Mailing lists (was:) [olpc-software] $100 laptop and Microsoft Windows CE operating system

[Jim Gettys <jg laptop org>]

I agree this is pretty far afield. We have such mailing lists, though I
don't have a general "discuss" mailing list established.

Please see: http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo for what's set up
so far.

Should I establish a discuss list?
                            Regards,
                                - Jim

On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 11:01 -0700, Kevin Purcell wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Jim. This might actually be usefully  
> put into the Wiki along with Khaled Hassounah's reply.
> 
> I'm not Microsoft bashing or baiting or trolling but I am an ex-MSFT  
> from the Win CE Tools team (and I'm not a fan of MSFT) so I'm perhaps  
> more cautious than some.
> 
> Comments interspersed below. I apologize for this getting so long.
> 
> BTW, we really need an olpc-discuss for more general discussion. I  
> feel this mail is perhaps a bit far from olpc-software mandate  
> (whatever that might be).
> 
> On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
> 
> > Kevin,
> >
> > First, to clarify a misconception: the goal of the project is kid's
> > learning; not open source per se'. Fundamentally, this a project to  
> > help
> > the *education* of as many children as possible.
> 
> I understand that and agree.
> 
> But this isn't Microsoft's goal. Their objective is to make money by  
> maintaining the domiance of their operating systems and applications  
> and bringing new users into the fold. They can't see the OLPC's $100  
> laptop as anything but a threat because it takes their biggest rival  
> (Linux) into a new market that they don't own and need to expand  
> into. The $100 laptop potentially makes 25% of the laptops shipped  
> non-Windows (given Negroponte's estimates).
> 
> In that sense they might see HDLT running as the biggest threat  
> outside the First World. And potentially a big threat in the First  
> World if more states decide they want these laptops for their schools.
> 
> > Having stated the goal in these terms, *also* understand that we  
> > believe
> > strongly that a software which kids can take apart and put back  
> > together
> > again is essential to learning computing, which is a key skill in
> > today's world.  We don't believe you can learn much from things you
> > can't take apart, see how they work, and put back together again. For
> > these reasons, open source/free software and content are very  
> > important
> > to achieving our goal, but the goal is that kids *learn*. Open source
> > and free software are an extremely important means to our end.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And Microsoft will totally disagree because they want people to have  
> only "just enough" access to the hardware and software to make them  
> good customers. FOSS turns software into a commodity and removes  
> their commercial mass-market.
> 
> For example, Gates current public viewpoint is expressed in
> 
> <http://news.com.com/Gates+sizes+up+the+Webs+next+generation+-+page 
> +3/2008-7345_3-6051890-3.html>
> 
> where he pushes the Smartphone and shared PC as he models for  
> developing country. Both of course are ways of Microsoft selling  
> growth product (the Smartphone is the major focus of all Windows CE  
> work today) and existing product (of course, a shared PC would runs  
> Windows and Office).
> 
> Neither of these target the population the OLPC is aimed at (kids in  
> the developing world who need an education) or have the  
> "constructivist" education ideas behind them. They resemble (to use a  
> very loaded analogy) the tobacco industry looking for new places to  
> sell old stuff.
> 
> > Second: I was present at Nicholas' keynote.  I'm not convinced that  
> > the
> > Wired article is reflecting exactly what Nicholas said yesterday. They
> > didn't get it badly wrong, but I also don't think they got it exactly
> > right.
> 
> I suspect this is true. I've now read a couple of different version.  
> The one sourced from AP is much more a collection of sound-bites. The  
> CNET News version is a bit more nuanced.
> 
> > But rather than try to quibble with whose memory or writing is
> > correct, let this third point make it clear:
> >
> > Third: We've always said, from day one, the machine is a fully *open*
> > platform, hardware (and from our end, software). This is why the specs
> > of the machine are up on the web in good detail even before the design
> > of the hardware is complete. How could our machine not be an open
> > platform, if we want kids to be able to understand how computers  
> > really
> > work?????
> >
> > We've stated the hardware platform is open, consistently, from day  
> > one,
> > to everyone, up to and including Bill Gates and other senior  
> > executives
> > at Microsoft and everywhere else.  We are not in the discrimination
> > business, or out to get anyone; we are here to build a machine that  
> > can
> > meet our goals of enabling kids all over the world to learn.
> 
> I don't disagree with that.
> 
> But I also made a distinction that the hardware design won't be 100%  
> "open" (whatever that means -- I think of "open" as in GPLed or Share- 
> and-share-alike CC license) unless Quanta will release any IPR  
> considerations they have. I think the latter is unlikely if it  
> enables their competitors to make them because that is their specific  
> competency.
> 
> There are degrees of openness and as you make clear I'm sure you are  
> going to make it as open as you can (more open than the iPaq, for  
> example). So long as the "model" is open so a user knows what the  
> peripheral chips are and where they live in the memory map or on the  
> IO ports then that should suffice to bing any OS to the hardware  
> platform.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if someone else came to you and Quanta and  
> said "We want Quanta to make 5 million of these for us to sell in  
> schools in the US with 30% of profits going to OLPC" everyone would  
> jump at the chance.
> 
> > Nicholas has told Microsoft this many times.  I was personally present
> > once when we've told Microsoft this. Whether Microsoft believes it or
> > not is hard for me to gage, but I can attest first hand that very  
> > senior
> > Microsoft executives were told they were welcome to port Windows CE or
> > anything else they liked to the hardware, that we made it crystal  
> > clear
> > there were no reservations when asked to clarify these statements,  
> > and I
> > know we mean exactly what we say. The OLPC hardware system is an open
> > system.  How in the world could it be a closed platform and meet our
> > goals????
> >
> > If Microsoft wants to put CE on the machine, or Singularity, or DOS on
> > the machine, it's OK with us, *exactly* as if you want to put *BSD or
> > Java OS, or TOPS-20 running on SIMH on the machine, or something else
> > you want to write from scratch. So far, Microsoft hasn't asked us for
> > help.
> >                        Regards,
> >                             Jim Gettys
> >                             OLPC
> 
> A final worst-case speculation that reads like a conspiracy theory  
> (which I don't like but I did work for MSFT remember -- they do (or  
> did) think like this).
> 
> This scenario illustrates the potential perils of playing open  
> systems with Microsoft. Recall that the original PC was an  
> (unintentional) open system in a similar manner to the $100 laptop --  
> it came with schematics and then AMI reengineered the BIOS so IBM  
> wasn't the sole source of the hardware.
> 
> The problem for OLPC is that MSFT does wake up to the "threat" posed  
> to them by the HDLT. Given the current estimates when HDLTs ship they  
> will ship 25% of the laptops in one year and they will be Linux  
> based. A smart Steve or Bill might see the writing on the wall when  
> the realize this and figure some sort of response is needed. We've  
> already seen the PR response from BillG along the lines of "that's  
> the stupidest thing I've heard of".
> 
> The Win CE team get a BSP together for the OLPC platforms (it's a  
> Geode so that should be easy plus some extra hardware). Then they  
> build a much more regular looking Jupiter-like platform (remember the  
> HP620 and HP820 and the like?). Then they build a firmware image  
> consisting of the usual CE software with perhaps some of the already  
> ported packages (like Squeak). It doesn't seem like much effort to  
> me. The biggest efforts would be mesh networking (which they could  
> just junk -- let them use an AP from the local shared PC) and,  
> perhaps more importantly, the dynamic power management of the HDLT  
> hardware. And the almost complete absence of tools.
> 
> On the BizDev side they realize that this product isn't for  
> individual sale but purchasd by government entities in the respective  
> countries. This is an opportunity for a "divide and conquer" strategy  
> (just like the good old days). So they cozy up to the "powers that  
> be" in various developing countries of choice who are buying these  
> OLPCs. This is a good pressure point and something Microsoft  
> lobbyists could be rather good at. They persuade the government folks  
> to choose their WinCE OLPC firmware on the OLPC hardware for perhaps  
> a contribution or two plus some Microsoft infrastructure and maybe  
> integration with their Smartphone and Shared PC initiatives.
> 
> This Win CE HDLT model might "sell" even better in the First World  
> schools (ask a parent "Do you prefer a Microsoft Powered laptop?" and  
> what answer do you think might you get even if it is Windows CE)  
> especially if Microsoft waives the royalties as a charitable donation.
> 
> Upsides for Microsoft:
> 
> 0. For a small investment you disrupt the biggest Linux roll out ever.
> 1. Catch them young. Sell Windows to the third world.
> 2. Mesh with other profitable Microsoft initiatives
> 3. Potential good PR when you spin it as Microsoft charity and  
> helping the less fortunate with donations of software and perhaps  
> subsidized hardware.
> 4. Keep the $100 laptop out of First World schools
> 
> There are multiple downsides for the OLPC project if this were to occur:
> 
> 0. It disrupts the original goals of the OLPC project (constructivist  
> education)
> 1. Open source doesn't get out to the developing world (freedom to  
> tinker)
> 2. The opportunity to get Linux out to a large number of boxes is  
> reduced (collateral goal)
> 
> So it's an amusing (or terrifying or just demented) speculation  
> depending on your viewpoint. Of course this wouldn't be the end of  
> OLPC. I'm sure some countries would choose it. And it would go on to  
> be successful.
> 
> I think it's most likley that Microsoft stick to their "Shared PC and  
> Smartphone for the developing world" model. Maybe they'll build a Win  
> CE BSP for this hardware and release the firmware in a half-hearted  
> way but don't get the power management right and are not unsucessful  
> in deploying it. This approach is more likely to work in schools in  
> the US but it might work in some of the more developed Developing  
> countries too. Hopefully governments in the developing world aren't  
> as corrupt as I make them out to be but a recent Wired article  
> doesn't lead one to be very hopeful about this.
> 
> Kevin Purcell
> The Devil's Advocate
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:48 -0700, Kevin Purcell wrote:
> >> Not a technical question ... but there is a Wired News story authored
> >> by the AP
> >>
> >> <http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70584-0.html>
> >>
> >> In which amongst the usual fodder (and errors, it's a 366MHz AMD
> >> Geode) says:
> >>
> >>> Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has criticized the computers' design,
> >>> including its lack of a hard disk drive — though many people in the
> >>> tech world believed he was more irked by the laptops' use of Linux,
> >>> the free, open-source system that competes with Gates' proprietary
> >>> Windows systems.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Negroponte expressed frustration with Gates in particular, saying
> >>> that the $100 laptop designers are still working with Microsoft to
> >>> develop a version of the Windows CE operating system that could run
> >>> the machines.
> >>>
> >>> "Geez, so why criticize me in public?" Negroponte said.
> >>>
> >>> Microsoft did not immediately return calls for comment.
> >>
> >> A second OS for the $100 laptop? WTF?
> >>
> >> Given a goal of the OLPC is open source I wonder what's going on
> >> here. If they changed their mind now and switched to Win CE you'd see
> >> the external software effort support drop to epsilon (though Squeak
> >> would still be there with no porting effort :-).
> >>
> >> Any comments from people closer to Negroponte? Did he say this? Did
> >> he mean this?
> >> --
> >> Kevin Purcell
> >> kevinpurcell pobox com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> olpc-software mailing list
> >> olpc-software redhat com
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/olpc-software
> > -- 
> > Jim Gettys
> > One Laptop Per Child
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Kevin Purcell
> kevinpurcell pobox com
> 
> 
-- 
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child