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,
Hi Bruce, 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
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
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
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" most people don't even WANT to begin with.
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
People in the third world DO tend to fix their own cars because they can't afford to pay someone else and by their own determination can work out how to do it. Same goes for software.
The only reason Windows appears easier to use to us is because we are familiar with it.
Give it to someone who has had no exposure to it and they'll be, like "Why does this user interface not behave in a logical way?. Why does this program not do what it's supposed to? Why do I have to pay for the fooobar plugin that I need to co
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
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,
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
Re: (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: (Score:5, Interesting)
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:1)
Most people don't want to run for office.
Most people don't want to giv
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how those freedoms are important and actually matter.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not a fan of anti-fraud, consumer protection, truth in labeling, and HIPPA laws either, I take it?
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:1)
Same goes for software.
The only reason Windows appears easier to use to us is because we are familiar with it.
Give it to someone who has had no exposure to it and they'll be, like "Why does this user interface not behave in a logical way?. Why does this program not do what it's supposed to? Why do I have to pay for the fooobar plugin that I need to co
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.
Re:Most people need to pay for tangible toolboxes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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