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."
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.
That much of the silicon we're building *hasn't even taped out yet* (we're testing FPGA versions before they become ASIC's right now). Yet open source drivers for the hardware are already publically available (e.g. NAND driver, camera driver, SD driver).
- Jim Gettys
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.
RMS and Theo are trying to use this project as a soapbox to further their own political views, and that disgusts me.
Those political views created open source, without which the OLPC project could not achieve its goals.
These are all good people doing good things, and they mostly share the same goals. There's a disagreement over which of the goals is most important, and some of them (Theo) tend to be a little bombastic, but there's nothing to be disgusted about.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
RMS and Theo are good folks to have, to keep us from wandering down a blind alley. In the case of OLPC, their position has caused the launch of a subproject to create free replacements for the proprietary bits.
At the same time, those replacements don't exist yet, and OLPC is constrained (by power and mesh-networking issues) to use the proprietary bits in the meantime, to be able to ship product.
Sounds to me like a good plan: they know they want both laptops and free software, so they're working on a plan to have both. Which is a very healthy approach!
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
RMS has been very civil in our extensive mail exchanges.
Theo de Raadt, on the other hand, has not been civil in the slightest.
Those views did not create open source, they created GNU and the FSF. I was freely exchanging sourcecode with friends and fellow developers long before I had ever heard of either of those two organisations.
Of course you were sharing, just like RMS.
You are right, they didn't create "open source", but they are key to its continued existance.
The problem is that there was a point in time where corporations decided that it was a bad thing, and they started imposing restrictions on that, like NDAs and tough licenses on code.
The FSF was created to protect what you did with your friends, and has the consequence of being useful globally.
> 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.
Gettys says quite clearly that:
"A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip, the Libertas driver, still under development but also fully functional can be found in our GIT tree.
We are having open firmware for the Marvell wireless chip developed by Meraki. I don't know yet what license that code will be released under, though would expect it would likely be one or more of the MIT, LGPL or GPL licenses; but we'll have to think through the usage cases and needs of the communities involved before we can make that choice."
So yes, open and free drivers and firmwares are being developed as we speak. So is this an issue not about what OLPC will use in the future, but about what they are temporarily using at this very moment?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The straightest path for the project may have been OSS, but I seriously doubt that OSS is the ONLY WAY.
Yes, it is the only way, because OSS is *part* of the OLPC project's goals. The project not only wants to provide laptops, it wants to provide *open* laptops, so that kids in impoverished countries can poke into the internals and learn how their computers work, and how to change how their computers work. The project wants to help educate a new generation of programmers and computer scientists as well as provide all of the other educational benefits. OSS is critically important to that goal.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Intel's Classmate PC is beefier than the OLPC - faster processor (900MHz), 1GB of flash (double the current iteration of half a gig), twice the RAM, XP embedded SP2, and costs about $100 more due to the larger processor and memory.
And due to the closed-source operating system, does not provide the same educational potential as the OLPC. Allowing kids to tinker with the guts of the software is part of OLPC's goals, and the Classmate does not achieve them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No, not true.
We already had the alternate firmware project underway.
Theo has not helped the situation in the slightest.