Sic Transit Gloria Laptopi

May be they don't share the same wisdom as you have.
May be they wasted their time while they could have earned big bucks.
May be you and me can't anything more than writing a stupid comment here.
May be you think making slaves is better than hunger.
etc.

Thanks for that, I didn't dare myself but entirely agree with you, and RMS.

I can see how difficult it is to leave anything you know for the unknown, and that's made
worse by the fact that Linux still can be problematic wrt hardware (whoever is at fault is
irrelevant).

Anything you've come to be good at is addictive, so let children become good at 'libre' stuff
rather than proprietary wherever we have the choice! I thought that was one expected outcome
from the XO... which is why putting Windows on it feels so wrong.

I don't think the caffeine in soft drinks is intentionally addictive, any more than the sugar
is. At most this could be considered an unintentional bonus for the soft drink company. They
do make caffeine free variants and people prefer the "kick" from the version with the
stimulant.

Lots of other products have caffeine in them. A normal more or less healthy human feels a bit
better after a dose of a mild stimulant like caffeine, so it is included in symptomatic
treatments for self-limiting diseases like colds. A product like "LemSip" might include dose
controlled pain relief, something that might make it a bit easier to breathe, and a stimulant,
so you feel better even though you've done nothing about the actual virus.

Oh, and nicotine is poisonous, it's just that there's so many worse things in tobacco that
you're better off deliberately dosing yourself with nicotine to dull the cravings than smoking
a cigarette. As with caffeine it's just about possible to kill yourself with readily-purchased
supplies (for caffeine, knocking back handfuls of "stay awake pills", for nicotine, swallowing
large quantities of nicotine-based stop smoking products).

Anyway to return to topic, I somewhat agree that the Win XP OLPC is poisonous. Not least it's
a betrayal of the intentions of at least some of the people who donated time and money to the
project. Still, if the kids do end up with a robust, low cost laptop that lets them work and
play together without investing in expensive infrastructure then it's a success even if it
doesn't meet the Free Software objectives. It's just a shame that Microsoft always seems to
find a way to put their business interests first when supposedly being charitable. That's a
pretty slimey way to do things.

It is patent nonsense to say that proprietary software creates an addiction.  Addictions are
characteristic for their compulsory behavior.  Proprietary software does not incite such
compulsory behavior.

The truth is a bit different: Proprietary software creates a dependence.  Users of proprietary
software rely on the vendor to provide them with licenses and updates in the future.  As the
computer software users are not organized, they have no negotiation power against the software
vendor.  Under such circumstances ("vendor lock-in"), using proprietary software is a stupid
investment. Proprietary software is more like bottled water than like coca cola (and yes,
caffeine is addictive).

The good thing is that users are locked in not only in a particular platform, but also in a
specific version of a particular platform.  Just look at the problems Microsoft has to get
Windows XP users to switch to Windows Vista.  I have a friend who is using Windows XP because
he does not want to switch to an unfamiliar environment, but he is also saying that if he had
to switch, he would rather switch to GNU/Linux than to Vista.  If there is one such person,
there must be many.  This seems like a great opportunity for us.

I'll take the opposite view.

>Well, yes, really. Windows is very comparable to an addictive drug like caffeine or nicotine.

Windows does not interact chemically with the user.  The analogy, while tempting, is so loaded
as to be an unfortunate choice.  Much like trying to inject "morality" into the topic of
license choices.
I submit that it is preferable to consider it in pure transactional terms:
There is a vendor, a marketplace, and a consumer.
The whole conversation is about who controls the marketplace.
Free software asserts smart consumers.  OLPC's greatness will be in growing smarter consumers.
The arguably Faustian bargain of cutting a deal with Redmond isn't going to preclude the
growth of Free Software, (anymore than getting started with DOS3.3/Windows3.1 precluded me
from migrating to Gentoo).
This is a bow to realpolitik, and a tactical ceding of some marketplace control, in the name
of a strategic win of getting OLPC out there, and "buffing up" the consumer, so that, in the
long run, they can do something smarter.
The GPL makes fantastic common sense, and benefits from having an uncompromising RMS figure
(aside: who can succeed him?).  While behaving fully within character, RMS is given to
hyperbole, however.  Having listened to the ranting prophet, sober people have to find
alternatives that work, so that the project doesn't stall.  IOW, being an uncompromising
idealist and simply punting when reality becomes ugly can be seen as both courage and
cowardice, depending on POV.

> Windows is very comparable to an addictive drug like caffeine

Caffeine can be very beneficial when used in moderation and is in some of the most wonderful
beverages drunk worldwide.  If Windows really were like caffeine, I would become a windows
user tonight.

Alas, it's not.  This whole Windows==DRUGZ argument is utter bunk.  I wish Stallman wouldn't
say such obviously wrong things; it makes my job as one of the few free software advocates in
my company a lot harder.  :(

> caffeine and nicotine have harmful bodily consequences (actually nicotine doesn't, it is the
other stuff in cigarettes that causes cancer, IIRC)

Nicotine is actually a very potent poison when extracted and purified.

Strangely enough, a rather more commonplace addictive substance, one that is as potent as many
drugs but is so basic that few consider it to be one - and possibly a better comparison in
this case - is, er, sugar...

Or traditional classrooms?

Obviously you missed the pictures from Peru and Nepal.  OLPC is a grand experiment - if you
begin an experiment knowing it will succeed, you aren't really moving much.

How old is your son? Hacking FLOSS already? Nice.

One of the computers Torvalds started coding on was a Sinclair QL, upon which he did plenty of
OS development.

He didn't even need open source software to learn to do that, let alone "Free Software".

That kinda shatters the myth that if the OLPC wasn't 100% "Free Software", kids won't be able
to learn to program. Torvalds managed fine without it, and so did millions of other coders.

Proprietary or not, modern computers do not present you with an accessible programmable
environment. The old BASIC ROMs and the manuals that came with the machines were *fantastic*
for breeding programmers.

Now all we get browsers and IM. You are no encouraged to interact with the machine, you are
encouraged to passively browse or communicate with people you already know.

Now I think "free software" systems could/should take the lead here. I like OLPC's "Pippy"
Python IDE approach. That is a good analog to BASIC of yore with serious improvements.

They need some cartoon howtos and tutorials like the TRS-80 Color Computer had though.

Because of course the FSF is just a bunch of `hangers-on' who don't do 
anything useful?

Look out. Your blatant prejudice is showing.

I don't see why you (or Ivan) are getting into the whole free/proprietary debate. It isn't
relevant, and it's not the problem.

"Catering to other people's agendas" can also be called "coalition building."

The OLPC project couldn't have started without the raw energy and motivation of the free
software types. But that's fine.

Look at any business and you'll find as many different "agendas" as there are people. There's
nothing wrong with that kind of diversity as long as these agendas are compatible with the
strategic mission.

That Sugar took an experimental approach doesn't have anything to do with free/proprietary. It
has to do with poor management: it was a mistake to allow the project to hinge on that kind of
a risky ploy.

I think the problem here was that NN had a hidden strategic mission that was incompatible with
his team. It appears he is, in a word, a big jerk. He tricked people into helping him launch
something that was totally incompatible with their motivations by lying to them. The current
brouhaha is just him finally putting his hidden strategy into action.