thelinuxlink.net

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-res ... entry_view

If the XO turns out to be a platform for spreading the use of proprietary software, its overall effect on the world will be negative.

It is also superfluous. The OLPC has already inspired other cheap computers; if the goal is only to make cheap computers available, the OLPC project has succeeded whether or not more XOs are built. So why build more XOs? Delivering freedom would be a good reason.

I pretty much agree with RMS here. There's about to be an explosion of cheap little notebooks on the market. But I think giving OLPC the credit for this trend is a stretch. Regardless, the availability of cheap affordable notebooks is now a sure thing, with or without the existence of an OPLC, so a true free computing platform is really the only important thing that the OLPC could offer now.

Here's another good piece on this http://ostatic.com/160839-blog/olpcs-op ... ft-deepens

Rms has a point however rms has not stopped gcc from working on windows, to quote from the openbsd lyrics page

Richard felt that this "ports tree" of ours made OpenBSD non-free. He came to our mailing lists and lectured to us specifically, yet he said nothing to the many other vendors who do the same; many of them donate to the FSF and perhaps that has something to do with it. Meanwhile, Richard has personally made sure that all the official GNU software -- including Emacs -- compiles and runs on Windows.

http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43

There's no point being made. Emacs and GCC still respect your freedoms, even if the underlying OS doesn't. The whole thing about the OpenBSD flap was that Stallman only recommends a select few distros like Gnusense that don't include proprietary packages in the package management by default. In this case, Stallman makes perfect sense, while the OpenBSD community misconstrued Stallman's beliefs, and then attacked him in an unsensible manner on their mailing lists. I lost a lot of respect for OpenBSD when I read that exchange, and gained a lot of respect for RMS.

Back to the subject, though. I completely agree that the only usefulness that could come from the OLPC is being a completely open platform. There are already cheap laptops on the market, so it's cheapness doesn't make it unique. The special LCD screen is currently unique, but won't be for long, as the person behind that is at another company. I can't imagine what purpose it's supposed to serve now.

Well even if the olpc ran linux , what's to stop someone putting on windows? There is nothing in the hardware that prevents non-free code.
The originally and in actual fact naive approach was for children in developing countries to have cheap computer with access to the internet.
What needs to be done first of all is for export restrictions to evaporate, these countries need to see grow there own agriculture and sell it abroad to bring in some real money, charity is not helping the cause. Charity makes people reliant and that is not what is good for anyone.

Look at religion the biggest promoter of charity, have caused more conflict, wars and suffering through out the centuries that its not helping.
Now Atheism in the Us government is punished, what do those christians who insist on this torture think they are getting out of their own stupidity?

A few links to the story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26 ... xprod=digg
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/at ... oldier.ap/

allix wrote: Look at religion the biggest promoter of charity, have caused more conflict, wars and suffering through out the centuries that its not helping.
Now Atheism in the Us government is punished, what do those christians who insist on this torture think they are getting out of their own stupidity?

So how are your opinions on religion related to Linux? Maybe you should bring these comments to the Anything goes forum. Please try to stay on topic. This is where we talk about Linux and technology.

RMS should keep his mouth shut sometimes- his type of "Freedom" means exactly jack shit when you are genuinely oppressed or are starving to death. Software freedom is only of concern to those who give a shit about "piracy" and things of that sort to begin with. It is a "designer" problem. When you can be shot for voicing an opinion "having access to the source code so you can tweak it" is a non-concern. When you live somewhere where *all* software is free because *all* software is pirated, "Freedom" is of little concern. "Free" is a laudable goal, but RMS needs to get his head out of the sand - it is a very minor concern for anyone who isn't among the world's most privileged. His constant blathering about his "Freedoms" as if they were essential human rights is short sighted at best. So, yes, while I agree that it would probably be a blow against "Freedom" if the OLPC XO ships with XP, I don't see it as affecting the "big picture" at all. Then again, I've often said that the idea of giving a computer to a starving or nearly-starving person is strange at best and insanity at worst. It's perhaps the most warped example of trying to solve social issues with technology I have ever seen.

/rant

Snarkout, that rant seemed a little over the top. While many people who may get the OLPC are dirt poor, literally, they are not all starving. I've seen some videos spotlighting some villages that are interested in the OLPC. For many of them, they desperately want their children to have an education, but distance to a classroom, transportation to a classroom, building a classroom, finding a teacher, etc... are all real problems. A little computer at least offers a real opportunity for some self-education in these instances.

Quite a few government agencies around the world are going to free software like Venezuela, Cuba, France , Russia , Germany (??).
The argument that free software is a human right is bogus. If Venezuela for instance wrote all their software and did not give anyone the source code , the accusation of spying would be moot and as long as it works , would the people really care? I don't think so.

greggh wrote:Snarkout, that rant seemed a little over the top. While many people who may get the OLPC are dirt poor, literally, they are not all starving. I've seen some videos spotlighting some villages that are interested in the OLPC. For many of them, they desperately want their children to have an education, but distance to a classroom, transportation to a classroom, building a classroom, finding a teacher, etc... are all real problems. A little computer at least offers a real opportunity for some self-education in these instances.

Fair enough, I was in a bitchy mood when I wrote that, and there was some major digression in there. Bottom line is, even when framed the way you have framed it, there is nothing sacred about FOSS in these situations. Those people who need/want an education are probably not going to be better served by "Freedom." Not that XP would necessarily better serve them, either, but it is certainly true that it would put them in a position where they are guaranteed interoperability and are using the same tools thet 90%+ of the rest of the world is using (of course, then there is the viruses/malware/etc issue as well). I just think Stallman would do everyone a service if he focused on the 1st world for his crusades - here at least what he does might make a difference, regardless of my thoughts on his recent behavior. Any jackass who is willing to seriously compare the USA to a fascist regime is a goddamned kook, and believe me, I'm not one to wrap myself in the flag.

The question of freedom is an important one not only for 1st world countries but 3rd world countries too. The ability for a people to shape their future is something that FOSS offers more than proprietary systems. The tools to learn and sculpt are in their hands, not the hands of a foreign, corporate entity who's main concern is profiting their shareholders. FOSS enables growth more-so than Windows from a holistic perspective. Let's face it, the growth of Linux continues and will continue on an upward slope. The entire computing landscape could shift dramatically in the near future resulting in that 90% market share you quote dropping.

The tenants of FOSS enable these countries to run the software as they sit fit, make the modifications they see fit and the assurance that upon distribution, one would get the ability to retain those freedoms.

dann wrote: The tools to learn and sculpt are in their hands, not the hands of a foreign, corporate entity who's main concern is profiting their shareholders. .

Once the software is homemade in its respective country, i am not so sure that foss is so important.

Ah, hell, I'm going to drop this one since I don't care either way and it appears that no one is really "hearing" what I'm saying in any case. I don't think there are very many people in china who are feeling the crushing price blow from their counterfeit MS products, though.

I don't think you should just "drop it." I value having my thoughts challenged, though I do prefer it be done in a respectful way.

Snarkout wrote:RMS should keep his mouth shut sometimes- his type of "Freedom" means exactly jack shit when you are genuinely oppressed or are starving to death. Software freedom is only of concern to those who give a shit about "piracy" and things of that sort to begin with. It is a "designer" problem. When you can be shot for voicing an opinion "having access to the source code so you can tweak it" is a non-concern. When you live somewhere where *all* software is free because *all* software is pirated, "Freedom" is of little concern. "Free" is a laudable goal, but RMS needs to get his head out of the sand - it is a very minor concern for anyone who isn't among the world's most privileged. His constant blathering about his "Freedoms" as if they were essential human rights is short sighted at best. So, yes, while I agree that it would probably be a blow against "Freedom" if the OLPC XO ships with XP, I don't see it as affecting the "big picture" at all. Then again, I've often said that the idea of giving a computer to a starving or nearly-starving person is strange at best and insanity at worst. It's perhaps the most warped example of trying to solve social issues with technology I have ever seen.

Obviously people who are starving are going to have software freedom near the bottom of their priority list, and many of these countries have much bigger issues to deal with. But how does this make software freedom something we shouldn't care about at all? I don't see anyone honestly saying, "yeah, we have to set aside all the other issues of malnutrition, health, and oppression while we work on this software freedom thing." They just say that software freedom is the better option, and that they should use it on the XO instead of using proprietary software. I just don't see anything wrong with that.

Software freedom, to me, seems less a "designer problem" and actually a relevant concern in education. You see software freedom as mere "tweaking" of code, while I see an opportunity for kids to get their hands dirty and learn from examples, perhaps the best way one can learn things. If the kids are stuck learning one company's platform, using one company's tools, and will never see how it all works, you're necessarily limiting what they can learn. How could kids ever learn about basic OS and kernel level ideas if they're stuck with XP? There's an obvious con to going with proprietary software, so what gains do you achieve from it?

I obviously could be mistaken, but sticking kids with XP is a bit like teaching someone to drive a car and buy gas, but never letting them look under the hood to get a better understanding of how it all works. I can understand someone wanting to fight for people's ability to look under the hood and learn all they can.

Like I said, I don't really have the energy or desire to argue/debate this. I don't disagree with any of your points, really, but I do disagree that it's an either/or scenario, and I do disagree that it's more important to get children in dire need of technology free software than any software. Having used the sugar interface, while I agree that it's unusual to me because I was raised with a completely different set of GUI queues, I think it's basically crap, and I think that any child who's learned the sugar interface is going to have the same issue moving to a more standard interface. I agree that having the source is nice - I disagree that it's likely a large number of children anywhere will be digging through the code to learn *how to code*, though. For instance, back in the apple/commodore days you could generally look at the code - my friends and I *did* pick up some tricks from that code, but I'd say that none of us actually learned how to program basic that way - we did the usual trick of reading books and borrowing knowledge from each other. That said, I'll never be a coder, so wtf do I know? At this point I'm basically a packet jockey who also admins some linux servers when I have time or when something goes boom, so perhaps my viewpoint has become horribly warped or skewed.

I felt that same lack of energy and desire when I frequented the "Anything Goes" forum. Particularly when many people seem more interested in dismissing others views than really learning from one another. Just doesn't seem productive. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, though, and did want you to know that someone was at least trying to "get" what you were saying.