Hypothetically speaking, could one get a version of Mac OS X to run on one of these machines? Is it impossible to tell at this point? If it were possible, and Apple for whatever inexplicable reason, decided to release a free system, would MIT have the ability to keep people from switching to it?
Of course, MIT is even more retarded than you'd think; they want the OS to be "free". Yes, I'm sure a Malaria-infected child's biggest worry is recompiling the Linux kernel.
Do you seriously think that's the only reason they chose Linux?
They chose Linux because there's no vendor lock-in. Ever. If tomorrow RedHat pulls an MS on them (which it might) - they can just install their own version of Linux which they can get from a lot of sources out there. No vendor lock-in means no 'royalties' paid and no royalties paid means a cheaper computer.
It also means that they don't have to pay for the OS, not now, not never. Ever. Because they can use any other distro easily. Can they use another flavor of OS X if Apple Computer Inc., decided, 5 years from now to charge them? They can't - because there isn't one. Can they use a flavor of MS Windows if MS decides to charge them 5 years from now? They can't because there isn't any. Can they use another flavor of Linux if RedHat decides to charge them for it 5 years from now? Yes - there's an abundand (and arguably better) list of Linux distros out there that can be used for this project.
Quote:
Maybe I'm on the verge of turning this into a political flame fest, but I don't care. I have no respect for this project. None. It's not racism; quite the opposite.
Given your above comment - I don't know if they should lose any sleep over this. You clearly misunderstood or never read their reasons for going with Linux. It's not technical merit per se, it's the freedom to use said OS even if vendor X goes belly up, gets bought by another company that decides to axe the project, or just decides to charge them for it.
That was dumb that they rejected OS X. Real dumb. Gee I wonder what is easier to use, Linux or OS X? And I wonder what has a vastly better library of software? Etc, etc, etc, etc. These open source people are the most close-minded people.
You need to install the complete OS in a fixed storage of 512MB of flash memory. And within those 512MB of flash memory, there needs to be room not just for the OS, but new applications that people may choose to use, documents they create, images they use for school and other things of that nature.
The 5GB beast that is OS X can't even be installed on this thing, let alone used comfortably. Know your subject before calling people close-minded.
Hypothetically speaking, could one get a version of Mac OS X to run on one of these machines? Is it impossible to tell at this point? If it were possible, and Apple for whatever inexplicable reason, decided to release a free system, would MIT have the ability to keep people from switching to it?
The decision was not made by MIT, it was made by a man at MIT. Make no mistake, I believe that the project is a wonderful idea and should be given all the support it needs. However, I also believe that people with wonderful ideas can become too invested in their own set of priorities and lose sight of the big picture. MacOS X has tremendous advantages over other options. Among Windows, Linux, and MacOS X, it is the easiest OS to administer. There is a wealth of off-the-shelf education software already written for MacOS X. It doesn't approach Windows in this area, but it beats the heck out of Linux.
It is important to remember the time frame. Apple made its offer before it announced the switch to Intel. Any comments about what Apple would or would not have required are purely conjecture because Apple's offer was rejected out of hand. We have no information to the contrary. IMHO, Apple was prepared to accomodate the project and the needs of the children that project intends to serve.
Apple's offer should have at least been explored. The project had the option of a competing offer from Microsoft. Either company (or both) could have given the project much more support than it can expect from its own resources. In chosing Linux, it decided to go it alone.
MacOS X has tremendous advantages over other options.
Name one.
Quote:
Among Windows, Linux, and MacOS X, it is the easiest OS to administer.
Says who? You?
Quote:
There is a wealth of off-the-shelf education software already written for MacOS X.
You think people who can't afford a $100 computer will buy your off-the-shelf education software? The whole point is to rid them of the expense of buying the computer and the software.
Quote:
It doesn't approach Windows in this area, but it beats the heck out of Linux.
I beg to differ. KDE-Edu alone has 19 free programs for education. Edubuntu is an entire distro with just education software.
Quote:
Any comments about what Apple would or would not have required are purely conjecture because Apple's offer was rejected out of hand.
Wrong.
Quote:
Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Inc.'s chief executive, offered to provide free copies of the company's operating system, OS X, for the machine, according to Seymour Papert, a professor emeritus at MIT who is one of the initiative's founders. "We declined because it's not open source," says Dr. Papert, noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.
IMHO, Apple was prepared to accomodate the project and the needs of the children that project intends to serve.
Was it prepared to open source the project? Those were the needs of the project.
Quote:
Apple's offer should have at least been explored.
It was, and it was rejected because it isn't free and open to tinker with. And by 'tinker with' it is meant to change, adapt, or otherwise alter the OS to suite the needs of the MIT project without seeking Apple's aproval first.
Quote:
Either company (or both) could have given the project much more support than it can expect from its own resources. In chosing Linux, it decided to go it alone.
FUD. Google, AMD, RedHat and News Corp have all contributed money and resources to the project as per the article:
Quote:
Five companies -- Google Inc., Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Red Hat Inc., News Corp. and Brightstar Corp. -- have each provided $2 million to fund a nonprofit organization called One Laptop Per Child that was set up to oversee the project. Mr. Negroponte says five companies are bidding to make the laptop, although he declined to name them.
Call me when Apple gets bigger than Google, AMD, Red Hat, News Corp. and BrightStar Corp. combined.
I love the way people here are arguing over something they'll never actually use or need.
If you want to put Mac osX in a $100 laptop and give it to Africans, then set up your own project, and then get Apple to give you licenses. I'm sure you'll succeed.
I love the way people here are arguing over something they'll never actually use or need.
It is a sad day when people are concerned only about those things which will only directly benefit them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Archstudent
If you want to put Mac osX in a $100 laptop and give it to Africans, then set up your own project, and then get Apple to give you licenses. I'm sure you'll succeed.
If all of the people on this forum who want to help the Third World poor were to do this, we could not provide all the computers required for a single class. Corporate donors and sponsors are in a position to do orders of magnitude more. However, I will do what I can.
It is a sad day when people are concerned only about those things which will only directly benefit them.
If all of the people on this forum who want to help the Third World poor were to do this, we could not provide all the computers required for a single class. Corporate donors and sponsors are in a position to do orders of magnitude more. However, I will do what I can.
congratulations, you completely missed the point of my post.
I'm trying to get up to speed on this discussion. Some one tell me why MIT is insisting that the OS be open sourced? Why is this a critical feature?
Wild guess, but if this thing takes off on a massive scale, then no proprietary OS of any nature will be willing to keep supplying it for free. I know that Apple said they would supply it, but there must have been a limiting clause in there somewhere.
The other reason is that the guys behind this would like nothing better than to have an open source OS be so ubiquitous that it would gather steam by sheer volume. The students can't buy these, but governments might, and if many do then there could be a critical mass reached that boosted the acceptance of Linux in non-third-world schools.
If boatloads of high-quality but free educational software appeared that would run under LInux, that would be very appealing for most US school systems and their chronic budgetary problems. And of course Linux runs on Macs. Only Microsoft would lose in that situation. Heh heh.
You clearly misunderstood or never read their reasons for going with Linux.
I don't think I did. And frankly, I wouldn't mind as much, but I just don't find Desktop Linux to be good enough. Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to give African children a computer that spits out an error message "Update Manager cannot fix this problem; please run Synaptic Package Manager to do it yourself", when it could have easily done that automatically?
(And then there's the whole prime directive-type argument, but I'm getting tired of this discussion already. )
I don't think I did. And frankly, I wouldn't mind as much, but I just don't find Desktop Linux to be good enough. Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to give African children a computer that spits out an error message "Update Manager cannot fix this problem; please run Synaptic Package Manager to do it yourself", when it could have easily done that automatically?
(And then there's the whole prime directive-type argument, but I'm getting tired of this discussion already. )
I beg to differ. Or you're just being obtuse. I don't know which one is worse.
Quote:
And frankly, I wouldn't mind as much, but I just don't find Desktop Linux to be good enough.
Which doesn't matter at all, since they find it good enough, and they are the ones making the decisions, and ultimately, the laptops.
Quote:
Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to give African children a computer that spits out an error message "Update Manager cannot fix this problem; please run Synaptic Package Manager to do it yourself", when it could have easily done that automatically?
Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to fabricate things when it's clear their version of the OS was rejected? Because the Update Manager never says anything even remotely associated to that, seeing as Fedora Core (which is what the MIT laptop is using) is an RPM based distro, and RPM based distro's don't even have anything called Synaptic.
But Western civilization, right?
Quote:
(And then there's the whole prime directive-type argument, but I'm getting tired of this discussion already. )
Which doesn't matter at all, since they find it good enough, and they are the ones making the decisions, and ultimately, the laptops.
And that precludes anyone else from discussing or criticizing?
Quote:
Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to fabricate things when it's clear their version of the OS was rejected? Because the Update Manager never says anything even remotely associated to that, seeing as Fedora Core (which is what the MIT laptop is using) is an RPM based distro, and RPM based distro's don't even have anything called Synaptic.
I was using an example. I'm fairly positive I'll be able to find at least three examples within an hour of using the current Fedora Core. As such, while you're right that this particular example doesn't apply, it's irrelevant .
Comments
No more personal attacks against another member - first name calling I see gets 96 hours.
Of course, MIT is even more retarded than you'd think; they want the OS to be "free". Yes, I'm sure a Malaria-infected child's biggest worry is recompiling the Linux kernel.
Do you seriously think that's the only reason they chose Linux?
They chose Linux because there's no vendor lock-in. Ever. If tomorrow RedHat pulls an MS on them (which it might) - they can just install their own version of Linux which they can get from a lot of sources out there. No vendor lock-in means no 'royalties' paid and no royalties paid means a cheaper computer.
It also means that they don't have to pay for the OS, not now, not never. Ever. Because they can use any other distro easily. Can they use another flavor of OS X if Apple Computer Inc., decided, 5 years from now to charge them? They can't - because there isn't one. Can they use a flavor of MS Windows if MS decides to charge them 5 years from now? They can't because there isn't any. Can they use another flavor of Linux if RedHat decides to charge them for it 5 years from now? Yes - there's an abundand (and arguably better) list of Linux distros out there that can be used for this project.
Maybe I'm on the verge of turning this into a political flame fest, but I don't care. I have no respect for this project. None. It's not racism; quite the opposite.
Given your above comment - I don't know if they should lose any sleep over this. You clearly misunderstood or never read their reasons for going with Linux. It's not technical merit per se, it's the freedom to use said OS even if vendor X goes belly up, gets bought by another company that decides to axe the project, or just decides to charge them for it.
Originally posted by Aquatic
That was dumb that they rejected OS X. Real dumb. Gee I wonder what is easier to use, Linux or OS X? And I wonder what has a vastly better library of software? Etc, etc, etc, etc. These open source people are the most close-minded people.
You need to install the complete OS in a fixed storage of 512MB of flash memory. And within those 512MB of flash memory, there needs to be room not just for the OS, but new applications that people may choose to use, documents they create, images they use for school and other things of that nature.
The 5GB beast that is OS X can't even be installed on this thing, let alone used comfortably. Know your subject before calling people close-minded.
Originally posted by LotharSNL
Hypothetically speaking, could one get a version of Mac OS X to run on one of these machines? Is it impossible to tell at this point? If it were possible, and Apple for whatever inexplicable reason, decided to release a free system, would MIT have the ability to keep people from switching to it?
The decision was not made by MIT, it was made by a man at MIT. Make no mistake, I believe that the project is a wonderful idea and should be given all the support it needs. However, I also believe that people with wonderful ideas can become too invested in their own set of priorities and lose sight of the big picture. MacOS X has tremendous advantages over other options. Among Windows, Linux, and MacOS X, it is the easiest OS to administer. There is a wealth of off-the-shelf education software already written for MacOS X. It doesn't approach Windows in this area, but it beats the heck out of Linux.
It is important to remember the time frame. Apple made its offer before it announced the switch to Intel. Any comments about what Apple would or would not have required are purely conjecture because Apple's offer was rejected out of hand. We have no information to the contrary. IMHO, Apple was prepared to accomodate the project and the needs of the children that project intends to serve.
Apple's offer should have at least been explored. The project had the option of a competing offer from Microsoft. Either company (or both) could have given the project much more support than it can expect from its own resources. In chosing Linux, it decided to go it alone.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
MacOS X has tremendous advantages over other options.
Name one.
Among Windows, Linux, and MacOS X, it is the easiest OS to administer.
Says who? You?
There is a wealth of off-the-shelf education software already written for MacOS X.
You think people who can't afford a $100 computer will buy your off-the-shelf education software? The whole point is to rid them of the expense of buying the computer and the software.
It doesn't approach Windows in this area, but it beats the heck out of Linux.
I beg to differ. KDE-Edu alone has 19 free programs for education. Edubuntu is an entire distro with just education software.
Any comments about what Apple would or would not have required are purely conjecture because Apple's offer was rejected out of hand.
Wrong.
Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Inc.'s chief executive, offered to provide free copies of the company's operating system, OS X, for the machine, according to Seymour Papert, a professor emeritus at MIT who is one of the initiative's founders. "We declined because it's not open source," says Dr. Papert, noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.
source.
We have no information to the contrary.
Yes we do. You just choose to ignore it.
IMHO, Apple was prepared to accomodate the project and the needs of the children that project intends to serve.
Was it prepared to open source the project? Those were the needs of the project.
Apple's offer should have at least been explored.
It was, and it was rejected because it isn't free and open to tinker with. And by 'tinker with' it is meant to change, adapt, or otherwise alter the OS to suite the needs of the MIT project without seeking Apple's aproval first.
Either company (or both) could have given the project much more support than it can expect from its own resources. In chosing Linux, it decided to go it alone.
FUD. Google, AMD, RedHat and News Corp have all contributed money and resources to the project as per the article:
Five companies -- Google Inc., Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Red Hat Inc., News Corp. and Brightstar Corp. -- have each provided $2 million to fund a nonprofit organization called One Laptop Per Child that was set up to oversee the project. Mr. Negroponte says five companies are bidding to make the laptop, although he declined to name them.
Call me when Apple gets bigger than Google, AMD, Red Hat, News Corp. and BrightStar Corp. combined.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Call me when Apple gets bigger than Google, AMD, Red Hat, News Corp. and BrightStar Corp. combined.
Why stop there? Add a few more to the 'combined' list so you're sure it'll never happen.
If you want to put Mac osX in a $100 laptop and give it to Africans, then set up your own project, and then get Apple to give you licenses. I'm sure you'll succeed.
Originally posted by Archstudent
I love the way people here are arguing over something they'll never actually use or need.
It is a sad day when people are concerned only about those things which will only directly benefit them.
Originally posted by Archstudent
If you want to put Mac osX in a $100 laptop and give it to Africans, then set up your own project, and then get Apple to give you licenses. I'm sure you'll succeed.
If all of the people on this forum who want to help the Third World poor were to do this, we could not provide all the computers required for a single class. Corporate donors and sponsors are in a position to do orders of magnitude more. However, I will do what I can.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
It is a sad day when people are concerned only about those things which will only directly benefit them.
If all of the people on this forum who want to help the Third World poor were to do this, we could not provide all the computers required for a single class. Corporate donors and sponsors are in a position to do orders of magnitude more. However, I will do what I can.
congratulations, you completely missed the point of my post.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Why stop there?
Because those are the five companies that are sponsoring the laptop.
Add a few more to the 'combined' list so you're sure it'll never happen.
No, sorry, just the ones that are actually sponsoring the MIT laptop.
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm trying to get up to speed on this discussion. Some one tell me why MIT is insisting that the OS be open sourced? Why is this a critical feature?
Wild guess, but if this thing takes off on a massive scale, then no proprietary OS of any nature will be willing to keep supplying it for free. I know that Apple said they would supply it, but there must have been a limiting clause in there somewhere.
The other reason is that the guys behind this would like nothing better than to have an open source OS be so ubiquitous that it would gather steam by sheer volume. The students can't buy these, but governments might, and if many do then there could be a critical mass reached that boosted the acceptance of Linux in non-third-world schools.
If boatloads of high-quality but free educational software appeared that would run under LInux, that would be very appealing for most US school systems and their chronic budgetary problems. And of course Linux runs on Macs. Only Microsoft would lose in that situation. Heh heh.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You clearly misunderstood or never read their reasons for going with Linux.
I don't think I did. And frankly, I wouldn't mind as much, but I just don't find Desktop Linux to be good enough. Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to give African children a computer that spits out an error message "Update Manager cannot fix this problem; please run Synaptic Package Manager to do it yourself", when it could have easily done that automatically?
(And then there's the whole prime directive-type argument, but I'm getting tired of this discussion already.
Originally posted by Chucker
I don't think I did. And frankly, I wouldn't mind as much, but I just don't find Desktop Linux to be good enough. Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to give African children a computer that spits out an error message "Update Manager cannot fix this problem; please run Synaptic Package Manager to do it yourself", when it could have easily done that automatically?
(And then there's the whole prime directive-type argument, but I'm getting tired of this discussion already.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Why stop there? Add a few more to the 'combined' list so you're sure it'll never happen.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Because those are the five companies that are sponsoring the laptop.
Originally posted by Chucker
I don't think I did.
I beg to differ. Or you're just being obtuse. I don't know which one is worse.
And frankly, I wouldn't mind as much, but I just don't find Desktop Linux to be good enough.
Which doesn't matter at all, since they find it good enough, and they are the ones making the decisions, and ultimately, the laptops.
Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to give African children a computer that spits out an error message "Update Manager cannot fix this problem; please run Synaptic Package Manager to do it yourself", when it could have easily done that automatically?
Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to fabricate things when it's clear their version of the OS was rejected? Because the Update Manager never says anything even remotely associated to that, seeing as Fedora Core (which is what the MIT laptop is using) is an RPM based distro, and RPM based distro's don't even have anything called Synaptic.
But Western civilization, right?
(And then there's the whole prime directive-type argument, but I'm getting tired of this discussion already.
I can tell that you are - from your arguments.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Which doesn't matter at all, since they find it good enough, and they are the ones making the decisions, and ultimately, the laptops.
And that precludes anyone else from discussing or criticizing?
Is it the pinnacle of Western civilization to fabricate things when it's clear their version of the OS was rejected? Because the Update Manager never says anything even remotely associated to that, seeing as Fedora Core (which is what the MIT laptop is using) is an RPM based distro, and RPM based distro's don't even have anything called Synaptic.
I was using an example. I'm fairly positive I'll be able to find at least three examples within an hour of using the current Fedora Core. As such, while you're right that this particular example doesn't apply, it's irrelevant .