Why is it a problem to start with Windows?

Posted May 14, 2008 15:09 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
Parent article: Sic Transit Gloria Laptopi

I think most of the current free or open software developers started out as users of
proprietary systems (some UNIX, some Commodore, DOS, Windows, etc.), still, they've managed to
turn to free or open source. Why do we expect less from the children who get the OLPC with
Windows?

Why is it a problem to start with Windows?

Posted May 14, 2008 15:43 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] (2 responses)

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.

Why is it a problem to start with Windows?

Posted May 14, 2008 23:10 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

That kinda shatters the myth that if the OLPC wasn't 100% "Free Software", kids won't be able to learn to program.

Which is itself a myth. The argument was that with the OLPC code as 100% Free Software, kids (and those helping/teaching them) would be able to change things to their satisfaction whilst being exposed to a wide range of programming activities. If you start to seal off parts of the environment, you end up with people only ever being able to "script" choice parts of the environment, which is what the iPhone and various games consoles and appliances offer unless you "crack" them, which is what eventually happens anyway. The 100% Free Software approach eliminates all these ridiculous obstacles and lets people get on with what they ultimately may want to do with their own hardware.

Incidentally, the microcomputers of the 1980s offered much more access to every aspect of the machine than many devices running proprietary software today. In addition, manufacturers were much more talkative about the technical aspects of their proprietary hardware. Had the attitudes of today's proprietary software and hardware vendors prevailed then, I doubt that Mr Torvalds would have had quite as much satisfaction.

Because, you know, it sucks

Posted May 15, 2008 14:09 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

What an extraordinarily reactionary comment. It has taken the freedom-oriented mindset a few decades (a generation, actually) to come out of universities and into the industry. Why let this cancer spread out even more?

Well, because we want the developers of tomorrow to be better than the current breed, and if possible more inclined towards free systems. Because we want more free software developers. Because we want knowledgeable people to look at proprietary systems and their stupid limitations with disgust, as a thing from a sad past.

Why is it a problem to start with Windows?

Posted May 14, 2008 20:12 UTC (Wed) by jhoger (guest, #33302) [Link] (1 responses)

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.

Maybe Splashtop will give it back?

Posted May 15, 2008 9:34 UTC (Thu) by ayeomans (guest, #1848) [Link]

Splashtop might win back a full Linux desktop embedded in the BIOS. Asus is planning to put Splashtop on every motherboard. Great if it were possible to break out into a more customisable environment.