Re: Microsoft

We already have the technology in place to automatically update the firmware as part of updating the laptop. We certainly don't what the support headaches of having to support multiple versions. - Jim On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 18:34 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nick Ne

RE: Microsoft

Behalf Of Jim Gettys Sent: 19 May 2008 15:50 To: Walter Bender Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OLPC Devel Subject: Re: Microsoft On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 07:55 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > The price often quoted has been $7 for the SD card. Not sure where > that number comes from. I recall that a $19 high

Re: Microsoft

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 07:55 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > The price often quoted has been $7 for the SD card. Not sure where > that number comes from. I recall that a $19 high-speed card was used > in the original testing; at the time it was asserted that a > standard-speed card was necessary. > 

Re: Microsoft

Walter Bender wrote: > The price often quoted has been $7 for the SD card. Not sure where > that number comes from. I recall that a $19 high-speed card was used > in the original testing; at the time it was asserted that a > standard-speed card was necessary. > > I don't know that this is still th

Re: Microsoft

The price often quoted has been $7 for the SD card. Not sure where that number comes from. I recall that a $19 high-speed card was used in the original testing; at the time it was asserted that a standard-speed card was necessary. I don't know that this is still the case. -walter On Mon, May 19,

Re: Microsoft

> So... all the new 200,000 XOs that will come to Peru will come with this > new V2 Bios. and the first 45,000 will be updated? Or we have to > deal with a mixed enviroment? (no problem... just asking...) Since the V2 firmware is only recently demo-able, not yet product quality, it's too early t

Re: Microsoft

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nick Negroponte has said : > > "Open Firmware V2, the free and open source BIOS, is now capable of > running Linux, Microsoft Windows XP and other operating systems, and was > developed by Firmworks with support from OLPC. This will enable dual > boot of OLPC XO laptops w

Re: Microsoft

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kurt H Maier wrote: > > How is this relevant? When Microsoft sits down and throws its vast > > resources at making Windows "just work" on the XO-1, it's going to > > blow our current FOSS distributions out of the wate

Re: Microsoft / new firmware

> [NN] then claimed no OLPC resources would > be devoted to the project. I'm left wondering how many of those > resources went into this firmware mod. The firmware mod required weeks of a skilled engineer's time. This engineer put in the time, partly or fully paid by OLPC

Re: Firmware change (Re: Microsoft)

On May 15, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Korakurider wrote: > On 5/16/08, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Open Firmware V2, the free and open source BIOS, is now capable of >> running Linux, Microsoft Windows XP and other operating systems, >> and was >> developed by Firmworks with suppo

Firmware change (Re: Microsoft)

On 5/16/08, Nicholas Negroponte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Open Firmware V2, the free and open source BIOS, is now capable of > running Linux, Microsoft Windows XP and other operating systems, and was > developed by Firmworks with support from OLPC. This will enable dual > boot of OLPC XO laptops

Re: Microsoft

Nicholas Negroponte wrote: > OLPC is substantially increasing its engineering resources and all > software development continues entirely on GNU/Linux. We will continue > to work to make Sugar on Linux the best possible platform for education > and to invest in our expanding Linux deployments in

Re: Microsoft

> > Wrong. It's called tit-for-tat, otherwise known as fair-is-fair. > It's perfectly ethical to defend oneself against an adversary > who has no qualms about anything. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi ___ Devel mailing list D

Re: Microsoft

Seth Woodworth writes: > So as a fair practice I think it's clear that no special actions can > ethically be made to prevent Windows or any other OS from running on > the machine. So a Windows port for the XO isn't something that > could have been preventative. Wrong. It's called tit-for-tat, ot

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:26 PM, victor wrote: > I didn't know Microsoft and Windows were going to be there. So why > all the > effort if in the end a closed OS is going to be used? There is no change in strategy. For background (and comment furor) on the XP situation, see:

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

> > Um, you guys do know how to use the search function on the Wiki, don't you? > Please be civil. > Yeah, Nicholas said pretty much the first half of that months ago. The issue is the conflicting Negroponte quotes: Windows on XO "has not only been happening with our consent, but (also our) col

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Jeffrey Kesselman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Charles Merriam > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Nothing mean, cruel, or chilling. Just OLPC does not help and support > > this effort. MS is on their own. Um, you guys do know

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Charles Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there *any* suggestion that the entire "Microsoft on OLPC" story is > anything other than: > 1. A small group of experimenters at Microsoft playing around in the > slack time. > 2. FUD stories to downplay OLPC. > Y

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Charles Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing mean, cruel, or chilling. Just OLPC does not help and support > this effort. MS is on their own. > > Maybe a bit more? it might be good to acknwledge that it is an open platform and anyone cna write anythin

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

Is there *any* suggestion that the entire "Microsoft on OLPC" story is anything other than: 1. A small group of experimenters at Microsoft playing around in the slack time. 2. FUD stories to downplay OLPC. The OLPC corporate needs to respond with a one liner that "we have no plans to now or in t

Re: Microsoft? (was Re: OLPC seeks a CEO -- who was your favorite CEO elsewhere?)

I'm waiting to hear about this one also. On the one hand the OLPC can't be shipped with the Flash plug-in but the whole project is going to go to Microsoft? Talk about moving between extremes. I'm not sure why a more balanced approach couldn't work but then again, I'm more of a supporter (bought un