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
al
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
OL
it
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 Inte
aptop: 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
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.
sake of being odd.
> 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.
how did you look?
I Googled for "olpc deraadt"
First hit:
h
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
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 a
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
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 o
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
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 (On
[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
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.
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.
ring their intended purpose.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject:Re: OLPC
From: "Jack J. Woehr"
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:
&g
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
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
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,
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
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 b
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 sa
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
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
Original message
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:37:01 +0100
>From: Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Letter to OLPC
>To: OpenBSD
>
>On 2006/10/05 15:47, Bob Beck wrote:
>> It is completely shameful. One Laptop Per Citizen - controlled
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 we
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 worrie
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
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
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 embed
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
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 c
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 i
> > 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 unmain
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!
>
>
&
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.
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
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
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 releas
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 eve
> 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!!) disadva
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 th
tion 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 ba
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 Lin
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
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]> wrot
> 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 h
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=
> "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 w
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 yo
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,
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
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 practica
> 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 d
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&#x
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
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 d
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 agai
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
hr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "OpenBSD"
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
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 'fir
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 goin
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
2006/10/5, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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.
OLPC seems to be in fact "One Laptop Per Customer". I'm tired of this
wonder
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 vend
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
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:17 PM, Karsten McMinn wrote:
On 10/5/06, Aaron Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 t
On 10/5/06, Aaron Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 n
On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
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
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
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
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.
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
> > s
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.
>&
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
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 Performa
> > 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 SI
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
| &
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
A
>>> 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 a
r, 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 the
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
> > say
> -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
&
t 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_.
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
> > 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
* 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,
> 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 unl
> 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
> sa
> 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 t
* 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?
>
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 t
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 mor
Good job Theo, now we as a community should start spread the word again.
Thank you for being the leader of Openness!
Wijnand
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),
95 matches
Mail list logo
