Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Takes On the OLPC
A number of readers sent us links to a BBC story on Microsoft's plan to provide the "Microsoft Student Innovation Suite" for $3 to governments around the world, for use in schools. The suite contains Windows XP Starter Edition and Windows Office Home and Student 2007, along with other educational software. To qualify, a government would have to provide free PCs to schools. Microsoft's stated goal is to double the number of PCs in use (and running Windows). An unbiased observer might wonder about an agenda of slowing the OLPC project and the spread of open source in general.
Hardware requirements? Need to dump old 'inventory' for a tax break? No compelling features?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So no Third World Countries can get MS software super cheap - just like before, but now with real licenses! Hooray. Also, they will need to spend $x more on hardware! On the otherhand, they can go with the variety of people working very hard to provide them cheap hardware and free software. Tough Choice.
One could make the argument that you're not unbiased.
However....even paranoids have enemies, and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
It innovates nothing but new ways of taking money from computer users while frustrating them in what they want to do. /2p
I don't understand how this "observer" would be unbiased. If he sees a grand conspiracy, he's not unbiased.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
I guess Microsoft doesn't want these schools to teach any programming classes. This bundle is great for someone just looking for a good typewriter.
Seriously, if Microsoft's motives were entirely philanthropic, don't you think that they would use their very large and powerful cone of influence to provide these schools with some cheap hardware? I'll bet some folks at Microsoft have a few contacts at a few major OEMs who might just help them out if pressed...
My blog
Are you a shill, or just incredibly stupid and/or naive?
Microsoft has stated repeatedly that Open Source is the enemy and in so many words. If you missed that, you are simply not informed enough to be qualified to contribute to this discussion.
Now, Microsoft is saying that they are prepared to work with Open Source. But based on Microsoft's past record of falsehood, fraud, abuse of their monopoly position, price fixing, illegal dumping and bundling, and the laundry list of other complaints, you would have to be some kind of idiot to trust them now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Finally we find out the *real* value of Windows and Office: about $2.75, leaving another twenty-five cents to cover the "other educational software."
Sounds about right to me.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
As for OLPC, I doubt they want to slow the project -- they want to make the pie bigger and OLPC will help them do that. They would, however, like to make sure that those children eventually migrate to Windows, which is where the $3 SIS comes in.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
A better comparison than OLPC might be with Edubuntu since we're talking about providing software to run computer labs. And Microsoft does have something to worry about here -- Edubuntu is steadily improving alongside Ubuntu, and as a simple and easy way to set up an educational computer lab it is almost unparalleled. Not only does it have an easy to set up terminal server system, but it comes with a large array of educational applications out of the box. That makes it a very attractive option, as you get a complete lab setup and educational application suite shipped to you for free. Between this and OLPC I suspect MS is starting to worry about its position in developing countries where children are going to increasingly grow up largely using Linux in one form or another.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Okay, OS+Software for $3. But the school has to provide free PCs to the schools using the deal. Sooooo...where does the PC come from? Or am I not supposed to not ask that question and just blindly applaud Micro$oft for their generous offer?
Any old $200 to $300 PC will work, right? Oh, wait, the OLPC is currently $150, or something like that.
Eh.
Bearded Dragon
Okay, that's $3 per PC, but you have to bring your own PC... which is, what, $500 w/o case, keyboard, mouse, or monitor? Mini-itx.com and damnsmalllinux.org have $110 EPIA 5000 boards, but $110 is $10 more than the famed $100 OLPC and you still have to get memory, storage, power, case, keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
The OLPC you get all the hardware, all the software, for a very very low price.
If you're a struggling country, what would you get? A $100-per-unit all-in-one, or $500-or-more-plus-three-bucks-per-unit system that does the same thing?
Come on, Microsoft! We've already done cheaper than that! ETRYAGAIN.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
It's interesting that the summary only surmises what an unbiased observer might wonder, whereas you claim to speak for all unbiased observers. You are clearly a Microsoft fanboy, therefore not an unbiased observer. I don't believe it takes a 'free software zealot' to realise that this move is as a direct result of the OLPC efforts. Microsoft are rightly worried they're going to miss out, losing market share to FLOSS. I would be worred if I were defending an outdated business model with an uncertain future too.
The BBC is pretty unbiased when it comes to technology and they made the comparison between this and the OLPC, or did you not bother to read the article? Even if they aren't unbiased they're certainly not 'free software zealots'.
Whilst it's unfortunate that you're a Microsoft fanboy I do applaud your spelling of the word 'arse'.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Absolutely! The most important reference is the Halloween Documents. Especially interesting (if you don't want to read the actual documents) is the following bit from Microsoft's Official Response to the Halloween documents. I refer specifically to this bit:
"Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?"
"A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards, of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the foundation on which further innovation can be based."
You don't see Microsoft own up to Embrace-and-Extend very often (although they did it in marketspeak...)
Also interesting, right from my first wikipedia link, "Document X
An e-mail from consultant Mike Anderer to SCO's Chris Sontag, also known as Halloween X: Follow The Money. Among other points, describes Microsoft's channeling of US$ 86 million to SCO."
So right they're they were funding the assault on Linux. Although we all see how that has been working out; it's mostly cost IBM a lot of money and provided a lot of entertainment.
You might also read Ballmer: 'Open source is not free'.
You could go back in time and read a commentary on Ballmer's assertion that Linux is like cancer, although that was just an idiot repeating something someone told him about the GPL once.
And ahhhh, here we go, this is one of the articles I've been looking for all this time. Google really needs to deprecate the blogosphere in pagerank, it makes it quite impossible to find old articles because most bloggers are too stupid to cite properly. Ballmer sees free software as Microsoft's enemy No. 1. And keep in mind that Microsoft signed the Novell deal in order to attack Linux: "Ballmer said in a question and answer session at a technology conference that Microsoft signed the deal because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and it wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation"."
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And the person I replied to could have commented without saying anything incredibly fucking stupid, but we don't live in a perfect world, now do we? By the way, I don't find my language offensive. There is no objective standard of what is and is not offensive. So you might as well stick your objection up your ass sideways, and whistle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wow! You really drank the Microsoft kool-aid! Let's dissect your statement and find out if it stands up to the ultimate test: that of factuality.
Assertion one: If its the same price, the governments would be best suited to choose Microsoft.
First, it is not the same price. It is $3 more expensive per unit. The OLPC project is charging for the hardware, not the software. So your statement is foolish since it is clearly not the same price.
Second, it is not clear that even a stripped-down version of Windows XP would run properly on the OLPC. The XO Laptop has a 433 MHz Geode LX processor, which is an architecture known for its low IPC (as compared to other x86-compatible processors of this era.) It has only 256MB RAM and 1GB flash storage. Windows XP is not capable of operating in 256MB without swapping heavily, which would destroy the flash memory. You CAN run Windows XP on a system this slow, or even slower. But it will run like dookie.
Third, there are a number of reasons not to use Microsoft. I will not go into them now, we all know what they are whether we agree with them or not. But there are basically no compelling reasons for Windows to be used for this purpose. And in fact, there are no compelling reasons to ever run Windows except interoperability with Windows. And that is becoming less and less of an issue all the time.
Assertion two: The software works
I find this to be the most hilarious of your assertions. Windows is a gigantic pile of junk. It is utterly, laughably unreliable. It is extremely poorly documented, and there is no way but reverse-engineering to find out what many of the settings in the registry and config files are for. In fact, without using a registry monitor, you have no idea that some of the settings are even possible, because they are undocumented and the keys are not created unless they are needed.
Windows is not the fastest operating system. Windows does not support the most hardware. Windows is not most secure, or even secure - it is insecure by design and nothing short of a complete security audit (which Microsoft claims is in progress) could fix the problems. And if you did one, you'd probably break all backwards compatibility.
Oh wait! That's the story of Windows Vista! Which has already been shown to also be insecure, many times over.
Assertion three: just about every company uses it
I hope you are aware that Linux is the only operating system consistently gaining market share in the server market. It's good for a wide variety of purposes for which Windows is severely deficient. About the only thing Windows has ever been better than Linux at was serving static pages - and then we got kernel-level HTTP acceleration in Linux. Now there's nothing.
Also, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do the same?
I've used Linux pretty much everywhere I've worked. I have to admit, this is the first time I didn't feel I needed a Windows box. I do actually still run Windows, because I haven't yet found an alternative to Crystal Reports, and WINE's ODBC is pretty crap still (not that I could necessarily do any better.)
But I don't feel I need a Windows box! And these schoolkids need one even less.
Assertion 4: Its best for the customers.
Right. Because what customers want is DRM, a "security" scheme that asks them for confirmation every time they pick their nose, and utter instability. Those are really features that will help them. Granted, some of that is a Vista feature - but that's the "upgrade" path from Windows XP. Your proposal is that instead of educating a gener
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I guess the name of this program lets you know how much the coin of "innovation" has been debased, that this kind of stunt dares call itself "innovation".
I do hope when MSFT and the BSA tell us how much money is lost to the scourge of piracy in the future, they price out the software in this bundle at $3 a copy.
-=Maggie Leber=-
I don't know what kind of profit is "slight", but at that price they won't be able to compete in the free market against Third World street vendors.
I live in Brazil, where you can buy a copy of XP for R$5, which is about US$2.50 at today's rates. This includes the CD with a plastic cover and a printed sheet with the activation key. Think of that, someone can copy a CD in his home PC and sell it at a lower price than the biggest software vendor in the world can do in a worldwide production and distribution scheme.
If Microsoft really wanted to distribute Windows with charitable intentions, they could do it without financial loss at less than $1 per copy.