Devel Digest, Vol 41, Issue 41

[Mitch Bradley]

>
> Even the OLPC wiki contains links [1] to misleading reports [2] about 
> Windows on the XO without any further, clarifying comment.
> OLPCNews' quote of NN didn't make it clear [3] as well:
>
> """
> For this reason, Sugar needs a wider basis, to run on more Linux 
> platforms and to run under
> Windows. We have been engaged in discussions with Microsoft for several 
> months, to explore a
> dual boot version of the XO. Some of you have seen what Microsoft 
> developed on their own for
> the XO. It works well and now needs Sugar on top of it (so to speak).
> """
>
> The latter has been my main source of (mis)information regarding the 
> Windows on XO matter - not some dubious newspaper report as those are 
> known to get a lot of important facts wrong.
>   

That quotation is entirely correct according to my understanding.  It 
acknowledges that Microsoft ported Windows to XO by themselves and 
points out that OLPC was trying to get to dual-boot.  At the time, I had 
demonstrated the ability to boot Windows from Open Firmware, but the 
overall job wasn't nearly done.  A whole of stuff (basic power 
management, battery and AC status, video mode switching, and others) 
wasn't working yet from OFW.  NN's statement above really emphasized the 
important role of Sugar in OLPC's educational vision - he has said many 
times that giving kids Microsoft Office isn't education.

So I'm not sure how that paragraph qualifies as misinformation. It seems 
to me that to interpret it as ominous, you must have already decided on 
the worst.