Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Looking to Run Windows on OLPC
pete314 writes "Microsoft has been provided with a number of test models of Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop per Child computers and is trying to get Windows installed on them. The current design runs a custom version of Red Hat's Fedora Linux. Running Windows will take quite a bit of additional memory: the OLPC has 512Mb of Flash, where XP requires a minimum of 1.5Gb storage."
Bundled with level of corruption in OLPC-buying countries it seems pretty scary.
The author of the article (and slashdot) quote the disk space required for XP, but why wouldn't they use XP embedded on a device like this? According to Wikipedia XP Embedded only needs "32MB Compact Flash, 32MB RAM". They should be able to get it running even without using the SD expansion slot (although that certainly wouldn't hurt).
This is Microsoft wanting to get a grip of a future potential market, and locking them in. That's what this is all about; before you know it they get slapped with activating their laptops, DRM-enabled features and what not.
I really hope the OLPC-project wont get seduced by the money Microsoft is willing to put into this, it wont pay off in the long run.
It's clear Microsoft wants to do anything to stop alternatives from spreading; just imagine a future where these OLPCs have sprouted a whole new generation of Linux developers who now write code to feed themselves instead. But they don't know Windows, and Microsoft has an entire continent of PC users who they cannot sell licenses to, while they're writing their own applications building further on an alternative to Microsoft.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
I bet Microsoft gets together a version of Windows for OLPC and then offers it to OLPC users for free or next to nothing. That's how it works, they give you the first copy free and then you get hooked -- pretty soon you're turning tricks in the alley just to get the security updates. I've seen it a thousand times.
512Mb graphics memory is exactly what Vista needs to run properly!
Oh, wait a minute...
As much as I hate Windows, I think it's unfair to imply that it requires so much more than Linux does. I've installed Fedora before and it isn't small - definitely not small enough to fit on a 512MB footprint. But RedHat altered it so that it would require less. Likewise, Microsoft could alter Windows to require less. The big difference is that anyone has the right to alter Linux whereas Microsoft is the only one that can do that for Windows.
Sendou Wave Kick!!
I can't quite imagine how this would work. Windows is a much harder OS to maintain in the long run. All this virus, spyware and adware crap - those poor kids' lives are bad enough without it.
Besides that, I don't trust MS's intentions. I bet they are now working on how to squeeze some money out of this in the future. This is not exactly what I've expected from OLPC.
You might be a tad disappointed then.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of versions of Windows, including Windows Embedded and Windows CE, which run in a lot less RAM and reside on a lot less Flash. And even from the "normal" XP, there are a _lot_ of things which can be removed without the end user noticing much.
Sure, at that point you can still do the retarded thing and go "ha ha, so the full install didn't fit and they had to strip it down", but may I point out that the average Linux distro is even bigger than the full XP? SuSE Linux for example (to use an example from everyone's favourite, Novell) comes on a DVD or more than half a dozen CDs. Compressed. So that wouldn't fit there either.
As for slow, I don't know where you get your data from, but comparing my gaming XP box to my SuSE Linux 10.0 box, XP actually boots faster, and the GUI is quite a bit more responsive than X with either KDE or Gnome too.
I think MicroSoft's best bet at success would be a heavily stripped down version of Windows CE.
It might come as a surprise, but some of the devices running Windows CE actually have less RAM and ROM/Flash than an OLPC. So why would MS need to strip it down?
So please, let's cut it down on the arrogant-fanboy-disconnected-from-reality act. MS does have a lot of faults, but being stupid isn't one of them. They _do_ employ some of the best programmers, and can (and do) throw ridiculous amounts of money at a problem, if they really want to. And both Windows and compilers are something they have two decades of experience with.
They already know how to compile something for size instead of unrolling and inlining everything for performance. It's not like they have yet to discover "wow, there's this 'size' option in the compile options of MSVC."
And they already have the experience with porting and stripping Windows to a variety of platforms. They actually used to have NT versions for pretty much everything including RISC and a few other architectures. The XBox 360 itself isn't an Intel machine either. And there even was a version of CE that ran on the Dreamcast.
The only question is whether they want to, exactly what they want to do there, and how much effort do they want to put into a computer whose price would more than double if they actually sold a Windows OEM license with it.
Then again, they already know how to play the fake-charity card by giving away a 50 cent CD and counting it as the price of a full Windows license generously donated. (In addition to some real charity too, it must be said.) So they could just give away a locked down version of Windows to some kids who otherwise couldn't afford a Windows computer anyway, thus ensuring that a whole generation in those countries grows on Windows and Windows Media Player formats. It's good marketting. _And_ write it off a some hundreds of millions of dollars in Windows licenses generously donated to the poor countries.
On the whole, I wouldn't be surprised if the effort right now isn't getting Windows installed, but figuring out how best to lock it down and how much and what bait they can build into it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
To be fair, it only says that Microsoft want to "make [Windows] available" on the device, not pre-install it. There's no indication whatsoever in the article that Microsoft want to pre-install it, although one could obviously speculate that they'd like to sell units with Windows pre-installed to governments, this is not mentioned in the article.
Whatever I might think of the technical and design features of MS software it does get the job done not to mention it's extreme ubiquity means that knowing how to use windows is a more useful skill than knowing how to use some random other interface.
So you're suggesting that the under-developed world should similarly spawn generations of clueless lusers who "know" the interface (to the degree any interface today is substantively different from another) and measure their knowledge in terms of how fast they can can click and point, or memorising what, by default, is listed on the menus?
Hopefully more companies start taking a long term view of things and donating their products to the third world to prepare for when they become consumers.
Indeed. So the goal of the potent learning tool [designed so that] the emerging world can leapfrog decades of development--immediately transforming the content and quality of their children's learning is to enable them to become consumers? Dunno about you, but I tend to be optimistic when it comes to kids, and trust in the belief that, given the chance, they could grow up to become anything. My guess is that if you asked a randomly-selected child targetted by this program what they want to be when they grow up, they might say something like astronaut, or scientist. Aspiring to become an office drone, or a consumer, happens only at a later age, when you've forgotten your own potential or settled for something less.
Sorry to sound so critical, but your argument has taken Teach a Man to Fish, and reduced it to Teach a Man to Recognise a Fish, and then reduced even further to Teach a Man How to Buy a Fish with his Credit Card. Computers are an increasingly large part of our daily lives. Maybe we should be encouraging people to actually learn something about them and the world they're creating around us, to say nothing of what else is freely available? Or at least give them the opportunity.
As for the article, I'm not surprised, but that doesn't mean I'm any less disturbed by a monopoly with a living history of crushing anything and everything that threatens its bottom line becoming involved with a project that offers freedom and knowledge. Then, again, that monopoly is chaired by a philanthropist, so now worries, right?
As a OLPC contributor (see this) and as a friend of an OLPC staffer, I have to say this is a pointless endeavour. The OLPC staff won't use Windows because it's too insecure, and isn't free.
Remember, they want to send MILLIONS of laptops into the field and avoid downtime caused by viruses, bugs, overflows, etc. The laptops are going to be hardened down quite a bit so even if a user app is exploited the laptop as a whole is still ok. They're using GNU/Linux for more reasons than the fact it costs $0 to license. They have to be able to recover from flaws in the field, of which they want to have precious few of.
And besides, even if Windows were secure, they would have to give away fully functional copies for FREE to make the budget. Even charging OLPC $1 for the license would hurt the budget ($1 * millions of laptops == no good). In short, there isn't really a "market" here other than trying to expose another generation to inferior software.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Windows XPe, as the wikipedia entry at which you point says, is a componentized version of Windows. By striping out components, you can reduce it to the bare minimum - just the strict minimum needed to run Win 32 API with the specific drivers needed for such hardware.
.NET Framework, ASP.NET, IIS, Media Player.
:
And that's where the problem is : Once you've crammed Windows XP inside 32MB of flash, what do you do ?
According to the entry, Win XPe is mostly used for embed device. The kind of device on which you run one single function-specific application, and Win XPe is only here to provide kernel functionnality.
You can use it in ATMs in which case WinXPe is only here to provide a kernel, a graphics driver, an input driver and a network stack. And all you run next to it is a single application that does all the ATM stuff. And nothing else.
Robotics is another even better exemple. Sure it can be cramed into 32MB : because, all you need is a kernel to provide a communication stack and memory management. There's even no display and regular HID devices.
Compared to the Linux world, that's akin to having a system with only a striped down Kernel (with only a couple of necessary drivers compiled in), busybox (to provide all the necessary tools with minimal foot-print) and a micro C-lib and nothing more. All of which you run along a few simplified server inside a router. It's something you could run on This kind of boards.
*BUT* that's *NOT* what the OLPC needs. The OLPC needs to provide a full desktop environment. They a GUI. The need a desktop. They need application to browse the PC, they need graphical wizards to connect to the WiFi mesh. They need a browser, they need a mail clients, and mayber IRC and/or IM too. They need software to display ebooks. They need an office suite that covers most functionality that the kids need to write their own stuff. They need various developing environment (classical C/C++, scripts like Python or Perl, maybe web scripting like PHP) because, all OLPC was initially about was to encourage the kids to hack. Maybe also some multimedia apps.
Not just a single application.
Does this exist on WinXPe ? Yes because it's fully compatible with it's older brother, WinXP Pro. You have plenty of microsoft apps already available that could provide such functionality : Windows Desktop, Explorer, IE7, Outlook express, MSN, XForm viewer, Office, Visual Studio,
But can it all get crammed together inside the OLPC ? Hell no. You'll need a rather beefy setup with eleventeen gazillions of gigabytes just to install this madness. (And that's all functionnality most non-custom Linux distros offer out of the box for a foot-print of only a few gigs).
What the OLPC needs isn't the Microsoft equivalent of an embed linux. What it needs is something similar to Damn Small Linux (or, I guess, what the current customized Red Hat is), id est : most desktop functionnality crammed inside a small space of only a few dozens of MB. *Not* GB.
And thats something WinXPe fails to provide. It only provides the envrionment (kernel, etc.) not all the apps.
If they want to cram WinXPe inside, the would have to put along specialized applications. Applications that already exists in the open-source world, do the needed task nicely, but are NOT made by Microsoft. I would be mostly like just replacing the kernel on the customized Linux distro with a Windows Kernel, and keeping the same apps. And admitting defeat, that they can't provide a fully microsoft alternative.
The closest thing Microsoft could provide is a Windows CE-based solution (and Pocket- / -CE version of office, IE, etc...). And then again it won't be optimal for them because
- Win CE still lacks some functionality that is granted on Linux (hackability, programming and scripting tools in standard with a tiny memory foot print).
-
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Gates has fallen in love with his born-again persona as a human rights campaigner that he hopes everyone will forget was financed by years as a blood thirsty take-no-prisoners capitalist hun pushing zillions of dollars in license agreements on public school districts, threatening open source projects, patenting protocols, bullying and buying out competitors etc.
And so now he's so far into his own navel gazing delusion that he thinks XP is a good fit with the OLPC project. Oh wow man, he's just like up there with Ghandi and Jeebuz, aint he? What a joke of a man. It just goes to show you that money is indeed quite like a drug. The dude is HIGH.
Oh sure, he's the principle funder of the BSA by day but . . but, but by night he's the Poverty Fairy. Whoo.
If Windows is installed on the OLPC laptops, then we'll have to also get antivirus, anti-spyware, anti-adware and perhaps a few system recovery apps. There will also have to be a Windows key on the keyboard, which in my view, may be a stopper right there.
I am afraid that if OLPC machines are distributed throughout the Third World and Windows is the OS, we may see a global conflagration. We better be prepared to train a few million of the world's poorest people to be Support Techs. Microsoft might be willing to donate a few million MSCE training DVDs.
If we took the cost of the Iraq War for six months, we might be able to improve these folks' situation enough that in a year or two they could afford to buy their own PC parts from Tiger Direct and put it together themselves, just like God intended.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm a big fan of FOSS in general but concerns about free code, open standards and the like are first world luxuries that really aren't important compared to getting these people better lives. If I could take a whole african country out of poverty in return for shutting down the copyleft lliscenses all together I would do it despite how much it would suck for me.
You don't sound very bright with that reasoning.
Copyright issues do harm actual people.
I live in Uruguay, and while now the economy is improving, we had a big recession, so we can't afford to waste money.
Our government agencies use Microsoft software almost exclusively for their desktops, and a lot for development. They have great lock-in, and it's very difficult to even propose a change.
The DGI (our version of the IRS) requires the use of a
Proprietary software has consequences down the line, it's not just a thing of abstract freedom. The freedom we could have with free software
That is an added tax on the people themselves, and that's millions of dollars that leave the country, instead of being invested here.
We are a third world country, although probably near the top of that heap. Proprietary software is one of the many anchors that keeps us down. If we could make all the software free, we could be spending licenses money in our own capable software people, and the rest, in social programs, that are still very lacking here.
For the purposes of this project, Open Source is as much a non-negotiable requirement as low power consumption. The intention is to produce a whole generation of computer-literate people. This requires that they have access to the internals, in order to learn to work with the hardware and software. Anything else would just be creating dependency -- and it would be wrong on many levels for the West to try to keep the Third World dependent.
Of course this means that there will be a whole generation of programmers who will never have known of any development methodology besides Open Source. Isn't that a good thing? Closed Source is no more or less than electronic slavery. Its time -- if it ever had one -- has been and gone.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
To be fair, it only says that Microsoft want to "make [Windows] available" on the device, not pre-install it.
Here's my theory: MS wants to create a version of Windows for these devices, which it can let out into the wild, where it will be relentlessly pirated. They hope that the first thing that people do with their shiny new OLPC is zap the Linux install and dump Windows XP Micro (or whatever) on there instead -- even if it's pirated. It may not make them any money immediately, but it might give them a future customer, or at least prevent someone from growing up as a Linux user.
Or maybe, rather than relying on piracy, they could co-opt governments and teachers as a way of forcing Windows down onto students' computers. They'd "give" "free" copies of Windows (taking it as a charitable contribution no doubt) to schools, along with some sort of incentive package. Maybe a free 'real PC' for the teacher, running a full version of Windows. It would have educational software on it, but in order to be useful, all the students would need to be running the Windows OLPC version. So they can effectively leverage schools to use their power to eliminate Linux and replace it with Windows, even if Windows is less functional for the students themselves. All they have to do is make it a sweet enough looking deal for the government or administration, which they can easily do by making it look like a substantial "gift" on paper -- even though most of that dollar value will be in software. A "free" $99 copy of Windows has to be better than a $0 copy of Linux, right?
I had more hopes for OLPC when Microsoft was just ignoring it. Microsoft's attentions are like the Eye of Sauron -- you really don't want it resting on you for any length of time, and when it does, it probably means something bad is going to happen.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
*Balmer dreams:* Imagine a world where every single child in the 3rd. world has a windows machine with visual studio preinstalled and is learning .NET programming!
Imagine a *billion* developers working for 20 Cents per hour!
Imagine us (M$) developing Vista(tm)2 for under 2000 Bucks....
*Balmer wakes up*...
Oh no! They will have Linux on their OLPC's
*dials Microsoft R&D*...Hello, Steve here...no, forget Vista stability, get a few OLPC's and load up windows on them...512MB??!?
well, throw out some of the garbage, they wont pay for it anyway.
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
Wrong! Price is irrelevant; the only consideration is that the device must be hackable by the user. The developers of the OLPC are insisting on Free Software specifically because they want the kids to have the four freedoms; no more, no less.
By the way, if you don't believe me consider this: the OLPC people rejected Mac OS X even when it was offered for free (i.e., zero cost).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You were being funny, but you're right. Microsoft cares about this for exactly one reason: giving kids Free Software is a threat.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz