Microsoft Takes On the OLPC 218
A number of readers sent us links to a BBC story on Microsoft's plan to provide the "Microsoft Student Innovation Suite" for $3 to governments around the world, for use in schools. The suite contains Windows XP Starter Edition and Windows Office Home and Student 2007, along with other educational software. To qualify, a government would have to provide free PCs to schools. Microsoft's stated goal is to double the number of PCs in use (and running Windows). An unbiased observer might wonder about an agenda of slowing the OLPC project and the spread of open source in general.
XP - Why not Vista? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But the PC still cost money (Score:5, Insightful)
Any old $200 to $300 PC will work, right? Oh, wait, the OLPC is currently $150, or something like that.
Eh.
Re:But the PC still cost money (Score:5, Insightful)
I still think the OLPC is a better idea. Cheaper, and less likely to crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such evil geniuses there at M$. (Then again, it doesn't take much to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public, let alone a government)
PGA
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least this is better than the SchoolNet Namibia story a few years back, when M$ donated Office, but not the OS, leading t
"Slight" profit? It's 200%! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what kind of profit is "slight", but at that price they won't be able to compete in the free market against Third World street vendors.
I live in Brazil, where you can buy a copy of XP for R$5, which is about US$2.50 at today's rates. This includes the CD with a plastic cover and a printed sheet with the activation key. Think of that, someone can copy a CD in his home PC and sell it at a lower price than the biggest software vendor in the world can do in a worldwide production and distribution scheme.
If Microsoft really wanted to distribute Windows with charitable intentions, they could do it without financial loss at less than $1 per copy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since it won't let me post this follow-up I'
Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thank god (Score:2)
*footnote: that is to say, businesses in which they cannot leverage a pre-existing monopoly on the desktop. Like e.g. new PC deployments in third world countries.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone starting to build their infrastructure (not already locked in) would want to start with Windows. Even at $3 a copy, that's $3 more than Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing to see here...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope any politician that gets into this is removed from power and put in jail along with the MS exec who made the sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe not. If MS is providing a retail box or install CDs for $3, that might actually beat the cost of acquiring linux. Here in the US, the market is fairly saturated with CD burners and broadband, but in the 3rd world, it might cost significantly more to download and burn a CD. I'm thinking of internet cafes that I've been in Ec
If you're seeing conspiracies against opens source (Score:5, Insightful)
However....even paranoids have enemies, and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Re:If you're seeing conspiracies against opens sou (Score:2)
Re:If you're seeing conspiracies against opens sou (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if Microsoft's motives were entirely philanthropic, don't you think that they would use their very large and powerful cone of influence to provide these schools with some cheap hardware? I'll bet some folks at Microsoft have a few contacts at a few major OEMs who might just help them out if pressed...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you're mistaken; what you're seeing there is an unmistakable cone of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there's a good Cone of Silence joke somewhere in there too, but I can't come up with it.
MS is out to get something all right (Score:2)
When people say conspiracy, this is what they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we stop Microsoft using the word innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't we stop Microsoft using the word innovati (Score:2)
Re:Can't we stop Microsoft using the word innovati (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can't we stop Microsoft using the word innovati (Score:2)
In countries where the street price of Linux and Windows are essentially the same - Windows and MS Office are often the software of choice.
The geek needs to get a handle on the notion that what users want from Windows - what users find easy to do in Windows - is not what attracts him to Linux.
What has that got to do with innovation? (Score:2)
Unbiased observer? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how this "observer" would be unbiased. If he sees a grand conspiracy, he's not unbiased.
First, they did not say the unbiased observer would see/think the agenda would be to slow down OLPC, they said they might wonder about that possibility. Second, the term "unbiased" has multiple connotations and meanings. You could argue no one with any opinion was unbiased (no one) but then the term has no real meaning when applied to people. You might, on the other hand, apply a meaning that unbiased is someone with no preference one way or another for or against MS, and then an objective person certainl
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about bringing up that point about "no one is truly unbiased", but that kinda makes the whole thing moot, doesn't it?
And yes, a truly unbiased person would consider the motivations of MS. But why would this truly unbiased individual only see that they wanted to slow down the OLPC (which is the only thing the sentence brings up)? Why wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, a truly unbiased person would consider the motivations of MS. But why would this truly unbiased individual only see that they wanted to slow down the OLPC (which is the only thing the sentence brings up)?
Surely you don't expect them to list every idea an "unbiased" person might consider? They list one they though of interest or which was of interest to the summary author. I don't know why anyone would make a fuss about that.
Why wouldn't they see it as Microsoft wanting to help the children out?
They might consider it that way as well and as I read the summary that was sort of implied as the first impression an unbiased person might think of, that is to say taking MS's actions at face value as if they were a person instead of a for profit corporation.
Yet the sentence, and I repeat, only brings up the "conspiracy" aspect of this.
I've seen a dozen pe
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that anybody who concludes that there is a conspiracy cannot be unbiased? Geez, that reasoning would be great for criminals: "hey, the judge was obviously biased, since he found me guilty". That excuse is as frequent as it is baseless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if this agenda that the poster suggests is true, then the true goal is other than that stated. As such, it'd be a plan executed and planned in secret. Thus, it'd be a conspiracy.
Microsoft sure has an agenda of slowing things fueled by/supporting open source. See SCO vs IBM.
True. Microsoft conspired with SCO to slow down open source. I'm not sure how having an agenda and conspiring is different in this case.
Not only that, but Bill
Unbiased my arse. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, an unbiased observer would probably see this as an extension of student discount programs Microsoft already offers or an attempt to make a little extra money from markets that currently bring in none. Only a tinfoil-hat-wearing free software zealot would wonder about an agenda of slowing the OLPC project and the spread of open source in general.
Re:Unbiased my arse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you a shill, or just incredibly stupid and/or naive?
Microsoft has stated repeatedly that Open Source is the enemy and in so many words. If you missed that, you are simply not informed enough to be qualified to contribute to this discussion.
Now, Microsoft is saying that they are prepared to work with Open Source. But based on Microsoft's past record of falsehood, fraud, abuse of their monopoly position, price fixing, illegal dumping and bundling, and the laundry list of other complaints, you would have to be some kind of idiot to trust them now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, only one point of view possible in the world. If people don't agree with you they are either stupid or are being paid to do so. This is getting pretty common around here. Do the proponents of OSS* need to start every argument with an ad hominem?
*To be fair, others do as well, but "Microsoft shill" seems to be the most prevalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what? The argument was started by an idiot claiming that anyone seeing an attack against the OLPC in this move was a "tinfoil-hat-wearing free software zealot".
All I did was land the second blow (and knocked the motherfucker out - note how he was done after I delivered my response.)
I gave the response that I felt was warranted given the tone of the original comment.
Now with that said, I will readily admit that sometimes I go o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unbiased my arse. (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely! The most important reference is the Halloween Documents [wikipedia.org]. Especially interesting (if you don't want to read the actual documents) is the following bit from Microsoft's Official Response to the Halloween documents [archive.org]. I refer specifically to this bit:
"Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?"
"A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards, of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the foundation on which further innovation can be based."
You don't see Microsoft own up to Embrace-and-Extend very often (although they did it in marketspeak...)
Also interesting, right from my first wikipedia link, "Document X
An e-mail from consultant Mike Anderer to SCO's Chris Sontag, also known as Halloween X: Follow The Money. Among other points, describes Microsoft's channeling of US$ 86 million to SCO."
So right they're they were funding the assault on Linux. Although we all see how that has been working out; it's mostly cost IBM a lot of money and provided a lot of entertainment.
You might also read Ballmer: 'Open source is not free' [computerworld.co.nz].
You could go back in time and read a commentary on Ballmer's assertion that Linux is like cancer [theregister.co.uk], although that was just an idiot repeating something someone told him about the GPL once.
And ahhhh, here we go, this is one of the articles I've been looking for all this time. Google really needs to deprecate the blogosphere in pagerank, it makes it quite impossible to find old articles because most bloggers are too stupid to cite properly. Ballmer sees free software as Microsoft's enemy No. 1 [nwsource.com]. And keep in mind that Microsoft signed the Novell deal in order to attack Linux: "Ballmer said in a question and answer session at a technology conference that Microsoft signed the deal because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and it wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation [theregister.co.uk]"."
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not forget all the FUD MS intentionaly spread trough the press, as say some recently disclosed [groklaw.net] documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at the Halloween documents [catb.org]. They're leaked memos from Microsoft, I think you'll find all the evidence you need in there. Here's a good quote:
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was, although I do think it's immoral for them to hamper the OLPC, and I do think that's absolutely the only reason they're doing this.
But what I am saying is that anyone who thinks that Microsoft isn't on the warpath against Open Source is either ignorant or stupid. Especially since they have said as much in the past (citations in my other reply.)
Re:Open your eyes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! You really drank the Microsoft kool-aid! Let's dissect your statement and find out if it stands up to the ultimate test: that of factuality.
Assertion one: If its the same price, the governments would be best suited to choose Microsoft.
First, it is not the same price. It is $3 more expensive per unit. The OLPC project is charging for the hardware, not the software. So your statement is foolish since it is clearly not the same price.
Second, it is not clear that even a stripped-down version of Windows XP would run properly on the OLPC. The XO Laptop [laptop.org] has a 433 MHz Geode LX processor, which is an architecture known for its low IPC (as compared to other x86-compatible processors of this era.) It has only 256MB RAM and 1GB flash storage. Windows XP is not capable of operating in 256MB without swapping heavily, which would destroy the flash memory. You CAN run Windows XP on a system this slow, or even slower. But it will run like dookie.
Third, there are a number of reasons not to use Microsoft. I will not go into them now, we all know what they are whether we agree with them or not. But there are basically no compelling reasons for Windows to be used for this purpose. And in fact, there are no compelling reasons to ever run Windows except interoperability with Windows. And that is becoming less and less of an issue all the time.
Assertion two: The software works
I find this to be the most hilarious of your assertions. Windows is a gigantic pile of junk. It is utterly, laughably unreliable. It is extremely poorly documented, and there is no way but reverse-engineering to find out what many of the settings in the registry and config files are for. In fact, without using a registry monitor, you have no idea that some of the settings are even possible, because they are undocumented and the keys are not created unless they are needed.
Windows is not the fastest operating system. Windows does not support the most hardware. Windows is not most secure, or even secure - it is insecure by design and nothing short of a complete security audit (which Microsoft claims is in progress) could fix the problems. And if you did one, you'd probably break all backwards compatibility.
Oh wait! That's the story of Windows Vista! Which has already been shown to also be insecure, many times over.
Assertion three: just about every company uses it
I hope you are aware that Linux is the only operating system consistently gaining market share in the server market. It's good for a wide variety of purposes for which Windows is severely deficient. About the only thing Windows has ever been better than Linux at was serving static pages - and then we got kernel-level HTTP acceleration in Linux. Now there's nothing.
Also, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do the same?
I've used Linux pretty much everywhere I've worked. I have to admit, this is the first time I didn't feel I needed a Windows box. I do actually still run Windows, because I haven't yet found an alternative to Crystal Reports, and WINE's ODBC is pretty crap still (not that I could necessarily do any better.)
But I don't feel I need a Windows box! And these schoolkids need one even less.
Assertion 4: Its best for the customers.
Right. Because what customers want is DRM, a "security" scheme that asks them for confirmation every time they pick their nose, and utter instability. Those are really features that will help them. Granted, some of that is a Vista feature - but that's the "upgrade" path from Windows XP. Your proposal is that instead of educating a gener
ABRE LOS OJOS (Score:2)
if
1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I'll go if you do.
2. even though: an enthusiastic if small audience.
3. whether: He asked if I knew Spanish.
4. (used to introduce an exclamatory phrase): If only Dad could see me now!
5. wh
Re:Unbiased my arse. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Unbiased my arse. (Score:4, Insightful)
As for OLPC, I doubt they want to slow the project -- they want to make the pie bigger and OLPC will help them do that. They would, however, like to make sure that those children eventually migrate to Windows, which is where the $3 SIS comes in.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting that the summary only surmises what an unbiased observer might wonder, whereas you claim to speak for all unbiased observers. You are clearly a Microsoft fanboy, therefore not an unbiased observer. I don't believe it takes a 'free software zealot' to realise that this move is as a direct
Most folks don't buy MS 's PR on ed licensing (Score:2)
This offer is more of the same. Whether you believe that this is a direct response to the OLPC project or not (I do, but really it's immaterial) is not as important as recognizing that this is a direct response to th
XP starter edition != education (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Buy computers and announce intent to give them away free.
Step 2: Accept bundle for $3/unit.
Step 3: Distribute computers running Linux, with kvm virtual machines preloaded with Windows XP to allow running that one Windows program the user has absolutely got to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently, in many cases, a computer whose hardware and software suite designed from the ground up for both the physical environment and the expected uses, with a user interface, security model, application stack, and supporting hardware (like school servers, satellite uplinks, etc.) and services (like donated satellite time) all built around the needs involved.
At least, I infer that desire in several cases from the number of countries signed up to
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly neither said nor implied that. In fact, nothing in the strand of conversation leading here has discussed (1) purchasers actually making different decisions, or (2) me being offended.
Perhaps if you can't respond to what people actually write, you should just not respond at all, rather than making up insults entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not offer to the plebes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I'm the only one, but I'd certainly buy a copy of windows XP Starter if it was $3, or $10. I know I'm not in the majority, but for crying out loud. I build my own systems, I install Linux, and I have to make due without Windows for my gaming.
God, if they had any sort of soul, they would give XP away once it was discontinued. Hell, give Windows 2000 away!
Yeah, it's not OSS, but they're not making any money off of it, and if Vista were any good, it would stand and sell on it's own, withou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The unit cost to Microsoft of XP licenses to mass purchasers is so close to nil as to be difficult to discern as existing at all, and even at $3 a license, enough licenses adds up to some money.
And, of course, anyone buying those basic machines is going to naturally want more capable machines for teachers, servers, etc., that are compatible with them, with more capable but compatible (and, hence, Microsoft) software—which won't the same sha
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether or not that's true, but even if it is, it doesn't contradict what I said, so I'm not sure why, as I response to what I wrote, you would claim I'm missing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An unbiased observer might? (Score:2, Funny)
might...?
Competition (Score:2)
Stop Demonizing Business (Score:2)
Give me a break! Another completely irresponsible statement make it into TFA's description here on slashdot. I can see it now, Microsoft called a meeting to talk about the threat of OLPC, right after they started working more with open source (Novell). Of course the cynics will say that it was just a "keep your enemies closer" move.
If anything, an unbiased observer would see this a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
WHAT a fantastic show of generousity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unbiased: yeah, right. (Score:2)
An unbiased observer would see that Microsoft is trying to make its software available to those that might not otherwise be able to afford it. An unbiased observer might wonder if Microsoft is trying to be competative with one of it's biggest competators.
Seriously, what's wrong with you people. If Microsoft continued charging third world students $400 for it's operating system, there'd
The value of Windows and Office (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds about right to me.
Taking on Edubuntu (Score:4, Interesting)
BUT XP is to be phased out (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/12/04924
So does this mean they will push out XP to schools then not support it?
Re: (Score:2)
Already too expensive. (Score:4, Interesting)
The OLPC you get all the hardware, all the software, for a very very low price.
If you're a struggling country, what would you get? A $100-per-unit all-in-one, or $500-or-more-plus-three-bucks-per-unit system that does the same thing?
Come on, Microsoft! We've already done cheaper than that! ETRYAGAIN.
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider that $3 is a lot of money
Groan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the BBC title? "Microsoft aims to double PC base"
First one means: "Microsoft starts a fight with the One Laptop Per Child initiative"
The second one means "Microsoft is trying to double its marketshare on the PC market"
And you have to be bloody blind not to see the alterior motive behind it. Because it's a little too close to the release date of the OLPC, Microsoft could've done this years ago!
Granted the title isn
Was Hardware Not the Issue? (Score:2)
I thought the OLPC project was based on getting the hardware cost below US$100. Obviously, the cost of the software is not an issue since it is all based on volunteer work and even the distro was compiled by donated time and effort.
So, Microsoft is offering nothing. According to the article, the governments have to figure out how to buy and configure the hardware themselves. Only then can the governments purchase Windows and Office to put on the computers they have already bought.
Oh, wait . . .
In any other product this is called "dumping". (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes MS a special case? Nothing.
"An unbiased observer might wonder" (Score:2)
I think not even an unbiased [ thus non-existing
I, for one, applaud this move (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you be surprised.
Well, no, its all about human development. Its not all about "the children", though its centers on them.
Nope.
Yup.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this can only be seen as one thing: Microsoft undercutting its typical pricing model to reach market segments where it has no hope
Re: (Score:2)
Differential pricing on the Microsoft product line is often about market segmentation and getting the most out of each segment of the market, not about the costs associated with particular products. (This is particularly true when different versions with different prices are distributed
OLPC is not about the software (Score:3, Insightful)
XP Starter Edition (Score:2)
In an effort to provide an affordable and simple introduction to personal computing, and as a result of ongoing collaborations with governments on PC access programs and increasing digital inclusion, Microsoft Corp. has developed Windows XP Starter Edition, an operating system designed for first-time PC users in developing technology markets.
This really seems like monopoly protection. Microsoft charges non
measure for measure (Score:4, Funny)
I do hope when MSFT and the BSA tell us how much money is lost to the scourge of piracy in the future, they price out the software in this bundle at $3 a copy.
and we all know that clean/constant power is free (Score:2)
They'll find shortsighted naive people to take them up but when reality sinks in, the OLPC setup has more promise to do THE
Ballmer Finally See's it...FEAR (Score:2)
Ballmer is not a forward thinking guy who came out with a total package solution (software+hardware) 4-5 years ago, when he would have been a leader/innovator.
He let Linux, OSX, & OLPC get a 4 year head start while Ballmerizms were used to describe Medica Center, XBox, etal.
As a result of insecurity foisted by MS's poor state of programming and internet bug/hole detection over the last 4-5 years,
If MS really wanted to crush OLPC (Score:2)
*MEEEP*
You think Bill reads Slashdot?
Different philosophy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An unbiased observer might notice the Microsoft spokesman quoted in TFA saying as much: "This is not a philanthropic effort, this is a business," Orlando Ayala of Microsoft told the Reuter's news agency.
An unbiased observer might note that this sudden concern for getting cheap software to governments willing
Re: (Score:2)
Only the people who have either been hiding their heads in the sand or have not been around long enough to know MS's historical behavior would think that.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some pretty bloated open source systems, and some pretty compressed closed source systems.
Still, 400Mhz CPU + 128MB memory + 2GB disk space might be a tad much to ask for with $100.
And yes, I've seen XP pro, without mods, run relatively painlessly on such a setup (there was more disk space in the machine, but that was all it used.