Re: OLPC inks agreement with Microsoft
Josh Grosse wrote:
...
1.The decision to push for WXP to replace Linux was due to pressure from
prospective buyers of the XO laptop, which was slowing sales. 'The people
who buy the machines are not the children who use them, but government
officials in most cases,' said Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the nonprofit
group. 'And those people are much more comfortable with {explitive deleted}.'
...
My contact with directors and high level managers, the occasional CxO,
etc. suggests that they are usually just more familiar with the brand
name rather than any specific interface. Or, perhaps more commonly,
they have signed onto some kind of ideology or myth which is flagged to
the outside world by continued use of that brand. Most common seems to
be bit of that last combined with a heavy dose of personal financial
investments and/or close relatives with personal financial investments
in that brand.
As far as the technology goes, most are unlikely to (as a user) notice
much of a difference between a nicely configured and painted OpenBSD
setup with Xfce or an even leaner, but decorative, DE. In the case of
OLPC it is Sugar on Linux.
Either way, they probably would not notice without someone telling them
to notice, except that over time they might notice the better
performance and excellent uptime.
It's hard to say about Negroponte just now, without having met him, but
from a distance it seems he's knuckling under and compromising the
learning advantages in exchange for marginally increased acceptance in a
technopolitical ideology that's rapidly waning.
YMMV.
Regards,
-Lars
Re: OLPC inks agreement with Microsoft
On 2008-05-16, Josh Grosse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This slashdot posting: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/15/2320243 references a New York Times article published today by Steve Lohr describing a new agreement with Microsoft It also references a pretty interesting article from Krstic..
OLPC inks agreement with Microsoft
One Laptop Per Child has been discussed on misc@ before, including decisions made by the organization's technical leadership to sign NDAs for their particular hardware choices on the XO laptop. This slashdot posting: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/15/2320243 references a New York Times article published today by Steve Lohr describing a new agreement with Microsoft, to replace Linux in markets which prefer Windows. The slashdot posting missed a couple of key points from the article, which I will outline here, as I think might be of interest as well: 1.The decision to push for WXP to replace Linux was due to pressure from prospective buyers of the XO laptop, which was slowing sales. 'The people who buy the machines are not the children who use them, but government officials in most cases,' said Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the nonprofit group. 'And those people are much more comfortable with Windows.' 2. The article also pointed out difficulties OLPC had with corporate interests outweighing their own. Describing the Microsoft agreement's structure, Lohr wrote, That contrasts with the approach of Intel, which joined the project last July, took a board seat and pledged an $18 million contribution only to quit in January amid squabbling over Intels aggressive sales tactics with the Classmate PC.
OLPC
I saw this today and thought I'd share. It took me back to Theo's email[1] from a number of years ago about using the closed drivers by Marvell: * Ironically, the majority of the system-level problems we had experienced are directly tied to the two proprietary code bases on the laptop: the wireless firmware and the embedded controller firmware. While there are efforts to replace these, OLPC itself has been diligently working with both Marvell and Quanta to make the best of the situation. To suggest that fundamentalism has impeded progress on those two subsystems is not correct.[2] Thought some of you would be interested in that nugget. [1]: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=116007094304009w=2 [2]: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-April/013067.html -- # Curt Micol
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
[diverted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:08:41AM -0700, big one wrote: | OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) had released XO AMD Geode LX Laptops | using G1G1 (Buy 2 Get 1). One laptop will be sent to the buyer and the | 2nd laptop will be sent to a child in a poor, developing country. | | According to Mr Theo de Raadt from OpenBSD, it is impossible to | write device driver for Wireless chipset inside XO. | | According to OLPC developer team: | 1. There is no standard BIOS inside XO laptops. | 2. There is no VGA/EGA/CGA video mode. | | Is it possible to port OpenBSD to XO Laptops without | activating/using the wireless chipset? | Thank you Why not buy some and send them to interested developers. Buy 2 Send 1 to an OpenBSD developer ;) Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
Maybe I've missed something but what makes it impossible to write a device driver for the Wireless chipset? -Josh On 9/26/07, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [diverted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:08:41AM -0700, big one wrote: | OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) had released XO AMD Geode LX Laptops | using G1G1 (Buy 2 Get 1). One laptop will be sent to the buyer and the | 2nd laptop will be sent to a child in a poor, developing country. | | According to Mr Theo de Raadt from OpenBSD, it is impossible to | write device driver for Wireless chipset inside XO. | | According to OLPC developer team: | 1. There is no standard BIOS inside XO laptops. | 2. There is no VGA/EGA/CGA video mode. | | Is it possible to port OpenBSD to XO Laptops without | activating/using the wireless chipset? | Thank you Why not buy some and send them to interested developers. Buy 2 Send 1 to an OpenBSD developer ;) Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
On 26/09/2007, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [diverted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:08:41AM -0700, big one wrote: | OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) had released XO AMD Geode LX Laptops | using G1G1 (Buy 2 Get 1). One laptop will be sent to the buyer and the | 2nd laptop will be sent to a child in a poor, developing country. | | According to Mr Theo de Raadt from OpenBSD, it is impossible to | write device driver for Wireless chipset inside XO. | | According to OLPC developer team: | 1. There is no standard BIOS inside XO laptops. | 2. There is no VGA/EGA/CGA video mode. | | Is it possible to port OpenBSD to XO Laptops without | activating/using the wireless chipset? | Thank you Why not buy some and send them to interested developers. Buy 2 Send 1 to an OpenBSD developer ;) You'd have to buy at least a total of four laptops then. :) It is no less interesting to note that the price is obviously 2 times more what it was supposed to be. One more thing that deserves attention is that the OLPC camp promised us all that by the time the laptop goes into mass production, all parts of the system will be free, including the wireless module -- but is it indeed so? C.
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
On 2007/09/26 13:58, Joshua Smith wrote: Maybe I've missed something but what makes it impossible to write a device driver for the Wireless chipset? not impossible, but I think it was fiddly. it's malo(4), isn't it? there's the usual silly games with firmware files too, you need to get them onto the system by some other method (wired, USB, type in a printed uuencode, or whatever).
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
On 26/09/2007, Joshua Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe I've missed something but what makes it impossible to write a device driver for the Wireless chipset? Nothing is impossible, but the problem is that so many parts of the OLPC hardware are proprietary and without readily available documentation that the work would be very difficult and time consuming. Looks can be deceiving, too: this version of the laptop appears to be targeted to 18+ users, because in many jurisdictions you have to be at least 18 to sign an NDA in order to actually explore the hardware part of the laptop. C.
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [diverted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:08:41AM -0700, big one wrote: | OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) had released XO AMD Geode LX Laptops | using G1G1 (Buy 2 Get 1). One laptop will be sent to the buyer and the | 2nd laptop will be sent to a child in a poor, developing country. | | According to Mr Theo de Raadt from OpenBSD, it is impossible to | write device driver for Wireless chipset inside XO. | | According to OLPC developer team: | 1. There is no standard BIOS inside XO laptops. | 2. There is no VGA/EGA/CGA video mode. | | Is it possible to port OpenBSD to XO Laptops without | activating/using the wireless chipset? | Thank you Why not buy some and send them to interested developers. Buy 2 Send 1 to an OpenBSD developer ;) Last week I borrowed a pre-production B2 model from a friendly OLPC developer. It's true the hardware is more like some embedded appliance than 'normal' i386. Moreover, it uses Open Firmware and not a BIOS. You can probably find this information and more on the OLPC wikis but here are dmesg and lspci for the curious. But keep in mind this is a pre-production model and the hardware in the production models is beefed up. (And no, I'm currently too much of a slacker getting it working with OpenBSD) 00:01.0 Host bridge: National Semiconductor Corporation Geode GX2 Host Bridge (rev 21) 00:01.1 VGA compatible controller: National Semiconductor Corporation Geode GX2 Graphics Processor 00:0c.0 FLASH memory: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Unknown device 4100 (rev 10) 00:0c.1 Generic system peripheral [0805]: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Unknown device 4101 (rev 10) 00:0c.2 Multimedia video controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Unknown device 4102 (rev 10) 00:0f.0 ISA bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] CS5536 [Geode companion] ISA (rev 03) 00:0f.3 Multimedia audio controller: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] CS5536 [Geode companion] Audio (rev 01) 00:0f.4 USB Controller: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] CS5536 [Geode companion] OHC (rev 02) 00:0f.5 USB Controller: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] CS5536 [Geode companion] EHC (rev 02) [0.00] Linux version 2.6.22-20070910.30.olpc.25d22c40e3bef15 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.1 20070105 (Red Hat 4.1.1-51)) #1 PREEMPT Mon Sep 10 03:09:19 EDT 2007 [0.00] BIOS-provided physical RAM map: [0.00] BIOS-e801: - 0009f000 (usable) [0.00] BIOS-e801: 0010 - 075dd000 (usable) [0.00] 117MB LOWMEM available. [0.00] Entering add_active_range(0, 0, 30173) 0 entries of 256 used [0.00] Zone PFN ranges: [0.00] DMA 0 - 4096 [0.00] Normal 4096 -30173 [0.00] early_node_map[1] active PFN ranges [0.00] 0:0 -30173 [0.00] On node 0 totalpages: 30173 [0.00] DMA zone: 32 pages used for memmap [0.00] DMA zone: 0 pages reserved [0.00] DMA zone: 4064 pages, LIFO batch:0 [0.00] Normal zone: 203 pages used for memmap [0.00] Normal zone: 25874 pages, LIFO batch:7 [0.00] DMI not present or invalid. [0.00] Allocating PCI resources starting at 1000 (gap: 075dd000:f8a23000) [0.00] Built 1 zonelists. Total pages: 29938 [0.00] Kernel command line: ro root=mtd0 rootfstype=jffs2 console=ttyS0,115200 console=tty0 fbcon=font:SUN12x22 [0.00] Initializing CPU#0 [0.00] CPU 0 irqstacks, hard=c074a000 soft=c0749000 [0.00] PID hash table entries: 512 (order: 9, 2048 bytes) [0.00] Detected 362.994 MHz processor. [ 13.994339] Console: colour EGA 80x25 [ 13.995511] Dentry cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) [ 13.996123] Inode-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 32768 bytes) [ 14.022039] Memory: 106348k/120692k available (2325k kernel code, 13804k reserved, 842k data, 168k init, 0k highmem) [ 14.00] virtual kernel memory layout: [ 14.022234] fixmap : 0xd000 - 0xf000 ( 8 kB) [ 14.022251] vmalloc : 0xc800 - 0xb000 ( 895 MB) [ 14.022267] lowmem : 0xc000 - 0xc75dd000 ( 117 MB) [ 14.022284] .init : 0xc071a000 - 0xc0744000 ( 168 kB) [ 14.022301] .data : 0xc06455e9 - 0xc07181b4 ( 842 kB) [ 14.022318] .text : 0xc040 - 0xc06455e9 (2325 kB) [ 14.022777] Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok. [ 14.174046] Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 727.64 BogoMIPS (lpj=3638233) [ 14.174543] Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized [ 14.174651] SELinux: Initializing. [ 14.174857] SELinux: Starting in permissive mode [ 14.174904] selinux_register_security: Registering secondary module capability [ 14.175015] Capability LSM initialized as secondary [ 14.175269] Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 [ 14.176363] CPU: After
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
On Sep 26, 2007, at 5:08 PM, big one wrote: OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) had released XO AMD Geode LX Laptops using G1G1 (Buy 2 Get 1). One laptop will be sent to the buyer and the 2nd laptop will be sent to a child in a poor, developing country. According to Mr Theo de Raadt from OpenBSD, it is impossible to write device driver for Wireless chipset inside XO. According to OLPC developer team: 1. There is no standard BIOS inside XO laptops. 2. There is no VGA/EGA/CGA video mode. Is it possible to port OpenBSD to XO Laptops without activating/ using the wireless chipset? Thank you The XO laptop looks like a great little laptop to use without the nice looking but weird SUGAR interface. I was actually hoping to buy one to use with OpenBSD. I didn't think any part of the laptop would be closed. From http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Core_principles/lang-en .. There is no inherent external dependency in being able to localize software into their language, fix the software to remove bugs, and repurpose the software to fit their needs. Nor is there any restriction in regard to redistribution; OLPC cannot know and should not control how the tools we create will be re-purposed in the future. ... Further, every child has something to contribute; we need a free and open framework that supports and encourages the very basic human need to express. Give me a free and open environment and I will learn and teach with joy. Proprietary hardware and software seems to be directly against their core principles. The XO laptop uses Open Firmware instead of a BIOS, so it's probably a lot like a Sun SPARC or a PPC Mac. Can you point me to the source where Theo de Raadt claims that it's impossible to write a driver for the Marvell Libertas controller (wireless networking). I can't seem to find it. Thanks, Floor Terra
Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:58:16PM -0400, Joshua Smith wrote: Maybe I've missed something but what makes it impossible to write a device driver for the Wireless chipset? -Josh No one said it is impossible, it is just far harder than it should be due to a lack of documentation and companies like Red Hat signing NDAs with Marvell. The specific chip the OLPC people are using thus far does not seem to be found anywhere else in the market. Combine that with a quirky non standard machine with limited availability and you see why people aren't terribly interested.
Re: RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
Shane J Pearson wrote: You find a lot of things obvious for a guy who is so presumptuous. For the record, I respect the intentions of RMS and I highly respect the intentions and practical thinking of Theo, the OpenBSD project, the developers and much of the user base. I've been enjoying OpenBSD since 2.5 and I try to buy OpenBSD items and donate whenever I am financially able. I tried to donate brand new SCSI disks when Theo asked for them for the older machines and I purchased a brand new SCSI card for an Aussie developer and had it sent to him, while I was mostly unemployed with small funds. My intentions are honourable here. I messed up by touching something that could be controversial. But really, I was pro OpenBSD in an OpenBSD list. So shoot me. If you are referring to me (which I think is a safe assumption based on your quoting), then you've read way too much into *my* opinion. I'll be careful in the future to try to avoid accidentally becoming the catalyst to the few overly sensitive folks here. Hmm. Let's see. Jack's original post is listed in its entirety below. I do not see any quotes around the word interesting. If you read it then you may agree that his meaning is obvious, you may not. However, it was followed up by three posters, one of which was you responding to further messages downstream from the original post, where two of the posts make comments which could be considered disparaging, and which could also reasonably be seen as leading towards a greater debate over the merits of the celebrities behind two groups of software licencing thinking. I've seen that more than once on this list and it goes nowhere, and yes, I am sensitive about it because I have never seen a single positive thing come from it.. It is merely a waste of bandwidth and the time of list readers. So yes, I posted an abrasive message to the list in an attempt to curb such discussion from taking place again. Around here, ego bruising tends to get better results than asking nicely. Anyone who sticks around after having made several posts to misc@ is probably someone who is genuinely interested in OpenBSD. :) I would never accuse a poster otherwise unless they were being absolutely crystal clear that they don't support OpenBSD. Where your particular misunderstanding seems to come into play is where you see Jack reference his earlier message, the one posted below, by quoting the word interesting. He was not implying anything. You either missed part of the thread or were fishing for an argument. It seems more likely that you missed part of the thread considering you take sole ownership of my previous negative comments. I would merely offer that you re-read the entire thread and consider that you may have not been the focus of my attention. Jumping into the middle of a thread without understanding the entire context is a recipe for disaster. In any case, you have made your intentions clear. Whether I was referencing you, another poster, all of you, or anyone who was thinking about joining into the thread and fanning the flames, well, I will leave that as an exercise for the reader, should any such reader care to waste any more time on this topic :) Breeno PS - I would avoid bringing up donations as a way of indicating that you are supporting the project. If you dig back in the lists you will find a post I made to another list, ports@ maybe, asking a question with the request that replies be sent to my email as well as the list, as I was not subscribed to that list. I got slammed for not supporting the project by participating in the list. I replied that I participate in misc@ instead because I can actually be useful there (sometimes) and that I donate to the project. I was then accused by several parties of attempting to buy help by bringing up my donations, when I was merely trying to indicate that I *DO* support the project in the ways available to me, as you did above. Just a friendly warning from someone who has already been burnt. It really is amazing just how much drama there are on these lists considering their intended purpose. List: openbsd-misc Subject:Re: OLPC From: Jack J. Woehr jwoehr () absolute-performance ! com Date: 2006-10-10 16:21:45 Message-ID: 1415ECD7-F7E8-4127-8DF3-A04EF94E7F61 () absolute-performance ! com [Download message RAW] On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Some of you may have been following the OLPC discussion. Here is one place you can read more about it: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ The differences of opinion between Theo and RMS are at least as interesting as the differences between either one and OLPC / the chip vendors! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
So... RMS vs. TdR in a hot jello grudge match... who comes out on top? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself. For the most part, this whole thread seems just that silly.
Re: RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
Breen, On 13/10/2006, at 1:20 AM, Breen Ouellette wrote: Hmm. Let's see. Jack's original post is listed in its entirety below. I do not see any quotes around the word interesting. If you read it then you may agree that his meaning is obvious, you may not. I replied to this... http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=116050963816462w=2 So yes, I posted an abrasive message to the list in an attempt to curb such discussion from taking place again. You posted an abrasive message to prevent a flame war? Nice work. Where your particular misunderstanding seems to come into play is where you see Jack reference his earlier message, the one posted below, by quoting the word interesting. He was not implying anything. He can speak for himself, which is why I asked him. He said 'interesting' a few times, so I was intrigued by that. Even Bob Beck asked 'How so?...'. You either missed part of the thread or were fishing for an argument. Actually, you missed part of the thread. The part I was actually replying to. PS - I would avoid bringing up donations as a way of indicating that you are supporting the project. If you dig back in the lists you will find a post I made to another list, ports@ maybe, asking a question with the request that replies be sent to my email as well as the list, as I was not subscribed to that list. I got slammed for not supporting the project by participating in the list. I replied that I participate in misc@ instead because I can actually be useful there (sometimes) and that I donate to the project. I was then accused by several parties of attempting to buy help by bringing up my donations, when I was merely trying to indicate that I *DO* support the project in the ways available to me, as you did above. Two different situations. I am obviously not trying to buy support. I was merely trying to make my honest intentions known. When I make a donation, it is for real. I don't want or expect anything in return for it. That's why it is a donation. Mentioning that I have donated was just to show that I do actually care about OpenBSD and am most likely therefore not trolling for flames. In fact, for the cost of a $300 (.au) SCSI card, I don't feel that would be payment enough for even a single day for a single developer, for what they do with their skills. I wouldn't dare expect anything in return. I am merely grateful for what I get. I hope this is the end of this ridiculous waste of time. A single, pro-OpenBSD, throw away comment should not have come to this. Shane J Pearson shanejp netspace net au
Re: OLPC
On 10/10/06 9:29 PM, ropers wrote: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ from the above link: Technically end-users are not Marvell's customers because it neither makes nor sells the actual hardware that people use. Instead, it makes chips that OEMs in turn buy and integrate into other components or finished electronic goods like PC motherboards, handheld devices, and peripheral cards. Marvell is abstracted from the people who actually use its products, and in a twisted sort of way, it's entirely possible that Marvell's actual OEM customers are completely satisfied with its performance and behavior, even if end-users are not. Q.F.T. Yep, this is pure clueless capitalism that has nothing to do with an open source project, receiving money over the backs of children that need as much as possible of it for better education. .. http://www.theos.com/deraadt/jg That archive contains a jpg in base64 format. Here it is in decoded form: http://ropersonline.com/static/nigerian-classroom.jpg (Thank you!) Those kids will get RSI!!! +++chefren
Re: OLPC
According to Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.rtos.com/news/detail/?prid=104 Product Category ThreadX Deployments Representative Customers Wireless Networking 200,000,000 Broadcom, Intel, Marvell Even more curious is this at the bottom of that same table/figure: Space Probes 2 NASA Regards, web... -- William Bulley Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OLPC
On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Shane J Pearson wrote: By interesting, you mean one is well meaning, but a little kooky and not always in touch with reality and the other is focused and committed to maintaining some sanity in the world of computing? No, I didn't mean that. I meant that both gentlemen are personal friends of mine and that the contrast between these two giants of free and open source software could hardly be more striking. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
Jack J. Woehr wrote: On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Shane J Pearson wrote: By interesting, you mean one is well meaning, but a little kooky and not always in touch with reality and the other is focused and committed to maintaining some sanity in the world of computing? No, I didn't mean that. I meant that both gentlemen are personal friends of mine and that the contrast between these two giants of free and open source software could hardly be more striking. Obviously there are elements trying to start an RMS/GNU versus TdR/BSD holy war. If you don't find it interesting that two men could take a stand for free and open ideals, and yet interpret those ideals so differently, then fine, it isn't interesting to you. Thanks for sharing, I guess. I don't find it very interesting myself yet I don't feel the need to tell the world, but that's just me. Maybe you've got it all worked out as part of your life plan. If you don't like RMS (or TdR for that matter) or his version of free and open ideals, then fine, you have the right to feel that way in most locales. I'm not particularly fond of RMS' views and ideas myself. But when you reply to the original poster's message feigning that you don't understand his point, well, then you come across as stupid. An inquisitive child could understand the difference between these two mens' views, and understand that some people might find it interesting. Really, truly stupid. And willing to share it with the rest of the world on a public mailing list, no less! Brilliant! If you want to start a holy war about the merits of these two positions then start a thread, preferably somewhere else, and howl into the wind. Nobody cares. We've all made up our minds about which side of the fence we are on. You aren't going to change my mind, or anyone else's. You are only making yourselves out to be a bunch of idiots. This sure doesn't help the image of the OpenBSD user base at all. When we aren't taken seriously it is, in part, because of childish melodrama like this thread. Breeno PS - Jack, some friendly advice, you are only encouraging them each time you reply. They obviously don't care about why you find interest in this subject. They only want to find a way to link you to RMS and then trash you.
Re: RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
On Oct 11, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Breen Ouellette wrote: PS - Jack, some friendly advice, you are only encouraging them each time you reply. They obviously don't care about why you find interest in this subject. They only want to find a way to link you to RMS and then trash you. Thanks, Breen. Have been a brash and testosterone-dizzy young engineer myself a quarter of a century ago, I don't mind being part of the humanities education of today's young engineers, as long as it doesn't take too much time out of my current engineering workday :-) -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
Breen, Quoting Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PS - Jack, some friendly advice, you are only encouraging them each time you reply. They obviously don't care about why you find interest in this subject. They only want to find a way to link you to RMS and then trash you. I wasn't trying to start a holy war. I asked the question because interesting was placed in quotes, as if it had some greater unspoken meaning... I find the contrast between them ... um ... interesting. RMS being a bit out of touch sometimes is just my opinion. I'm not trying to link RMS to anyone or trash Jack. Shane This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: RMS vs TdR (WAS: Re: OLPC)
Breen, I am replying to this in full because I want my intentions known. I'll leave it at this. On 12/10/2006, at 2:58 AM, Breen Ouellette wrote: Jack J. Woehr wrote: On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Shane J Pearson wrote: By interesting, you mean one is well meaning, but a little kooky and not always in touch with reality and the other is focused and committed to maintaining some sanity in the world of computing? No, I didn't mean that. I meant that both gentlemen are personal friends of mine and that the contrast between these two giants of free and open source software could hardly be more striking. Obviously there are elements trying to start an RMS/GNU versus TdR/ BSD holy war. If you are referring to me, you are right off the mark. I never mentioned GNU or BSD and had no intention of starting anything. It was just a throw-away comment in support of the OpenBSD leadership. If you don't find it interesting that two men could take a stand for free and open ideals, and yet interpret those ideals so differently, then fine, it isn't interesting to you. I never said it was not interesting. If you don't like RMS (or TdR for that matter) or his version of free and open ideals, then fine, you have the right to feel that way in most locales. I'm not particularly fond of RMS' views and ideas myself. I very much respect both, but lean towards Theo's ideals and line of practical thinking, which is always very thought provoking for me. But that is just me. I wouldn't waste time trying to start a flame war, because this is just my opinion and I don't want to waste misc@ users time. I do now see that I probably just should have kept my opinion to myself, because it could be misinterpreted and was probably not worth mentioning. But when you reply to the original poster's message feigning that you don't understand his point, well, then you come across as stupid. An inquisitive child could understand the difference between these two mens' views, and understand that some people might find it interesting. Who are you referring to with this? Am I the stupid person for finding a vague comment to be vague? If I don't ask, then I can only make assumptions with something like: '...um... interesting' And my comment was mostly meant in jest. Really, truly stupid. And willing to share it with the rest of the world on a public mailing list, no less! Brilliant! I, when confronted with a vague comment, ask a question for clarification. Which admittedly was meant more of a humorous, rhetorical question. Whereas you, confronted with something also vague (to a lesser extent), choose to read a LOT into it and then go on the attack, publicly with a tirade against a bunch of incorrect assumptions. So which is more stupid? If you want to start a holy war about the merits of these two positions then start a thread, preferably somewhere else, and howl into the wind. Nobody cares. We've all made up our minds about which side of the fence we are on. You aren't going to change my mind, or anyone else's. You are only making yourselves out to be a bunch of idiots. I think you have rather made quite the arse of yourself, Breen. I can now see the danger of a holy war erupting from my oversight, but mostly due to presumptuous people like you, who shoot first then ask questions later. This sure doesn't help the image of the OpenBSD user base at all. When we aren't taken seriously it is, in part, because of childish melodrama like this thread. Frankly, I don't much worry about the perception of the OpenBSD user base, because I think any negative perceptions towards it as a whole would be unfounded. There are idiots in every user camp. However this user camp makes up for them and then some, with some really helpful decent people on the list. I just temporarily put them on my twit list. But in the past 7 years or so, I've only put ONE person from misc@ in my twit list and I've since taken them off, now that they've become more reasonable. PS - Jack, some friendly advice, you are only encouraging them each time you reply. They obviously don't care about why you find interest in this subject. They only want to find a way to link you to RMS and then trash you. You find a lot of things obvious for a guy who is so presumptuous. For the record, I respect the intentions of RMS and I highly respect the intentions and practical thinking of Theo, the OpenBSD project, the developers and much of the user base. I've been enjoying OpenBSD since 2.5 and I try to buy OpenBSD items and donate whenever I am financially able. I tried to donate brand new SCSI disks when Theo asked for them for the older machines and I purchased a brand new SCSI card for an Aussie developer and had it sent to him, while I was mostly unemployed with small funds. My intentions are honourable here. I messed up by touching
Re: Letter to OLPC
Daniel Ouellet wrote: [..] Let me put it better then. I use their GPL part here ONLY to show how more ridiculous the answer was and oppose to what you say, they wrote and quote A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip... and then at the same time, they say they can't release anything. Then you go saying it possible to keep secret code that is GPL. All just doesn't fit, sorry! Their firmware is *NOT* covered by the GPL. The GPL'd driver is written by someone else. There is nothing ridiculous about that, that is simply (unfortunately) the way it is. The firmware is the binary version of that though. The problem with Marvel is that even though people can make their own sources and thus drivers from reverse engineering, like the OpenBSD guys did, they can't re-distribute the firmware that is needed to actually make the device work. What got me going was that you turn the stupidity of their answer into a GPL/BSD issue that frankly have nothing to do with the essence of the problem where they refuse to release documentations and allow redistributions of FIRMWARE Also from your post above I use their GPL part here ONLY to show how...: if you don't want comments on it then don't mention it. Fortunately you seem to get the essence: they refuse to release their docs and allow redistribution of their firmware. That is the problem at hand and nothing else. Two ways around it: hard route: making own firmware (better make your own wireless etc then too ;) or ask nicely, or not so nicely, and try them to release documentation or change licensing. But I didn't make it a GPL issue, I use the GPL to show how untrue they really are, based on the principal of the license that all GPL defenders say it's good for. GPL is about forcing others to release their code, nothing else. Which is what I noted originally: it is less freeopen than than BSD. Thus there is nothing 'free' nor 'open' about GPL except that you can take a look at the code and that you have a possibility to enhance and maybe contribute to it, but for businesses that is useless. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
OLPC
Some of you may have been following the OLPC discussion. Here is one place you can read more about it: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ Finally it has been made more clear what this is about. The discussion is being discussed at a variety of other sites. However, a problem remains -- Jim Gettys at Red Hat keeps mis-representing what it is that we (OpenBSD, but also the developer community at large) want from Marvell. He tries to make us look unreasonable by attributing unreasonable viewpoints to us. He says that what we ask for is firmware source code. Other times he says we ask for enough documentation to write a firmware. We never asked for those things, and we never expect to get them. Both of those are things which Marvell is very unlikely to give up. By mis-representing our views as such, he hopes to make them look unreasonable. From the start we have been clear about what we need from Marvell (or any other vendor). We need rights to distribute firmware binaries, plus enough documentation to allow the creation maintainance of a kernel-level driver to interface with the card. We do not wish to become firmware authors. The Marvell 802.11 chip is just one of 30 similar products on the market, and thus we wish to spend as little time working on it as possible. What we ask for is a small subset of the documentation that Marvell has produced for their customers. It details how the firmware is loaded onto the ARM cpu, and then the protocol one talks to the firmware. Jim keeps saying we are being unreasonable, and to do so, he creates unreasonable viewpoints for us. OLPC says they need the firmware programming information so they can write their own mesh implimentation. Fine. So they signed an NDA. Fine. But when they signed that NDA they made it even harder for us to get the information we so reasonably have said we need. That was my point from the beginning. When they signed that NDA, they seriousl hurt the device driver developer community, because they had not insisted on the subset of rights that developers need. Since Jim repeatedly mistates our views, I am making the controversial move of publishing the entire email archive. It is in a flat file at http://www.theos.com/deraadt/jg Jim always makes sure that everything he writes mentions the children. But I must make sure that you also think of the device driver programmers.
Re: OLPC
On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Some of you may have been following the OLPC discussion. Here is one place you can read more about it: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ The differences of opinion between Theo and RMS are at least as interesting as the differences between either one and OLPC / the chip vendors! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: OLPC
On 10/10/06, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Some of you may have been following the OLPC discussion. Here is one place you can read more about it: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ The differences of opinion between Theo and RMS are at least as interesting as the differences between either one and OLPC / the chip vendors! How so? They've both been clear about what they want and what they stand for.
Re: OLPC
On Oct 10, 2006, at 12:14 PM, bofh wrote: On 10/10/06, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The differences of opinion between Theo and RMS are at least as interesting as the differences between either one and OLPC / the chip vendors! How so? They've both been clear about what they want and what they stand for. Every book is new until one has read it. It's interesting to see the different take these two crusaders have on the firmware. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: OLPC
How so? They've both been clear about what they want and what they stand for. Every book is new until one has read it. It's interesting to see the different take these two crusaders have on the firmware. How so? that RMS is ranting about another undoable unmaintainable project (writting free firmware)? because he's kind of out of touch, rather than getting to the real issue which is that the firmware is what makes the device not a useless collection of silicon, and if you buy the device you should be able to stuff the firmware on it without restrictions, and your favorite OS should be able to include the firmware and write a driver to the interface it provides. RMS wants to change the issue by saying instead of distributable firmware and documentation, he instead wants documentation to write a *replacement* firmware? Do you guys realize how retarded that is? how bug prone and what a collosal waste of developer time it will be? Doing what RMS is suggesting would set Open Source stuff backward a lot. Instead of writing drivers for working hardware (using the vendor's firmware on the device) which is what we have *ALWAYS* done (the firmware just used to be included with the device) instead, we would have Open Source developers pissing away years of time making the device work at all... Give me a break guys. The difference is Theo understands modern hardware, and that this issue is only with us because nowadays hardware doesn't come with it's firmware burned onto the device, but rather it gets loaded at init-time. Basically OpenBSD would like to make sure developers can continue to support a loadable firmware device the same way that old style devices with embedded firmware are supported. We are not trying to replace the vendor's firmware. Stay on target... stay on target... -Bob
Re: OLPC
On Oct 10, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Bob Beck wrote: Every book is new until one has read it. It's interesting to see the different take these two crusaders have on the firmware. How so? Because they're both very strong personalities, both of whom I've met personally and whom I've interviewed for Dr. Dobb's Journal, and I find the contrast between them ... um ... interesting. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: OLPC
On 10/10/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of you may have been following the OLPC discussion. Here is one place you can read more about it: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ from the above link: Technically end-users are not Marvell's customers because it neither makes nor sells the actual hardware that people use. Instead, it makes chips that OEMs in turn buy and integrate into other components or finished electronic goods like PC motherboards, handheld devices, and peripheral cards. Marvell is abstracted from the people who actually use its products, and in a twisted sort of way, it's entirely possible that Marvell's actual OEM customers are completely satisfied with its performance and behavior, even if end-users are not. Q.F.T. Since Jim repeatedly mistates our views, I am making the controversial move of publishing the entire email archive. It is in a flat file at http://www.theos.com/deraadt/jg That archive contains a jpg in base64 format. Here it is in decoded form: http://ropersonline.com/static/nigerian-classroom.jpg
Re: OLPC
At 09:38 10-10-2006, Theo de Raadt wrote: Some of you may have been following the OLPC discussion. Here is one place you can read more about it: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/ Since Jim repeatedly mistates our views, I am making the controversial move of publishing the entire email archive. It is in a flat file at http://www.theos.com/deraadt/jg Fascinating. In reading these it seemed obvious that the encumbered IP or microkernel that JG talks about is almost certainly ThreadX, produced by Express Logic (expresslogic.com or rtos.com). I might mention that I have a lot of experience with embedded systems. JG brags of having started in 1983. I'd already been working for several years on embedded systems (the name hadn't been coined back then). Today ThreadX is almost ubiquitous in devices of a certain size or complexity. A recent press release claims over 300 million devices use it. It is especially dominant in ARM based devices. The business model is interesting. In terms of code it is little more than a threading package, typically only a few KB. Networking and USB stacks are also available, including them expands the code footprint. The threading package is something that any competent coder could toss off in less than a week. What you are really buying is a decent reference manual and that they've done the legwork to integrate support into every embedded software development platform and every SoC hardware debugging tool on the planet. And just about every experienced embedded firmware engineer you interview has already used it. They price it reasonably enough that you'd usually be stupid not to use it. Pricing is a fixed fee per project. Firmware for a chip is a project. Significant enhancements or new versions are a project. Bug fixes are not. Source is always included. No royalties. A large company such as Marvel likely buys an unlimited use license that encompasses all projects started within a certain time frame. Marvel should have used ThreadX for this project, it's the only thing out there that comes close to what's needed. It's the only thing that matches JG's hints. Main alternative would be a home brewed kernel, and JG says they didn't do that. Assuming I'm right, it has the following implications: 1. No restrictions whatsoever on binary firmware distribution, except what Marvel chooses to impose. They could make the binary blob public domain and the ThreadX licenses I've seen wouldn't care. This is one of ThreadX's biggest marketing points, prominently featured in their ads. 2. No restrictions on documentation to write drivers, except what Marvel chooses to impose. Drivers interface with Marvel's firmware, it has no relationship with ThreadX. Note: the above two are what Theo and OpenBSD want. 3. No restrictions on internal hardware documentation needed to write firmware, except what Marvel chooses to impose. If Marvel decided to release documentation describing how to write ARM code to tweak the radio, the MAC, the USB interface, etc., they are free to do so. I don't think OpenBSD cares about this, but I for one would love to play with it. Note: #3 is what someone would need to write their own, from scratch, firmware to do mesh networking and release same under a GPL or BSD license. 4. What Marvel cannot do (without major legal pain) is release their existing firmware source code to third parties. The source code uses ThreadX, it is a derivative work of the ThreadX manual and code, it is encumbered by the ThreadX licensing restrictions. Modifying the existing firmware for almost anything, especially including a feature such as mesh networking, is clearly a new project. Whoever received the source code would have to purchase a suitable license for ThreadX and agree to abide by its terms. Anyone may forward or cross-post this message anywhere they please, provided they don't alter the meaning by quoting excerpts out of context. Edward A. Gardner eag at ophidian dot com Ophidian Designs719 593-8866 1262 Hofstead Terrace Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Re: OLPC
On 10/10/06, Edward A. Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reading these it seemed obvious that the encumbered IP or microkernel that JG talks about is almost certainly ThreadX, produced by Express Logic (expresslogic.com or rtos.com). I might mention that I have a lot of experience with embedded systems. JG brags of having started in 1983. I'd already been working for several years on embedded systems (the name hadn't been coined back then). right you are sir: http://mailman.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2006-June/000277.html
Re: OLPC
On 2006/10/10 12:44, Edward A. Gardner wrote: In reading these it seemed obvious that the encumbered IP or microkernel that JG talks about is almost certainly ThreadX, produced by Express Logic (expresslogic.com or rtos.com). http://www.rtos.com/news/detail/?prid=104 Product Category ThreadX Deployments Representative Customers Wireless Networking 200,000,000 Broadcom, Intel, Marvell Thanks for an interesting read, Edward.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 2006/10/05 15:47, Bob Beck wrote: It is completely shameful. One Laptop Per Citizen - controlled by the cabal. The cabal with their bios-signing keys. I guess heretics need not apply. http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/a_secure_2b1_bios_up.html http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/negroponte_to_critic.html
Re: OLPC
2006/10/10, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That archive contains a jpg in base64 format. Here it is in decoded form: http://ropersonline.com/static/nigerian-classroom.jpg If you actually want to help 3rd world children: http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/uganda.html Laptops are the least of their worries. Best Martin
Re: OLPC
Hello Jack, On 11/10/2006, at 5:35 AM, Jack J. Woehr wrote: Because they're both very strong personalities, both of whom I've met personally and whom I've interviewed for Dr. Dobb's Journal, and I find the contrast between them ... um ... interesting. By interesting, you mean one is well meaning, but a little kooky and not always in touch with reality and the other is focused and committed to maintaining some sanity in the world of computing? Shane J Pearson shanejp netspace net au
Re: Letter to OLPC
Original message Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:37:01 +0100 From: Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Letter to OLPC To: OpenBSD misc@openbsd.org On 2006/10/05 15:47, Bob Beck wrote: It is completely shameful. One Laptop Per Citizen - controlled by the cabal. The cabal with their bios-signing keys. I guess heretics need not apply. http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/a_secure_2b1_bios_up.html http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/negroponte_to_critic.html criticizing OLPC is like criticizing jesus. gettys should use this in his next poignant rebuttal, it will draw an even larger following of hollow heads. it's also a means of switching it up on the reader so they don't become as bored with the over-invocation of the children. slap in the red cross like negroponte suggested and you've got a 5 paragraph essay on your hands. this whole thing smacks of supplying weapons to me. by handing out laptops to kids, the OLPC is clearly attempting to manufacture a relative comparative advantage between children who have laptops and those who don't. it is no different than the One Magnifying Glass Per Child or the One Knife Per Child programs in this sense. just like supplying weapons to gov'ts that are friendly, supplying laptops to children of friendly countries serves to generate a dependence on the manufacturers of such goods. did i mention the starbucks and viagra coupons that come with every laptop? many on list have said that the more basic needs of human existance are substantially more important: food, water, clothing, shelter, education, medicine. without a base to build on, every structure is bound to collapse. especially when it's profitable for it to do so. the hardware manufacturers stand to reap considerable long term profits as a result of the market they will build with this selfless humanitarian act. every ponzi scheme must grow, lest it run out of steam.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/10/06, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: advantage between children who have laptops and those who don't. it is no different than the One Magnifying Glass Per Child or the One Knife Per Child I'm here by starting the One Slap Upside the Head for Morons (OSUHM) project for all the morons in the world who need a good slap upside the head. Upon successful completion of this project, I believe I'll start the Need A Good Kick In The Ass (NAGKITA) project. Volunteers are welcomed for these two projects. We have enough volunteers (me) for the Take A Different Supermodel Out Each Night (TADSOEN) project, but would appreciate any help you folks may be able to provide in arranging for the supermodels.
Re: Letter to OLPC
Jeroen Massar wrote: Daniel Ouellet wrote: What strike me, among many things wrong and unreal here is the specific part as well: Marvell is not in a position to open their wireless firmware as it is currently dependent on the third party operating system kernel that they do not own. A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip, the Libertas driver, still under development but also fully fuctional can be found in our GIT tree. Everything is always under development ;) Claiming that they are dependent on third party stuff and that they can't release their firmware because of that though, now that is the odd part in here. But we could read this sentence differently and conclude that the GPL code writers have the power to demand that they release the firmware. Everyone that defend the GPL code should again look at themselves and realize that it is part of the license to make public the code and make it free for other to use when it is base on GPL. Well, my English may not be so good, but as I understand this as a none speaking English is that, We use GPL code, but we can't and will not release it I am pretty sure that Marvel didn't GPL their firmware. The rest though (the driver) is in GIT (linux kernel source revisions crap system), which does thus mean that it is publically available, license most likely GPL. The issues where this is all about, and also the part where Intel is being banged into is that the redistribution of the firmware is not allowed. Second point is that documentation to write ones own driver isn't available either. Well, sorry, I am not and never been a fan of GPL license code, but one thing I know about it is that is you use any part of it, you are force to release your code as well, like it or not! Not exactly. If you make a piece of code, thus your own original work, and tag it with GPL you don't actually have to release the code. You can even ask cash for it and other weird constructs: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html nProbe (see www.ntop.org) for instance does this, as from http://pkgsrc.se/net/nprobe : nProbe is licensed under the GPL, but is not currently available for public download. (You will need to know the appropriate username and password to download the distribution file for this package.) Please see the nProbe Availability section of ntop.org for more information. Thus yes, you can have GPL code that you don't have to distribute. Fun part though is that anyone that buys your GPL code can release and distribute it freely anyway because that is a 'freedom' they have from the GPL. The other side, if one takes from another author some GPL'd code and extend it, one HAS to release it, as you are not the original copyright owner. BSD license thus is more free than GPL in that respect, as it gives the user/extender of the code the option to spread it or not, while GPL restricts you and forces you to release it. This is also the reason why for instance iRiver's PMP-100 code had to be released, as they where re-using cadenux, which contained GPL'd code. I personally usually prefer BSD license for projects: everybody can do whatever they want with it. I do tend to add a clause that I would like to get a note saying yes I am happily using your code, simply because I like to know that people are actually using it. The 'thank you' factor is of importance there. (A 'your code sucks' is also welcome as long as people specify why so that I can improve on it and they can say 'thank you' anyway ;) On the subject of licenses though, no single commercial company will be able to use any GPL'd or BSD'd code anyway, for the simple reason that the author of the code might have (accidentally) coded some nice routine into it that is covered by some silly patent somewhere on this planet. The patentholder could find out that company X is using code based on project Y and then sue them because the code provided by Y has code that is covered by patent Z. As this can cost company X a lot of money company X will never use anything BSD or GPL'd, unless they have somebody do a lot of patent checks. But take a guess how many folks on this planet know and understand every single patent out there next to being able to analyze code and match them up with all those patents. Patent on the GIF format is a nice exaple to start out with ;) Greets, Jeroen Men, I must be pretty darn stupid I have to say. My point wasn't about the dam licenses or comparing GPL to BSD for crying at loud! I included here just as it was one small part of a stupid actions where some take Children's hostage for self profit and forget their own origin and at the same time have the power to make a change and choose to not do so again for self serving reason and hide themselves behind false pretenses! Why is it that everyone always
Re: Letter to OLPC
Theo de Raadt wrote on Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 02:55:22PM -0600: Adriaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See Jim Gettys defense at http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27 [...] You can't say anything bad about the children, can you? Just as your rhetorical question suggests, indeed you can. I still hoped OLPC might at least focus on an appropriate auditorium. For example, here in Germany we do have millions of (relatively!!) disadvantaged children who might profit from free laptops (though i suspect the same money spent on teacher salaries to have more basic language training or even spent on better public toothcare might help them better). But the following paragraph by Jim Gettys flabbergasted me: || Many or most children in the world do not have electric || power, nor do they have computer networking. Without || power being available, even if access points cost nothing, || you have no network. So we are deploying mesh networking, || to allow a child's laptop to forward packets for their || friend or neighbor's laptop; each laptop becomes, in || effect, a battery powered access point for the others. So those children will get laptops before their families have electricity? Had they any choice, how many of them would choose that way? Given the effort and money used for the OLPC project - on what would those people like to spend it? Or, to ask the question in a polemical way, would they choose Marvell, and why? The criticism voiced by Siju and others does not only apply to several situations in general, but it does indeed appear to apply to this particular project. :-( Small wonder the project exhibits other flaws, too, when even this central aspect has been screwed up... -- Ingo Schwarze [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is about choice. Unless all have equal opportunities to choose, it's incomplete.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 02:22:35PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: So those children will get laptops before their families have electricity? Had they any choice, how many of them would choose that way? Given the effort and money used for the OLPC project - on what would those people like to spend it? Or, to ask the question in a polemical way, would they choose Marvell, and why? The criticism voiced by Siju and others does not only apply to several situations in general, but it does indeed appear to apply to this particular project. :-( Small wonder the project exhibits other flaws, too, when even this central aspect has been screwed up... These matters are complex, and it's difficult to gauge all the effects. Months ago I heard a radio news story about one of the countries with many poor people (can't remember which) where many did not have good clothing. Charities in the US and other Western countries collected and donated huge amounts of clothing over a long period of time. Sounds nice? The country in question had a small but growing economy including a healthy textile industry. The influx of clothing effectively killed the textile industry there and put many people out of work, thus increasing the number of poor. The people donating clothing, and the charities collecting and distributing the clothing, had nothing but the best intentions, and it would be difficult to find *any* but the most noble motives. Still, interfering on a large scale is tricky and has unforeseen consequences. This can't be improved much if there are other motives involved. I've been staying out of this and I probably shouldn't have posted this, seeing that this is not germane to the issues of open/free. But the door's been opened, and the above is worth considering. To those wishing references, I don't have them. I heard it on NPR, and that's about all I remember. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ |
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 02:22:35PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote on Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 02:55:22PM -0600: Adriaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See Jim Gettys defense at http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27 [...] You can't say anything bad about the children, can you? Just as your rhetorical question suggests, indeed you can. I still hoped OLPC might at least focus on an appropriate auditorium. For example, here in Germany we do have millions of (relatively!!) disadvantaged children who might profit from free laptops (though i suspect the same money spent on teacher salaries to have more basic language training or even spent on better public toothcare might help them better). But the following paragraph by Jim Gettys flabbergasted me: || Many or most children in the world do not have electric || power, nor do they have computer networking. Without || power being available, even if access points cost nothing, || you have no network. So we are deploying mesh networking, || to allow a child's laptop to forward packets for their || friend or neighbor's laptop; each laptop becomes, in || effect, a battery powered access point for the others. So those children will get laptops before their families have electricity? Had they any choice, how many of them would choose that way? Given the effort and money used for the OLPC project - on what would those people like to spend it? Or, to ask the question in a polemical way, would they choose Marvell, and why? The criticism voiced by Siju and others does not only apply to several situations in general, but it does indeed appear to apply to this particular project. :-( Small wonder the project exhibits other flaws, too, when even this central aspect has been screwed up... Just to add some numbers, and because it's a neat tool (even if the 'export to Excel' button is evil [1]): http://jschipper.dynalias.net/~joachim/posts/20061008/hdr_report.html The source should be rather obvious. This page is on my home server, which is turned off when I feel like it (i.e. not often, but not never either), so might be unreliable. Play around on hdr.undp.org if so inclined. Joachim [1] Any reason why 'export to CSV' is not in there?
Re: Letter to OLPC
Jeroen Massar wrote: Daniel Ouellet wrote: [.. a part that you didn't want to make a 'point' about anyway..] Men, I must be pretty darn stupid I have to say. My point wasn't about the dam licenses or comparing GPL to BSD for crying at loud! Then don't mention it. Also learn how to reply to email: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_styles#Inline_replying I quote extract of their own answer, on witch you pick up only. From which you should know that I didn't comment on the rest of your comment as I didn't have any (important) comments on that part, the part I did comment on I did have a big comment on ;) Trying to tell me not to make a comment about something you wrote is IMHO 'darn stupid'. But hey I don't have to say that to somebody who already writes that that is the case ;) insert No offense and other such thingies Let me put it better then. I use their GPL part here ONLY to show how more ridiculous the answer was and oppose to what you say, they wrote and quote A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip... and then at the same time, they say they can't release anything. Then you go saying it possible to keep secret code that is GPL. All just doesn't fit, sorry! What got me going was that you turn the stupidity of their answer into a GPL/BSD issue that frankly have nothing to do with the essence of the problem where they refuse to release documentations and allow redistributions of FIRMWARE, but at the same time USE GPL that by itself ,if GPL ZEALOTS should go all over their own convictions and say, hey you can't do that and they don't. So, in the end it's all talks and nothing more. But I didn't make it a GPL issue, I use the GPL to show how untrue they really are, based on the principal of the license that all GPL defenders say it's good for. You are right in the fact that I may be shouldn't have included in the reply, but reading it was just to obvious that they were doing plenty in bad faith here including screwing up with the GPL license that is suppose to stop them from doing that exact same thing! And it was just way to obvious that they were not respecting the spirit of their own routs in term of codes used either. May be my hopes, obviously wrong here, were to put the spotlight to this part of the issue as well and include even the same Linux guys if you want to put pressure on OLPC and Marvel for taking and not giving back and are suppose to do so based on the same Linux (GPL) point of view. To me that's a very good example of testing their own convictions. They always said their license is very good, but never been tested. May be with the size of this issue here it's time they test it no? They should request to have open documentations and if they can't they can always use the GPL they love so much to force to open it, and pressure the OLPC to do the right thing. But looks like it will never happen. Best, Daniel
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have decided to make public this letter which I sent to the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child group, which is strongly associated with Red Hat. [snip] See Jim Gettys defense at http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27 =Adriaan=
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have decided to make public this letter which I sent to the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child group, which is strongly associated with Red Hat. [snip] See Jim Gettys defense at http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27 He cleverly avoids the entire issue I brought up -- Non-disclosure agreements with chip vendors result in source code drivers which cannot be maintained later because the documentation is not available to those who would wish to maintain the driver. Jim is obviously very clever at convincing people that children need proprietary laptops (OLPC has a greater percentage of undocumented hardware than a Thinkpad from 3 years ago). It is easy for Jim to convince people these things because he doesn't care at all about the future maintainance of drivers. I do. And I think most of you also do. (Somewhere else Jim basically said in about 2 years they are likely to choose another chip, and then all their developers with documentation under NDA will ... I guess stop maintaining the Linux Marvell driver) Every posting from him mentions the children, as a way to encourage people to believe him. You can't say anything bad about the children, can you? But behind that mention of the children, look -- here is a Red Hat employeee spouting the same proprietary balony we hear all the time from vendors like Intel and Broadcom.
Re: Letter to OLPC
Original message
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:55:22 -0600
From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Letter to OLPC
To: Adriaan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
On 10/5/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have decided to make public this letter which I sent to the OLPC
(One Laptop Per Child group, which is strongly associated with Red
Hat.
[snip]
See Jim Gettys defense at http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27
He cleverly avoids the entire issue I brought up --
Non-disclosure agreements with chip vendors result
in source code drivers which cannot be maintained
later because the documentation is not available
to those who would wish to maintain the driver.
Jim is obviously very clever at convincing people that children need
proprietary laptops (OLPC has a greater percentage of undocumented
hardware than a Thinkpad from 3 years ago). It is easy for Jim to
convince people these things because he doesn't care at all about the
future maintainance of drivers. I do. And I think most of you also
do.
(Somewhere else Jim basically said in about 2 years they are likely to
choose another chip, and then all their developers with documentation
under NDA will ... I guess stop maintaining the Linux Marvell driver)
how else do you expect the OPLC project to transition these kids into eventually
paying for technology? if they could have the machine run indefinitely, it would
threaten what i see as the real goal of the OPLC project: marketing to
disadvantaged people in hopes they will buy stuff later.
stating that OPLC is a non-profit when it promotes use of proprietary hardware
on which only certain OSes will run is absurd. a non-profit that promotes safe
sex via condom use is indirectly generating profit for condom manufacturers and
likely acquires funding therefrom. this is a conflict of interest, IMO, with one
organization claiming we just want everyone to be having {safe sex, computer
access, babies, etc.} and someone else who funds such an organization profiting
and the non-profit receiving kickbacks. a company being a non-profit does not
mean people don't make money, only that employee salaries and what the company
can own is limited.
Every posting from him mentions the children, as a way to encourage
people to believe him. You can't say anything bad about the children,
can you? But behind that mention of the children, look -- here is a
Red Hat employeee spouting the same proprietary balony we hear all the
time from vendors like Intel and Broadcom.
Re: Letter to OLPC
Adriaan wrote: On 10/5/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have decided to make public this letter which I sent to the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child group, which is strongly associated with Red Hat. [snip] See Jim Gettys defense at http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=27 =Adriaan= What strike me, among many things wrong and unreal here is the specific part as well: Marvell is not in a position to open their wireless firmware as it is currently dependent on the third party operating system kernel that they do not own. A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip, the Libertas driver, still under development but also fully functional can be found in our GIT tree. Everyone that defend the GPL code should again look at themselves and realize that it is part of the license to make public the code and make it free for other to use when it is base on GPL. Well, my English may not be so good, but as I understand this as a none speaking English is that, We use GPL code, but we can't and will not release it Well, sorry, I am not and never been a fan of GPL license code, but one thing I know about it is that is you use any part of it, you are force to release your code as well, like it or not! So, here the go public saying they are full 100% unlawful period! How can you trust such a company, organization, none profit, or what ever they want to call themselves for self service profit anyway! Sorry, I don't by one bit of it! All Bullshit again and again all over!!! Just hiding itself behind children's is the lowest one can go in that regards! And if you have the gots to cretisize them, you are view are going against poor children's and you are just not a decent human and a piece of low life if you do. Sorry, this is just not right and sure doesn't smell good either!!! More I read the article more it's obvious their gaol is not to help the Children's but a self serving one! If they have the hart of the children's in their mind, they woudl make sure what ever they get and learn to use would be available to them for years to come! Also, in case you haven't seen it, it's pretty obvious as well where they go: The existing closed firmware blob will be similarly redistributable as soon as we finish working with Marvells lawyers to get the right language on the license for it. Again, I may not be good in English, but I sure know the difference between CLOSED FIRMWARE and open one. I also know when you need to sepcify that we finish working with Marvells lawyers to get the right language on the license doesn't mean open either! When Open the license is pretty darn simple!!! Even continuing with this If anyones feels betrayed, it is because they are ill-informed, and that uninformed, biased and intemperate people informed them incorrectly of the situation. Juat make me fell like he things I am stupid and never go to school and should believe what he said! What a shame that is!!! And even continuing with this A project like replacing the firmware in the Marvell chip is not an overnight affair, and OLPC can not wait for its completion to start testing our systems. The success of our project requires the unique capability of the Marvell wireless chip, for which there is no alternative on the market, and for which Marvell were not legally able to provide the firmware in source form due to its use of a third partys embedded OS. Well, if you use GPL license, there isn't a question, or shouldn't be anyway. YOU HAVE TO RELEASE THE CODE PERIOD!!! So, to say were not legally able to provide the firmware in source is simply to say we try to go around the GPL license requirements and our lawyers are working on it! Stay tune and will tell you how!!! Anyway, even when look at it better and closer, you see replacing the firmware in the Marvell chip, no one is asking for that. We just want that docs of the in and out. Who cares about the inside!!! And finally, The success of our project requires... well any success if really the goal is as they say to provide them with access, woudl be to make it public so that any and every open source project could contibute to it, but no, it's not the goal here! We want success, so that we can lock them in our product for years to come and benefit form it! Now continuing with this Yes, open hardware and specifications is important. I think Theo de Raadt has the wrong organizations and people in his sights this time, and is harming open source and free software with irresponsible and ill-informed statments. id the biggest liar of all I have read in a long time! Theo have done more to help everyone then OLPC have done and will do as it look like! They have the power to do so, but choose not to! Their choice!!! They could force the movement and really help these children's if they really wanted to , but choose not to. Just imagine if the same children's god forbid could ever
Re: Letter to OLPC
Hi, I have decided to make public this letter which I sent to the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child group, which is strongly associated with Red Hat. Thank you, Theo, for doing what you do. There is indeed a big difference between kneeling down and bending over (FZ). Be well... Nico
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/6/06, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. If the real concern is for *disadvantaged children* in third world countries then giving them a laptop is the most ridiculous idea ever orginated! Some time back I saw a cartoon. One of the 3rd world countries blasted their nuclear bomb and was proud of it. Proud that they were in par with the others in the West. While their people were still begging and starving in the streets and villages. The cartoon showed a poor beggar sitting on the street with torn clothes with the beggars basin to reveive a missile sent to it. In the third world the basic necissities are food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care etc. Disadvantaged children could care less about a stupid laptop when they have had no meal for a week and are tired of the sun while watching their siblings dying of cholera. Getting a laptop to a child for low cost seems to be a noble idea on the outside. add a *3rd-world country* phase and you get a more polished *charity painted/noble* image. I don't think OLPC it that great!. It is another form of business. They have seen a market. They want to reach it. thats all! Mostly people who applaude such endeavours *do not have any idea* of the issues of the third world countries. I am not angry Jack. But When I find people *over nobleizing* at the expense of the 3rd world countries I think I need to say this. Kind Regards Siju
[Way OT] Re: Letter to OLPC
Hey Siju, If the real concern is for *disadvantaged children* in third world countries then giving them a laptop is the most ridiculous idea ever orginated! I guess nobody thought of the idea to ask the 'third world' what *they* would like to have. Indeed, what a silly notion! For the 'first world' to really put an end to hunger, war and deprivation of (proper) education, it simply has to make different choices. It is always all about choice. Giving the 'third world' more of what the 'first world' already has, will only serve to magnify the problems the 'first world' has created in the first place. At the expense of the 'third world', no less. Our global problems will not be solved by thinking in the same thought patterns over and over again. I sincerely hope Theo's well written letter will bring a solid, decent discussion and get rid of any big fat liars out there. Interesting times straight ahead! Be well... Nico
Re: Letter to OLPC
I could not agree more with Siju George, what good is a laptop when all it will do is make said kid a more likely target for crime. In cases of poverty parents often sell toys that 'belong' to their kids simply to put food on the table, a laptop would be way more sellable. Being an opensource supporter and living in a third world country I can also say that is is debatable if opensource is really cheaper in a third country seeing that it mostly relies on the internet for updates, bugfixes and distribution and internet being very expensive. Also a lot of opensource projects are moving away from downloadable modules to more installer based systems, doing a kde update over a 3kB/s connection is not practical since most of these installers don't have the fault tolerance of modern download managers (please note I'm speaking in general terms here and not specifically about OpenBSD). I currently pay 77USD for a wireless broadband connection that is capped at 1GB of traffic, using SUSE Linux as an example it would be significantly cheaper to buy M$ windows than to download linux at home. And although CD sets are available cheaper from local sellers, the fun always starts with the updates are due. my twocents worth if they want to fix third world countries they should start with the governments, this seems more like a marketing excercise - Original Message - From: Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OpenBSD misc@openbsd.org Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: Re: Letter to OLPC On 10/6/06, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. If the real concern is for *disadvantaged children* in third world countries then giving them a laptop is the most ridiculous idea ever orginated! Some time back I saw a cartoon. One of the 3rd world countries blasted their nuclear bomb and was proud of it. Proud that they were in par with the others in the West. While their people were still begging and starving in the streets and villages. The cartoon showed a poor beggar sitting on the street with torn clothes with the beggars basin to reveive a missile sent to it. In the third world the basic necissities are food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care etc. Disadvantaged children could care less about a stupid laptop when they have had no meal for a week and are tired of the sun while watching their siblings dying of cholera. Getting a laptop to a child for low cost seems to be a noble idea on the outside. add a *3rd-world country* phase and you get a more polished *charity painted/noble* image. I don't think OLPC it that great!. It is another form of business. They have seen a market. They want to reach it. thats all! Mostly people who applaude such endeavours *do not have any idea* of the issues of the third world countries. I am not angry Jack. But When I find people *over nobleizing* at the expense of the 3rd world countries I think I need to say this. Kind Regards Siju -- This e-mail and its contents are subject to AfriGIS PTY Limited e-mail disclaimer at http://www.afrigis.co.za/eMailDisclaimer --
[OT] Re: Letter to OLPC
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:06:35PM +0530, Siju George wrote: If the real concern is for *disadvantaged children* in third world countries then giving them a laptop is the most ridiculous idea ever orginated! Some time back I saw a cartoon. One of the 3rd world countries blasted their nuclear bomb and was proud of it. Proud that they were in par with the others in the West. While their people were still begging and starving in the streets and villages. The cartoon showed a poor beggar sitting on the street with torn clothes with the beggars basin to reveive a missile sent to it. In the third world the basic necissities are food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care etc. Disadvantaged children could care less about a stupid laptop when they have had no meal for a week and are tired of the sun while watching their siblings dying of cholera. Getting a laptop to a child for low cost seems to be a noble idea on the outside. add a *3rd-world country* phase and you get a more polished *charity painted/noble* image. I don't think OLPC it that great!. It is another form of business. They have seen a market. They want to reach it. thats all! Mostly people who applaude such endeavours *do not have any idea* of the issues of the third world countries. I am not angry Jack. But When I find people *over nobleizing* at the expense of the 3rd world countries I think I need to say this. Bravo Siju Bravo! I see with my own eyes everyday ppl who have no money to eat a morsel of rice a day. And I am often amazed by their intellect, wisdom and happy attitude. I am not kidding. Once I was flabbergasted when a young chap came all the way to my home just to give me two rupees(1$ = 45 rupees). And ppl in the railway station asking me, Please give me ten rupees. I will carry your suitcase. Do you guys get the picture? My heart bleeds when I see this. But most of my fellow men are so used to this that their hearts have turned into stone seeing these things... I really wonder how one can own a car and a bungalow in my country when my own ppl are starving for food? I think the West can never understand our problems until they visit us and see our conditions. No, my point is not that anybody is inferior or superior. I sincerely believe the West has to learn a great deal of wisdom from the east. After all like many Americans want to believe America is not the only country on earth! :-) Now, coming to this particular issue of laptops I wholeheartedly agree with Siju. In fact this is nothing different from that idiot Bill Gates who came to India saying that he wanted to help India tackle the AIDS disease. I think the only solution to tackle this disparity lies in a mutual understanding and firm conviction that every race, every nation is important. Just like there are oranges and grapes and apples and kiwis, each with a different taste that makes our meal wholesome, every single race and nation goes towards making this world complete and livable. May I ask how many of my countrymen are serving in top notch research institutions like IBM and NASA? Dont you benefit by them? Well, several thousand years ago India was the richest nation on earth. India was also the most knowledgeable and ethical and moral nation, but that was once upon a time. Today, after several generations, we still have a strong culture, values and importance attached to education. Too bad, our companies like Infosys and Wipro have given us an image of doing low end junk work! Actually it is not the loss of wealth that has hurt us. What really hurt us is the lack of confidence! Well, sorry for talking about India. It is the only third world country I know. regards, Girish
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:41:32PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In a private reply to my initial mail Jim Gettys (OLPC / Red Hat) said: Free and open software is a means to an end I didn't find the new slogan on OLPC/Red Hat's site. Maybe I should check again tomorrow. Anyway, I hope each lapper gets a sticker with the above on the lid.
Re: [OT] Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/6/06, Girish Venkatachalam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, coming to this particular issue of laptops I wholeheartedly agree with Siju. In fact this is nothing different from that idiot Bill Gates who came to India saying that he wanted to help India tackle the AIDS disease. Little do I know about Bill Gates and the Aids Issue. But I know this was the outcome of Indian President's meet with Bill some time back. In a speech during dedication ceremonies Wednesday for the country's new International Institute of Information Technology in the university city of Pune, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam recounted a conversation earlier this year with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. We were discussing the future challenges in information technology, including the issues related to software security, Kalam said, according to a transcript of the speech. I made a point that we look for open-source codes so that we can easily introduce the users built security algorithms. Our discussions became difficult, since our views were different. === http://news.com.com/India+leader+advocates+open+source/2100-1016_3-1011255.html?tag=nl http://news.com.com/Indian+president+calls+for+open+source+in+defense/2100-7344_3-5259836.html Indian Govt, Defence, Universities and a lot of other companies are shifting towards Open Source Software and Operating Systems or something based on it. I know some details but do not want to disclose it here. I know about teams setup to investigate about replacing Proprietary Software with Open Source. The investigations are over in many places and the migration has started in massive amounts. All this points to the fact that the future Indian market is slowly closing for all hardware that does not support Open Source well. And this includes Intel, Adaptec ( Please some one fill in the list there are a few!). Already AMD is eating up Intel's market here! And soon people here are going to find out the truth about all the *fraud* Open Source support talk some hardware companies claim either through all these public discussions on the internet, or through people like girish and myself ( I am already asking people not to hurt themselves buying Intel's hardware ) or the hard way i.e buying the hardware and finding it does not work, then approaching the vendor and finding they don't care even if there are people who want to provide free and quality support for their products to others. And it does not take much or cost them a dime to change their fate. They will have to Open up their documentation if they need to survive. The faster they learn the better for them. Thankyou so much Kind Regards Siju
Re: [OT] Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Girish Venkatachalam wrote: Mostly people who applaude such endeavours *do not have any idea* of the issues of the third world countries. I am not angry Jack. But When I find people *over nobleizing* at the expense of the 3rd world countries I think I need to say this. We are, I think, in violent agreement on this subject. What you say is the point I was trying to make. I was concerned that the subject being discussed was being treated with reference only to *our* community's (the Open Source community's) needs and not with reference to the needs of the nominal beneficiaries, the children of the Third World. It appears to me now that these two frames of reference are aligned more closely than I had realized. As an aside, isn't it interesting how communication on the Internet about our day-to-day work and technical concerns grants us greater understanding of critical world issues than possibly our leaders possess!? -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
Hi Sij Getting a laptop to a child for low cost seems to be a noble idea on the outside. add a *3rd-world country* phase and you get a more polished *charity painted/noble* image. Here that is a called charity bizness and unfortunately it s common fact I don't think OLPC it that great!. It is another form of business. They have seen a market. They want to reach it. thats all! Yep there's nothing else they just want new customers i can imagine they won't give those laptop for but a international organization will pay those. As with free software they 'll say we made it we gave laptop to 3rd world countries but not they did. Cheers
Re: Letter to OLPC
if they want to fix third world countries they should start with the governments, this seems more like a marketing excercise Unfortunately, fixing the government while maintaining the universal democracy that is practically insisted upon by the USA as world uber-cop makes that a very difficult task. Democracy gets you the government you deserve, not the govenment that will fix your problems, and this is natural. If the electorate is hungry and ill educated they will vote (or help) the first and best alternative to stop that and the hell with any long term consequences. (The same is still true in the west just on a grander scale..) While the west got to get working democratic government up and running while effectively preventing the unwashed masses from voting, thereby giving them time to get things in place to educate the same before allowing it. The same is typically frowned upon in third world countries when the you must have democracy stick has the carrot hung to it or is shoved up the victim's nether regions as the case may be. Education is the only thing that mitigates the manipulation of the electorate by those seeking office. Personally, I think big chunks of Africa growing up motherless and fatherless due to aids, war, and hunger is a hell of a lot more of a problem than whether or not they have a laptop. You can get a perfectly good technological education without a computer. I did. You can't learn worth a shit if you're sick, starving, or being shot at. -Bob
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:24:13PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: if they want to fix third world countries they should start with the governments, this seems more like a marketing excercise Unfortunately, fixing the government while maintaining the universal democracy that is practically insisted upon by the USA as world uber-cop makes that a very difficult task. Democracy gets you the government you deserve, not the govenment that will fix your problems, and this is natural. If the electorate is hungry and ill educated they will vote (or help) the first and best alternative to stop that and the hell with any long term consequences. (The same is still true in the west just on a grander scale..) While the west got to get working democratic government up and running while effectively preventing the unwashed masses from voting, thereby giving them time to get things in place to educate the same before allowing it. The same is typically frowned upon in third world countries when the you must have democracy stick has the carrot hung to it or is shoved up the victim's nether regions as the case may be. Education is the only thing that mitigates the manipulation of the electorate by those seeking office. Personally, I think big chunks of Africa growing up motherless and fatherless due to aids, war, and hunger is a hell of a lot more of a problem than whether or not they have a laptop. You can get a perfectly good technological education without a computer. I did. You can't learn worth a shit if you're sick, starving, or being shot at. Well said. It is amazing that more people don't get this. Perhaps the laptops could be shipped with a pack of vitamins, a loaf of bread, and light body armor? -Rick
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Bob Beck wrote: Unfortunately, fixing the government while maintaining the universal democracy that is practically insisted upon by the USA as world uber-cop makes that a very difficult task. Democracy gets you the wait, wait, it's only insisted on as long as you aren't a Central Asian Republic, then the curent US Gov't administration gives them as much time as required to achieve democracy. SNIP While the west got to get working democratic government up and running while effectively preventing the unwashed masses from voting, thereby giving them time to get things in place to educate the same before allowing it. The same is typically frowned upon in third world countries when the you must have democracy stick has the carrot hung to it or is shoved up the victim's nether regions as the case may be. Education is the only thing that mitigates the manipulation of the electorate by those seeking office.
Re: Letter to OLPC
I totally agree with Siju on this. Living in a 3rd world country, as I guess he also lives, I am pretty sure that a laptop isn't at all important for disadvantaged children, as said. REAL need in our countries are, as previously said, for food, health care and good education. The most urgent of them all is for food, so I could bet anything that a disadvantaged children wouldn't think twice if he/she could sell the useless laptop in exchange for some money, or such. Moreover, there isn't easy access to internet connections in 3rd world countries, so the laptop is even MORE useless than ever. All that said, these disadvantaged children talk is clearly a load of bullshit. No doubt OLPC is after money, and only that. PS: I feel happy everyday to read the emails at [EMAIL PROTECTED] it reinforces my beliefs in truly Free software and, of course, in OpenBSD. Keep it up! On 10/6/06, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/6/06, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. If the real concern is for *disadvantaged children* in third world countries then giving them a laptop is the most ridiculous idea ever orginated! Some time back I saw a cartoon. One of the 3rd world countries blasted their nuclear bomb and was proud of it. Proud that they were in par with the others in the West. While their people were still begging and starving in the streets and villages. The cartoon showed a poor beggar sitting on the street with torn clothes with the beggars basin to reveive a missile sent to it. In the third world the basic necissities are food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care etc. Disadvantaged children could care less about a stupid laptop when they have had no meal for a week and are tired of the sun while watching their siblings dying of cholera. Getting a laptop to a child for low cost seems to be a noble idea on the outside. add a *3rd-world country* phase and you get a more polished *charity painted/noble* image. I don't think OLPC it that great!. It is another form of business. They have seen a market. They want to reach it. thats all! Mostly people who applaude such endeavours *do not have any idea* of the issues of the third world countries. I am not angry Jack. But When I find people *over nobleizing* at the expense of the 3rd world countries I think I need to say this. Kind Regards Siju -- Felipe Brant Scarel PATUX/OpenBSD Project Leader (http://www.patux.cic.unb.br)
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 06/10/06, Diana Eichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Bob Beck wrote: Unfortunately, fixing the government while maintaining the universal democracy that is practically insisted upon by the USA as world uber-cop makes that a very difficult task. Democracy gets you the wait, wait, it's only insisted on as long as you aren't a Central Asian Republic, then the curent US Gov't administration gives them as much time as required to achieve democracy. SNIP U. S. Foreign Policy - even a child can understand it! post comes to mind: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.humour/msg/0059c3a5a272af46 [...] Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: Right. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not. Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? [...]
Re: Letter to OLPC
U. S. Foreign Policy - even a child can understand it! post comes to mind: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.humour/msg/0059c3a5a272af46 And this has what to do with OpenBSD? Politics forums are over there -- or wherever. Don't care. It's not here. -- Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth. -- Mildly retarded consultant, Dilbert
Letter to OLPC
I have decided to make public this letter which I sent to the OLPC (One Laptop Per Child group, which is strongly associated with Red Hat. There have been replies to it by both Jim Gettys (argueing that their expediency is justified) and RMS (agreeing strongly with my point of view), but I will not disclose their letters. I am getting really tired of open source people who work against the open source community. Our little group can probably take credit for having opened up more wireless devices than the rest of the community, and therefore we feel we have a better grasp of the damage OLPC has done here. Our reverse engineering and documentation efforts will in time help all free software projects. Please take note, and publish if you wish. Thanks. --- To: Jonathan Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: deraadt Subject: Re: Marvell 88W8388 documentation In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:47:00 +1000. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:38:34 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that documentation for Marvell's 88W8388's is not publically available without signing an NDA? If this is the case why did a project that seems to pride itself of openess agree to deal with such a company? Drivers written under NDA tend to be full of magic numbers, near impossible for others to properly maintain and totally against the spirit of open projects. I really think you should push for Marvell to give out documentation without them forcing NDAs onto people. Failing that I'm sure there are other vendors who would be willing to be more helpful. Jonathan showed me this mail he sent you about your NDA cooperation with Marvell for the wireless chip that you want to use for the OLPC project, so that Marvell will write you special hacks to do low-power mesh networking while the main cpu is powered off. This does not gaurantee Marvell is going to be open and release documentation for their chips though. When large players like you make such private agreements with such secretive vendors, you work against our common goals of getting more open documentation for devices. It is only with open documentation that OS groups can increase device support, and later -- keep the device drivers reliable after the device is EOL'd by the vendor. I've heard claims that you (OLPC members, Red Hat employees) think this relationship with Marvell will eventually prompt/teach them to be more open in time. Do you not realize how much of a DELUSION the history of free/open operating systems shows that point of view to be? Very few chip vendors have ever opened up unless they were pushed, let alone Marvell (who I am led to believe also has NDA's with Red Hat employees for the Marvell Yukon/Yukon 2 gigabit ethernet chips -- again one of the few closed chips). It is clear that your choices are not about opening up Marvell, but simply commercially expedient and hurtful to our common cause. You came to Marvell with potential sales of millions of units, and then completely wimped out in demanding ideals that you say you share with the community. Now other companies like Intel, Broadcom, and TI can say to us Why should we open up, Marvell did not have to. So I must say I am extremely dissapointed you have chosen to work against the very obvious goals of open, and I hope that in time you are made to feel ashamed of the choice you have made.
Re: Letter to OLPC
Good job Theo, now we as a community should start spread the word again. Thank you for being the leader of Openness! Wijnand
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Wijnand Wiersma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good job Theo, now we as a community should start spread the word again. Thank you for being the leader of Openness! Hear, hear, or here, here, or whatever it's supposed to be. For some reason hypocrisy is one thing that pisses me off more than anything and these other projects are just freakin' filled with hypocrisy. To them they'll attempt to be truly open until money, power, glory, or some other motivation enters the picture. Thankfully this project and its developers have integrity. Greg
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:36:26 -0700 Greg Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hear, hear, or here, here, or whatever it's supposed to be. For some reason hypocrisy is one thing that pisses me off more than anything and these other projects are just freakin' filled with hypocrisy. To them they'll attempt to be truly open until money, power, glory, or some other motivation enters the picture. Thankfully this project and its developers have integrity. It sure seems that OpenBSD and a few others with the FSF are the last bastions of freedom. I guess no one else understands how it serves their interests to demand openness. Was it always this way or have we somehow lost the picture? Travers Buda
Re: Letter to OLPC
* Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-05 14:56]:
It sure seems that OpenBSD and a few others with the FSF are
the last bastions of freedom. I guess no one else understands how it
serves their interests to demand openness. Was it always this way or
have we somehow lost the picture?
No, it's real simple.
Red Hat (and a number of other linux distros) are morally bankrupt.
By that I mean the sit under the linux banner touting the GPL, and
yet this is not how they act. They act in a way that helps to ensure that
GPL'ed software can not continue to be written.
I am not a GPL fan, but I'll defend someone's ability to write
such software agressively. I consider it the same thing as defending freedom
of speech - it's defending your ability to buy something and use it in the
way you see fit, as opposed to buy something and use it only where and
when the manufacturer tells you you can.
The only reason you see only OpenBSD doing this is because the mass
market and media out there is too busy being a linux fanboys to notice
and ask the questions they should. All the media is seeing is we can
use this cool new thing in linux and they are missing the point of
you have just been sold out. That's not a diss of Linux in general,
it's a diss of a number of short sigheted developers who support that,
and a diss of the techincal media who ignores the fact that your
freedoms go down the tank by making these compromises. The attitude
that the end (hardware support) justifies the means (complete
sacrifice of the principles the thing was written under in the first
place) has to stop. The fact that Theo can end up being a
professional shit-disturber and find these things so easily is a huge
inditement of the community and the media reporting on it that we
read.
Allowing developers to sign NDA's with companies to add support to an
OS that purports to be free is letting them have a Munich conference
with your freedoms. You aren't invited - and they're carving you up
while doing a Chamberlain and saying look - device support in our
time - they'll be much better behaved now. We all know how well that
worked out, and this is no different.
-Bob
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
if ((not 0 not 1) != (! 0 ! 1)) {
print Larry and Tom must smoke some really primo stuff...\n;
}
Re: Letter to OLPC
The attitude that the end (hardware support) justifies the means (complete sacrifice of the principles the thing was written under in the first place) has to stop. I will quote one little sentence from a private mail with the OLPC team. I feel tiny bit uncomfortable doing so, but feel that it is an excerpt that stands on it's own and it needs to be aired. It shows what they are thinking. In a private reply to my initial mail Jim Gettys (OLPC / Red Hat) said: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on.
Re: Letter to OLPC
In a private reply to my initial mail Jim Gettys (OLPC / Red Hat) said: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. I believe it says exactly what is going on with Red Hat - they wish to bring the community on with the belief that this is a free software project and it is not. The fact that it may in fact run a linux kernel has no bearing on it. They might as well be running windows. It is completely shameful. One Laptop Per Citizen - controlled by the cabal. -Bob
Re: Letter to OLPC
Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. I don't wish to argue that point, but it is certainly a point that could be debated. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their dicks caught in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the greedheads? -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
* Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-05 16:03]: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. I don't wish to argue that point, but it is certainly a point that could be debated. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their dicks caught in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the greedheads? Expediency of the Sudentenland variety. And the fact that the chinese and brazillians are already doing it. they'd perfer to offer the disadvantaged a solution controlled by the good old USA who is after all only interested in Oil^H^H^HTheir welfare. -Bob
Re: Letter to OLPC
Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. Wait a second. I think you should go do some reseach and go read a study that has been done as to the potential financial damage this could do to the economies of some of these 3rd world countries, where the projected cost of these laptops is 80% of their GDP. There was a specific study done for Argentina. Please read it carefully. Please don't automatically suggest that people who try to do good, end up doing good. Let alone people who say they are going to do good, but show that their moral compass is off-kilter even during the development stage. don't wish to argue that point, but it is certainly a point that could be debated. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their dicks caught in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the greedheads? Yes, and of course there is huge money to be made out of the OLPC. OLPC is the american challenger in the race to beat the Chinese to this particular market. And it is about money, from all sides. The children are just mentioned to make everone feel good.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is completely shameful. One Laptop Per Citizen - controlled by the cabal. indeed. If you (misc@) haven't already, send an email, post the outrage somewhere, voice your concern. Marvell would open in a second if it meant they were going to lose the the contract with OLPC. I only hope that OLPC makes the right choice --- that they grasp that the fight for freedom requires their action _now_.
Re: Letter to OLPC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack J. Woehr Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:55 PM To: OpenBSD Subject: Re: Letter to OLPC Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. snip Why can't they try to do both, simultaneously? The fact that they won't, isn't the same as saying they can't. Do we really think this product couldn't be built within budget with full BSD license compatibility? Once they signed up corporate sponsors, I doubt they fought very hard or looked to competitive suppliers for more open solutions/licensing. Why must they give up the openness of the project so eagerly? I don't recall reading anything about how the OLPC project would have shipped already, except that they wanted more open drivers that they couldn't get Mike
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:54:47PM -0600, Jack J. Woehr wrote: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. I don't wish to argue that point, but it is certainly a point that could be debated. I think the major issue is they're claiming to be so open source to get this feel-good feeling, when really they don't care about open source ideals. Look at what Mike Evans, Red Hat representative on OLPC board, says: We are a key part of the software team because of our experience and leadership in the open source development model and community dynamics. [ http://www.redhat.com/magazine/014dec05/features/olpc/ ] Does Red Hat making under-the-table deals with closed-source vendors to give them special access to hardware docs - which gives the open source community in general nothing - make them leaders in open source development and community dynamics? I don't think so. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their dicks caught in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the greedheads? -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Please don't automatically suggest that people who try to do good, end up doing good. Oh, I would not at all suggest such a thing. I run for office, and know that in public policy, intent is meaningless, it's only effect that counts. Let alone people who say they are going to do good, but show that their moral compass is off-kilter even during the development stage. Maybe morals are more like social heuristics than compasses. Compasses point to an identifiable source, whereas morality is pretty relative. So let's say it might be possible for Mr. X to have a functional moral heuristic that is not rigidly conforming to Ms. Y's moral heuristic. Being in politics, I've learned that you are morally wrong is one of the weakest arguments one can use to convince another human being to alter their course of action. I confess I resort to that argument from time to time, e.g., when the local pols (here in Colorado) are oppressing the Mexican guest workers, but it's a pretty useless argument for getting any personal change out of the malefactor. It's just a dunking chair, so to speak. Yes, and of course there is huge money to be made out of the OLPC. OLPC is the american challenger in the race to beat the Chinese to this particular market. And it is about money, from all sides. The children are just mentioned to make everone feel good. Oh, I thought they were non-profit humanitarian foundation. Ah, well, there's lots of money to be made even in non-profits. In any case, the syllogism: 1. Free software is the Highest Moral Good. 2. OLPC won't promise to use only free software. 3. OLPC is evil. was all I could deduce from the previous correspondence, and it sounded puerile. Now you induce further information into the argument, i.e., that this is for-profit and therefore their business conduct can be judged on the same basis as any other technical organization. In that case, I'd tend to agree with you. I just didn't get that from the original posting. Maybe I should make it a practice of re-reading entire threads before I put my oar in :-) -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
The attitude that the end (hardware support) justifies the means (complete sacrifice of the principles the thing was written under in the first place) has to stop. In a private reply to my initial mail Jim Gettys (OLPC / Red Hat) said: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. I believe it says exactly what is going on with Red Hat - they wish to bring the community on with the belief that this is a free software project and it is not. The fact that it may in fact run a linux kernel has no bearing on it. They might as well be running windows. It is completely shameful. One Laptop Per Citizen - controlled by the cabal. In the end, all this only make me fell even stronger about my choice of OpenBSD and what it's stand for! Even when I see emails crying to the dying of NetBSD, or fake fight by Linux and variations of that all pretend to be your friends and provide good software and be the defender of Freedom! Look to me that none really remember where they started from and what they are suppose to stand for! Isn't is a say in English that say,If you can't beat them joint them! Look to me that many big company got involved in the open source as it couldn't be stop a the time it happen and some may be wanted to do good, although I have to question for sure! Other clearly took it as a mean to the end and a way to kill it somehow! Or diminished it's freedom! An utopia would be to see all the *BSD talks with one voice and all the GPL Linux various do the same as well and required simply free documentation, not drivers, just documentations to hardware that users are paying for in the first place. How cares what's inside, tell the in and out and how to operate the dam things, that all is required. Keep your secrets as to how you did it. No one wants to know! And allow Firmware to be distribute freely as well. I bought the hardware, why would I need to sign an agreement to use it! If that's how they want it, then be upfront and force me to sign it before I buy it, then I will buy something else. Same on Intel to be stubborn like that, May their market share shrink under the Sun! I for one haven't got an Intel processor in a long time as AMD provided documentations, my OS of choice works better on it anyway! Shame on Adaptec not to provide SCSI documentations, my LSI works better anyway! Even my wireless works better now! When will the open source community understand where they have been and where they comes from! Great things have been accomplish in the pass because of a united voice fro the community and the various projects working together! Let it be known that it's not with NDA that this happened before and sure will not continue in the future either. Doing it as it is now simply play directly in the hands of the same corporations that wish and dream of killing the open source so that they can once more charge unreal prices for buggy software and provide you bug fix for them that they call upgrades! Or improve OS version that you needs to buy again over and over again and where you need to replace your hardware each time as your new improve OS doesn't work on your old hardware! If the various *BSD and Linux are dying because they can't remove their heads from the sand, let them die! Very sad and I sure don't wish that at all, but may as well see it gone as it doesn't help to be in play with the others as it hurt every players! Isn't it just a few weeks ago that I read to my astonishment Bush saying that even freedom have to have limits! I guess there is no surprise that big company see that as normal to them too! Freedom is a journey, not a destination! Unless all the open source projects learn this and can joint to speak with one voice, they simply lie to them self and all their users and in the end deal their own dead cards! Lets take it as a regrouping movement and spread the words as it should and how it's always been done in the pass for leap forward! I for one never been so proud to be called a stubborn OpenBSD sanababish for forcing the use of OpenBSD in my business to my staff and if they don't like it, the door is wide open! Yes call that dictator if you like! It's pretty clear before you enter the office that OpenBSD is what's we run. You don't like it, then don't apply for a job, there isn't one for you! My greatest respect goes to ALL OpenBSD developers and what they stands for and for the users that follow into the foots step and see it as well as a value to them and to their peers and defend the goal as well in the process! This only make me wants to support the project even more! Now go to make a donations as I know it is really use for the good cause! Do the right things too! Support the last bastion of Freedom! Hopefully
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Niall O'Higgins wrote: Does Red Hat making under-the-table deals with closed-source vendors to give them special access to hardware docs If this is in fact what the sum of the matter is, that is indeed quite naughty. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
Paul de Weerd wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:54:47PM -0600, Jack J. Woehr wrote: | Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the | sole end unto itself for OLPC. | | I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob | says, is exactly what is going on. | | Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited | software freedom is | a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to | disadvantaged children in | 3rd-world countries. I don't wish to argue that point, but it is | certainly a point | that could be debated. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their | dicks caught | in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the | greedheads? This is a perfect opportunity to stand up, speak up about this issue. Why would the Intels and Marvells of this world withhold developers the documentation they need if they are unwilling to sign an NDA ? They are writing software that provides 'disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries' access to modern technology. Reverse your argument and bring it to Marvell. Imagine the bad press Marvell would have gotten had they declined OLPC/Red Hat access to the documentation without NDA when asked. This company will not allow 'disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries' to gain access to modern technology, because they feel the documentation to their hardware is to secret. (or whatever their false reasoning is) What these companies need is bad press. Bad press is bad for their business and shareholders will start to complain. It seems that this is the only way to make changes in big corporations, and changes are exactly what we need. Amen!!! Well said!
Re: Letter to OLPC
Does Red Hat making under-the-table deals with closed-source vendors to give them special access to hardware docs If this is in fact what the sum of the matter is, that is indeed quite naughty. Oh come on. Everyone knows that Red Hat makes deals with closed vendors. They have SINCE DAY ONE helped negotiate NDA's for Red Hat associated developers. The result is that some drivers can only be fixed by a few very special people who have those documents under NDA, and that everyone else can only report bugs. The result is also that anyone else who tries to get documentation now are told you have to sign an NDA, everyone else has been OK with that. Get out from under the rock!
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Get out from under the rock! Well, see, I was an early Cygnus employee so I still find it hard to think ill of RedHat. Even though dealing with them at all these days gives me gas :-) -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: In the end, all this only make me fell even stronger about my choice of OpenBSD and what it's stand for! What makes me feel strong about my choice of OpenBSD is that, whatever moral suasions operate in Theo and the gang, these suasions are expressed in keeping the OS Lean, Free, Correct, Open Secure. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
Bob Beck wrote on Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:47:14PM -0600: Theo de Raadt wrote: In a private reply to my initial mail Jim Gettys (OLPC / Red Hat) said: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. I believe it says exactly what is going on with Red Hat - they wish to bring the community on with the belief that this is a free software project and it is not. The fact that it may in fact run a linux kernel has no bearing on it. They might as well be running windows. There is a good deal of bitter irony in it. When the GPL was written, the author(s) were wise enough not trust themselves. So they wrote stuff like we may not sell ourselves out into the license. They were right. When people act inside social contexts involving large amounts of economical or political power, it is very hard for those people to remain true, even if they started out in search of freedom and equality. Even if they were never naive and knew their danger and the strength of their opponents. But they were wrong. To guard your Self against corruption, legal means are ineffective. Which means, then, might be effective? That is one of the most difficult questions i heard of. I cannot yet come any closer than this: Don't let people put you into social or political contexts that could pressure you to change your goals and your personality in any way you resent. Above all, do not trust your own morality or strength or whatever to remain true when tempted. Hardly anybody can resist any serious temptation for long. Do what you really want, and stay away from temptation. However, that's much easier said than done. After all, you need some cash to live on... The structure of the OpenBSD project suggests that this project might be able to resist better than others. It is no company. It is no charity. It is not so small that it needs to grasp at every straw to survive. It is not so large that any of the big players will put any real effort into trying to corrupt it. As long as it has a few people who know what they want, it might stand unconquered for a while. Not because those people are morally better than or in any way stronger than others, but because they wisely choose a context for living and working that lets them grow rather than corrupting them.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free and open software is a means to an end, rather than the sole end unto itself for OLPC. I was totally stunned by this admission. morally bankrupt, as Bob says, is exactly what is going on. Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. I don't wish to argue that point, but it is certainly a point that could be debated. Why *would* the OLPC people wish to get their dicks caught in the struggle between the free-and-open software community and the greedheads? BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THE ONES SAYING IT. THEY ARE THE ONES SAYING IT! Remember, Apple approached them and offered OSX for OLPC. What was their reason for rejecting it? It's not open source enough. So WHAT THE HELL are they saying now? This is being two faced and hypocritical.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 5, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: It is not so small that it needs to grasp at every straw to survive. It is not so large that any of the big players will put any real effort into trying to corrupt it. My man, I think you just discovered the secret of a happy life. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Ingo Schwarze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The structure of the OpenBSD project suggests that this project might be able to resist better than others. It is no company. It is no charity. It is not so small that it needs to grasp at every straw to survive. It is not so large that any of the big players will put any real effort into trying to corrupt it. As long as it has a few people who know what they want, it might stand unconquered for a while. Not because those people are morally better than or in any way stronger than others, but because they wisely choose a context for living and working that lets them grow rather than corrupting them. The success of OpenBSD (with regard to keeping its original ideals in mind) has less to do with the size or structure and more to do with the overall goals and strength of the people involved. Writing off their ability to remain true to themselves and the community as a sort of accident or one of many equally probable outcomes is completely wrong. If it was not for Theo and the rest of the developers, and the community, standing up for themselves, it would have been dissolved into something different long ago despite the structure, popularity, size, whatever. They actively work AGAINST corruption -- they don't simply avoid, ignore, or resist it.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/6/06 1:05 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote: The structure of the OpenBSD project suggests that this project might be able to resist better than others. It is no company. It is no charity. It is not so small that it needs to grasp at every straw to survive. It is not so large that any of the big players will put any real effort into trying to corrupt it. As long as it has a few people who know what they want, it might stand unconquered for a while. Not because those people are morally better than or in any way stronger than others, but because they wisely choose a context for living and working that lets them grow rather than corrupting them. The structure is nothing more or less than the BSD license that's the only license that has no strings attached (without DRM) and a community with enough people that understand it's civil and polite. +++chefren
Re: Letter to OLPC
On 10/5/06, Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip So in the end, we can't expect anything to happen if a people don't really care. People can't put in external protections to assure the safety of their ideas, it is the responsibility of people to ensure that such things are protected, and right now, there aren't many people concerned with that relative to the opposition or the complacents. You are absolutely in the wrong. We can expect action and should as such demand it. If people don't really care then that is their fault, as they will inevitably fall to the desires of people who do care. We are the ones who care about the freedom of our software. We who have our heads screwed on tightly, will move to action for what we believe in. How big of a group we are has nothing to do with whats going on here.
Re: Letter to OLPC
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:17 PM, Karsten McMinn wrote: On 10/5/06, Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip So in the end, we can't expect anything to happen if a people don't really care. People can't put in external protections to assure the safety of their ideas, it is the responsibility of people to ensure that such things are protected, and right now, there aren't many people concerned with that relative to the opposition or the complacents. You are absolutely in the wrong. We can expect action and should as such demand it. If people don't really care then that is their fault, as they will inevitably fall to the desires of people who do care. We are the ones who care about the freedom of our software. We who have our heads screwed on tightly, will move to action for what we believe in. How big of a group we are has nothing to do with whats going on here. Actually, maybe I mistated myself, but I agree with you here. -- Aaron Hsu ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] XMPP/Gtalk/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM/Yahoo: NoorahAbeer ~ ICQ: 153114301 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ http://www.aaronhsu.com
Re: Letter to OLPC
Kian Mohageri wrote on Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:46:41PM -0700: On 10/5/06, Ingo Schwarze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The structure of the OpenBSD project suggests that this project might be able to resist better than others. It is no company. It is no charity. It is not so small that it needs to grasp at every straw to survive. It is not so large that any of the big players will put any real effort into trying to corrupt it. As long as it has a few people who know what they want, it might stand unconquered for a while. Not because those people are morally better than or in any way stronger than others, but because they wisely choose a context for living and working that lets them grow rather than corrupting them. The success of OpenBSD (with regard to keeping its original ideals in mind) has less to do with the size or structure and more to do with the overall goals and strength of the people involved. Writing off their ability to remain true to themselves and the community as a sort of accident or one of many equally probable outcomes is completely wrong. If it was not for Theo and the rest of the developers, and the community, standing up for themselves, it would have been dissolved into something different long ago despite the structure, popularity, size, whatever. These two views are not as far apart as they might seem. Indeed, BOTH are needed: 1) The resolution to pursue freedom, well thought-out goals and a lot of strength to stick with them. 2) Care not to put oneself under conditions which will make oneself lose point 1. Becoming the boss of a corporation or the leader of a large party or charity are dangerous in this respect, and, alas, fatal even to most people who were once strong. I stressed point 2 not because i doubt that Theo and Mickey and Ted and Henning and... lack point 1 or because I deem point 1 unimportant (beware!). I stressed point 2 because Theo and Bob just ranted away about moral bankruptcy of others - and i think it *is* important not to trust blindly on one's own strenght, but to also find out what caused others to fail, even though those others were also strong and had valid goals to begin with. In fact, i think Theo is well aware how important one's working and living conditions are. He is quite careful not to depend on any corporation or government or pressure group or whatever, even if that means to get on with less money and to face additional trouble from time to time. They actively work AGAINST corruption -- they don't simply avoid, ignore, or resist it. That's clearly a very important point indeed. Anyway, the OpenBSD project is not bound to lose its focus any time soon. Perhaps i will now once more leave more space on the list to posts that actually deal with code. =;-)
Re: Letter to OLPC
Jack J. Woehr wrote: Hmm, sounds like you are saying that abstract goal of unlimited software freedom is a higher goal than providing access to modern technology to disadvantaged children in 3rd-world countries. No, all he wants is to make sure those disadvantaged children don't get a vendor lock in _together_ with their hardware. With this deal it would mean they are _forced_ to use Redhat instead of being able to do with their hardware as they please. That's something that should be prevented. # Han PS: Yes I know, this happens all of the time in the real world.
