPC.
Thanks ahfoo for that look at another pressure Microsoft sees in their attempts at protecting their business/monopoly. Unfortunately, I'd not heard of a supply problem for Windows based laptops. If anything, what you have stated shows a point of control Microsoft could exert pressure to in keeping down non-Windows based devices. BTW, though I'v been involved with product development and manufacturing and considered Microsoft's ability to ensure their partners products keep on the production lines, I'd not co
What I would love to see is, Sugar made very robust and cross platform, just as Mozilla made Firefox such a successful cross platform browser.
If people don't bother about the underlying OS that Sugar runs on, then it shouldn't make a difference what OS they are using and make it easy to just replace Windows with Linux on whatever OLPC machines Windows is installed(if it ever is).
I would say that having Sugar run cross platform should give the opportunity for normal windows users to try it as well. And
Negroponte's point is that if someone wants to get it done, OLPC shouldn't stand in their way, which is entirely different from "let's drop linux."
Is there ANY history of OLPC doing anything to block anyone from doing something with the device? Why would the head of the project have to make public statements that they won't block Microsoft?
Well, I don't think you are correct in this thought and OLPC has allowed Microsoft to become involved and the OLPC people have spent time with Microsoft and Microsoft funded contractors. It does not appear to be "we won't block anyone" and instead, appears to be a we're going to actively help Microsoft get Windows
... shouldn't they be working on the broken keyboards / internal personnel problems, not the software? I mean, why prolong the pain? Just focus on getting everyone on task, and make a quality product rather than bicker over getting the software down pat.
The purpose of OLPC is not to give third world kids a laptop. It's to give them books. You see, those third world countries don't have an annual budget of $100/student to buy kids textbooks. So, OLPC is an efficient means to deliver e-texts to those kids.
I would tend to agree, except I've noticed that, even though *I* value books, a lot of the next generation don't - the 'net is obsoleting dead trees in many areas. Look at newspaper circulation. Or better yet, remember all those encyclopedia salesmen fro
All respect, Bruce, but I think you're talking through your hat on this one. Those third world countries don't have the budget to spend on textbooks, whether they're DRM-encumbered e-books or not. So either way, they won't be buying them--because they can't. OLPC being built on Linux doesn't mean that publishers are going to start giving away their content. If they can't publish in a way that will prevent copies being made without them getting compensated, then they just won't publish to that market, full
OK, fine, MS is on an evil crusade to make us all use DRM and wipe out free media. Just one question: how does the availability of Windows for the XO accomplish this goal? It's not like the typical XO user can even afford a Windows license. Also, this isn't just about textbooks. Yes, the XO is a good way to deliver free textbooks. But that's not all it's about, not by a long shot. There's the whole Sugar educational software stack, which I find pretty impressive. A Windows port of this stack would make it ac
The Microsoft way to do this is to have pervasive DRM as part of the OLPC framework. Microsoft will partner with textbook publishers to make free or low-cost but time-locked and otherwise DRM-encumbered electronic versions of their textbooks available on OLPC.
I think this is hard to cut and dry into good and evil or even 'best for children in developing countries' or not. (Disclaimer: I think people will, eventually realize that DRM is not a good idea and abandon it in its present forms.)
Thanks Bruce. I think the big picture way of looking at this is to ask why does it make sense for third-world, developing countries to have to depend on American dominated corporations. This is what's going on in every other industry, third-world countries are becoming owned by US-controlled companies at the moment that they are trying to integrate themselves into the world economy.
In my opinion, free software is the only way for these countries to maintain local control and even generate true local experti
The Open Source way is to direct the efforts of academic communities toward the creation of fully free e-texts under licensing that permits redistribution and derivative works. This is already well under way.
I have to disagree with you that it's "well under way." There's this wiki [laptop.org]. If you look at the books listed there, there is almost nothing at all at the K-12 level. Virtually the entire list consists of college textbooks, and quite a few of them are not even freshman college texts, they're at the upper-division level.
Maybe we're talking about different time scales. I've been cataloguing free books at theassayer.org since 2000. During that time, the good news has been that hundreds of high-quality free
The good news is that OLPC is not the only possible platform, and we can keep working on this without them. The bad news is that OLPC has the mind-share, and that's going to be hard to fight, especially with Microsoft behind them.
A couple of things. First, I invite anyone who has become disenchanted with OLPC to join us at the Open Slate Project. [openslate.net] Our view of the computer, software, and textbooks is slightly different than what Bruce described, especially in that Chalk Dust, the courseware portion, is not
I predicted this [technocrat.net] a while ago when they were just talking about "dual boot".
Bruce, I think your being a little overly consternatious but you do seem to see through the smoke. A lot of people were o.k. with dual boot when they learned that an OLPC security requirement dictated that any dual boot system must have an instant revert feature to just the pristine sugar OS.
Other people have said that the OLPC is not just an e-book reader, they are correct. However, like you, I can not see how handing kids _anything_ locked with DRM can be good. Unless, of course its just being used as a
if Microsoft being involved makes it more likely to succeed then do you think the kids really care?
The kids don't know the issues at all. But someday those kids will grow up, and they will either be able to build a software infrastructure for their countries, that they control, using Open Source, so that they will not be dependent, or they will not know how and will have to go to a proprietary software company for what they can afford.
What if, just what if, this is an actual attempt to do something right
I think that most businesses, and many governments, currently are on an addiction model of IT purchasing. They get part 1 for free, and then they have to get part 2, 3, etc., from the same company so that they can interoperate with part 1. We want to help cure their addiction.
Bruce
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him.
-- Arthur R. Miller
Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLPC (Score:5, Insightful)
OLPC can go two ways: one of the two is enough of a threat to book publishers and Microsoft that there will be a lot of force waged against it. The other way is just good for world freedom and doesn't have nearly as much power on its side.
The purpose of OLPC is not to give third world kids a laptop. It's to give them books. You see, those third world countries don't have an annual budget of $100/student to buy kids textbooks. So, OLPC is an efficient means to deliver e-texts to those kids.
The Microsoft way to do this is to have pervasive DRM as part of the OLPC framework. Microsoft will partner with textbook publishers to make free or low-cost but time-locked and otherwise DRM-encumbered electronic versions of their textbooks available on OLPC. Thus, there will be less reason for the development of fully free e-Texts under licensing that permits redistribution and derivative works. This way, the markets of those textbook publishers in more developed countries won't be threatened by the presence of those free texts, and Microsoft won't be threatened by a large force of youth trained on Linux.
The Open Source way is to direct the efforts of academic communities toward the creation of fully free e-texts under licensing that permits redistribution and derivative works. This is already well under way. OLPC would run Sugar on top of Linux, and would not in general be a DRM platform. Open texts would become a main stream in education, as would Open Source software. This is obviously a threat to textbook publishers and Microsoft.
The good news is that OLPC is not the only possible platform, and we can keep working on this without them. The bad news is that OLPC has the mind-share, and that's going to be hard to fight, especially with Microsoft behind them.
Microsoft has just essentially killed OpenDocument. They have made it redundant as a standard and showed that people who lobby for its use lose their jobs for their efforts. They did whatever was necesssary to win, with much dirty fighting and no shame about it. The folks at ISO and national organizations didn't show any shame about the perversion of their process, either. Expect to see similar in this case.
Bruce
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:4, Informative)
Well, you excuse Vista, I guess, as just going along with HDCP as an industry-wide effort against the consumer? Consider that Microsoft was an important part of the development of HDCP.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's behavior has been DRM agnostic much of the time.
I don't think this is a supportable assertion. They created several of the most popular DRM schemes in use.
I'm pretty sure that they see a formidable business case for cow-towing[sic] to big content producers
I disagree. I think they see a business case for kowtowing to the big content producers, but also see an opportunity to protect their monopolies by further making it more difficult for consumers to migrate away, since their data is locked into MS proprietary DRM and formats.
(and given that HDCP is an industry wide attack on the consumer, it's hard to argue for singling out Microsoft for supporting it
Two points here, so far Apple has resisted implementing HDCP, although they may have to comply eventually for their OS, if
Re: (Score:2)
Agnostic normally means you neither support nor hinder any given DRM. MS certainly does support and advocate particular DRM.
Name a Microsoft DRM technology that is not allowed to be used on a device or platform that supports playback of unencumbered files.
How about playing PlaysForSure files on Linux. MS is about making suer that if you're using any device, they make sure it gives you motivation to use Windows on your computer... this profits them.
I understand that people see the potential for bait and switch, but guess what, that's why I don't buy media with onerous DRM(I buy a DVD once in a while).
It isn't even a matter
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely understand that Microsoft profits from DRM, but they wouldn't profit from DRM if there wasn't anybody more willing to sell encumbered media than they were to sell unencumbered media.
In some cases Microsoft is doing the selling. In other cases MS has profited from adding DRM to content themselves, such as adding DRM by default to songs users ripped themselves from their CD collection or providing adding DRM to office documents.
I'm not saying that they are the good guys, I'm saying that the interpretation that they want to control all media isn't supported by their behavior so far.
Perhaps so, perhaps not, but that was not the original topic of discussion here. MS pushed DRM for profit and works hand in glove with those content producers even when it hurts their customers. Whether their long term goals are the same as the current media
Re: (Score:2)
Not the topic of discussion? What's the freaking subject line of these posts? "Why MS...MUST CONTROL...".
I think you mean, "Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLPC." OLPC is not media. MS uses DRM to lock people into their OS. Content publishers use DRM to lock people into their control channels and for planned obsolescence. MS needs to control OLPC for the same reason they implement DRM to keep people locked into their OS, partly through having DRM'd content that will only work on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a perticularly good case, though, since the entire US film industry has lower total revenues than Microsoft's profit. Whatever small margin they could skim (and with hollywood accounting...) from that wouldn't come anywhere close to being worth alienating their existing customer base.
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:2, Informative)
"Now, it is likely that third world students will be running DRM-locked textbooks that are only acessable under Windows."
In other words, you made it all up and are just spreading FUD. Every time Microsoft is involved people start seeing creepy characters lurking in the shadows.
Yes, Microsoft should be frightened that the third world will grow up using Linux. Apple shoul
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately the creepy characters are not just lurking in shadows. Around the OOXML process they were quite visible in stuffing the ballot box, subverting votes entirely, etc.
Yes, they haven't proposed DRM yet. When rumors of dual-boot on OLPC first came out, I predicted that Negroponte would get closer to Microsoft. He did. I also predicted that there would be DRM on the platform. It's not there yet, but it will be if OLPC continues on this path, and it will be Microsoft's DRM.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
I also predicted that there would be DRM on the platform. It's not there yet, but it will be if OLPC continues on this path, and it will be Microsoft's DRM.
If we go by history, it will be Microsoft's DRM. I see no reason to wait for it to appear before raising the issue and question.
I'd happily say "Oh, Ok, I'll shut up now" if Microsoft came out and pledged that anything bundled with their OLPC XP will be DRM free.
Every time I ponder the possibility of that happening, I keep coming back to "snowball's chance in hell".
Could someone tell me why teaching a child to share is a bad idea? Giving them DRM laced educational materials is effectively teaching the chil
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that such a move would be absolutely in character and a natural move for a company with the motto "embrace, extend, and extinguish", why shouldn't we?
It's a fundamental instinctive rule of thumb that usually serves us well. The guy who stole from you all last week probably intends to do it again today.
Monopolists are not known for their spirit of freely giving. If you don't see the catch, that just means it is hidden. If it's hidden, it means they believe you'd find it unacceptable if you saw it up front.
The alternative is an OS that is known to work well on small platforms and has been given freely since it's creation. In what way is that not a safer choice?
Re: (Score:2)
He may be guessing now, but that won't make him any less right in the end.
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. I think widespread usage of Linux is significantly to Apple's advantage. Any market-share taken from Microsoft means less applications will be Windows or IE only. That makes people who are bound to certain applications more likely to feel able to switch. Also, while many
Why laptops and books aren't enough (Score:5, Insightful)
800 years ago, Moses Maimonides enumerated the forms of charity, from best to least:
[Text from Wikipedia]
OLPC with Linux and other Open Source is #1 on Maimonides list. It not only gives them textbooks, it gives them a structure that they can use to control their nation's own destiny - the free software on the system that they can use to communicate, plan, write, etc., and it gives them control over that structure so that they have independence.
In contrast, giving them a Microsoft framework is giving them an addictive dependence. Not charity at all.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see teachers in sufficient numbers being prepared to take advantage of open source. In Brazil (where I live), I see teachers that can barely teach their subject with a blackboard and white chalk.
What I see is cool and nice that kids have it, but it is miles away form Seymour Papert's dream. Or Alan Kay's dream.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovG_k2b3AXU [youtube.com]
When I was in 5th grade, I was taught Logo. I thought it was
Re:Why laptops and books aren't enough (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they aren't. The very best path to take is to give the children a path to learn those things without teachers. This is not only the case in the third world. Certainly when I was a young person in a wealthy suburb of New York, no teacher available to me was able to spend very much time on the advanced technology that I was interested in. I had to self-teach. That's why the laptop goes home with them. In observation of children and OLPC it's been clear that there is a lot of child-led activity, both collaborative and independent.
I recently keynoted the Latinoware conference at the Itaipu Binational of Brazil and Paraguay. I stayed in Foz do Iguacu. The differentiation between rich and poor was very clear. It was heartening to see 2500 people from all over Latin America there taking classes on Free Software.
I've got to disagree with you on this. Most people view GPL only from the perspective of the party receiving the software. For the party producing the software, GPL keeps large companies from running away with it while BSD makes it essentially an unrestricted gift to those large companies. Dual-licensing provides an opportunity to charge those who don't want to play by the Open Source rules, and to support the Open Source development with that money. It is true that there are a lot of companies that dual-license and don't really run a convincing community development at all, they are abusing the process.
Bruce
I agree with you (Score:2)
I've had similar experiences. I didn't learn most of what I know in the classrooms. I went to the poorly funded urban schools which didn't even have books in some cases.
But I had access to the library, and I went to the library every single day to use the computer and access the internet. Eventually I got my own computer and through my own determination I taught myself what I needed to know to get into community college and now university.
If these laptops are given to children in the third world, with today
Re: (Score:2)
Abusing what process? Abusing it the way you define it? Not everyone defines it the same way, in your opinion it is 'abuse', but they don't have to make their software GPL, they could come up with their own license that says you can look at it but you cant' use it in anything at all, ever. Or they could be completely closed source. Just because they
Re: (Score:2)
Offering software under the GPL -- either exclusively or in a dual-licensing arrangement -- doesn't obligate (even morally) the licensor to run a community development process ("convincing" or otherwise). Its not "abusing" the process not to run a community development process, or not to
The New Math (Score:2)
This ideal - its limits and its failures - can be traced at least as far back as The New Math of the 1950's:
Before the results could even be measured, new math became a near religion, complete with its own high priests and heresies. Chief among the hierophants were the University of Illinois's Max Beberman and Stanford's Edward Begle. Together...they took aim at the mindless rigidity of traditional mathematic
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. If some kid decides he wants to take some code from the OLPC, commercialize it, and make a mint, he won't be able to do it. OTOH, *who cares*?
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. Its quite possible to build a business around OSS and make money; you don't make the money by selling software licenses, of course, but that doesn't stop you from making money from your understanding of the code (either as the initial developer or just someone who has made good use of the availability of the code) and your own business acumen, writing skills, ability to provid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, making lots of money is extremely difficult. That's why most people aren't rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why proprietary software vendors make billions while open source software vendors struggle to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a system as limited as an EEE PC is adequate for that.
Just load up the HD with stuff from the Gutenberg project.
A computer is a national library in your pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase a famous quote: It's the software, stupid!
The OLPC is much more than a library, it's also an easy-to-learn graphical development environment [squeakland.org]. You're right: an EEE with Squeak would be almost as good (I say almost, because the OS might not be modifiable). But even the most powerful laptop in the world without Squeak would be utterly useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Let these people work up to pre-industrial first.
Let them broaden their horizons first. Then perhaps they will come up with
some problem or solution that they could use the computer for. Otherwise
you're just putting the cart before the horse.
Playing with their new toy in a very fancy manner isn't going to be so helpful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you look at the link I provided? If you had, you'd see that, through this simple graphical programming (that the kids don't even really realize they're doing), they can learn things like math [squeakland.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Teachers aren't required. The potential is built into the machine itself; the kids will discover it.
I don't get it; aside from the horrible translation, that looks like a successful start to me! Granted, they were only using the thing for research (as opposed to simulation and colla
Students are teachers. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see teachers in sufficient numbers being prepared to take advantage of open source. In Brazil (where I live), I see teachers that can barely teach their subject with a blackboard and white chalk.
What I see is cool and nice that kids have it, but it is miles away form Seymour Papert's dream. Or Alan Kay's dream.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovG_k2b3AXU [youtube.com]
When I was in 5th grade, I was taught Logo. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world. These kids have Squeak. Squeak has the potential to blow your mind, because Squeak is multimedia-ready (and cool projects like Scratch have been developed on top of it).
But it seems that it ammounts to having a cool little laptop that can network.
There's nothing intrinsic to it that demands open source OS. Unfortunately, because ideally one would want to be able to go very, very deep. The project seems to fall short in that respect.
What are these kids learning that will teach them that it is the human that makes the computer?
That, to me, is the true "technological transfer."
So, the way the project has been led has been self-defeating, IMHO.
The last point I would like to make is that the GPL license does not, and will not, empower people in India, Brazil, or any other developing nation. This was a big mistake. Only a liberal license like the BSD license can empower people, permiting them to compete in a hostile commercial environment, contributing to a common source but not naively exposing one self to bigger corporations that would crush their businesses (unless they want to play the hypocritical "dual-licensing" - an euphemism to proprietary licensing).
You assume that kids who have these laptops can ONLY use them in the context of a western style classroom where a teacher gives them instructions on what to learn and how.
Did you consider that there might be some students who for lack of a better word, are geniuses, who can teach the class themselves? And their friends?
If you give an intelligent person access to unlimited information, and combine it with free time, and tools such as this laptop, learning will happen.
Just like if you give a kid a TV, the kid can find ways to learn from that for good or bad, if you give a kid a laptop, the kid can learn how to write code, how computers work, how the internet works, and eventually they'll be able to get on the internet and learn how the world works through wikipedia or whatever else happens to be on the internet.
I don't think this would be as powerful under windows because first of all, no one knows what the windows source code is. If I were a kid and I wanted to learn how windows works, I couldn't look at the code to find out.
How can you claim something is built for educational purposes if it's closed source? That's the anti-thesis of what you are trying to do with the project.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not give them better than what we had?
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing intrinsic to it that demands open source OS. Unfortunately, because ideally one would want to be able to go very, very deep. The project seems to fall short in that respect.
1. Giving a pauper independence so that he will not have to depend on charity.
When they have to phone up the indian womman, to keep relicensing thier key they still rely on us
When they have to phone up the MS 'support' hotline they still rely on us.
When all their pacthces come for MS they still rely on us
etc
when they have an OSS, they can learn how to fix things, how to patch things, how to make things.
the BSD license doesnt keep the source open, meaning that all somebody has to do is offer OLPC+1feature, close it up, then they rely on them instead of MS, sure its their fault for
Re: (Score:2)
The first item in the list is give them independence - but what OLPC creates is dependence on a technological infrastructure whose sole source in the whim of OLPC and their national government. At best, OLPC is 1d, at worst... 6 or 7.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? The entire platform is open. Literally, all the source, the specs for the hardware, *everything*. If OLPC vanished today, right now, people could still get along just fine. Can you say the same if MS vanished and left XP behind?
Additionally, I've always found the "they can modify it" argument a but specio
Re: (Score:2)
How, EXACTLY will a village in the Amazon continue to support their OLPC compute
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Microsoft goes bankrupt, or even simply loses interest in this project, nobody has the background resources necessary to support it unless
Re: (Score:2)
How, EXACTLY will a village in the Amazon continue to support their OLPC computers if OLPC were to vanish?
They wouldn't. That wasn't the point. The OLPC organization merely isn't locking itself in the equation. Some first-world donors would still have to sponsor the hardware, but they could have the work done anywhere, by anyone, and supply compatible parts.
On the other hand if this was running MS software and MS vanished it wouldn't be legal to continue duplicating WinXP.
The OLPC project could continue without OLPC, but a similar project run by MS/Intel couldn't continue without their ongoing cooperation. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, I've always found the "they can modify it" argument a but specious
Parent:
To you. Millions of kids growing up with computers with BASIC on them would tend to disagree.
Having been a kid who grew up with a computer with BASIC and is a programmer today in no small part because of it, I disagree with you and agree with the grandparent. It's not like you can't do development on a WinXP machine.
Further, how many of the 'BASIC generation' grew up with computers with open sour
Re: (Score:2)
If it's Linux based then just about any hardware on the planet will do. This
idea is where the Linux versus Windows question really becomes relevant.
Free software is... well, free. It is zero cost and free to
re-distribute. It can also be adapted by anyone to whatever
hardware you want to run it on. Much of this work has already
been done for you because there are lots of relevant interested
parties.
This is where the object that "you can't personally modify it
because it's too hard" falls flat
Re: (Score:2)
In the same sense that "shall we have steak or lobster for dinner" only become relevant when one has sufficient wealth and free time to choose. The target market of the OLPC is being given computers because they cannot afford to buy them. If don't have money - it doesn't matter what obscure hardware the OS will run on.
Re: (Score:2)
Shareware authors can't.
Any interested party can put a few hours into it and benefit
everyone by adding a little bit of new effort into what's
already out there.
If something is orphaned, someoene else can always pick it
up again and continue building where the last guy left off.
Re: (Score:2)
> relevant when one has sufficient wealth and free time to choose. The target market
> of the OLPC is being given computers because they cannot afford to buy them. If don't
> have money - it doesn't matter what obscure hardware the OS will run on.
Just like with free software, an open project doesn't have to end with
the "visionary" that started it. The next guy with an interest can pick
up the idea and run with it.
"obscu
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you are "sorry" and you are also wrong.
It can't be done on "nonF/OSS" IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD the "nonF/OSS". That WAS the whole point of the OLPC, before NN sold out to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it is the year 2008, and the best charity you can give is helping poor people understand that their government is involved in economically ignorant regulations that are keeping them poor, and that they should either put a stop to them in the ballot box or bullet box depending on the form of government.
Giving will likely just be appropriated by corrupt government officials.
Re: (Score:2)
2) If we accept that one of the greatest benefits to the children is that they can modify the software, then why do we not expect them to be equally able to modify the hardware?
3) Do we expect a greater percentage of these children to have an interest in engineering than the children in countries such as the US? I
Re: (Score:2)
1) Is it really charity at all if the children's country pays for the hardware? Granted the software is given freely, but that begs the question why must the software be free, but not the hardware?
Well Hardware requires materials, to reproduce. Software does not. So hardware will need to be sold. Software need not. Well OLPC is not a Bill Gates type of charity. The guys don't have money. But it is a higher form of charity, because the guys (and gals) are putting their own effort and money to do it. They have been working for a number of years without any compensation for this.
Compared to Bill Gates who gives a part of his ill-gotten gains (he is a convicted monopolist), as a bribe to the public to f
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, that's not how it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a support volunteer for OLPC. I'm not officially affiliated with them, but I've been volunteering for them since last year.
You're misrepresenting the project. I am not accusing you of making disingenuous posts, but I suspect you're either underinformed or you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Yes, the XO-1 laptop is a wonderful e-book platform. However, you don't need most of the stuff it comes with on an e-book reader. For instance, you don't need a webcam to read a book. The fact is, textbooks are one small part of the ideas that constitute Sugar, which is based on constructivist [wikipedia.org] education practices.
I'm sure you've heard the "it's not a laptop project, it's an education project" quote a million times. Well, it's not an e-book project either. It's an education project, and reading isn't the only way kids learn. We're not talking about the sort of education we receive here in the States, where we listen to an orator and take notes. It's self-directed. The XO-1 is a learning and exploration platform.
As to Microsoft, I have been assured by higher-ups at OLPC that they're not going to devote any resources to porting Sugar to Windows, or Windows to the XO-1. They just don't have the resources; they're too busy deploying [radian.org] laptops [radian.org]. Negroponte's point is that if someone wants to get it done, OLPC shouldn't stand in their way, which is entirely different from "let's drop linux." He's made other comments in the past about how Firefox wouldn't have gained the marketshare it has if it weren't for Windows. Likewise, a Sugar that is platform-ambivalent would rapidly gain mindshare in the educational world.
Sugar is not OLPC. OLPC is not the XO-1. Microsoft doesn't control any of those three things, and I doubt they will. Hell, in current builds, Sugar doesn't even start without NetworkManager, which isn't exactly Windows-compatible software.
You're a luminary in the FOSS world, and a geek hero. I'm sure you know that. I hope you're also aware when you start forecasting things based on insufficient information, a lot of people just take your word for it. I suggest you contact OLPC with your concerns, so they can be suitably allayed.
Re:Fortunately, that's not how it is. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I wish I could believe that it will go the way you say. With folks quitting over philosophical differences, I suspect there is some internal struggle over these ideas that you may not be party to. I'd be happy to meet with the current OLPC staff (do I just send Negroponte an email?) and hear their side.
Bruce
Re:Fortunately, that's not how it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Customers have, on occasion, inexplicably chosen Windows [pcworld.com] over Linux at a seemingly late stage in deployment, so it should be a genuine source of worry for anyone supplying Linux machines in large quantities.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a good start at learning all about this one example:
ht [google.com]
Re:Fortunately, that's not how it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
The lure of zero-cost, but DRM-locked, proprietary textbooks.
It's my duty - and that of others who care about freedom - to tell such educational bodies that they're harming their own people, and why.
You think they're just going to be able to boot an installation system and run it? It takes just a little firmware tweak to make that system boot only signed binaries - and we won't have the signing key.
Bruce
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce can certainly answer this better than I can, but I'll give a shot.
"Freedom", in the variety which Bruce and open-source devotees care about, is not about "I don't have to pay for this" (though, that IS nice), but rather "I am free to tinker with this,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why on earth did your post focus on cost?
Most people while they COULD, don't want to bother learning how to fix their own cars.
True but even non-mechanics appreciate the ability to have work done by whatever mechanic they want rather than having to go to the dealer. Would you buy a car with a EULA that only allowed you to have work performed by the dealer?
Same with software. So this "Freedom" that free software is protecting is a "freedom" most people
Re: (Score:2)
Which is blown out of the water with this 'fact': virtually anyone can LEARN. It goes further than that as the types of programs intended for the OLPC program are encouraging people to become 'life long learners'. Sure, not every single box is going to become the cornerstone of a programming genius, but the more people that understand the process, the mo
Re: (Score:2)
Proprietary software is in no way shape or form an impedance to indepe
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of the FOSS proponents are trying to make proprietary software illegal, but we do wish it to be fair. As I see, it does not currently seem to be fair.
There are movements for these things, you are not looking in the right places... and because of the nature of the product they tend to be local. Secondly, they are either products that cost x to reproduce, or services of supply of a relatively dangerous energy. Software, once it is created, costs minimally to reproduce. And yes, the programmers deser
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument reminds me of a radio show where the host was questioning a Chinese citizen about the use of the internet. The Chinese man was saying "... China is free! Using the internet in China is free* . You can do anything you like on the internet, as long as you don't query these matters the government decides is bad for you...."
* speech, in context, not beer
Re: (Score:2)
The movement for proprietary software comes from the masses. They want something worth using. Not something to use just because its free. They've already made their choice loud a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The injustice is in not being allowed to fix a system you paid for/obtained legally. That is written into the licenses.
Passive EOL, sure. When companies actively EOL products... that is mean-spirited and touches on stealing back products. When program files get corrupted and you can't get your data out because the latest version doesn't work with your old version... there is something inherently wrong there.
I agree that the distribution is a different story, and my preference is for sharing and collabora
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not threatened by free software so I don't hate it. Any fear anyone in the proprietary world had against open source has long since gone away because of the systematic failure of Linux to achieve any footholds
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how those freedoms are important and actually matter.
Small metaphor that may help understand. (Score:2)
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? Its a product. You want it, you pay for it and then you can use it. What more is there to consider?
Small metaphor :
The freedom stays in the difference between a product and a toolbox.
The first you use.
The second you use to make your very own product.
Selling them OLPC running on Windows would be selling them one more product just like food, electricity etc. It does the job and that's it.
Selling them OLPC Linux is about empowering them.
Have the children grow and get use on Windows, they'll start developing their skills on a foreign product that they'll never own. They grow up, they apply the skill they've
Most people need to pay for tangible toolboxes too (Score:2)
Name a startup that Microsoft shut down using some secret back door in Windows.
Aside from that having children grow up on Linux does not assurance they'll learn how to program. Its a very hard skill to learn. Its why so few do it. There's no promise here that their lives or industry will develop any differently than if they use Windows. Its more wishful thinking than anything else.
It's not about the price, it's about the freedom (Score:2)
I don't see a mechanic or engineer calling the company that makes their tools evil.
Because it's their tools. It's material that they acquire and can do pretty much everything that pleases them.
In the proprietary software realm you never actually own software. You merely have purchase a license that give you limited right of what you can do with the software, on a platform that you don't control at all.
The same difference exists between selling drinkable water to Africa - it's only a product ! - and helping African countries build their own infrastructure to have water - to make them inde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With proprietary software, say Microsoft's Visual Studio you could use that proprietary tool to write open source software. Nothing in the world stopping you from doing so. Yes you are forbidden from repurposing some proprietary software. My point is that that is not a big deal. Its not a civil rights issue. Its a case of a group of people (free softwar
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, if I buy something, it should be mine, pure and simple. Yes, it is an issue of rights if I'm not allowed to do whatever I damn well please with something I buy -- a straight purchase transaction.
As far as something for nothing: I'm the project lea
Re: (Score:2)
Great you personally are contributing. That puts you in the tiny mi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're saying that in order to save money on textbooks, they're going to decide to pay the Microsoft tax? Unlikely. This isn't coporate America we're talking about. These are underfunded governments. When choosing between "pay for the hard ware and our software and we'll give you the texts free" and "pay for the hardware and all of the software is free and so are the textbooks," they're going to choose the one that doesn't require nonexisten
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point is that the real choice is between "pay for the hardware and all of the software is free and so are the textbooks" and "pay only half as much for the hardware, the software, and the textbooks because we'll subsidize the rest for you (which w
Re: (Score:2)
Answer your question with a question: Why is OOXML an ISO standard?
Microsoft has billions of dollars it actively uses to corrupt whom ever they can. Allowing XP to run on OLPC allows Microsoft leverage to corrupt even more.
If XP does not run on the OLPC, Microsoft's corruptive influence is shut out of the discussions. If
Re: (Score:2)
Has it been so long since OOXML that that question can be asked with a straight face?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Microsoft produces a DRM-encumbered operating system for the XO-1, what makes you think a country will choose it over the freely-available Sugar-on-Fedora that the XO currently runs?
try offering to pay/offer that government millions of dollars in free( as in beer ) Microsoft software and training centers and/or services.
This is they tactic and it has been used many many times to stall the threat.
These are the things people who have been in the market for years AND had their eyes open to see Microsoft's business tactics in action. Bruce has good reason for his concerns and very little to believe things will play out differently.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of "embrace, extend, extinguish", have you?
Well, look at the timing with Negroponte. (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people outside of Taiwan don't really grasp what the whole OEM/ODM industrial ecosystem is about. OEM stands for Original Equipment Manufacturer which is a vague title. What it really means is that there are these vast manufacturing plants owned by companies with names mostly unknown in the West that take design specifications from brands like Apple, HP, Compaq etc. and actually make the products in massive swaths of like a minimum of ten thousand units.
Now these OEMs profit by working on massive scales and have relatively thin margins. In order to profit, they have this basic minimum order number and they can't afford to negotiate below a certain unit number of say ten thousand units.
By the same token, this minimum order requirement means that there can only be so many players in market because there's only so much capacity and the granularity of the minimum order is set really high so there is something of a zero sum game in this. There is always room for future expansion of sales stay high for prolonged periods, but quarter to quarter things are pretty fixed.
Now, last year something big happened that had never happened before and that was the OLPC got enough orders that they were able to tie up a manufacturing unit of one of these OEMs. Again, this is a big deal because you can't just magically create more all of a sudden --there's a set amount. And what that meant was for the first time there was all this manufacturing in the notebook market that was being taken out of the windows market and being dedicated to the open source. Now there can be little doubt that MS had assumed for so many years that this market was their property.
To make matters worse, it was only a few months later when Asus hit the market with the EeePc and soon a whole flood of these little fuckers who weren't paying the tax were springing up like bamboo shoots after a spring rain.
No doubt this was a huge concern in Redmond. Then CNet attacked Vista and things were just seeming to go to shit and suddenly out of the blue --now come on, is it really out of the blue-- Negroponte announces that XP is probably just as good as Linux for the OLPC.
I don't think there's a big coincidence here.
Market as property? Thats not free trade. (Score:2)
If one corporation can claim an entire market as their property, then it's not a free market anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, though I'v been involved with product development and manufacturing and considered Microsoft's ability to ensure their partners products keep on the production lines, I'd not co
Re: (Score:1)
I would say that having Sugar run cross platform should give the opportunity for normal windows users to try it as well. And
Re: (Score:2)
Negroponte's point is that if someone wants to get it done, OLPC shouldn't stand in their way, which is entirely different from "let's drop linux."
Is there ANY history of OLPC doing anything to block anyone from doing something with the device? Why would the head of the project have to make public statements that they won't block Microsoft?
Well, I don't think you are correct in this thought and OLPC has allowed Microsoft to become involved and the OLPC people have spent time with Microsoft and Microsoft funded contractors. It does not appear to be "we won't block anyone" and instead, appears to be a we're going to actively help Microsoft get Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not textbook DRM. (Score:2)
Those third world countries don't have the budget to spend on textbooks, whether they're DRM-encumbered e-books or not. So either way, they won't be buying them--because they can't. OLPC being built on Linux doesn't mean that publishers are going to start giving away their content. If they can't publish in a way that will prevent copies being made without them getting compensated, then they just won't publish to that market, full
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:2)
Also, this isn't just about textbooks. Yes, the XO is a good way to deliver free textbooks. But that's not all it's about, not by a long shot. There's the whole Sugar educational software stack, which I find pretty impressive. A Windows port of this stack would make it ac
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:2)
The Microsoft way to do this is to have pervasive DRM as part of the OLPC framework. Microsoft will partner with textbook publishers to make free or low-cost but time-locked and otherwise DRM-encumbered electronic versions of their textbooks available on OLPC.
I think this is hard to cut and dry into good and evil or even 'best for children in developing countries' or not. (Disclaimer: I think people will, eventually realize that DRM is not a good idea and abandon it in its present forms.)
Freeload Press do
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:2)
I think the big picture way of looking at this is to ask why does it make sense for third-world, developing countries to have to depend on American dominated corporations. This is what's going on in every other industry, third-world countries are becoming owned by US-controlled companies at the moment that they are trying to integrate themselves into the world economy.
In my opinion, free software is the only way for these countries to maintain local control and even generate true local experti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Open Source way is to direct the efforts of academic communities toward the creation of fully free e-texts under licensing that permits redistribution and derivative works. This is already well under way.
I have to disagree with you that it's "well under way." There's this wiki [laptop.org]. If you look at the books listed there, there is almost nothing at all at the K-12 level. Virtually the entire list consists of college textbooks, and quite a few of them are not even freshman college texts, they're at the upper-division level.
Maybe we're talking about different time scales. I've been cataloguing free books at theassayer.org since 2000. During that time, the good news has been that hundreds of high-quality free
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:2)
A couple of things. First, I invite anyone who has become disenchanted with OLPC to join us at the Open Slate Project. [openslate.net] Our view of the computer, software, and textbooks is slightly different than what Bruce described, especially in that Chalk Dust, the courseware portion, is not
Re:Why MS and textbook publishers must control OLP (Score:2)
I predicted this [technocrat.net] a while
ago when they were just talking about "dual boot".
Bruce, I think your being a little overly consternatious but you do seem to see through the smoke. A lot of people were o.k. with dual boot when they learned that an OLPC security requirement dictated that any dual boot system must have an instant revert feature to just the pristine sugar OS.
Other people have said that the OLPC is not just an e-book reader, they are correct. However, like you, I can not see how handing kids _anything_ locked with DRM can be good. Unless, of course its just being used as a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The kids don't know the issues at all. But someday those kids will grow up, and they will either be able to build a software infrastructure for their countries, that they control, using Open Source, so that they will not be dependent, or they will not know how and will have to go to a proprietary software company for what they can afford.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce