Proprietary Parts in OLPC Project Draw Criticism 247
An anonymous reader writes "The Jem Report is running a story about the recent controversy surrounding the hardware used in OLPC laptops. Some devices require NDA's to write drivers, and some parts require firmware that cannot be freely redistributed. Richard Stallmann and Theo de Raadt oppose the use of such devices. Jim Getty defends OLPC's choice (de Raadts response). Jem Matzan has interviewed all sides and published the answers."
Just because 'they' oppose it... (Score:1, Insightful)
What is asked for by OpenBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a common misunderstanding on Slashdot as well, and is seen every time OpenBSD uses public pressure (after months and years of private e-mail correspondance has failed) to get hardware vendors give hardware documentation (freely, not under NDA) and reasonable distribution rights of firmware. Actually, it is quite sad to see so post extolling the glory of GPL and in the next sentence demands the latest binary only driver.
Make a good contract (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, good or bad, the part is NOT replaceable without harming the end product significantly.
If there's concern that Marvell (the chip maker) will randomly drop support for their product at one point of time, things should not be left to guesses but this should simply and plainly be covered in the contracts.
I also am susprised at the opinion that OLPC is targeted at OSS community. It has never been isn't and won't be. The goal is efficient, capable product using efficient solutions to solve a concrete proplem, of children having laptops with network connectivity for education, discussions, information exchange, communication and so on.
Don't forget: not everything proprietary is evil. If WindowsCE would provide much better and cheaper solution, OLPC would use it without thinking twice about it. Windows CE in fact *was* considered briefly at a point.
Re:Just because 'they' oppose it... (Score:4, Insightful)
But then the OLPC project should say so and not piggy-tail on the percieved value of open source. Understandably, several are disappointed.
Locking in a new market (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does MS have a de facto monopoly on the OS market? Because their software is the best? Don't make me laugh. Because it is the most stable? *smirk* Because it is the most convenient? *pets Apple*
No. Because everyone grew up with it, knows how to use it and, well, old dogs don't really enjoy learning new tricks.
Now, in Africa, we're back to base one. Anything or anyone could get a hold of people who have never had a computer before and have no preferences because they are "used" to a certain flavor or appearance of the OS. There, every OS, every piece of hardware is on equal ground, provided it's affordable.
NDAs and CS software would start to build the foundation of yet another monopoly there. With OS, it is way harder, CS gives you an edge over your competitors. And once the people get "used" to having this kind of chip or that kind of software on their PC, the lock in has started.
So even if it means only 90 out of 100 kids instead of all of them get a PC, OS is the right way to choose in the long run. Just trying to push a computer into every hand right now is quite shortsighted, simply because with CS you're just handing over yet another market to vendor lock in.
Re:Just because 'they' oppose it... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS and Theo are trying to use this project as a soapbox to further their own political views, and that disgusts me.
Those political views created open source, without which the OLPC project could not achieve its goals.
These are all good people doing good things, and they mostly share the same goals. There's a disagreement over which of the goals is most important, and some of them (Theo) tend to be a little bombastic, but there's nothing to be disgusted about.
Re:Just because 'they' oppose it... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS and Theo are good folks to have, to keep us from wandering down a blind alley. In the case of OLPC, their position has caused the launch of a subproject to create free replacements for the proprietary bits.
At the same time, those replacements don't exist yet, and OLPC is constrained (by power and mesh-networking issues) to use the proprietary bits in the meantime, to be able to ship product.
Sounds to me like a good plan: they know they want both laptops and free software, so they're working on a plan to have both. Which is a very healthy approach!
--dave
Just because 'they' oppose "the one true way". (Score:2, Insightful)
They couldn't? My how full of yourselfs, you all are. The straightest path for the project may have been OSS, but I seriously doubt that OSS is the ONLY WAY.
Re:Just because 'they' oppose it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Theo's right (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, Theo has critized intel for not releasing specs and releasing instead just open source drivers for lots of their products. There're tons of companies that will even sue you if you try to reverse engineer their hardware devices but hey, because we're the OSS leaders and we've nothing better to do, let's critize the companies that do release opensource drivers and no specs, instead of wasting all your efforts into the ones that don't do even _that_.
Re:Locking in a new market (Score:3, Insightful)
If your goal is to put computers in the hands of people because it empowers them to explore their world, then that is your goal. If your goal is the spread of open source software, then that is your goal.
Clearly the project is dealing with issues above and beyond "do we use Windows or Linux?" Rather, they're asking "Is there an open alternative to this chipset that doesn't use 5x the power?" And the answer is simply "no." by going with the alternative, you're not talking about reducing the number of laptops from 100% to 90%, you're talking about reducing the network from everyone who has a laptop to everyone who has a laptop and is actively using it at that second. And, for that matter, reducing internet access from everyone who is within a few miles of an active connection to just those few people who have an active connection directly.
And for what, device driver politics? Device drivers? When was the last time people felt locked-in by device drivers? Old dogs don't like to learn new interfaces, but device drivers are those transparent thingies in the background that only programmers have to deal with. And programmers have to learn new tricks every few days.
Let's not fall into the old trap of saying of "I'd rather have no solution than an imperfect solution." Let's do our geeky bit to help raise Africa out of the dredges of starvation first. Then we can talk about open source device drivers.
Re:OLPC = One Laptop Per Child (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you are right, but the point is that we hope to get a lot of bang for the buck with the OLPC project. The laptop could be a great educational tool. Also, books could be provided electronicaly, thus saving on the costs of books and paper, which after a few years of schooling, is not negligeable.
Re:Theo's right (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not like there is only one wifi chipset vendor, Marvell was picked probably because they offered the lowest price at the beginning of the project. But I can see others offering even lower prices just to be able to profit from the good PR that comes from helping this project.
As Theo pointed out, there are several vendors that offer chipsets with similar functionality AND support open drivers.
And its important to keep this project as open as possible, because it should be like an standart platform. For example, if its cheaper for Brazil, or India, or Argentina, to build their laptops on their own they should be allowed to do so using ANY compatible parts. If you make the WiFi chipset closed, you're forcing everyone to buy from only one vendor.
Re:Locking in a new market (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time people felt locked-in by device drivers?
You're kidding, right? Device drivers are one of the largest sources of computer lock-in ever. In fact, it was a device driver (a printer driver, to be specific) that motivated RMS to start the Free Software movement. Until the last couple of years, device drivers were the most oft-quoted reason why switching to an F/LOSS operating system wasn't feasible, and they're still very high on the list.
Device drivers matter. A lot. Maybe only programmers deal with them directly, but end-users certainly feel the pain when they're not available or don't work.
That said, as I mentioned in another post, this conflict isn't about device driver availability or even device driver source, it's about device documentation. Theo wants it, Marvell won't give it, Getty and company have found a way to work around the issue by getting it under NDA so they can write open source firmware and drivers.
Re:Just because 'they' oppose attention. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most disappointing would be a project which managed to get many kids to have access to laptops and then start them developing towards doing things.. and then left them with software for which security patches were no longer available, effectively cutting them off from the world they have just been shown. That's exactly the kind of thing which leads directly to social problems with no benefit.
We often think about our laptops as two year investments, in which case unmaintainable software doesn't matter. For this kind of project, which may eat up a large fraction of the education budget for a long time, it's not possible to demand constant upgrades. The use of proprietary hardware without a long term (20 year?) guarantee of support is irresponsib;e.
Worse; this destroys much of the value of the project by making it difficult for the kids to fully learn how their laptops work. Something which could really have spread computer literacy becomes much less valuable than it could have been. We begin to see that the Indian government may have had a point that there are better things to spend money on.
Re:Make a good contract (Score:3, Insightful)
It's proclaiming that it is OSS. All the while, they are including lots of proprietary stuff in it. They are riding on the OSS coattails. If they weren't harping how the were Open, I don't think they'd be getting the flak they are.
If you are proclaiming being 'Open' is one of the big bonuses and selling points of what you are doing, you probably really ought to put in some real effort to actually being open. Otherwise, I think I'd shut up about proclaiming how 'Open' it is, and just state 'it runs Linux' (or whatever OS you are going to run on it.
Re:The real goal of OLPC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just because 'they' oppose "the one true way". (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability of these kids to hack the internals is precisely one of the key ways in which this laptop improves their educational prospects through the availability of affordable computing resources.
The great thing about Free Software is that no one can "take their toys and go home". It's open and free for all, and RMS, at least, wouldn't change that if he could. What Theo and RMS are doing here is expressing their opinion that the OLPC project has made an unwise decision, that's all. I happen to disagree with them, and it sounds like you do, too, but that in no way constitutes removing the ability of the OLPC project to achieve their goals, including the ones for which open source is crucial.
RMS and, to a much lesser extent, Theo, are well worth listening to. They're smart people with visions that have proven to be important and valuable. JG has obviously been listening to them, and that's good, even if he has chosen to disagree with them, which is fine, and his prerogative.
Re:TdR's Reasoning. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they will. It is called a "discontinued product", also known as "obsolete".
Theo is asking for documentation on the underlying hardware, in case Marvell decides to no longer support the chipset. That happens all the time, as new products are built and older ones are discontinued. When -- not if -- Marvell decides to no longer provide driver/firmware updates, who is going to support the chipset? If full documentation is available, the OSS community can and, judging by past actions, will.
Considering that this project has the potential to improve education over the entire world, does that not mitigate any other consideration?
No. Hell, if the U.S. decided to invade Sudan, for example, and completely take over -- not the half-assed job they're doing in Iraq, but full-fledged colonialism -- would the potential to improve education, sanitation, infrastructure and nutrition mitigate any other consideration? [Try not to use the word "any" in a context like you did. It can open some horrendous doors.]
marvell documentation (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway I'm sure there are hardware vendors who can deliver the needed hardware and do it without holding back information, for such a big order as OLPC will make. Missed chances and such...
Re:OLPC = One Laptop Per Child (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real goal of OLPC (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers existed in the United States before Windows you know but their usage didn't explode until Microsoft created an operating system that was easy enough to use for just about anyone to pick up.
Historical revisionism. Computer use was exploding with the Apple II, CP/M and assorted other home computers. M$ was just one of many players. M$ was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and rode the wave when IBM decided to join in.
Thus it being open source or not is irrelevant.
It's the difference between having a local, free market and a foreign, monopoly dominated market. Some people think that's relevant.
---
Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.