Slashdot Mirror
Proprietary Parts in OLPC Project Draw Criticism
An anonymous reader writes "The Jem Report is running a story about the recent controversy surrounding the hardware used in OLPC laptops. Some devices require NDA's to write drivers, and some parts require firmware that cannot be freely redistributed. Richard Stallmann and Theo de Raadt oppose the use of such devices. Jim Getty defends OLPC's choice (de Raadts response). Jem Matzan has interviewed all sides and published the answers."
...doesnt make it law. The OLPC projects goal is to put a laptop into every childs hands, not to create a political statement about free software.
This is a common misunderstanding on Slashdot as well, and is seen every time OpenBSD uses public pressure (after months and years of private e-mail correspondance has failed) to get hardware vendors give hardware documentation (freely, not under NDA) and reasonable distribution rights of firmware. Actually, it is quite sad to see so post extolling the glory of GPL and in the next sentence demands the latest binary only driver.
The chip in question has unique features that no other chip on the market has. Mesh networks and extremely low power consumption.
In other words, good or bad, the part is NOT replaceable without harming the end product significantly.
If there's concern that Marvell (the chip maker) will randomly drop support for their product at one point of time, things should not be left to guesses but this should simply and plainly be covered in the contracts.
I also am susprised at the opinion that OLPC is targeted at OSS community. It has never been isn't and won't be. The goal is efficient, capable product using efficient solutions to solve a concrete proplem, of children having laptops with network connectivity for education, discussions, information exchange, communication and so on.
Don't forget: not everything proprietary is evil. If WindowsCE would provide much better and cheaper solution, OLPC would use it without thinking twice about it. Windows CE in fact *was* considered briefly at a point.
I can very well understand why some device manufacturers and software manufacturers require tight NDAs, but I cannot support that motion.
Why does MS have a de facto monopoly on the OS market? Because their software is the best? Don't make me laugh. Because it is the most stable? *smirk* Because it is the most convenient? *pets Apple*
No. Because everyone grew up with it, knows how to use it and, well, old dogs don't really enjoy learning new tricks.
Now, in Africa, we're back to base one. Anything or anyone could get a hold of people who have never had a computer before and have no preferences because they are "used" to a certain flavor or appearance of the OS. There, every OS, every piece of hardware is on equal ground, provided it's affordable.
NDAs and CS software would start to build the foundation of yet another monopoly there. With OS, it is way harder, CS gives you an edge over your competitors. And once the people get "used" to having this kind of chip or that kind of software on their PC, the lock in has started.
So even if it means only 90 out of 100 kids instead of all of them get a PC, OS is the right way to choose in the long run. Just trying to push a computer into every hand right now is quite shortsighted, simply because with CS you're just handing over yet another market to vendor lock in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Those political views created open source, without which the OLPC project could not achieve its goals."
They couldn't? My how full of yourselfs, you all are. The straightest path for the project may have been OSS, but I seriously doubt that OSS is the ONLY WAY.
Yes. But open source drivers are a BIG step ahead. I _wish_ that all hardware companies would release open source drivers without specs.
I mean, Theo has critized intel for not releasing specs and releasing instead just open source drivers for lots of their products. There're tons of companies that will even sue you if you try to reverse engineer their hardware devices but hey, because we're the OSS leaders and we've nothing better to do, let's critize the companies that do release opensource drivers and no specs, instead of wasting all your efforts into the ones that don't do even _that_.
"I did have working sanitation, an electrical grid, viable farming and transportation infrastructures"... do you notice that any of the elements you are listing cost more than $100 to provide to a child?
Of course you are right, but the point is that we hope to get a lot of bang for the buck with the OLPC project. The laptop could be a great educational tool. Also, books could be provided electronicaly, thus saving on the costs of books and paper, which after a few years of schooling, is not negligeable.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Exactly,
Its not like there is only one wifi chipset vendor, Marvell was picked probably because they offered the lowest price at the beginning of the project. But I can see others offering even lower prices just to be able to profit from the good PR that comes from helping this project.
As Theo pointed out, there are several vendors that offer chipsets with similar functionality AND support open drivers.
And its important to keep this project as open as possible, because it should be like an standart platform. For example, if its cheaper for Brazil, or India, or Argentina, to build their laptops on their own they should be allowed to do so using ANY compatible parts. If you make the WiFi chipset closed, you're forcing everyone to buy from only one vendor.
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
> Which is more disappointing? The present situation, or not being used at all?
Most disappointing would be a project which managed to get many kids to have access to laptops and then start them developing towards doing things.. and then left them with software for which security patches were no longer available, effectively cutting them off from the world they have just been shown. That's exactly the kind of thing which leads directly to social problems with no benefit.
We often think about our laptops as two year investments, in which case unmaintainable software doesn't matter. For this kind of project, which may eat up a large fraction of the education budget for a long time, it's not possible to demand constant upgrades. The use of proprietary hardware without a long term (20 year?) guarantee of support is irresponsib;e.
Worse; this destroys much of the value of the project by making it difficult for the kids to fully learn how their laptops work. Something which could really have spread computer literacy becomes much less valuable than it could have been. We begin to see that the Indian government may have had a point that there are better things to spend money on.
So the OLPC pitch is: "Stimulate your local economy by investing in educational technology that is complete dependent on a small group of programmers in a foreign country." If 1% of users become programmers that is 10,000 (for OLPC's minimum shipment of 1M boxes). Is the v2 software is going to be better written by OLPC's staff or 10,000 programmers who use the software everyday? The OLPC are trying to give countries a fast track onto the information revolution that is driving our economy. Their goal is to create producers not consumers.
It's not as if Marvell is going to pull their technology out of this project after the devices are fielded.
Yes, they will. It is called a "discontinued product", also known as "obsolete".
Theo is asking for documentation on the underlying hardware, in case Marvell decides to no longer support the chipset. That happens all the time, as new products are built and older ones are discontinued. When -- not if -- Marvell decides to no longer provide driver/firmware updates, who is going to support the chipset? If full documentation is available, the OSS community can and, judging by past actions, will.
Considering that this project has the potential to improve education over the entire world, does that not mitigate any other consideration?
No. Hell, if the U.S. decided to invade Sudan, for example, and completely take over -- not the half-assed job they're doing in Iraq, but full-fledged colonialism -- would the potential to improve education, sanitation, infrastructure and nutrition mitigate any other consideration? [Try not to use the word "any" in a context like you did. It can open some horrendous doors.]
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I understand that Marvell apparently cannot free their firmware, since it's not really theirs, but I don't see why they cannot provide the hardware specifications.
Anyway I'm sure there are hardware vendors who can deliver the needed hardware and do it without holding back information, for such a big order as OLPC will make. Missed chances and such...
The goal is portable infrastructure, simple enough that children can learn about computers and learn to develop software systems, and even give Free Software a leg up in under-developed nations. I suspect it was what the tech crowd could do while everyone else was trying to Make Poverty History. One final thought: if you didn't learn to program your 8-bit computer (or whatever the alternative, perhaps it was an OLPC 2B1), would you be a programmer today?
But as my quote showed, an open _firmware_ is being developed for the chip. So there will be open drivers AND open firmware. Again: Am I missing something here?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Computers existed in the United States before Windows you know but their usage didn't explode until Microsoft created an operating system that was easy enough to use for just about anyone to pick up.
Historical revisionism. Computer use was exploding with the Apple II, CP/M and assorted other home computers. M$ was just one of many players. M$ was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and rode the wave when IBM decided to join in.
Thus it being open source or not is irrelevant.
It's the difference between having a local, free market and a foreign, monopoly dominated market. Some people think that's relevant.
---
Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.