<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Simon Schampijer <<a href="mailto:simon@schampijer.de">simon@schampijer.de</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><a href="mailto:david@lang.hm">david@lang.hm</a> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Steve Holton wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Seth Woodworth <<a href="mailto:seth@isforinsects.com">seth@isforinsects.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Let's look at this with a slightly different lens before we blow up<br>
>>> on NN<br>
>>> and Microsoft.<br>
>>><br>
>>> What does this agreement equate to? And what are the alternatives to<br>
>>> Microsoft?<br>
>>><br>
>>> If the XO was running a completely closed source stack with no<br>
>>> documentation on hardware, how would the Linux community feel? They<br>
>>> would<br>
>>> feel that they were being shut out and not allowed to run whatever<br>
>>> software<br>
>>> they wanted to or develop. This is something the linux community has<br>
>>> speared hardware companies over for years.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ...and to which the free software (linux) community would respond with a<br>
>> reverse engineering effort, at it's own (collective) expense, and rather<br>
>> quickly have a solution. If turnabout is fair play, let Microsoft<br>
>> adopt the<br>
>> free software community response as well.<br>
>><br>
>> (When Cisco modified their WRT54G hardware so that Linux could no longer<br>
>> run, the response was to strip-down the gnu/linux stack even more<br>
>> until it<br>
>> would run again.)<br>
>><br>
>> It's doubtful the free software community would do what Microsoft is<br>
>> demanding: asking the manufacturer to add 5-10% to the cost of the<br>
>> hardware<br>
>> to facilitate their efforts, nor would the free software community<br>
>> charge a<br>
>> $3.00 license fee for the use thereafter.<br>
><br>
> I missed where the hardware was being changed and the cost going up to<br>
> support this. what I read was that the boot firmware was being modified<br>
> so that it could dual-boot into windows.<br>
><br>
> please point me at the additional cost involved.<br>
><br>
> David Lang<br>
<br>
</div></div>from:<br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/technology/16laptop.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</a><br>
<br>
"Windows will add a bit to the price of the machines, about $3, the licensing<br>
fee Microsoft charges to some developing nations under a program called<br>
Unlimited Potential. For those nations that want dual-boot models, running both<br>
Windows and Linux, the extra hardware required will add another $7 or so to the<br>
cost of the machines, Mr. Negroponte said."<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I think the extra hardware is the 2gb SD card, as XP + Office won't fit into the NAND (especially if you're dual booting...)<br><br>Correct me if I'm wrong<br><br><br>-Bobby Powers<br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
Simon<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Sugar@lists.laptop.org">Sugar@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>