
Richard Stallman on the Failure of One Laptop Per Child & his new laptop - nickb
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR33.6/stallman.php
======
0xdefec8
>I plan to try to organize counterpressure while in Peru this November.

All I can picture are some very confused little Peruvian children wondering
why the large scary bearded man is yelling about computadora libre.

------
jws
Title is in error. The article is about RMS refusing to use his OLPC since it
is capable of running Windows. He has switched to an inferior machine with a
MIPS processor that won't have this flaw.

~~~
allenbrunson
i don't think that's fairly representing his case. he stopped using his olpc
because he feels that the project has lost sight of its original goals, and
that they are now doing more harm than good. if he continues to use an olpc,
he feels that it appears he supports what they're doing, when clearly he does
not.

i don't agree with a lot of rms' ideals. he's far too dogmatic, which has
driven away a lot of would-be supporters. but i have to admire the guy anyway.
it's very rare to find someone who believes in things as strongly as rms does,
and is willing to go so far out of his way to practice what he preaches.

~~~
endtwist
The problem isn't that the project lost sight of its original goals. It sounds
more like the goal of this project wasn't clear between groups.

Stallman stated that "the plans aimed for low cost, enabling many children to
use the machines, and free software, so they would have freedom while using
them." From what I understood, the goal of the project was to get computers
into the hands of children in third-world countries, so they could simply get
experience with computers -- period. It was my belief that the fact that free
software was used was simply out of convenience; since free software was also
free (as in beer), it was another step in cutting the costs of the laptop.

When Microsoft stepped in and "offered up" its OS at the extremely cut costs,
Negroponte decided that would be a more useful option; I don't think his
intention is to force-feed proprietary software to children. Either he
believes Windows is a better option, or he is an economically self-serving
individual. Regardless, I sense that the ultimate purpose of this project was
unclear to certain people.

On a less direct note, I can't stand Stallman's zealotry. It's great that he
is able to stand so firm on one particular point, but it is also a terrible
trait, considering that he isn't willing to even give a moments consideration
to alternative options on a scope/level _outside_ his "cause."

~~~
arebop
It obviously is true that there is confusion about the project's goals, but
the confusion is not a simple matter of Stallman's passion coloring his
perception. Even today, vestiges of an ambition and commitment far beyond
delivering machines to children remain on the OLPC site.

"XO embodies the theories of constructionism first developed by MIT Media Lab
Professor Seymour Papert in the 1960s, and later elaborated upon by Alan Kay,
complemented by the principles articulated by Nicholas Negroponte in his book,
Being Digital." --- <http://laptop.org/vision/mission/>

If you read more about constructionism at
<http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html>, you will see
that it is consonant with the freedom "to improve the program" and all the
rest of the Free Software freedoms.

"Our commitment to software freedom gives children the opportunity to use
their laptops on their own terms. [...] we do not want any ceiling imposed on
those children who choose to modify their machines." ---
<http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/software/>

------
Tichy
With all sympathy, it seems to me that a PC that is capable of running Linux
AND Windows is more free than a PC that is only capable of running Linux.

I understand the concern of making Windows available to children, but in the
end, it is better than no PC at all.

At least if you have a OLPC with Windows installed, hopefully you can find a
Website that tells you how to install Linux on it. If you have no OLPC, you
can not even install Linux on it.

~~~
cabalamat
_it seems to me that a PC that is capable of running Linux AND Windows is more
free than a PC that is only capable of running Linux_

That's like saying a society where some people are free and some people are
slaves is more free than a society where everyone is free.

 _I understand the concern of making Windows available to children, but in the
end, it is better than no PC at all._

If it was a choice between a PC running Windows or no PC at all, ever for the
rest of someone's life, then I'd agree. But as Stallman says "Teaching
children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco—in a world
where only one company sells tobacco."

~~~
Tichy
Running Windows is not the same as being a slave.

In fact, why not dig deeper. Is the CPU Open Source? Why is it not a problem
to use proprietary hardware?

Actually, Windows does not even have that much of a lock-in, or does it? The
lock in used to stem from MS Office, and even that is not so severe anymore
these days.

And I think for those children it was a question between no PC or a Windows
PC. If for whatever reason the government or whoever pays for the PCs says so,
what do you want to do against it?

~~~
cabalamat
_Running Windows is not the same as being a slave._

Of course not. I didn't say it was.

 _Is the CPU Open Source? Why is it not a problem to use proprietary
hardware?_

Open Source processor designs exist. It wouldn't surprise me if in future
FLOSS operating systems run on them.

I don't consider proprietary CPUs to be a big problem -- though they would be
if they were running some sort of Treacherous Computing system or DRM which
meant they wouldn't do what the user wanted.

 _Windows does not even have that much of a lock-in, or does it?_

The lock-in is vastly less than what it used to be. I can develop web
applications using a GNU/Linux system with no problems.

 _If for whatever reason the government or whoever pays for the PCs says so,
what do you want to do against it?_

It's not for me to tell foreigners how to run their countries (it's not my
country). Though IMO if they make themselves dependent on Microsoft, they are
not acting in their own best interests.

~~~
Tichy
I certainly wouldn't advise those countries to use Microsoft products.

------
nickb
I'm guessing that this is the laptop he uses now:

<http://www.lemote.com/english/yeeloong.html>

 _The world's first fully open hardware/software. All system source(BIOS,
kernel, drivers etc.) are open source, no close firmware needed._

 _CPU: STLS 2F(Loongson 2F) 900MHz, with integrated DDR2 controller and PCI
controller_

~~~
kqr2
[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewA...](http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=323954&source=rss_topic122)

The end of this article contains a few more details on Richard Stallman's new
choice of laptop.

It is slightly ironic that the world's first "free" (by Richard Stallman's
definition) laptop is produced by China -- a country notorious for cracking
down on human rights. I guess it's the difference between freedom of speech
and freedom of "intellectual propety".

~~~
martey
_Unfortunately, it doesn't have a suspend-and-resume capability, which
Stallman called "somewhat inconvenient." Nor does the battery charge while
it's running, which he called "an annoyance."_

A lot of people would call these "dealbreakers."

------
jodrellblank
I'm surprised to read that Mr Freedom of Choice himself is in favour of
computers that can't run Windows.

(As if Microsoft wouldn't port Windows to MIPS if it became a large market oh
wait Windows CE runs on MIPS devices and Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT4 ran on
MIPS (- wikipedia)).

~~~
jcl
I agree; his concerns are baseless. Any hardware that is free enough to run
Free software can be made to run proprietary software. Stallman would like to
remove the user's freedom to restrict freedom on hardware -- the hardware
analogue of GPL vs. BSD -- but this doesn't work on hardware because copyright
doesn't apply, so the best he can do is choose a platform that is merely
inconvenient for some proprietary software.

Moreover, OLPC continues work on its Linux software, which is still the
preferred distribution. The next wave of Give-One-Get-One machines are
shipping with Linux, not Windows. And if Stallman's MIPS machines ever take
off, the best educational Linux distribution for them may well be the OLPC's
software, so helping OLPC (or, at least, SugarLabs) is not a waste of time or
money.

The reason Negroponte is so eager to help Windows onto the device is likely
because several countries expressed interest in it, and he wants to boost
sales. Urging these countries to instead purchase laptops that are not
compatible with Windows is not a feasible strategy; if they wanted Linux, they
would not have requested Windows.

------
fjl
_Teaching children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco—in a
world where only one company sells tobacco_

 _No wonder Microsoft offers the first dose to children at a low price._

neat.

------
josefresco
"Windows Vista has features to spy on the user, restrict use of data in the
machine, and even attack the user (Microsoft can forcibly install changes in
the system at any time)."

People take this guy seriously even after spewing idiocies like that? Sorry,
Vista isn't 'attacking' me.

------
etal
In a nice coincidence, Guido van Rossum recently posted this:

[http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/11/bibles-or-
computers-...](http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/11/bibles-or-computers-
its-same-thing.html)

------
scott_s
Link is dead. Found a version on the FSF website:
<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows>

~~~
kqr2
Not sure if that's the same article. Somebody on reddit, copy and pasted it
before the original link went down:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7b25e/richard_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7b25e/richard_stallman_on_the_failure_of_one_laptop_per/c065u4p)

~~~
fjl
it's up again by now. tsa, tsa, tsa, operating on cpu quota limit.

------
jfarmer
Let me guess: didn't use enough Free Software.

