

Richard Stallman on OLPC 218
memshankar writes "In an interview while he was in Hyderabad, India RMS praises for the One Laptop Per Child Project. He is even contemplating making a switch to XO, the flagship machine of the project, from his "old thinkpad". Stallman went on to say that the OLPC laptop has given people a way to use the free BIOS.
He is, however dissatisfied with the wireless networking system used in the XO."
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Also Vim limescale remover [choiceful.com] to clean the bathroom.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Give the full story: RMS:Hardware hacker (Score:4, Funny)
You imagine the mumbling and grumbling grumbling coming from RMS as he wields his soldering iron over a naked XO.
Re:Give the full story: RMS:Hardware hacker (Score:5, Funny)
You imagine the mumbling and grumbling grumbling coming from RMS as he wields his soldering iron over a naked XO.
Better than imagining the moaning and groaning coming from a naked RMS as he wields his iron soldier over an XO.
Now I need... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not pleasant!
Re: (Score:2)
RMS is never happy (Score:4, Funny)
AIBO (Score:5, Funny)
The SONY dogbot isn't open sourced, but there is a german one [makezine.com] you can use.
Wireless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wha? (Score:5, Funny)
You sure they actually interviewed RMS?
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, all linux systems are GNU/Linux to RMS (check out the source to configure).
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, all linux systems are GNU/Linux to RMS (check out the source to configure).
RMS has never claimed the Linux kernel as part of GNU. He uses GNU/Linux to refer to distributions which use all the GNU userland stuff on top of the Linux kernel. It's a pretty reasonable position, actually, except that it ignores some other major pieces that should be in the list, and that a proper list (e.g. GNOME/Xorg/GNU/Linux) would be so unwieldy that it's easier just to say "Linux".
Actually, Linux as RMS uses it really is pretty much just GNU/Linux. I understand he doesn't use X or anything that requires a GUI, just EMACS, GNU Screen and BASH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
"He is, however dissatisfied with the wireless networking system used in the XO. Since it uses a proprietary technology, he plans to remove it and use a separate device when he needs to make wireless communication with others."
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Another FOSS device (phone/computer) (Score:5, Informative)
The Neo 1973 & Neo FreeRunner [openmoko.com] are linux ARM computers with full GPS, bluetooth, GSM/GPRS, USB (client & unpowered host) and 480 x 640 touchscreens. The FreeRunner also has two accelerometers and wi-fi. You can buy the Neo 1973 [openmoko.com] now, and the FreeRunner is expected in March or April.
You can (of course) play video, music, and run PDA apps on the devices. You can also view PDFs and the web, use bluetooth keyboards (or bluetooth anything else, for that matter), or do anything that you or someone else cares to port from the desktop, assuming the hardware resources are sufficient.
I've been playing with my Neo 1973 (currently recommended only for people willing to debug, and tolerate alpha level software) for a few weeks, and I'm having a great time with it.
Not only the software is open - you can get CAD files for the case, and schematics as well. There are also i2c, etc. bus standards used so adding new hardware is easy as well, if you're so inclined. Obviously the real market there is for a cottage industry distributing neos with extra hardware built-in, but the hobbyist can experiment at home, too.
Re: (Score:2)
A 'way' to get the BIOS is far from an open BIOS. Hell, what if they lose all their documentation to generate this or in 20 years when OLPC is a failed proje
why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus says something about an area he knows nothing about.
Stallman says something a particular product.
dont get me wrong, they are both interesting people, I have some Stallman lectures sitting on my hard drive, and I've actually watched them several times.
When these guys are talking about a topic where they are an authority on the matter, I find their comments to be '+5 insightful', but stuff like this is '+2 interesting' at best.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you can handle his monotones, he really has some cool stuff to say.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't blame Stallman, he was asked a question and he answered it. And he said he was going to BUY an OLPC and use it in preference to his ThinkPad, a pretty ringing endorsement. But 90% of the posts seem to be about either his comments on the "unfree" wifi driver, or his beard. Again, not his fault for the weird way he is reported.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me a focus of Stallman's approval of the OLPC is freedom, particularly software but also hardware, throughout the system.
Now, it seems to me that that is pretty much Stallman's area of specialty.
RMS has a great guru image (Score:5, Interesting)
Kudos to RMS for all his work over the years, and putting up with small-minded criticism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago he was a smelly unkempt young man, who was hanging onto decades-old ideas, and look where that got us.
BTW, your opinions will carry a lot more weight with most people if they're expressed in grammatically-correct sentences. You may consider that wrong, but it's reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree but I am stuck with IE 6 at my location. And I don't have time for slashdot to be perfect
Re: (Score:2)
Agree but I am stuck with IE 6 at my location. And I don't have time for slashdot to be perfect
I fail to see the relevance of IE 6, and I don't think you have to worry: Slashdot will never be perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But my comment was about grammar, not spelling!
(I'd guessed the same thing, actually, which was why I made the snarky comment.)
who modded this garbage up Interesting .. (Score:2)
Re:RMS has a great guru image (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS doesn't care what you think of him -- either you will respect him for his principles, or judge him based on his external appearance. He is smart enough to know which is more important, and assumes you are too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just what exactly is the message here? It's: "I like the XO laptop better than my Thinkpad." If this message were coming from an anonymous reader, do you think it would have made it on Slashdot? No. It's here because Stallman said it. The reason we're focusing on the messenger is because that's exactly how this whole article is set up: With the focus on the messenger. Hell, the title of the post is "Richard Stallman on OLPC". Notice how the title menti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's not (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right about some things, and I'll judge those things on their own merit and not on the person presenting them, but on the whole he's a nutter. I don't want to be associated with Pan worshiping or nasal sex because I work with Linux or other open technologies. *I* can look past those things, but part of professionalism is recognizing that there are a lot of stupid people in influential positions who can't or won't.
You aren't a professional (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the real world, what stupid people say is far from meaningless. It has real and direct effect on what happens. Would you really argue that George Bush's opinions over the last 8 years have had no effect? When you join us in the grown up world, you'll have to deal with people like that, and have their decision impact you.
Blimey... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
XO is not for grownups (Score:2, Informative)
RMS, who has had crippling repetitive stress injuries in the past, should know better than to make a statement like this, let alone even use the XO for anything but experimentation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2, Interesting)
MPU - Re:Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
I knew it! (Score:4, Funny)
I knew it! I knew that guy had to be on something! But, I thought it would be PCP.
Ah, RM "Proprietary is Never Good" Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
But because it uses binary blobs for the driver and firmware, RMS fees it is hopelessly compromised?!
Does RMS not drive a car built in the past 20 years because you aren't supposed to change the computer running the engine? What about fly in a commercial airliner?
Also, the XO can never use GPLv3 code. For the US market, they will give the unlock key, but for the third world, this key is the responsibility of the educational ministry, which often needs to keep the software base consistent (among other things, this helps manage theft).
Re:Ah, RM "Proprietary is Never Good" Stallman... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, RM "Proprietary is Never Good" Stallman... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for whom? The post you replied to (but failed to quote) gives the examples of cars and airplanes. While I'm willing to believe that Stallman avoids riding in cars at all costs (perhaps opting for bicycles instead), there's no way he could go around the world giving speeches without having been in an airplane. And you know what? The vast majority of the software that an airplane (or an airliner, for that matter) uses is proprietary.
If Stallman is willing to fly around in an airplane using proprietary software, despite his stance that proprietary software is "evil", then it must be because that proprietary software isn't so evil that it is worth foregoing the convenience of air travel that they provide.
Sometimes having a bunch of hobbyist collaborate on some software is enough (e.g. in the case of Linux). Other times, you need a huge amount of capital, investors, and management to coordinate everything (e.g. almost every industry which open source has not yet penetrated to a significant degree, such as aviation, automobiles, computer hardware, etc.) In these industries, it will always be the underdogs that want to push open source: "Our airplane software isn't quite as good as the other people's, so we have nothing to lose by releasing our software, and if we can somehow trick the others into opening their software, then everyone will be using whatever the best software is, thus leveling the playing field. We don't want to compete on software, only on other things". The top dogs will, of course, resist this: "Our airplane software is better than all of our competitors, and we'd like to keep it that way."
Whenever you use terms like "never", "always", "good", or "evil", check yourself: You may have an overly simplified view of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah, RM "Proprietary is Never Good" Stallman... (Score:5, Informative)
"For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software "better"--in a practical sense only. It says that non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution."
I suppose it's O.K. if you don't think freedom is the most important thing—everyone has an opinion and you have every right to disagree. But you should understand that free software has never been about making a good reliable program (although that is often a by-product)—it is about the freedom itself.
As for not using GPLv3, I don't think rms himself would hold that against anybody. As a matter of course, GNU projects will be under GPLv3, but rms has repeatedly said, for example, in the case of Linux, the kernel, it is entirely up to the kernel developers (the strongest statement you have from him is that he hopes that they will decide to upgrade to GPLv3), and as you can see in the list of free licenses [gnu.org] (well, some not), he never held being not copyleft against any license—it's just that when one values freedom, GPL (and admittedly, it's latest version, in FSF's opinion) does the best job of protecting that freedom for everyone (or, the most number of people).
Re: (Score:2)
As to planes, he possibly hasn't yet realised that "fly by wire" means software, not pulling on real wires. If he ever finds out that FBW (and similar) software developement can require independent implementations, developed by separaate teams who are not allowed to look at each other's code, then I guess he won't fly.
Re: (Score:2)
But because it uses binary blobs for the driver and firmware, RMS fees it is hopelessly compromised?!
If this surprises you at all, it must be the first time you've heard of the man. Yeah, RMS is like that. Once he got pissed off at a printer driver and wrote an OS.
Also, the XO can never use GPLv3 code. For the US market, they will give the unlock key, but for the third world, this key is the responsibility of the educational ministry, which often needs to keep the software base consistent (among other things, this helps manage theft).
Did this make sense to you when you wrote it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or s
Re: (Score:2)
QED: You can't distribute an XO containing GPLv3 software without giving the authorization key.
Two points:
1) It's not clear that a hypothetical department of education would actually be distributing these. For example, I do not own my company laptop - my boss does.
2) Locking down an XO so that it can't be modified defeats the entire freakin' point of the project. It's not like these are super high-end machines that contain every piece of software the user could ever want. The whole goal is to put hackable machines into the hands of kids who can learn from them.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I'd rather have a car whose ECU I can reprogram using an open interface, and fly in a plane where I can read, and the operators can modify the source for the avionics software.
Stallman may be ridiculous in many ways, but to deny that open architectures are comparatively good is ludicrous.
Just wish he'd go back to singing... (Score:3, Funny)
Are you kidding me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he doesn't. He suffers from chronic RSI and has hired people to type for him in the past (not sure what his current situation is though).
Re: (Score:2)
RMS acts as a Role Model (Score:5, Insightful)
For the rest of us who live in the real world and accept compromises to make our lives more comfortable, he's ridiculous. But that's not the point. The point is that he aims for an ideal that won't be attained by everyone, but that can be strived to.
So the fact that his complaints about the non-free wireless is ridiculous to the rest of us, but it does motivate some to provide a free alternative, and that is his objective.
Re:RMS acts as a Role Model (Score:5, Insightful)
The XO can't replace your laptop (Score:2)
-Mike
He does answer his emails (Score:5, Insightful)
He can be dogmatic about his views, but he won't flame you for having
a different opinion. He WILL give you a good argument why HE is right
and YOU are wrong, but in a VERY polite way. (He's like a true politician,
he can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to
the trip!).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that'd be a diplomat. [answers.com]
Thinkpad?!?!? (Score:2)
Shouldn't the XO be free to everyone? I mean, if it has free software, the hardware ought to be free as well.
I am going to go start the Free Hardware Foundation and agitate for free hardware.
Mirror for readers in China? (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks in advance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RMS Proves One Thing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, that puts the count of significant accomplishments to RMS's credit at two or three, depending on whether you count GPL as important in its own right or only as the most popular implementation of free software licensing. Not too shabby in either case.
Don't get me wrong, I deeply respect RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
Compiler writer, inventor of free software concept, really, not a bad resume at all. But that's the thing about RMS that makes me respect the socialist. The classic Republican retort, that I've used myself, to liberals that want the government to save the world, is, "if its so important to you, then why not do it yourself". And RMS DID just that. He didn't write a petition web site, he wasn't lobbying congress. He said that there ought to be bunch of free tools and he made it happen. He wrote the original gnu compiler, put a lot into emacs, put together the GNU project and the GPL and a whole bunch of things. He's done more for his cause by himself than 99% of most people do for theirs.
I may not agree with his politics, but I deeply respect the man, and yeah, I do donate to the GNU when I can, because, sometimes its better to support people that are just willing to work to make the world better in some way, regardless if it jives with your own half baked sensibilities. The work matters more than the politics, I say.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Stallman's goal with the FSF was originally to create an entirely free Unix replacement - the GNU (= GNU's Not Unix) project, starting from the ground up with tools like Emacs, GCC, the GNU C library, Bison (Yak replacement), replace ments for all the Unix user space tools, etc.
Stal
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
glibc didn't even work on Linux until the Linux hackers made it work. RMS still doesn't give any credit for this, or any of the work that the Linux people put into GNU, which I dare say is greater than all of RMS's total output.
Writing a compiler is an undergraduate project. Countless people who were not RMS improved gcc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing a compiler is an undergraduate project.
Writing a compiler for a real language is a non-trivial task. I'm in a two semester compiler class right now (first semester is upper level undergrad/lower level grad and second semester is purely grad level). Our 'toy' language, that we're working with, is fairly basic. (Ignores strings, floating point, dynamic memory etc). Even so, it's still a lot of work. I can't imagine having the free time available to devote my time to writing a real compiler.
Can you expand upon your statement of why you think w
Re:RMS Proves One Thing.... (Score:5, Informative)
True, BSD was around before GNU, but the GNU project didn't touch BSD code for a long time (not for 16 years at least) due to two problems. First, the BSD code was in a legal limbo [wikipedia.org], thanks to copyright problems with AT&T. Using it would be dangerous.
Second, the original BSD license had an annoying advertising clause making it incompatable with the GPL [gnu.org]. This clause wasn't removed until 1999, after Richard Stallman convinced Berkeley to remove it [wikipedia.org]. This finally allowed GPL and BSD code to be mixed. The GNU project was already well established by then.
So, no, the GNU project wrote their software from scratch. They didn't just hack the BSD tools.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RMS Proves One Thing.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't characterize Linus as a brilliant programmer. A brilliant software manager perhaps, but no more than a strong programmer. Most of the Linux kernel has been written be people other than Linux, and the Linux operating system owes 1000% more to Stallman as a driving force than Linus.
Re: (Score:2)
Strongly agreed. Except about the brilliant part. Linus *may* be a brilliant programmer, I'm not sure either way.
Although... imagine the dot com boom with Stallman as the Linux spokesperson :-)
Re:RMS Proves One Thing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know where you draw the line between a "strong programmer" and a "brilliant programmer", and it's surely true that at this point, the Linux kernel is much more other peoples' code than Linus's ... but if you spend any time at all reading the mailing lists he posts on, Linus just gets things faster than almost everybody else, and clearly has a deep understanding of vast swaths of the system, even if most of the code was written by others. When there's an issue at hand, he'll say "oh, you could do blah blah" -- and then follow up 2 hours later with a prototype implementation almost as an offhand remark (and it's usually a clean, efficient, implementation too).
No slight intended against RMS -- I think he's far more visionary than Linus, and will have had a much bigger effect on society and computing -- and RMS is no slouch at programming (especially when compared to wannabes like ESR), but in the end, I think Linus is a better programmer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I thought praising the OLPC was last year's blogohype. Or possibly 2006's.
Parent poster is smearing? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Likewise, ESR has always been known as ESR.
If that confuses you, you must be new here.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)