if you had seen and used the XO, you might be more understanding. The XO is not a threat to Intel since it is designed for primary school kids and can only help grow that market for Intel's more powerful chips BEYOND primary school. What stunned me about this article as that Peru had already decided the XO was the best device for primary school kids and asked Intel to bid on the secondary school kids device. You know, once the primary age XO users move on into secondary school, they'll need a bit more powerful( CPU, memory, etc ) device. But instead of looking at the XO as a way to start their market growth and be happy with the secondary and beyond markets, the Intel saleswoman aggressively went for what wasn't even asked for, she tried to bid on the already made primary deal.
So even after a few instructions to Intel Classmate PC sales executives telling them to tone down the competition with the XO, a high ranking salesperson does just that? What kind of money is Microsoft putting behind this in commission fees to push someone to go so far out of her way to try and lose one contract in hopes of killing off an XO contract already made?
Oh, you probably don't know that Microsoft is behind the Classmate PC and yes, Bill Gates has stated many times to the public and press that he thinks the XO is a terrible idea and device. Microsoft and Intel quickly through the Classmate PC out there and claimed it was a comparable product. So I would not doubt that there is probably 100's of thousands of dollars in commission behind a Classmate PC win over an XO client.
I also hope the press and public roasts Intel for being such assholes with a non-profit organization. Business or no business, attacking non-profits can cause major brand recognition issues. When "Intel Inside" becomes a black/blue eye on a childs face, they'll think twice about this Classmate PC thing. And I hope someone gets fired for this because for one, she screwed over Intel's shareholders by losing the deal she was supposed to be bidding on.
It was/is Nigeria which all the ruckus was about with regards to Microsoft funding the removal of OSS from the ClassmatePC's they ordered with Linux. Peru is where they are deploying and as you mentioned, there was a nice story recently about it:
I've not seen the complete implementation plan/life cycle for the project but IIRC, they were planning on handing out the laptops to the kids and teachers along with some basic instructions and let they learn the devices and figure out how to integrate them into the curriculum. But, one of the latest deliveries seemed to suggest that there is a support crew going with the initial shipments and that there was some special teacher training occurring.
I too would love to see a complete front to back plan for the project but it could very well be that like many OSS project, things grow from experience and everyone learns and grows from what others are doing. I don't know for sure how it's planned out but some of the people behind the project are not out of touch with reality and have the intelligence to make choices when improvements are needed.
It does appear they are smart enough to not be parachuting this into middle of the Sho in the Kalahari desert along with a bottle of Coca Cola. But hey, they might actually be ready for it by now.;-)
do you even have a clue that there are people who actually have a food supply and clean water already but have a poor education system currently in place? Not everyone is shitting in their own water supply. And of some how, one of those get a OLPC device, they probably float so they can just open it up, shit on it, and keep the shit out of the water as you seem is so important to every man, woman, and child in the world.:-/
As far as THOSE people you seem to be fixated on goes, yes, getting them the skills to exist with atleast the basic human needs/essentials is better than hand outs.
WTF? Do think for one minute Microsoft and Intel care about educating the poor around the world? For crying out loud, these clowns only stuck their dirty hands into this once they saw that it could threaten their profits. Both Microsoft and Intel publicly attacked the OLPC project before, during and after they came up with their own project to kill this one off. And be sure, if OLPC were to close shop today, Microsoft and Intel's project would be closed down if there were no competition for it.
These two companies are purely reactionary to any efforts to bring in expensive hardware and software to the market and there is plenty of proof of this already out there.
And sure, Nicholas Negroponte should feel good about attempting to do some good. WTF is wrong with that? Didn't you read the story of his years of visiting a poor village and attempting to find ways to help them help themselves? Where's Microsfts history of this? Where is Intel's history of this? All we see from these clowns is constant attacks on projects which just so happen to be better fit to leverage Linux and OSS as opposed to Microsoft Windows and their proprietary software.
So get real, this is about a guy attempting to use a technology based tool to improve some peoples lives or the lives if their kids. It is also a story of how these efforts are being countered by financial bohemoths because they could be a threat to their future profits. And when I say countered, I mean they are spending millions to fight this project and using every trick in the book.
It will surely end up being evaluated for how corporate greed tangles with those intended to help people via non-profit organizations or other means. IMO.
And if Bill Gates, Microsoft and Intel think the OLPC project is so stupid an idea, why don't they just let it go and watch it fail instead of putting together a device which doesn't even match 1/2 of the design goals of the XO. Why does Microsoft have to go out and subsidize the replacement of Linux and OSS on 10's of thousands of ClassmatePC's sold to Nigeria such that Windows and Microsoft software was to be installed AFTER the purchase of the laptops containing Linux and OSS? Why does Microsoft have to react to a Thaiwanese program which hand Linux and OSS on very cheap HP Laptops and subsidize crippled Windows and Microsoft software on those devices? It is about their greed and desire to oppose any any project which is not based on their products and has nothing to do with helping anybody but their own world class livestyles. Give me a break.
remember, the ClassMate PC is a Microsoft/Intel project originally designed to combat the OLPC device. IIRC, it is part of the Microsoft Unlimited Potential program which sprung from another Linux based low cost laptop program in Thailand. There, HP was involved with a very low cost laptop having Linux and a bunch of OSS pre-loaded. That was so successful, Dell had to help with the order fulfillment but by then, it caught Microsoft's eye and they got involved. Microsoft offered a crippled version of Windows and MS Office for $3/device and probably subsidized that cost with Microsoft funded training. Well, Linux was pulled from the program and the laptops got Windows and Microsoft software.
People just don't realize that Microsoft and Intel are not really out there to help people. Their primary goal is to make profits and they are not willing to let a charity or non-profit threaten any profit. Even if it is potential future profits. They will do as they are doing and they will try and stop it. Sad but true even when the OLPC project decided on Linux and the OSS foundation for technical and educational merits. Sugar could have probably fit over Windows Explorer but Windows requires more hardware and Microsoft just does not like OSS anyways.
You've gotta love how Microsoft has a "new" OS out but all the mention on these lower cost devices is with Windows XP. They can't even put their new OS on these new hardware platforms. Heck, they can't even put their old one( XP ) on many of them yet here we see these devices getting the latest Linux and OSS fit on most all these devices. Makes you wonder what design principals Microsoft was adhering to when they work on building their next OS. It's not like putting an OS on these small devices is a new concept... anyways, the clowns of Microsoft and Intel have nothing but the destruction of projects like OLPC in mind and for self serving reasons. Nothing but, IMO.
oh come on now, why not compare the price/cost to how many grains of rice can be purchased? Maybe the cost of a nice 10 page book? Or a nice coloring book?
One of the big problems with marketing is that people are mostly ignorant of any kind of vision of what could be. We are mostly only aware of what we have now and what is immediately around us and only what we are currently experienced with. Trying to sell an idea is one of the toughest jobs to have no matter how much of a history you might have of being correct.
I wonder how many read that and put together how silly the comparison was? That the life expectancy of the OLPC device was not one year as the comparison is with an annual salary. And is it common to compare school/learning material purchase price with teacher salaries? WTF is that if it is not ment to be FUD?
If they showed research which said something like the life of a book in these locations(a,b,c) were 5 years and the costs for such books were averaged to be X and Y number of books were purchased. Then compare that with the expected life of the OLPC device and cost. Even if it was just being used as a book reader without all the other features such as socialization, communication, drawing/music/etc, and just general computer experience. But they compared the initial cost of the OLPC device with how many teachers salaries that COULD buy in one year.
Sorry, didn't sell me on anything but poor reporting and more likely a means of spreading FUD regarding the device.
don't forget to mention how publicly Bill Gates dismisses the OLPC device and how Intel was out targeting OLPC customers with bogus marketing materials in ClassMatePC vs OLPC type comparisons.
Wasn't it Peru which purchased 10's of thousands of ClassMatePC's instead of OLPC laptops? And that's not all, when they were ordered with Linux, Microsoft came in and 'negotiated' a way to fund the replacing of Linux with Microsoft Windows.
And people wonder why OLPC insisted Intel drop the ClassMatePC if they wanted to remain on the OLPC Board and involved in the project.
I'm sure glad there is someone here with the clairvoyance to see that all money and donations around the world should be spent on food and water. For a second there, I was thinking that the whole world was made up of many differing socio-economic situations. I forgot that the worlds people are either well off or starving. Thanks for clearing that up.
good points but please do remember that it is not like there's an airplane delivering these by dropping a large wooden box with a parachute out of the cargo bay. The country's government is involved with the purchase and distribution. Who's to say they will not give any kind of funding to some aspect of training and oversight? And even if they are just preloaded with a few dozen books and dropped by parachute, wouldn't that be better than those without them at all?
To use stepping stones, one must first have the stones to step on. I'm hopeful something very good will come of this project and don't see the harm considering how much governments neglect those who'll be targeted with this program regardless.
I surely don't see a valid reason to say it is a waste of money and should not be attempted. Why not let it play out and live or die one its own merits?
This is the same Intel that was going around the world spread FUD about the OLPC project and targetting OLPC customers. Their marketing was more smoke and mirrors than based on reality and the whole ClassmatePC project was started as competition to OLPC. Wow, that's a company we should all just love when they do an about-face and join the OLPC board.
IMO, the only blow to OLPC is that they'll start with the FUD again since I don't think OLPC really needs Intel's chips.
And the CTO leaving to start her own commercial business around the OLPC LCD tech is not a blow either. She helped them get to where they are today and that is in production baby. The OLPC project is not going to follow the Microsoft Windows business model of replacement every 2 or so years and probably has a good 5 years life in the current design. Why do they need her position/experience any more when keeping startup costs low is the goal now. Especially since Intel and Microsoft have both helped delay orders and therefore income. OLPC needs to be lean and mean IMO.
Anybody reading this as bad news is just helping spread FUD about the project. IMO.
obviously this could only be very simple chess match being played out. And we should only be concerned with each single move in the context of the players immediately local to the move itself. What was I thinking?:-/
so what is the purpose of all this then? What is behind this since there does not seem to be a direct profit stream related to this product. Is there a special version of MS VS which they'll sell specifically for building Silverlight apps/sites?
I go ballistic when Microsoft does this kind of thing because they always do this to restrict tools on the market which are cross platform. They are doing this to knock Adobe Flash down the hill because it is a platform threat to Windows. Look at how Microsoft extended Java so the generated apps would only run on Windows. Look at how they built their Java application development tool such that it defaulted to making Windows specific bytecode. This was all done to destroy growth of Java on the desktop if not the market in general. Why didn't Microsoft work with Sun to make Java better and build their own whiz-bang development tools for Windows developers? The same reason, Java was/is a platform threat.
So, given Microsofts history and lack of showing any signs of change. Because of Microsofts actions in the standards org's regarding ODF vs MS-OOXML. Because there is the high likelihood that Microsoft is doing Silverlight to destroy Adobe Flash and because there are already many visible places Microsoft can do this with Silverlight. I don't find it something which is of any benefit to the market.
But hey, that was a good attempt at showing how it might not be a threat.
I see your point but what could be the point of this for Microsoft? Where is the profit from this and so what is their reason for this? It's pretty obvious to me that Microsoft has a problem with any software tool which has a larger install base on Windows AND provides cross platform support( ie runs on other OS's ). Flash has a massive install base and is preloaded at close to the same rate as Windows is. It also runs on Mac, Linux, etc.
So, after seeing how Microsoft has been willing to lose billions of dollars to make sure one of their products is the dominant player( Windows market protection ), I can only see that this MS Silverlight thing is a direct attack on Adobe's marketshare with Flash. I mean how come Microsoft didn't license Flash and build a really cool framework around it? Or maybe a cool development platform for it? It is a platform threat, that's why.
So sure, you might think that having Microsoft duplicate yet another competitors product is just competition. You might think that preloading their product into Windows is just competition. You might think that customizing their web sites such that it will require Silverlight( clearly a probability ) is just competition and benign. But history shows that this is really not what the case is. I'd love to see Microsoft compete with others but they constantly leverage their Windows monopoly to push these things onto the market. It REALLY have to suck bad for the install base to disregard it.
As far as being able to download Flash if it's not installed, or other technology, I've mostly seen opposition to this. I've had to deal with customers who told me what platform tools I was restricted to use. Be sure, pre-loading into the OS is a massive advantage for Microsoft and they've used it over and over to their advantage against competitors. Not a big deal if they did not hold a monopoly position at the OS level but that is not how it is.
then there's no issue as long as this remains the case but THAT is not what it looks like the case is. Look at how Silverlight is being promoted to access non-open parts of MS.Net and you should understand that this practice is a common technique used by Microsoft. They MUST play by different competitive rules because they have been convicted of anti-trust infractions by leveraging their OS monopoly in the market.
If they play fair then fine. If they don't or there are obvious means which show they are leveraging their monopoly position to promote a product with a competitive element( Adobe Flash )... well then it must be stopped and the market must be allowed to decide what they want.
If Microsoft had not been such assholes in the past we would not be discussing this here but the fact show a history of anti-competition.. So here we are and they should not be trusted to play fair. Not yet.
then there is not an issue as long as this remains to be the way it is presented. But as soon as they start making the MS Silverlight version advantagious or making the default more difficult to get to, then the rules change.
right, because one can find patches/etc somewhere else, therefore there is no issue with Microsoft leveraging the Windows desktop install base to promote a tech which might only work on a microsoft.com site? Do you understand how silly that sounds? Does OEM installed Windows connect to these other locations? Does Microsofts default URLs point to these locations? Could it be that you have to go out of your way to look elsewhere for stuff which by default points to the microsoft.com domain?
Sorry, I just don't buy it that showing that the updates can be downloaded from another site means that Microsoft isn't leveraging their own website and install base to promote the use of a product which competes against another companies product( flash ). Anti-trust rules dictate that a monopoly must submit to different competitive rules. A convicted monopoly should be tip-toeing around this but Microsoft knows they can spend millions and even billions to turn any anti-trust case into an expensive case which, in the US, always ends up with no effective regulation and winning the market they originally targetted.
I'm all for competition but Microsoft must play by DIFFERENT rules and can not leverage their existing monopoly to promote their products. Any leverage of their monopoly position is illegal and they must win in the market in other ways. Heck, they could resort to paying companies to use their product as they've already done many times. But if they leverage any Microsoft.com site which has any default/standard ties to customer support or OS information like materials, then they are leveraging that Windows OS monopoly to promote the product( MS Silverlight and MS.Net in this case ). IMO.
the monopoly is in the Microsoft Windows OS but I guess you're too ignorant to understand how that monopoly position could possibly be used to promote another Microsoft technology above all other competing products.
Mozilla is not a monopoly and on top of that, they've not shown purposeful designs to harm competition. Like Microsoft.
But, I will agree that they should have made it easier than doing the following: 1) Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Configuration (click on Config Editor ) 2) Right-click anywhere in the config fields window 3) select New -> String 4) enter new name: "network.protocol-handler.app.http" 5) enter new value: "dillo" 6) repeat for "...app.https", "...app.ftp", etc
Yes, let's all reward them for gutting Borland of their senior language engineers. Let's reward them for essentially forking Java( damaging Java on the desktop as a result ) and putting out MS.Net. Let's reward them for submitting only part of this to the ECMA and ISO while keeping parts of it proprietary and with patents 'protecting' it from use on other platforms. Let's reward them for doing everything in their power to make sure everything they make works only on Microsoft Windows. And while we are at it, let's also reward them for publicly attacking projects like the OLPC project. Let's reward them because they promote the creation of FUD surrounding the OLPC project such that some countries went with more expensive laptops instead. Let's reward them for there effort to block OSS on another companies computers with efforts to have OSS already installed on said laptops and have it replaced with Microsoft Windows after the laptops arrive.
Yes, let's reward such a great company, a company were developers are a tool extending their monopoly, a company competing not by building the best products the industry gets behind but by building similar products which only work on their monopoly platform and have the balls to tell the industry they are open. IMO, only someone with their head in the ground would consider MS Silverlight for anything.
look again, there are parts of the MS.Net framework which Microsoft holds patents on and did not submit to the ECMA. Therefore, one can only infer that once again, a Microsoft "standard", in many cases, will only work on Windows and most likely only in a Microsoft browser.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
HINT: google for "silverlight ado.net asp.net" and then look at wikipedia for the "Microsoft.Net Framework"
Everyone should stay away from MS Silverlight and if Microsoft changes any microsoft.com web page which requires MS Silverlight, they should be brought to court(once again) for anti-trust related infractions. IMO.
really? Microsoft is helping the Mono folks port the entire MS.Net framework which is available to MS Silverlight on Windows? Don't answer because you are WRONG. Windows Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET are not part of the ECMA'ed projects because Microsoft has patents on these and will not let them out. And, if you look around, Microsoft is out there telling developers how to use these parts in MS Sliverlight. Sorry, not something anybody who cares about equal access to the web should be even touching with a 10' pole. And Microsofts forced use of Silverlight to view their web pages should be cause for anti-trust issues. IMO.
ok, I'll bite. Did you see that part about them coding their webpages( microsoft.com ) in silverlight with no HTML? Could that not be another case where if you need to go to their site for support or information, you must now install sliverlight to view that pages? They have a monopoly and were convicted of abusing that monopoly along with getting taken to court of these kinds of issues dozens of times. It is not just a case of them eating their own dog-food, it sounds like they are forcing their dog-shit into the hands of their customers for the benefit of their monopoly. Flash is a threat to them because not only is it installed on over 90% of OEM installed Windows based computers, Adobe has added alot of capabilities to it for rich media access.
BTW, this will only effect me when someone points out something stupid Microsoft did on their sight and I get to check it out for a good laugh. Those who are Windows users are mostly clueless of how they are being manipulated and attempts to open their eyes regarding this is pretty useless. But I still try every now and then.;-/
but they made sure that Novell also paid them some for each Suse Linux coupon Microsoft sells. But you got the just of it, Microsoft pays Novell because Microsoft says Linux has Microsofts IP. It's because it is all a plan to scare away business from Linux and just a step in the process.
In the 90's, Microsoft paid a UNIX company to do a port of MS Internet Explorer to HP and/or Solaris and they paid them well. Nobody wanted IE on UNIX but the reason for this was that this one company was a licensee of Microsofts Win32 source and Microsoft just quadrupled that fee to crush the other licensees. It was all part of a plan to get UNIX software companies to port their applications to Microsofts API's(Win32). Microsoft led them all to believe by moving to Win32, they could run their apps on both UNIX and Windows and therefore increase their customer base while only having one source code base. But once enough UNIX apps were ported, Microsoft ended that capability by massively increasing the fees it charged for the Win32 source. They just made sure that one company would still afford to license it so that monopoly anti-trust cases could not be brought against it. It worked.
Novell is but a pawn in Microsofts plan to stop progress of Linux and OSS in the marketplace. Good eye.
you forgot that Corel was also paid off to dump their Corel Linux OS. That was sold to and/or became Xandros. Microsoft has a history of using its wealth to eliminate competitors and no government anti-trust cases have done anything to stop that. one would have thought that how Microsoft was found to be stuffing the ISO boards to get its proprietary MS OOXML file format passed as a standard, would have sparked some big anti-trust uproar. Nada, just a bunch of bloggers got noticed and a few articles were written on it. Same old One Microsoft Way and nothing being done to fight it but from the Linux/OSS crowd. Luckily, that crowd is growing quite large. Even with Microsoft's many attempts to shrink it.
Slashdot Mirror
if you had seen and used the XO, you might be more understanding. The XO is not a threat to Intel since it is designed for primary school kids and can only help grow that market for Intel's more powerful chips BEYOND primary school. What stunned me about this article as that Peru had already decided the XO was the best device for primary school kids and asked Intel to bid on the secondary school kids device. You know, once the primary age XO users move on into secondary school, they'll need a bit more powerful( CPU, memory, etc ) device. But instead of looking at the XO as a way to start their market growth and be happy with the secondary and beyond markets, the Intel saleswoman aggressively went for what wasn't even asked for, she tried to bid on the already made primary deal.
So even after a few instructions to Intel Classmate PC sales executives telling them to tone down the competition with the XO, a high ranking salesperson does just that? What kind of money is Microsoft putting behind this in commission fees to push someone to go so far out of her way to try and lose one contract in hopes of killing off an XO contract already made?
Oh, you probably don't know that Microsoft is behind the Classmate PC and yes, Bill Gates has stated many times to the public and press that he thinks the XO is a terrible idea and device. Microsoft and Intel quickly through the Classmate PC out there and claimed it was a comparable product. So I would not doubt that there is probably 100's of thousands of dollars in commission behind a Classmate PC win over an XO client.
I also hope the press and public roasts Intel for being such assholes with a non-profit organization. Business or no business, attacking non-profits can cause major brand recognition issues. When "Intel Inside" becomes a black/blue eye on a childs face, they'll think twice about this Classmate PC thing. And I hope someone gets fired for this because for one, she screwed over Intel's shareholders by losing the deal she was supposed to be bidding on.
LoB
It was/is Nigeria which all the ruckus was about with regards to Microsoft funding the removal of OSS from the ClassmatePC's they ordered with Linux. Peru is where they are deploying and as you mentioned, there was a nice story recently about it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-laptop_webdec22,1,6878223.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
LoB
I've not seen the complete implementation plan/life cycle for the project but IIRC, they were planning on handing out the laptops to the kids and teachers along with some basic instructions and let they learn the devices and figure out how to integrate them into the curriculum. But, one of the latest deliveries seemed to suggest that there is a support crew going with the initial shipments and that there was some special teacher training occurring.
;-)
I too would love to see a complete front to back plan for the project but it could very well be that like many OSS project, things grow from experience and everyone learns and grows from what others are doing. I don't know for sure how it's planned out but some of the people behind the project are not out of touch with reality and have the intelligence to make choices when improvements are needed.
It does appear they are smart enough to not be parachuting this into middle of the Sho in the Kalahari desert along with a bottle of Coca Cola. But hey, they might actually be ready for it by now.
LoB
do you even have a clue that there are people who actually have a food supply and clean water already but have a poor education system currently in place? Not everyone is shitting in their own water supply. And of some how, one of those get a OLPC device, they probably float so they can just open it up, shit on it, and keep the shit out of the water as you seem is so important to every man, woman, and child in the world. :-/
As far as THOSE people you seem to be fixated on goes, yes, getting them the skills to exist with atleast the basic human needs/essentials is better than hand outs.
LoB
WTF? Do think for one minute Microsoft and Intel care about educating the poor around the world? For crying out loud, these clowns only stuck their dirty hands into this once they saw that it could threaten their profits. Both Microsoft and Intel publicly attacked the OLPC project before, during and after they came up with their own project to kill this one off. And be sure, if OLPC were to close shop today, Microsoft and Intel's project would be closed down if there were no competition for it.
These two companies are purely reactionary to any efforts to bring in expensive hardware and software to the market and there is plenty of proof of this already out there.
And sure, Nicholas Negroponte should feel good about attempting to do some good. WTF is wrong with that? Didn't you read the story of his years of visiting a poor village and attempting to find ways to help them help themselves? Where's Microsfts history of this? Where is Intel's history of this? All we see from these clowns is constant attacks on projects which just so happen to be better fit to leverage Linux and OSS as opposed to Microsoft Windows and their proprietary software.
So get real, this is about a guy attempting to use a technology based tool to improve some peoples lives or the lives if their kids. It is also a story of how these efforts are being countered by financial bohemoths because they could be a threat to their future profits. And when I say countered, I mean they are spending millions to fight this project and using every trick in the book.
It will surely end up being evaluated for how corporate greed tangles with those intended to help people via non-profit organizations or other means. IMO.
And if Bill Gates, Microsoft and Intel think the OLPC project is so stupid an idea, why don't they just let it go and watch it fail instead of putting together a device which doesn't even match 1/2 of the design goals of the XO. Why does Microsoft have to go out and subsidize the replacement of Linux and OSS on 10's of thousands of ClassmatePC's sold to Nigeria such that Windows and Microsoft software was to be installed AFTER the purchase of the laptops containing Linux and OSS? Why does Microsoft have to react to a Thaiwanese program which hand Linux and OSS on very cheap HP Laptops and subsidize crippled Windows and Microsoft software on those devices? It is about their greed and desire to oppose any any project which is not based on their products and has nothing to do with helping anybody but their own world class livestyles. Give me a break.
LoB
LoB
remember, the ClassMate PC is a Microsoft/Intel project originally designed to combat the OLPC device. IIRC, it is part of the Microsoft Unlimited Potential program which sprung from another Linux based low cost laptop program in Thailand. There, HP was involved with a very low cost laptop having Linux and a bunch of OSS pre-loaded. That was so successful, Dell had to help with the order fulfillment but by then, it caught Microsoft's eye and they got involved. Microsoft offered a crippled version of Windows and MS Office for $3/device and probably subsidized that cost with Microsoft funded training. Well, Linux was pulled from the program and the laptops got Windows and Microsoft software.
People just don't realize that Microsoft and Intel are not really out there to help people. Their primary goal is to make profits and they are not willing to let a charity or non-profit threaten any profit. Even if it is potential future profits. They will do as they are doing and they will try and stop it. Sad but true even when the OLPC project decided on Linux and the OSS foundation for technical and educational merits. Sugar could have probably fit over Windows Explorer but Windows requires more hardware and Microsoft just does not like OSS anyways.
You've gotta love how Microsoft has a "new" OS out but all the mention on these lower cost devices is with Windows XP. They can't even put their new OS on these new hardware platforms. Heck, they can't even put their old one( XP ) on many of them yet here we see these devices getting the latest Linux and OSS fit on most all these devices. Makes you wonder what design principals Microsoft was adhering to when they work on building their next OS. It's not like putting an OS on these small devices is a new concept... anyways, the clowns of Microsoft and Intel have nothing but the destruction of projects like OLPC in mind and for self serving reasons. Nothing but, IMO.
LoB
oh come on now, why not compare the price/cost to how many grains of rice can be purchased? Maybe the cost of a nice 10 page book? Or a nice coloring book?
One of the big problems with marketing is that people are mostly ignorant of any kind of vision of what could be. We are mostly only aware of what we have now and what is immediately around us and only what we are currently experienced with. Trying to sell an idea is one of the toughest jobs to have no matter how much of a history you might have of being correct.
I wonder how many read that and put together how silly the comparison was? That the life expectancy of the OLPC device was not one year as the comparison is with an annual salary. And is it common to compare school/learning material purchase price with teacher salaries? WTF is that if it is not ment to be FUD?
If they showed research which said something like the life of a book in these locations(a,b,c) were 5 years and the costs for such books were averaged to be X and Y number of books were purchased. Then compare that with the expected life of the OLPC device and cost. Even if it was just being used as a book reader without all the other features such as socialization, communication, drawing/music/etc, and just general computer experience. But they compared the initial cost of the OLPC device with how many teachers salaries that COULD buy in one year.
Sorry, didn't sell me on anything but poor reporting and more likely a means of spreading FUD regarding the device.
LoB
don't forget to mention how publicly Bill Gates dismisses the OLPC device and how Intel was out targeting OLPC customers with bogus marketing materials in ClassMatePC vs OLPC type comparisons.
Wasn't it Peru which purchased 10's of thousands of ClassMatePC's instead of OLPC laptops? And that's not all, when they were ordered with Linux, Microsoft came in and 'negotiated' a way to fund the replacing of Linux with Microsoft Windows.
And people wonder why OLPC insisted Intel drop the ClassMatePC if they wanted to remain on the OLPC Board and involved in the project.
LoB
I'm sure glad there is someone here with the clairvoyance to see that all money and donations around the world should be spent on food and water. For a second there, I was thinking that the whole world was made up of many differing socio-economic situations. I forgot that the worlds people are either well off or starving. Thanks for clearing that up.
LoB
good points but please do remember that it is not like there's an airplane delivering these by dropping a large wooden box with a parachute out of the cargo bay. The country's government is involved with the purchase and distribution. Who's to say they will not give any kind of funding to some aspect of training and oversight? And even if they are just preloaded with a few dozen books and dropped by parachute, wouldn't that be better than those without them at all?
To use stepping stones, one must first have the stones to step on. I'm hopeful something very good will come of this project and don't see the harm considering how much governments neglect those who'll be targeted with this program regardless.
I surely don't see a valid reason to say it is a waste of money and should not be attempted. Why not let it play out and live or die one its own merits?
LoB
This is the same Intel that was going around the world spread FUD about the OLPC project and targetting OLPC customers. Their marketing was more smoke and mirrors than based on reality and the whole ClassmatePC project was started as competition to OLPC. Wow, that's a company we should all just love when they do an about-face and join the OLPC board.
IMO, the only blow to OLPC is that they'll start with the FUD again since I don't think OLPC really needs Intel's chips.
And the CTO leaving to start her own commercial business around the OLPC LCD tech is not a blow either. She helped them get to where they are today and that is in production baby. The OLPC project is not going to follow the Microsoft Windows business model of replacement every 2 or so years and probably has a good 5 years life in the current design. Why do they need her position/experience any more when keeping startup costs low is the goal now. Especially since Intel and Microsoft have both helped delay orders and therefore income. OLPC needs to be lean and mean IMO.
Anybody reading this as bad news is just helping spread FUD about the project. IMO.
LoB
obviously this could only be very simple chess match being played out. And we should only be concerned with each single move in the context of the players immediately local to the move itself. What was I thinking? :-/
LoB
so what is the purpose of all this then? What is behind this since there does not seem to be a direct profit stream related to this product. Is there a special version of MS VS which they'll sell specifically for building Silverlight apps/sites?
I go ballistic when Microsoft does this kind of thing because they always do this to restrict tools on the market which are cross platform. They are doing this to knock Adobe Flash down the hill because it is a platform threat to Windows. Look at how Microsoft extended Java so the generated apps would only run on Windows. Look at how they built their Java application development tool such that it defaulted to making Windows specific bytecode. This was all done to destroy growth of Java on the desktop if not the market in general. Why didn't Microsoft work with Sun to make Java better and build their own whiz-bang development tools for Windows developers? The same reason, Java was/is a platform threat.
So, given Microsofts history and lack of showing any signs of change. Because of Microsofts actions in the standards org's regarding ODF vs MS-OOXML. Because there is the high likelihood that Microsoft is doing Silverlight to destroy Adobe Flash and because there are already many visible places Microsoft can do this with Silverlight. I don't find it something which is of any benefit to the market.
But hey, that was a good attempt at showing how it might not be a threat.
LoB
I see your point but what could be the point of this for Microsoft? Where is the profit from this and so what is their reason for this? It's pretty obvious to me that Microsoft has a problem with any software tool which has a larger install base on Windows AND provides cross platform support( ie runs on other OS's ). Flash has a massive install base and is preloaded at close to the same rate as Windows is. It also runs on Mac, Linux, etc.
So, after seeing how Microsoft has been willing to lose billions of dollars to make sure one of their products is the dominant player( Windows market protection ), I can only see that this MS Silverlight thing is a direct attack on Adobe's marketshare with Flash. I mean how come Microsoft didn't license Flash and build a really cool framework around it? Or maybe a cool development platform for it? It is a platform threat, that's why.
So sure, you might think that having Microsoft duplicate yet another competitors product is just competition. You might think that preloading their product into Windows is just competition. You might think that customizing their web sites such that it will require Silverlight( clearly a probability ) is just competition and benign. But history shows that this is really not what the case is. I'd love to see Microsoft compete with others but they constantly leverage their Windows monopoly to push these things onto the market. It REALLY have to suck bad for the install base to disregard it.
As far as being able to download Flash if it's not installed, or other technology, I've mostly seen opposition to this. I've had to deal with customers who told me what platform tools I was restricted to use. Be sure, pre-loading into the OS is a massive advantage for Microsoft and they've used it over and over to their advantage against competitors. Not a big deal if they did not hold a monopoly position at the OS level but that is not how it is.
LoB
then there's no issue as long as this remains the case but THAT is not what it looks like the case is. Look at how Silverlight is being promoted to access non-open parts of MS .Net and you should understand that this practice is a common technique used by Microsoft. They MUST play by different competitive rules because they have been convicted of anti-trust infractions by leveraging their OS monopoly in the market.
If they play fair then fine. If they don't or there are obvious means which show they are leveraging their monopoly position to promote a product with a competitive element( Adobe Flash )... well then it must be stopped and the market must be allowed to decide what they want.
If Microsoft had not been such assholes in the past we would not be discussing this here but the fact show a history of anti-competition.. So here we are and they should not be trusted to play fair. Not yet.
LoB
then there is not an issue as long as this remains to be the way it is presented. But as soon as they start making the MS Silverlight version advantagious or making the default more difficult to get to, then the rules change.
LoB
right, because one can find patches/etc somewhere else, therefore there is no issue with Microsoft leveraging the Windows desktop install base to promote a tech which might only work on a microsoft.com site? Do you understand how silly that sounds? Does OEM installed Windows connect to these other locations? Does Microsofts default URLs point to these locations? Could it be that you have to go out of your way to look elsewhere for stuff which by default points to the microsoft.com domain?
.Net in this case ). IMO.
Sorry, I just don't buy it that showing that the updates can be downloaded from another site means that Microsoft isn't leveraging their own website and install base to promote the use of a product which competes against another companies product( flash ). Anti-trust rules dictate that a monopoly must submit to different competitive rules. A convicted monopoly should be tip-toeing around this but Microsoft knows they can spend millions and even billions to turn any anti-trust case into an expensive case which, in the US, always ends up with no effective regulation and winning the market they originally targetted.
I'm all for competition but Microsoft must play by DIFFERENT rules and can not leverage their existing monopoly to promote their products. Any leverage of their monopoly position is illegal and they must win in the market in other ways. Heck, they could resort to paying companies to use their product as they've already done many times. But if they leverage any Microsoft.com site which has any default/standard ties to customer support or OS information like materials, then they are leveraging that Windows OS monopoly to promote the product( MS Silverlight and MS
Got that fanboy?
LoB
the monopoly is in the Microsoft Windows OS but I guess you're too ignorant to understand how that monopoly position could possibly be used to promote another Microsoft technology above all other competing products.
LoB
Mozilla is not a monopoly and on top of that, they've not shown purposeful designs to harm competition. Like Microsoft.
But, I will agree that they should have made it easier than doing the following:
1) Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Configuration (click on Config Editor )
2) Right-click anywhere in the config fields window
3) select New -> String
4) enter new name: "network.protocol-handler.app.http"
5) enter new value: "dillo"
6) repeat for "...app.https", "...app.ftp", etc
LoB
Yes, let's all reward them for gutting Borland of their senior language engineers. Let's reward them for essentially forking Java( damaging Java on the desktop as a result ) and putting out MS .Net. Let's reward them for submitting only part of this to the ECMA and ISO while keeping parts of it proprietary and with patents 'protecting' it from use on other platforms. Let's reward them for doing everything in their power to make sure everything they make works only on Microsoft Windows. And while we are at it, let's also reward them for publicly attacking projects like the OLPC project. Let's reward them because they promote the creation of FUD surrounding the OLPC project such that some countries went with more expensive laptops instead. Let's reward them for there effort to block OSS on another companies computers with efforts to have OSS already installed on said laptops and have it replaced with Microsoft Windows after the laptops arrive.
Yes, let's reward such a great company, a company were developers are a tool extending their monopoly, a company competing not by building the best products the industry gets behind but by building similar products which only work on their monopoly platform and have the balls to tell the industry they are open. IMO, only someone with their head in the ground would consider MS Silverlight for anything.
LoB
look again, there are parts of the MS .Net framework which Microsoft holds patents on and did not submit to the ECMA. Therefore, one can only infer that once again, a Microsoft "standard", in many cases, will only work on Windows and most likely only in a Microsoft browser.
.Net Framework"
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
HINT: google for "silverlight ado.net asp.net" and then look at wikipedia for the "Microsoft
Everyone should stay away from MS Silverlight and if Microsoft changes any microsoft.com web page which requires MS Silverlight, they should be brought to court(once again) for anti-trust related infractions. IMO.
LoB
really? Microsoft is helping the Mono folks port the entire MS .Net framework which is available to MS Silverlight on Windows? Don't answer because you are WRONG. Windows Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET are not part of the ECMA'ed projects because Microsoft has patents on these and will not let them out. And, if you look around, Microsoft is out there telling developers how to use these parts in MS Sliverlight. Sorry, not something anybody who cares about equal access to the web should be even touching with a 10' pole. And Microsofts forced use of Silverlight to view their web pages should be cause for anti-trust issues. IMO.
.Net licensing:
on MS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Standardization_and_licensing
Google search for these components and MS Silverlight showing ties between them:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=silverlight+%22Windows+Forms%22+%22ADO.NET%22+%22ASP.NET%22
LoB
ok, I'll bite. Did you see that part about them coding their webpages( microsoft.com ) in silverlight with no HTML? Could that not be another case where if you need to go to their site for support or information, you must now install sliverlight to view that pages? They have a monopoly and were convicted of abusing that monopoly along with getting taken to court of these kinds of issues dozens of times. It is not just a case of them eating their own dog-food, it sounds like they are forcing their dog-shit into the hands of their customers for the benefit of their monopoly. Flash is a threat to them because not only is it installed on over 90% of OEM installed Windows based computers, Adobe has added alot of capabilities to it for rich media access.
;-/
BTW, this will only effect me when someone points out something stupid Microsoft did on their sight and I get to check it out for a good laugh. Those who are Windows users are mostly clueless of how they are being manipulated and attempts to open their eyes regarding this is pretty useless. But I still try every now and then.
LoB
but they made sure that Novell also paid them some for each Suse Linux coupon Microsoft sells. But you got the just of it, Microsoft pays Novell because Microsoft says Linux has Microsofts IP. It's because it is all a plan to scare away business from Linux and just a step in the process.
In the 90's, Microsoft paid a UNIX company to do a port of MS Internet Explorer to HP and/or Solaris and they paid them well. Nobody wanted IE on UNIX but the reason for this was that this one company was a licensee of Microsofts Win32 source and Microsoft just quadrupled that fee to crush the other licensees. It was all part of a plan to get UNIX software companies to port their applications to Microsofts API's(Win32). Microsoft led them all to believe by moving to Win32, they could run their apps on both UNIX and Windows and therefore increase their customer base while only having one source code base. But once enough UNIX apps were ported, Microsoft ended that capability by massively increasing the fees it charged for the Win32 source. They just made sure that one company would still afford to license it so that monopoly anti-trust cases could not be brought against it. It worked.
Novell is but a pawn in Microsofts plan to stop progress of Linux and OSS in the marketplace. Good eye.
LoB
you forgot that Corel was also paid off to dump their Corel Linux OS. That was sold to and/or became Xandros. Microsoft has a history of using its wealth to eliminate competitors and no government anti-trust cases have done anything to stop that. one would have thought that how Microsoft was found to be stuffing the ISO boards to get its proprietary MS OOXML file format passed as a standard, would have sparked some big anti-trust uproar. Nada, just a bunch of bloggers got noticed and a few articles were written on it. Same old One Microsoft Way and nothing being done to fight it but from the Linux/OSS crowd. Luckily, that crowd is growing quite large. Even with Microsoft's many attempts to shrink it.
LoB