ZDNet Education

Christopher Dawson

Intense (and really thoughtful) ranting from the OLPC front

By | May 13, 2008, 8:59pm PDT

Summary: Ivan Krstić has made his way into this blog before. As OLPC’s former director of security architecture and one closely involved with their Peru rollout, his posts offered great insights into just how the XO worked (or was supposed to work) on the backend. Now he, like Walter Bender, has left OLPC and posted one [...]

Ivan Krstić has made his way into this blog before. As OLPC’s former director of security architecture and one closely involved with their Peru rollout, his posts offered great insights into just how the XO worked (or was supposed to work) on the backend.

Now he, like Walter Bender, has left OLPC and posted one heck of a rant on Tuesday. Note that the language is a bit rough (Krstić pulls no punches and is obviously angry, so this probably isn’t a site to share with your middle school computer classes; for the rest of us, it’s quite a read).

Krstić, despite being able to run circles around most of us in all things computing, including Linux kernel programming, is no open source fundamentalist (as Nicholas Negroponte has called those who object to porting the Sugar user interface to Windows). However, here is his take on recent attention to Negroponte’s moves towards a Windows deployment:

OLPC should be philosophically pure about its own machines. Being a non-profit that leverages goodwill from a tremendous number of community volunteers for its success and whose core mission is one of social betterment, it has a great deal of social responsibility. It should not become a vehicle for creating economic incentives for a particular vendor. It should not believe the nonsense about Windows being a requirement for business after the children grow up. Windows is a requirement because enough people grew up with it, not the other way around. If OLPC made a billion people grow up with Linux, Linux would be just dandy for business. And OLPC shouldn’t make its sole OS one that cripples the very hardware that supposedly set the project’s laptops apart: released versions of Windows can neither make good use of the XO power management, nor its full mesh or advanced display capabilities.

The entire post gives us an inside look at an unfolding disaster.

Nicholas knows quite well that Sugar won’t magically become better simply by virtue of running on Windows rather than Linux. In reality, Nicholas wants to ship plain XP desktops. He’s told me so. That he might possibly fund a Sugar effort to the side and pay lip service to the notion of its “availability” as an option to purchasing countries is at best a tepid effort to avert a PR disaster.

In fact, I quit when Nicholas told me — and not just me — that learning was never part of the mission. The mission was, in his mind, always getting as many laptops as possible out there…

He, like many in the industry argue that OLPC should be focusing on its strengths, namely developing solid educational software and learning models for this new breed of netbooks hitting classrooms in the States and abroad.

Nicholas’ new OLPC is dropping those pesky education goals from the mission and turning itself into a 50-person nonprofit laptop manufacturer, competing with Lenovo, Dell, Apple, Asus, HP and Intel on their home turf, and by using the one strategy we know doesn’t work. But hey, I guess they’ll sell more laptops that way.

Krstić concludes as forcefully as he began:

So here’s to open learning, to free software, to strength of personal conviction, and to having enough damn humility to remember that the goal is bringing learning to a billion children across the globe. The billion waiting for us to put our idiotic trifles aside, end our endless yapping, and get to it already.

Fortunately for those kids, OLPC touched off an industry-wide movement. This is bigger than Negroponte and the market for low-cost 1:1 computing solutions will mature with or without OLPC. Cheers, Ivan, and best of luck!

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Chris Dawson is a freelance writer and consultant with years of experience in educational technology and web-based systems. In 2011, he became the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., a virtual classroom and learning network SaaS provider.

Disclosure

Christopher Dawson

Christopher Dawson is the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., by day and a freelance writer and educational technology consultant by night. Well, most of his colleagues at WizIQ are based in India, so really he's working with them whenever he can stay awake. He has worked for his local school district as a teacher and technology director, for the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, and for Biogen, Inc. (now Biogen-IDEC, Inc.). He has also consulted with STATNet and Cytyc Corporation and retains close ties with X2 Development Corporation (now owned by Follett Software, the supplier of the student information system he administered for several years). Follett is paying him a monthly honorarium to act as a presenter for their "SIS Voices for Student Achievement" community (he produces occasional blog posts and hosts a monthly webinar on the use of student information systems to inform data-driven instruction and school-wide change. He regularly purchases and/or recommends Dell hardware. This is because Dell makes good hardware and has truly committed itself to education in innovative ways, particularly with their "Connected Classroom" initiative. It isn't because he has dealings with the company through his role at WizIQ (which he does) or because they have provided him with long-term loans of a variety of equipment for in-depth testing (which they have). Intel (reference designer for the Classmate PCs he has implemented in his local schools) has provided him with long-term loans of Classmate PCs for testing, as have Dell and Lenovo with their educational offerings. He may report on any of these companies as his experiences with them have direct bearing on educational technology; positive reports are not necessarily an endorsement and he receives no direct financial compensation from these companies or any others. Intel paid all expenses for his attendance at the 2009 Intel Classmate PC Ecosystem Summit which he attended as the sole representative of the technology press. He was invited to attend in 2010 but his wife would have killed him if he spent 3 days in Vegas geeking out and left her home alone with a new baby. Acer provided him with a 50% discount on an Aspire One netbook in early 2009 after he tested it for 30 days through their educational seed program. He liked the netbook at the time but it has since broken and sits unused in his office. Canonical sent him Ubuntu lanyards, t-shirts, and mousepads for his kids. He stole one of the lanyards and proudly hangs his keys from it and occasionally features his 8-year old wearing an oversized Ubuntu t-shirt on his Facebook profile. Gunnar Optiks sent him a pair of computer glasses to evaluate for a holiday gift guide. He is wearing them now as he types this because they never asked for them back and they rock out loud. Seriously - they work brilliantly and make it much easier to spend 20 hours a day staring at an LCD. If they ever asked for them back, he would fork over the $99 and buy a pair. Microsoft gave him 2 free copies of Office 2010 professional, a desktop clock, and a useless book on Office 2010 when he attended the launch of Office/Sharepoint 2010. He occasionally uses the SharePoint lanyard they gave him instead of the Ubuntu lanyard for his keys, but feels dirty afterwards. Adobe provided him with a pre-release version of the CS5 Master Collection for evaluation and ultimately provided a full, licensed copy for ongoing testing of educational applications of this admittedly expensive software. Like the Gunnars, if the license expires or they come out with CS6, he'd actually go out and buy it himself. Which is saying something, because he's actually pretty cheap. Any other companies wishing to send him cool things to evaluate, wear, or otherwise adorn his kids are more than welcome to; he promises to disclose it here if he keeps any of the stuff. Finally, because WizIQ is a virtual classroom and learning network provider, Chris, as VP of Marketing, frequently interacts with, seeks out deals with, and directly or indirectly competes with a whole lot of LMS, SIS, and other Education 2.0 companies. In general, he'll limit his reporting about these companies to news that does not impact his relationship with them or with WizIQ. If he reports on them, it's because what they are doing is newsworthy or worth the attention of his readers and not because he's trying to broker some deal, damage competition, or otherwise advance his position in his day job. LMS and SIS companies, along with other online learning communities, are a pretty important part of Ed Tech. If he stops reporting on them completely, there won't be a whole lot left. He'll be sure to call out any overt conflicts of interest if they are unavoidable. Finally, Follett Software Company pays him a little tiny honorarium every month to present on their SIS Voices webinars and to write the occasional blog or discussion thread for them. Since Follett recently bought X2 (maker of an awesome web-based SIS that Chris just happened to have used, served in advisory groups for, and frequently reported on), this is probably also worth disclosing.

Biography

Christopher Dawson

Christopher Dawson grew up in Seattle, back in the days of pre-antitrust Microsoft, coffeeshops owned by something other than Starbucks, and really loud, inarticulate music. He escaped to the right coast in the early 90's and received a degree in Information Systems from Johns Hopkins University. While there, he began a career in health and educational information systems, with a focus on clinical trials and related statistical programming and database modeling. This focus led him to several positions at Johns Hopkins, a couple-year stint in private industry, teaching high school math and technology, and 2 years as the technology director for his local school district. Most recently, he started his own consulting business and is now the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., a virtual classroom and learning network provider. He lives with his wife, five kids (yes, 5), 2 dogs, and a hateful cat in a small town in north-central Massachusetts. Although he is no longer teaching, his roles with WizIQ and ZDNet allow him to continue helping students and teachers add value to education with technology rather than merely adding to the bottom line.
40
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

It is a common practice for Mr. Anton
Ole Man 20th May 2008
I have read his statements for many moons, and he is very good at substituting, distorting, twisting, and "dancing around words" to suite his agenda, which in almost every instance is to justify and support Microsoft and Corporate big-wigs.

If I've misjudged him this time, it's a very rare occasion, and I apologize, but I don't think I have anything to apologize for.
0 Votes
+ -
Sugar on the $299 EEE.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 13th May 2008
I would be willing to bet that Asus would be more than willing to integrate mesh, provide a 33% discount to $199 if a new organization, one that carried out the vision of an education tool to the folks that don't have the resources by the millions if someone just asked.

It's all about scale. Heck, strip it to 2GB, 7" screen and anything else that isn't essential, you have an OLPC.

It is truly amazing. Dumping XP on developing nations children is truly a disaster. Not because XP isn't inferently solid, but is is insecure, and really, it doesn't do anything w.r.t. teaching.

As of yet, we still don't see XP on an OLPC, does said animal exist? Now run Sugar with an API shim, it won't be pleasant. The mesh technology will help all the malware spread quite efficiently as 6 year olds don't know how to update their AV, so they have that going for them.

Side question, now that Sugar is to be "ported" to Windows, has the community abandoned it yet?

TripleII

Prediction: Negroponte will end up as a consultant with MS or a closely affiliated company for their "Emerging Markets" division (or very similar) soon enough.
0 Votes
+ -
What a waste
Tim Patterson 14th May 2008
Alot of very talented people worked very hard to develope the XO and by all accounts they came up with a great device with an intuitive interface targeted for the kids.

I don't blame Krstic and the others for being angry. Negroponte sold out to MS and thereby destroyed OLPC which is what MS really wanted in the first place. MS will do whatever they have to to perpetuate their monopoly. Even if it means causing real harm and stifling opportunities for hundreds of millions of kids around the world.

I don't see how anyone in good conscience can continue to reward MS by using their wares.

Negroponte is a despicable coward!
0 Votes
+ -
Is he really
AllKnowingAllSeeing 14th May 2008
Why? because he went against the open source community?

There's a lot of lip service going on these days, and to beleieve that Negroponte "Doesn't care about education" and only the open source community does? What a load of BS

Many in the open source community want one thing, and one thing only from the OLPC, and that was to get as many kids "hooked" on Linux now, so that they (the Linux vendors) can reap as much proit from it as they can later.

To offer both Windows and Linux to satisfy everyone is a nice option, but many of those involved only want to destroy Windows, in an attempt to make their own money makers the dominent OS.
0 Votes
+ -
No point.
pjotr123 14th May 2008
Money and profit aren't Linux' goals in general. In fact, most distro's are completely free and are likely to stay so.

Therefore I quite fail to see your point. In fact, there is none at all.

Salve, Plinius Minor.
0 Votes
+ -
Complete spin
mlambert890@... 17th May 2008
Nothing in life is "free" bud. As a fundamentalist OSS holy warrior, I doubt one would ever see this, but PRESUMABLY, even these folks DO need to eat right?

The VAST majority of cost in computing comes from the implementation and maintenance of any system. The capital costs are neglibible in the long run.

So for businesses, it comes down to how much does it cost to run the thing. Last I checked, no one works for free (nor should they) and Redhat and Novell werent NGOs (nor should they be)

So to be blunt, you are FULL OF CRAP when you pretend that there is "no profit motive"

Guys like you have a creepy religious NEED for Linux to utterly erradicate any commercial OS (Windows is just your current target), but the reality is, the OSS CODERS and SERVICE PROVIDERS want to leverage the NGO zeal to create a market that isnt creating itself.

THAT is reality. Sorry if it hurts your dellusion.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't get addicts hooked
Ole Man 14th May 2008
You get addicts UN-hooked. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

The world is generally addicted to Microsoft, and if they aren't unhooked, they will remain addicts.
As opposed to hooking kids on bloated MicroShaft Win XP on underpowered PCs, with all the security holes and malware you can eat...?
0 Votes
+ -
And that is as it should be.
0 Votes
+ -
Once again missing the point bit
Tim Patterson 14th May 2008
MS knew darned well that by manipulating Negroponte that they could throw OLPC into chaos. MS doesn't want to have to compete in this space in the first place but they will stoop to whatever nefarious means they must to make sure that Linux doesn't proliferate. Even at the expense of the children's education.

In other words there will be no low-cost learning laptop for poor kids unless it's a Microsoft 'solution'.

And you, bit, continue to support this despicable corporation...
0 Votes
+ -
There was no point to miss
No_Ax_to_Grind 14th May 2008
other than your deep need to rant about MS.
0 Votes
+ -
No Axe to Grind
Mahegan 14th May 2008
Because it is all ground away.

There is a point about M$ steering its way to another near monopolistic position.

An indication of this monopoly is the variable pricing in different countries
0 Votes
+ -
Unless I missed something...
Four-Eyes 16th May 2008
The whole point of the OLPC was to get as many laptops out to poor kids in underdeveloped nations everywhere AND provide them with tools for LEARNING. The preferred OS was based on Linux simply because MS was too bloated to work efficiently on the OLPC. If MS found a way to get XP to run "decently" on OLPC, then I don't really care which OS is used as long as OLPC doesn't stray from giving children the tools for learning, which Negroponte appears to be totally ditching here! I'm quite sad at this development.
He is, after all, a no-good Windoze Bigot and otherwise computer illiterate - or else he'd be using Linux, now wouldn't he be?
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
Yagotta B. Kidding 14th May 2008
The world has plenty of laptops. The goal was to provide education.

Everything else is means to the end -- and it appears (from those who have gotten the word first hand) that the means have overtaken the ends.
0 Votes
+ -
Gee, are you certain?
No_Ax_to_Grind 14th May 2008
I thought the idea was "One LapTop Per Child". What part of that says it must run Linux?
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, it's a shame Negroponte didn't want this.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 14th May 2008
In fact, I quit when Nicholas told me ? and not just me ? that learning was never part of the mission.

The bait and switch was too much to bear. He generated MASSIVE community support to get the product rolling, but his mission was NOT to build a teaching tool, it was to build an empire. Taking Linux vs Windows out of the equation, the man had a hidden agenda, plain and simple.

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Unless you were instrumental
Ole Man 14th May 2008
In organizing the "goal", you have no more idea what the purpose was than anybody else, and according to all your shilling, you wouldn't have touched it with a pole, let alone be a part of organizing it. Just goes to show, you have no idea what you're talking about, unless you've been telling other than the truth all along.
0 Votes
+ -
All you have to do ....
ShadeTree 15th May 2008
... is read the mission statement on their web page. Funny it doesn'y promote Linux at all!
0 Votes
+ -
No, I do not have to do anything
Ole Man 20th May 2008
I have already read the mission statement, plus many other statements, including, but not limited to, your Microsoft pandering.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
ShadeTree Updated - 16th May 2008
"If OLPC made a billion people grow up with Linux..."

MAKE them use linux? That's not working so well.
0 Votes
+ -
It was a rebuttal
Yagotta B. Kidding 14th May 2008
Pointing out that Microsoft isn't a goal in itself any more than building laptops is. The goal is education, not going into competition with Dell.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you suggesting
No_Ax_to_Grind 14th May 2008
That educational software can't run on Windows? Surely not...
0 Votes
+ -
"Made".... or "Allowed" ?
Ole Man 14th May 2008
Is Microsoft "making" you use Windows? Or "allowing" you to use Windows?

Six of one, half dozen of the other, isn't it? UNLESS YOU WANT IT TO BE OTHERWISE, eh?

We are all aware of how words can be misinterpreted and/or twisted around to imply a different meaning. Don't think you have a patent or monopoly on it, just because you are a part of a monopolist's software.
This wasn't about education or the poor or the advancement of social goals. Unless one counts the advancement of open source as a social goal.

Well, the author of the grant quoted might.

And the distaste for Windows is not about what Windows does or does not do. It is polluted, corrupted because Microsoft is a for-profit business.

So any discussion of OLPC's problems should avoid reference to hardware or software. It must focus on the only issue of importance: whether OLPC's main purpose is to further open source at the expense of the livelihoods of millions. Sorry, at the expense of proprietary software.
0 Votes
+ -
Pure in heart, are we Anton?
Ole Man 14th May 2008
One should put his own house in order before assailing another's house.

One should not throw stones if he lives in a glass house.

I had you in mind when I spoke to No_Facts about twisting words around. You are very good at it, I'll grant you that much.
0 Votes
+ -
Devil's Advocate.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 14th May 2008
Let's change the scenario. OLPC was never about education, it was about getting low price business laptops to the developing world. Negroponte solicits MS, Intel, AMD, and a HUGE community of MS programmers to offer their time, efforts, machines, money in a huge campaign to create a super secure, tight, business desktop that anyoen can use.

Low and behold, once all those folks (suckers) have put in the effort, he announces that he will include the "bussiness" part as an add on, but secretly, he has been soliciting the Open Source community to create something called Sugar, and now that the machine is ready, it ISN"T going to business people, it is going to KIDS as a LEARNING TOOL RUNNING LINUX!?!?. What kind of backstabbing, no good .....

See, it isn't Linux vs Windows, it is using Linux to draw in the work of the Open Source community, let them work their backsides off, then cast them aside. If Negroponte had started with Windows, then there would be no problem. There might not be a usable laptop, but there wouldn't be a large community of people who feel used.

NoAxe, look at the reverse scenario. How disgusted would you be if you had spent 6 months of your free time developing code for the Windows version of the product, only to find out Linux was the hidden agenda all along?

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Philanthropy
Anton Philidor 14th May 2008
Suppose that the device's mission actually was providing computing resources to poor children with no other way to obtain a computer. And suppose that for whatever reason in practice it proved necessary to have a Windows version.

You're working on an aspect of the device which benefits both the Linux and the Windows versions. Though you're an open source advocate.

When you discover that there will be a Windows version, do you continue because of the educational mission or do you stop your effort because there is a Windows version in addition to the Linux version?

Though the complete story may not be available, I have the impression that the main purpose for some of those working on the project was to make Linux use more widespread. And any other goal was secondary.

To me, that's advocacy rather than philanthropy. And the difference is highlighted by the decision to abandon the educational goal in the interest of purity about the type(s) of software allowed.



Suppose that the original OLPC design assumed Windows and a Linux version in addition were authorized. If you favored Windows for philosophical reasons, would you feel justified in quitting the project?

Sometimes the context can change sympathies and sympathies can influence decisions about general ethics.
0 Votes
+ -
You are right.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 14th May 2008
For those working on it, aligned with the "public" goal was open source advocacy. The problem was the apparent hidden agenda. Look, it's as simple as this.

You rally people around you to raise money for Aids research. You get hundreds of Aids groups helping you, their cause is aligned with yours. Once they do the grunt work, raise the money, you, as the chairman, decide that breast cancer will be the new mission. Now, breast cancer is a noble charity, however, you would not have gotten the support from the Aids groups, you would have gotten the original support from Breast Cancer groups. Hence the hard feelings.

It isn't rocket surgery, especially since you have NOT seen Negroponte deny the comments of those who left.

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Suppose furthur.......
Ole Man 14th May 2008
That you are a monopolistic Corporation (for which you are an advocate, by the way) trying your best to crush an annoying little upstart, to the point of publicly railing against them, calling them a "cancer", "viral", and accusing them of theft (without providing an ounce of evidence).

Now suppose the little upstart has completed and provided a low-cost system for the poor, but the monopolist Corporation steps in with their own solution to prevent the use of the little upstart.... should they (the little upstart) ignore the knife in their back, smile, shake hands with the monopolistic Corporation, and say "sure, we'll help you destroy us. We're not smart enough to recognize your tactics"?

Aint gonna happen, Bub!
0 Votes
+ -
No_Facts (and his buddies) have declared it. As long as there is a profit, the ways and means are of NO importance. ANYTHING goes.
0 Votes
+ -
Very confusing
Anton Philidor 14th May 2008
The accusation is apparently that Mr. Negroponte wanted to create a plastic laptop suitable for children in developing countries in order to sell it to businesses in developing countries. If true, he can't be accused of excessive commercial sense.

And then the rant's author does make the statements making open source spread a primary purpose of OLPC as we first heard about it.

But he also writes about a comment from Mr. Stallman:

Oh, for [a clear, moonlit night]'s sake. You really just employed a simile comparing a proprietary OS to addictive drugs? You know, ones causing actual bodily harm and possibly death? Really, Stallman? Really?

If proprietary software is half as good as free software at aiding children's learning, you're [the sand flowing like ocean beneath the wind] right it makes the world a better place to get the software out to children. [The soft sunlight of early morning], if it doesn't actively inhibit learning, it makes the world a better place. The problem is that Stallman doesn't appear to actually give an acrobatic [trees waving branches into bloom in spring] about learning, and sees OLPC as a vehicle for furthering his political agenda. It's shameful, the lot of it.

[End quote.]

I think he had it right this time. What does the later contradiction mean, then?
0 Votes
+ -
confusing?
Ole Man 14th May 2008
You... who dances daintily around words on his tippy-toes, confused by a few simple words by the meek? Or did you mean that YOU had confused THEM?

You know full well that proprietary proponents (money grubbers) have endeavored by any means possible to prevent any competition, and spreading FUD and dancing around words is only one of many in their arsenal of weapons.

What is apparent to you (and me) is not necessarily apparent to others.
0 Votes
+ -
A quote
Nobu_z 15th May 2008
I believe a lot of that was a quote(without quotation marks(")) and the brackets("[]") were his censoring words that were inappropriate to certain people who browse the internet. I assume the quote was from the "rant"(I haven't read it) which most of the quotes in the story were from.

I can easily see where this confused you(It confused me at first) and I still don't know where the quote ends and his own words begin, but I'm fairly certain that he wasn't trying to dance around words, or at least not for the reasons that you might have thought.
0 Votes
+ -
I have read his statements for many moons, and he is very good at substituting, distorting, twisting, and "dancing around words" to suite his agenda, which in almost every instance is to justify and support Microsoft and Corporate big-wigs.

If I've misjudged him this time, it's a very rare occasion, and I apologize, but I don't think I have anything to apologize for.
0 Votes
+ -
He's right
John L. Ries 14th May 2008
On all points. Nothing wrong with porting Sugar to Windows, of course, but OLPC should not be linked to any one vendor, especially not with MS.

If people want to run Windows on their OLPCs, then they can load it themselves. If MS wants to work with OEMs to provide competing systems, nothing wrong with it per se, though it does necessarily conflict with their desire to withdraw XP from the market. The "crippling" requirements, though, are both morally and legally suspect.
0 Votes
+ -
... this guy should have went back and read the mission statement.

http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/vision.php

OLPC was never about open source software. The ones that let the kids down were the ones that quit when there open source religion did not win.
It seems to make an Eee cheaper than with Linux, although with differing hardware it is hard to compare them. I really am beginning to wonder what MS is doing, are they REALLY going to keep offering XP essentially for free for the OLPC, or are they waiting 'til the other options are gone, then yanking the rug out to kill the project? And how can they do these things with the entire world watching to see if they are as monopolistic as they are made out to be? I have to wonder if there isn't some EU lawyer/politico just licking his chops to get this one into court...
And the next question is, where can I get an Eee with Sugar on it, and how cheap can it be made?
I bought one for my son. He is a little young for it yet. I am a "Linux guy" no doubt, but I bought it for the education aspect. I also thought that while he grew into it (read "stopped using everything like a hammer") I could do some work on to write some education software myself. Though I have big plans and not much time. I like the idea that as he grows he can tear apart the software and, unless he decides to go into a modeling career, built it the way he wants to.

The fact that Linux is underneath it all, just means he can do just that. And if he does not choose the modeling career, well he will surely spank all the Windows based OLPC users with his knowledge of how the system works.
The bottom line is the bottom line when it comes to making money in a capitalistic environment.

THE OLPC IS NOT FOR A CAPITALISTIC ENVIRONMENT

It should not be converted into a " capitalistic tool "

( yes, I had to read Marx & Engles in college )

The paradigm that the OLPC was designed for eliminated the need to involve any requirement to run a PAY REQUIRED set of software tools.....or fomenting a desire to acquire such tools.

That was the driving force behind the OLPC. To provide the tools. FREE OF ANY FEES FOR NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.

This is totally opposite of what M$ and it's philosophy of business dictates.

The Proof: How many Win 3.11, DOS and Win95 programs still operate? M$ WANTS you to be forced into an upgrade paradigm. Unless you run a multiple boot system to cover the bases...( which I do )

The answer to the upgrade solution has been FOSS.

I find many programs to be backward and forward compatible over the whole Linux/Unix spectrum.

And when they are not, YOU HAVE THE SOURCE AND TOOLS TO MAKE THE PROGRAMS COMPATIBLE!!

Try THAT with your ( Paid for LICENSE ) M$ product!!

Think about the basics; they will give you insight on how this whole world wide system was created.

M$ didn't create it, they just saw the $$$ in providing tools to exploit it...

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix