Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and OLPC Agree To Put XP On the XO Laptop
Apro+im points out a NYTimes report which states that Microsoft and the OLPC project have officially agreed to put Windows XP on the XO laptop. While Microsoft has been working toward this for some time, analysts began to think a deal was more likely after Walter Bender resigned from the project and was replaced by Charles Kane. Former OLPC security developer Ivan Krstic had a lot to say about Windows on the XO as well. From the Times:
"Windows will add a bit to the price of the machines, about $3, the licensing fee Microsoft charges to some developing nations under a program called Unlimited Potential. For those nations that want dual-boot models, running both Windows and Linux, the extra hardware required will add another $7 or so to the cost of the machines, Mr. Negroponte said. The project's agreement with Microsoft involves no payment by the software giant, and Microsoft will not join One Laptop Per Child's board. 'We've stayed very pure,' Mr. Negroponte said.
Off the OLPC website:
"XO is built from free and open-source software. Our commitment to software freedom gives children the opportunity to use their laptops on their own terms. While we do not expect every child to become a programmer, we do not want any ceiling imposed on those children who choose to modify their machines. We are using open-document formats for much the same reason: transparency is empowering. The children--and their teachers--will have the freedom to reshape, reinvent, and reapply their software, hardware, and content."
From your own link:
"OLPC should be philosophically pure about its own machines. Being a non-profit that leverages goodwill from a tremendous number of community volunteers for its success and whose core mission is one of social betterment, it has a great deal of social responsibility. It should not become a vehicle for creating economic incentives for a particular vendor. It should not believe the nonsense about Windows being a requirement for business after the children grow up. Windows is a requirement because enough people grew up with it, not the other way around. If OLPC made a billion people grow up with Linux, Linux would be just dandy for business. And OLPC shouldn't make its sole OS one that cripples the very hardware that supposedly set the project's laptops apart: released versions of Windows can neither make good use of the XO power management, nor its full mesh or advanced display capabilities."
(bold added by me)
I hope MS pays you by the quantity of your shilling rather than the quality.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
OK. I'm going to repeat a story I've been telling here for almost four years. If you've heard it, just move along.
When I lived in Thailand (2000-2004), FLOSS was really picking up steam there. The government had a program to promote it and move all its servers and desktops over to Linux within five years (IIRC). NECTEC was even developing a "national OS" called LinuxTLE. It was in every tiny bookstore and in every hypermarket's computer section.
Then MS came in -- I'm assuming after a BSA-style audit -- and told the Thai government that MS would pardon all the gov't piracy and give them blanket licenses for all existing computers for free. I'm also assuming there was an "or else."
In the end, the Thai government reversed its stance and killed the FLOSS movement there with strategic comments meant to cover their asses -- things like "Linux is not ready for real-world use" and "the OSS development method can't produce quality software."
The clincher? The licenses were all for Win98, which MS EOLed less than a year later.
Put identity in the browser.
Not just the bigger card.
Nicholas Negroponte, OLPC chairman, told vnunet.com at the NetEvents conference in Hong Kong on Saturday: "I have known [Microsoft chairman] Bill Gates his entire adult life. We talk, we meet one-on-one, we discuss this project."We put in an SD slot in the machine just for Bill. We didn't need it but the OLPC machines are at Microsoft right now, getting Windows put on them."
So that additional cost was mandated by Microsoft from the start.http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2170267/update-green-party-labels
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
That's not correct. You can no more run a non-profit without a surplus (in other words a "profit") than you can any other enterprise. It'd be too financially risky to give yourself no slack, and too financially irresponsible to spend your slack wildly at the end of the year.
If you've ever looked at a non-profit financial statement, the difference from a for-profit is that "Owner's Equity" on the balance sheet is called "Retained Earnings". And that indicates the fundamental difference, which is not so much a matter of how the organization budgets (although that is somewhat different), or the kinds of revenue raising activities it undertakes (which is less different than you might think), as it is purpose. For-profit enterprises exist to generate value for, then distribute that value to, the owners. Non-profit enterprises exist to perform a mission, although that can be to create value for some target beneficiaries.
Just as for-profit enterprises feel they need a mission to generate profit efficiently, non-profit enterprise need profit to pursue their mission effectively. If you run out of cash, or if the creditors are beating down the door, you can't change the world.
The mission of a non-profit is usually charitable or educational, but not necessarily. A non-profit can be formed for the private benefit of the people creating it, for example some types of cooperatives. The "Best Western" hotel organization in the United States is a non-profit cooperative. The REI outdoor sporting goods stores are a non-profit cooperative that is nearly indistinguishable from a for-profit; the difference is that the dividends paid to members are based on the members' purchases. It is not a reward for investment, it is a repayment for spending more than the minimum than could be charged sustainably.
And, in the end, it is all about sustainability. A "mission", for a for-profit business, is a necessary evil. You could generate revenue in a completely opportunistic way, and it often pays to be somewhat opportunistic, but ultimately no organization can be good at everything, nor can it court everyone as customers.
Profit, for the non-profit enterprise, is likewise a necessary evil. OLPC could charge less for each PC, and get more into the hands of students as long as their cash held out which would not be for long.
So, in many ways, you run a charity (which is what we are talking about here) just the same as business. Oh, you have people who just give you money, but most of that money is what is called "encumbered"; it's no different from being a consultancy that gets an up-front payment for some service they are going to provide. You don't book it as income until the work is done.
This means you consider exactly the same factors a business does when you make a strategic decision. The difference is this: in a push-comes-to-shove scenario, you choose maximizing mission over maximizing profit. For you, the profit is there to support the mission; for a business it is the other way around.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think this is a *huge* sellout and I don't have any respect for it. None, whatever the explanation.