<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><div>...and to which the free software (linux) community would respond with a reverse engineering effort, at it's own (collective) expense, and rather quickly have a solution. If turnabout is fair play, let Microsoft adopt the free software community response as well.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>The golden rule doesn't say: "Treat others as you have been treated," It says to treat others as you would like to be treated.<br></div><div> <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
So as a fair practice I think it's clear that no special actions can ethically be made to prevent Windows or any other OS from running on the machine. So a Windows port for the XO isn't something that could have been preventative.</blockquote>
</div><div><br>Agree. But that's not what is being proposed. The agreement clearly includes a modification of the original principles (minimum cost for the devices) to provide a Microsoft handicap in this game. I would not call that "fair practice."</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>What is being proposed is that if you want it to run Microsoft apps then countries can pay an extra $10. This gives *them* a handycap in the game and makes it that much easier for us.<br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Furthermore OLPC's sale of the XO hardware doesn't come with any restrictions for use. To not allow countries to install windows once they take ownership would be a completely unethical move given OLPC's commitments to freedom.</blockquote>
</div><div><br>OLPC has NEVER made any mention of preventing anyone (with a developer key) from installing whatever software they wanted to install on the XO, (which cannot be said of all computer system manufacturers cough*cough*XBOX*cough*cough) That's not what's being discussed here. Negroponte is taking proactive action to create a more favorable environment for Microsoft. Is OLPC making the same offer to Ubuntu? Debian? What about Red Hat?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>I agree. Let's start a dialog with Ubuntu! Mark Shuttleworth has mentioned OLPC favorably on this blog a few times, and much of the community has been interested in getting Ubuntu running on the XO. There is a need for a full desktop as well as a sugar UI for these machines. I run Debian on my XO personally and I would love to have a fast Xubuntu going on it.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>Not at all. The problem appears to be that Microsoft is asking/demanding that the OLPC principles be modified in deference to Microsoft.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div> <br>I don't agree with that statement. If the extra $10 is optional if countries insist on Microsoft anyway. If that's not the case (which of course isn't clear with the meager amount of information we're given) then you are right.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><div>I was under the impression the hardware manufacturers weren't loosing anything on the per-unit sales.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>I may very well be wrong.<br><br>But I do know that Quanta isn't going to let OLPC open source the hardware schematics that they own until sale volumes are much higher. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Will this still give us the chance to put great hardware and content into the hands of children all over the world? Yes. </blockquote>
</div><div><br>Nope. It's over. </div></div></blockquote><div><br>I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not going to argue if that's the way you feel. I hope that you get involved in Sugarlabs, which is all safely GPL'd or maybe work with me on Open / Creative Commons content. There is a lot of work that can be done that can still help and not help OLPC+Microsoft. <br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>I think you are under the impression that the 'education project' has been somehow hindered by efforts aimed at <b>preventing</b> Microsoft from contributing. I do not see that as the case. Speaking as one of those 'free software fundamentalists", I can say I long ago wrote-off Microsoft and pretty much ignore what they choose to do. (They know it, and that dismissiveness is one of the things that keeps Microsoft up at night.)</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>I don't understand how that follows? <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">With Walter Bender on his own and dedicated to bringing Sugar to every machine on a FOSS stack, and all OLPC produced software being safely GPL'ed, I feel confident that Sugar can beat out Windows. </blockquote>
</div><div><br>Of course. Sugar is not dead, just OLPC. That's why the fork occurred.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Sugarlabs isn't a fork. The code bases are still the same and aren't going to change. It's more like upstream sources now. Or a forking of management, not code.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">
Let's focus on getting sugar and linux and what we *can* do instead of being angry. I plan on staying and producing content, translations and improvements for OLPC and for children.<br>
<br><a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org</a><br><font color="#888888"><br>Seth Woodworth</font></div></blockquote></div>
<br></blockquote></div><br>