So, Microsoft has managed to get in on the OLPC bandwagon and put XP in front of millions of eyeballs in the developing world. But is this move about the children's education, or it is about recruiting more Windows users.
What's important to note is that Microsoft isn't making XP available for free since there's a $3 licensing fee, and systems that will have a Windows/Linux dual boot will contain additional hardware costing roughly $7. That's quite a price burden for a system that was initially supposed to cost $100 (or have people forgotten that).
I really can't understand why anyone would spend extra money to have Windows XP installed on a system that's ultimately supposed to be as cheap as possible. I thought the idea behind the OLPC was to put a functional tool that aided learning in front of children in developing countries, and not turn it into a commercial project that pushed proprietary software.
But if I'm turning this post into a rant (and why not, it's Friday) then comments made by Ivan Krstic (former OLPC security developer) on his blog make it clear that learning wasn't what the OLPC was about even for Nicholas Negroponte:
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; to say anything about learning would be presumptuous, and so he doesn't want OLPC to have a software team, a hardware team, or a deployment team going forward.
Doesn't seem like it was ever about education, it was about the laptops. Might as well just rename the project "One Copy of XP Per Child."