I have to withdraw my support from this FSF campaign owing to their attack on the xo in the education link of their site (click on the Learn More link at their site). They conclude:
... it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed.I think this is far too over zealous and purist. Also note that at this time not a single xo has shipped with Windows.
Update (2nd September): The section I was complaining about above has been removed and replaced with:
Microsoft is now targeting governments who are purchasing XOs, in an attempt to get them to replace the free software with Windows. It remains to be seen to what degree Microsoft will succeed. But with all of this pressure, Microsoft has harmed a project that has distributed more than 1 million laptops running free software, and has taken aim at the low-cost platform as a way to make poor children around the world dependent on its products. The OLPC threatens to become another example of the way Microsoft convinces governments around the world that an education involving computers must be synonymous with an education using Windows. In order to prevent this, it is vital that we work to raise global awareness of the harm Microsoft's involvement does to our children's education.I did write a letter to Peter Brown of the FSF on the 29th August complaining about that section but so far have not received a reply.
Just for the record my original post is below (not altered apart from this correction):
As far as I can see the following indictment of Microsoft from the Free Software Foundation is entirely correct:
1. Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to corrupt educational departments. An education using the power of computers should be a means to freedom and empowerment, not an avenue for one corporation to instill its monopoly.
2. Invading privacy: Microsoft uses software with backward names like Windows Genuine Advantage to inspect the contents of users' hard drives. The licensing agreement users are required to accept before using Windows warns that Microsoft claims the right to do this without warning.
3. Monopoly behavior: Nearly every computer purchased has Windows pre-installed -- but not by choice. Microsoft dictates requirements to hardware vendors, who will not offer PCs without Windows installed on them, despite many people asking for them. Even computers available with other operating systems like GNU/Linux pre-installed often had Windows on them first.
4. Lock-in: Microsoft regularly attempts to force updates on its users, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, and by inflating hardware requirements. For many people, this means having to throw away working computers just because they don't meet the unnecessary requirements for the new Windows versions.
5. Abusing standards: Microsoft has attempted to block free standardization of document formats, because standards like OpenDocument Format would threaten the control they have now over users via proprietary Word formats. They have engaged in underhanded behavior, including bribing officials, in an attempt to stop such efforts.
6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM): With Windows Media Player, Microsoft works in collusion with the big media companies to build restrictions on copying and playing media into their operating system. For example, at the request of NBC, Microsoft was able to prevent Windows users from recording television shows that they have the legal right to record.
7. Threatening user security: Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities, enabling the spread of viruses and allowing remote users to take over people's computers for use in spam-sending botnets. Because the software is secret, all users are dependent on Microsoft to fix these problems -- but Microsoft has its own security interests at heart, not those of its users.
http://windows7sins.org/
11 comments:
Do you think that running a campaign like this makes the situation any better? Does being negative help anyone?
I was a paying member of the FSF for a year, but withdrew my support as I believe they should spend their time and money on positive projects. I find the consistently negative tone that the FSF press releases take to be depressing and whingey.
Re. #1
Schools in the U.S. have had a long history of supporting a computing monoculture. It started in the 1970s and 80s when schools universally adopted the Apple II and then the Macintosh. Apple had a lock on the schools for more than a decade. I'm pretty sure it's the reason Apple got as big as it did, and was able to survive while other competitors fell by the wayside. PCs started to "infiltrate" into the schools in the 1990s. I was surprised when a couple years ago my local school district decided to get rid of all Macs and go 100% to Windows PCs. At the time I thought it made sense, since the business world pretty much runs on PCs, and since most high school students don't graduate with a degree from college, it made some sense for them to get familiar with "the coin of the realm" for economic reasons.
Now I have a different view, though I don't have a strong preference one way or the other about which of the platforms that people constantly bicker over would be better in the schools. IMO I think the XO laptop deserves consideration, since it's a computer designed for learning (unlike most of the others). It would be nice to see CS and IT lose their segregated status (which they now have) and to see them intelligently integrated into a new curriculum that recognizes their pedagogical value. Easier said than done, I know. Just wishing.
hi shenki,
I'm far from expert on the FSF partly because I agree with you that there is something not quite right about some of their publications. I'm not sure that your reason is the correct one, I would need to study it more and I'm unlikely to do that due to other priorities
Nevertheless, I greatly admire Stallman and Moglen for what they have done.
I'm a bit like you too in that I tend to prefer a positive approach but once again at certain times being negative is very important too. No construction, without destruction.
The other point I would make is that in some circles the FSF ideas have become the standard wisdom but in other circles (eg. most teachers and most students too) there are still millions out there who don't know what free sofware is. That is the environment I work in due to the education department's microsoft agreement.
hi mark,
> IMO I think the XO laptop deserves consideration, since it's a computer designed for learning (unlike most of the others)
Have you seen the other blog I've been focusing on more lately, trialling sugar on a stick, which can now be run on most platforms.
The problems listed are not sins on MS's part, but downsides to buying an MS product. When one buys a closed-source product, they are agreeing terms specified in the EULA. They are making a trade-off. Those who spend thousands of dollars on _anything_ blindfolded instead of researching their purchase decisions get what they deserve.
DRM, like any other feature, is good if used for good (e.g. to prevent piracy). If I were, say, a musician, then my desire to... um... eat makes want to make my music only available on computers with DRM. DRM is not any more evil than a seat belt.
Time does not grow on trees. Therefore, we cannot both support crummy old software and improve / support newer, better software. Focusing on the new software offers you a win-or-lose decision: either you choose to upgrade to good software and win, or you stick with crummy old software and lose. Supporting older software gives makes everyone lose: Customers will have to pay for that long-term support, but will get only a mediocre product.
@Bill:
I had heard that Sugar had been made to work on other OSes, but I didn't understand what Sugar was. I thought it was just a user interface, not the full software suite. I guess that's a compromise that could work, but I wonder if it would create confusion for kids. For example they would have to get used to two different UIs, not one. Stuff that works in one doesn't necessarily work in the other--not only in the UI, but also the general way that the software is configured. For example you can look at and modify the source code of stuff in Sugar, I imagine. Unless you have something that's open source on the host platform, you can't do the same with it. I imagine material in one does not transfer to the other without jumping through hoops (copying and pasting, etc.).
In a more technology-centered sense, which I don't think would transfer so well in just any class, the XO allows kids to safely explore the hardware. This is not true of other platforms.
What I was getting at with my previous comment is the FSF seems to have had an axe to grind with Microsoft for a long time. Back when schools adopted Apple computers I didn't hear these complaints, yet many of the same criticisms could've been applied to the Macintosh (not the Apple II since Apple was quite open about its technical specs). The Mac started out as a closed platform. It eventually became more open, but Apple was very conservative about it.
There's plenty of third party software available for PCs, so it's not as if schools are restricted to just Microsoft software (addressing point #4). Teachers may not understand this though. As you indicated, there is much misunderstanding of free software in schools. I learned of an incident last year where a kid in school was reprimanded by his teacher for telling other kids about the virtues of Linux. She complained to the kid's father, saying that he was lying to the other kids when he said there was such a thing as free software. She also complained that he was passing out CDs for free in class. She asserted that there's no such thing as free software, and it's illegal to give it away for free. I think she also went on a tirade about how pirating software (she used this term because she thought that's what was going on) hurts the economy and people's jobs. I agree in principle about piracy, but I was shocked at her level of ignorance. I thought for sure she had heard about free software or shareware at least. I mean it's possible to go to www.download.com and get non-GNU free software that's completely legal. I thought that would've caused her to question her own thoughts before acting, and perhaps wonder if this was a "bird of a feather". What was disconcerting was her assertiveness, as if she really knew what she was talking about, when it was apparent she didn't.
I don't remember exactly what happened next, but it seemed to work out alright once the teacher and the father had a chance to talk about it. As I recall she still didn't entirely approve of what the kid had done before in class, but the "temperature" had been lowered.
It's apparent that the thinking around computers has really changed from when I was in school. I engaged in a little software piracy when I was in secondary school. The computer teacher gave me a ribbing about it, but she didn't blow it up into a big thing. Not to say that the situations are identical, but the teacher in the above story was hyper-vigilant about piracy to the point of mistaking legal software for illegal software copying.
I have added the following to the original blog
Correction (28th August):
I have to withdraw my support from this FSF campaign owing to their attack on the xo in the education link of their site. They conclude:
"... it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed"
I think this is far too over zealous and purist. Also note that at this time not a single xo has shipped with Windows.
A little odd, it looks like you're withdrawing your support for the reasons that you originally supported it.
I think you took that quote out of context, heres the full paragraph:
"This reversal of [policy flew in the face of the project's stated goals of promoting freedom].[3] Many OLPC developers quit in disgust, and some members of the user community [tried to oppose the change] [4]. But Negroponte, desiring the financial support of Bill Gates and Microsoft, ignored them and proceeded with his decision. As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft exerting its control to ends harmful to society's freedom."
I think you should include the full paragraph because the snippet you've used is misleading.
hi Chris,
"As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project -- if it succeeds -- will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents. That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed "
For clarification, I have bolded some parts from the quote
The FSF assertions do not logically or analytically follow from the context of the whole paragraph or statement (to which I provided the link).
How can the FSF know the main effect of the OLPC project? They don't. It could be argued that the main effect will be to improve the education of children in poverty. Also not proven but just as arguable.
Can the FSF prove that "the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed"? No. I assert that the world is far better off because of the OLPC project.
How can we make these judgement? Through analysis and argument. No such analysis is presented for these particular points by the FSF. It is just assertion just as my opposing statements are just assertion.
Can you or the FSF present an actual argument that the above assertions are correct?
The section I was complaining about above has been removed and replaced with:
"Microsoft is now targeting governments who are purchasing XOs, in an attempt to get them to replace the free software with Windows. It remains to be seen to what degree Microsoft will succeed. But with all of this pressure, Microsoft has harmed a project that has distributed more than 1 million laptops running free software, and has taken aim at the low-cost platform as a way to make poor children around the world dependent on its products. The OLPC threatens to become another example of the way Microsoft convinces governments around the world that an education involving computers must be synonymous with an education using Windows. In order to prevent this, it is vital that we work to raise global awareness of the harm Microsoft's involvement does to our children's education."
I did write a letter to Peter Brown of the FSF on the 29th August complaining about that section but so far have not received a reply.
@Bill:
Hmm. Putting the two quotes together it sounds like what the FSF is saying is that the net effect of the XO is the spread of Windows, making developing countries dependent on Microsoft software. It sounds like they consider this a fate worse than no computers at all, and this is why they say "it would be better if the XO had never existed," because they see the XO as the "camel's nose in the tent" which will provide the pathway for Microsoft to "exploit" people. This isn't just because of the XO. With the way things developed, the XO provided the proof of concept for a low-cost computer market in the Third World that got the attention of Intel and Microsoft. Had the XO not existed it would've at least delayed the realization of that market.
I can see them saying, "The XO was well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with such things." Sounds like "Microsoft Derangement Syndrome". I don't like the idea of Windows on the XO, because I think it lowers the quality of the experience, but I don't see it necessarily ruining education.
Post a Comment