In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:05:07 +0100
<38022675.6U3F9cPhtC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Sunday 29 April 2007 22:16 \__
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, OK
>> <otto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:09:00 +0200
>> <spu93356utpmsush178eo01hlo7lu8bjhb@xxxxxxx>:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:40:00 -0700, John Locke
>>> <johnlocke98513@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:31:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>>><newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One Laptop Per Child - Production Delays Caused By Microsoft, Intel?
>>>>>
>>>>>| I sincerely hope that no matter what the people who are running the
>>>>>| OLPC project decide, that their project will continue and not get
>>>>>| bogged down in a play of corporate greed and ambitions.
>>>>
>>>>The laptops don't run Microshaft code...
>>>
>>> It appears that you are outdated.
>>>
>>>>they're gonna play dirty...as
>>>>long as they still have money in the bank to throw around.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/19/1553219.shtml
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6571139.stm
>>
>> "This is not a philanthropic effort, this is a business," Orlando
>> Ayala of Microsoft told the Reuter's news agency.
>>
>> And it should be.
>>
>> Also,
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=379
>>
>> indicates that the laptop will be able to run Windows.
>> That will probably quietly transmute to the laptop being
>> *required* to run Windows, at least initially, much like
>> many higher-priced laptops, desktops, and notebooks are
>> today. After all, that's where the money is. (Presently.)
>>
>> (Remember that Niger is not all that noted for being
>> scrupulous. It's a pity.)
>>
>> Is this a good thing? Certainly. Schoolchildren will
>> have the benefit of using laptops with software on top of
>> Microsoft Windows. The software on top is what's useful
>> and visible.
>
> As I understand it, this is more of an /option/, for US school, which gives a
> boost to the project as a whole.
>
> Why Microsoft Code Shouldn't be on the OLPC XO
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | With Microsoft on the other hand you have a single company working
> | on adapting software that was never meant to run such a specialized
> | device. By its very nature a solution aimed a traditional PC can
> | never be as flexible as a custom piece of software. Even in terms
> | of application software such as Office 200x I dare say that it's
> | nearly impossible to make it work on a system such as the X0.
> `----
>
> http://www.olpcnews.com/software/operating_system/microsoft_code_olpc_xo.html
>
We'll see. Personally, I think Microsoft should
be excluded unless they can show certain compliance
requirements -- I don't know the details regarding the
top applications so can't be more specific. We could be
nasty and require fork(), for example. :-) More likely,
it would be an issue regarding running of POSIX graphics
applications, and Windows might be able to come in with
Cygnus or SFU in tow. (Does SFU include an X server?)
Presumably, once they've met those requirements, they can
be an option on OLPCs, along with Linux, FreeBSD, and maybe
even a modified version of Solaris. (FreeDOS's too dumb,
though it has its uses elsewhere.)
There is of course the issue as to whether Windows would
fit. Certainly Aero won't. (The specs: 433 MHz AMD Geode,
128 KB chip cache, 256 MB RAM, 1 GB NAND flash "disk"
storage, 1200x900 200 DPI liquid-crystal color display,
presumably 16M color-capable but the specs do not say.)
http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/production/olpc_xo_btest-3_hardware.html
http://laptop.org/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml
The website
http://laptop.org/en/laptop/software/specs.shtml
mentions Fedora Core 6, which is very bad from a specs
standpoint; it should instead go into detail as to what
POSIX specifications are required. (This is not to say
FC6 is *bad* -- it's just that FC6 is an implementation,
and therefore should not be part of a spec; it's fixing
on a specific vendor, possibly locking out Microsoft --
and everyone else -- from consideration. Of course a savvy
user should be able to slap Gentoo on the unit, or SuSE,
Mandriva, etc.; it's pretty stock stuff except perhaps
for the Geode.)
And of course WinCE (or whatever it's mutated to) could be
used underneath; it would mostly be a matter of porting all
of the items mentioned in the above link. Xulrunner has
already been ported to Windows (it is, after all, the
heart of Firefox, and Firefox runs on Windows nicely);
most of the rest could be handled through a combination
of Cygwin (or maybe SFU) and Gtk and maybe Gtk#.
The boot time of 2 minutes is also somewhat problematic.
I for one would hope for a boot time of 10-20 seconds.
Presumably, this will eventually be fixed.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
