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.

18 of 530 comments (clear)

  1. Give it to them for free by idiotwithastick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Microsoft really cared about education so much, why wouldn't they just give Windows to the OLPC project for free? $3 may be a lot when you multiply it by the numbers of copies that will be sold, but that's still less than 1/30 the price of a retail copy of Windows, and their brand image would probably improve as a result.

    1. Re:Give it to them for free by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have to get kids in the third world used to cutting Microsoft in on every transaction in their lives.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Give it to them for free by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without trolling for MS fans, and without faulting any of the philanthropic gifts from the Gates Foundation, I can honestly say that I don't think that Microsoft as a company is concerned about these kids' education. I think they are more concerned about training new users to use MS rather than linux, and with keeping 90%+ of desktop OS market.

      What really pisses me off is that including XP on these things will increase the cost directly and indirectly ($3+$7) a total of 10% of the target $100 price of the laptop. It's taken a lot of hard work to put something together that is workable and to get the price down to the $200 it is at now. If they license at $3/copy, and are successful enough to get it on a million laptops, they've grossed $3 million ... which is nothing to them. So why bother?

      You're right. Their corporate image would look a lot better if they just said 'Okay, here, install it all you want, this is on us.'

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    3. Re:Give it to them for free by EvilRyry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The project really has deteriorated with this news. An organization that sets out to change the world and abandons one of main principals will get no support from me.

    4. Re:Give it to them for free by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also abandons the innovative software that thousands of volunteers have poured their time into advancing. Instead of getting a super-simple windowing system adapted to the needs of the users and the hardware, they get a bloated OS that doesn't work with the laptop and is customized to keep IT workers rolling in money for years to come.

      But most importantly, they just told all of their software developers to shove off. Well done Negroponte. Well done.

    5. Re:Give it to them for free by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And even that works in favor of MS.

      Devs disillusioned about OLPC, so they leave the project. OLPC project without devs, so it will bomb. One problem less for MS where they might have lost some market share, and the last thing MS needs is hardware in wide use that struggles to run their bloatware. It might tell people they're better off with a system that needs fewer flashy gimmicks to do what they want to do.

      Sure, the people in "underprivileged countries", who were the alleged original beneficiaries of the whole project are losing out. But ... oh why should we care, their spending capacity is abysmal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Give it to them for free by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There you go with the hyperbolic language.

      This is OLPC's vision;

      The core principal that's repeated often about the project is that it's an education project not a laptop project. Part of delivering on that idea is the open source platform. Microsoft's vision is to lock the developing world into their expensive platform. Why else would they be doing this?
      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:Give it to them for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you and the parent posters even read the article? Microsoft didn't approach OLPC, OLPC approached Microsoft. The reason OLPC approached Microsoft is because it turned out there was very little interest in a laptop running Linux; most buyers (governments) wanted Windows.

      At least from this article, Microsoft don't appear to have made any claims that they're offering Windows for the XO for any reason other than customer demand for it. Why give it away? Do you think the other components used in the OLPC are being sold to OLPC at a loss? If not, why should the OS be sold at a loss?

      In the context of a $200 price (which, according to the article, is the actual price -- $100 is an eventual target), $3 isn't much at all, especially if it turns the $200 machine from something so useless that buyers aren't even interested into something that actually meets a need.

      The focus on open source would make sense if the goal was only to teach children how to develop software, but most people who use computers in day to day life aren't writing software. Most XO users won't become software developers, and what's more important than being able to read source code is being able to develop IT skills that will help their economies develop. In blunt terms, that basically means learning to use the Windows platform.

  2. Phew by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was a close call. For a while there was a threat that emerging countries could grow into the computer world with a fast, reliable and stable platform to develop on.

    Now we drag them down to our level!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. what is windows going to provide? by nawcom · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IE 7? Office 2007? (in someone's dreams) .NET? (.NET's virtual machine is probably too much to run on OLPCs) If anyone knows what the features are in running windows on these laptops, let me know.

    I used to be a Negroponte fan, but since he allowed the MS move in this project he designed, I am no longer. No, it's not because I'm anti-MS, it's because I thought that this project wasn't a place for competition with commercial software. If MS wants to help out, the should do what Steve Jobs did with OS X: Offer it for Free. No deals, no licensing BS.

  4. A total loss of focus at OLPC by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. ... [cut] ... The project's agreement with Microsoft involves no payment by the software giant.

    What? That's totally ridiculous. It means that the XO becomes nothing more than a vehicle for transfer of money from 3rd world children to Microsoft.

    Whoever thought that idea up at OLPC has shit for brains.

    Microsoft should be *PAYING* for the privilege of getting its O/S installed on a machine to which it contributed absolutely nothing during development, and which will become an instrument of propaganda for Microsoft among the children of the world.

    OLPC guys, you've really dropped the ball on this one, and forgotten that the XO was not intended as a normal western product for exploitation of consumers.
    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  5. Re:"extra hardware"? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why does dual boot require extra hardware??

    To make sure the one with Linux costs more...

    --
    That is all.
  6. Sad news by chord.wav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I Can't believe people, even inside Microsoft, can see this as a good thing. This is like McDonalds bullying and lobbying to make the BigMac the preferred choice for UN's world food programme, and succeeding. And having people like Negroponte not mad about it just makes me think there's little to no hope.

  7. That's the last nail by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    congratulations, it's dead. Can OLPC be saved from Negroponte?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. Re:Maybe by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    this could extend XP's life a little longer until a non-shitty version of Windows comes out?

    I believe MS has finally set an appropriate value on their OS. $3.00 is a fair price.

    Now governments of the world should mandate a price cap for all versions of XP, based on that value. Otherwise Microsoft is using price dumping to drive out competitors, an illegal tactic for a monopoly.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  9. exactly correct by r00t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Folks, this guy is +42 Extra Super Insightful.

    Dual-boot will be developed to pacify some OLPC supporters. It will never ship.

    Likewise, Sugar will be ported to Windows. It too will never ship. Nobody wants it: not the we-want-Windows government officials, not the free software fans, and certainly not Microsoft. Look at Java and JavaScript if you want to know how Microsoft feels about somebody slapping a portable API or ABI over top of the Microsoft-controlled ones.

  10. If I worked on this I would be pissed off by spitzak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of people have just wasted a vast amount of time contributing software to this device. They could have said this was the plan from the start and maybe those people could have concentrated on hardware drivers or interesting Windows software for it. Instead an awful lot of man years of contributed effort is wasted by this moronic decision (no, not the decision to switch to XP. The decision to, for years, lie about what direction they were going, apparently to garner publicity).

    I really am sickened by this.

  11. That sinking feeling we all got by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know that feeling you got when Walter Bender left the project over a disagreement with Nicholas? That "Wozniak has left the building" feeling? Turns out we were right.

    I think we can safely say that this has nothing to education of the third world or software idealism or even free market economics but is simply a nasty little case of cronyism and under the table deals. Nicholas is a board member and OLPC is a nonprofit. Last time I checked board members of nonprofits don't draw a salary.

    This is the thing I hate about our current system. See, it would be one thing if they just flat out stated what they were doing, "It's in our corporate best interests to make sure that everyone learns to use our software, so we're going to make this cheap laptop and put Windows on it and sell it to third world kids." I would actually have a little grudging respect for that.

    But no, once again the system has eaten up idealism and spat out lies and manipulation. Most people involved in this project were idealists who thought they were bringing something good and pure into the world. Many of them were devoted to open source. And they just got fucked, and the motherfuckers who did it to them are laughing all the way to the bank.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton