The Jem Report: Making Sense of the OLPC Proprietary Software Row

Contributed by deanna on 2006-10-10 from the more-proprietary-than-a-thinkpad dept.

Jem Matzan speaks with Theo de Raadt, Richard Stallman, Jim Gettys and Jonathan Corbet in this interview, exploring all angles of the One Laptop Per Child controversy.

http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/286/

Update: misc@ posting by Theo (with link to the entire mail exchange)

(Comments are closed)

Comments

By frantisek holop (165.72.200.11) on 2006-10-10 09:24
```
clearly theo's comments make the most sense.
RMS is rambling under his nose about nothing really.

i wonder if the world will understand.  doesn't matter how many
journalists one uses for the purpose, people who do not write
drivers _or_ do not know how a driver looks like will always
point out the blob drivers and the .h drivers as working open
source alternatives.  seems like linux crowds cannot be enlightened
in this matter.  that is funny, sad and scary at the same time.

i think they should make chocolate notebooks instead so children
can at least eat it when there is no electricity...
```
Comments
1. By Anonymous Peon (155.212.34.122) on 2006-10-10 18:33
  
  The S:N of the debate is getting so low that I think this deserves a summary:
  
  * Theo is willing to concede loadable firmware blobs to be part of 'hardware' as long as they aren't imposing new restrictions on users or developers that "oldschool" ROM'd devices didn't. It'd be nice for blobs to be "free as in air," but failing that, a grant of specific redistribution rights to your friendly local air vendor (or OS project) would be good enough. Devices should have the software equivalent of their EPROM socket location documented, and the interface the firmware presents should be documented enough that developers of system software can drive it.
  
  * RMS would like everything to be available GPL'd, and every device with a CPU documented to the extent necessary for third parties to implement GPL'd (or generally "alternative") firmware/software.
  
  * Marvell may actually be trying to steer their cow around, but failed to secure an appropriate initial license to allow them to redistribute their firmware without restriction, and have yet to negotiate a new license that would allow both Marvell and their OS vendor to profit through sales of more hardware.
  
  Guh.
  
  Both Theo and RMS have fair arguments; I don't think many in BSD-land would *complain* about hardware meeting GNU standards of purity, while Theo outlines exactly what's necessary to maintain the status quo, in terms of allowing developers to target hardware they physically own without having to sign away any rights for the "privilege."
2. By Anonymous Coward (83.5.216.235) on 2006-10-10 21:05
  
  >
  > clearly theo's comments make the most sense.
  > RMS is rambling under his nose about nothing really.
  >
  > i wonder if the world will understand. doesn't matter how many
  > journalists one uses for the purpose, people who do not write
  > drivers _or_ do not know how a driver looks like will always
  > point out the blob drivers and the .h drivers as working open
  > source alternatives. seems like linux crowds cannot be enlightened
  > in this matter. that is funny, sad and scary at the same time.
  >
  > i think they should make chocolate notebooks instead so children
  > can at least eat it when there is no electricity...
  >
  
  are you insane? chocolate is bad for the teeth ;)
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on 2006-10-11 17:06
    
    > are you insane? chocolate is bad for the teeth ;)
    
    No it isn't.
By Anonymous Coward (130.179.16.26) on 2006-10-10 10:53

OLPC...

Will it include a water filter so that the kids don't die
of waterborne disease? The $100 pc is a great idea,
but there are better ways to spend $100.

As to the chipset, so 300mw in low power(packet routing) mode,
I think my 3 year old pda could do that with a cf wifi card.
The power output of the wifi card and the power usage of
the arm procesor is important. Why woluld a ralink chip with
a arm procesor not use a similar amount of power.

I hope some other company will step forward and provide a better
solution. And I hope that OLPC will not use lithium batteries,
as they may explode if they use the case of the computer to put
dirty drinking water in a bucket.
But this topic is about the chipset, not about my rant.
Comments
1. By Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) beck@openbsd.org on 2006-10-10 19:10 http://www.openbsd.org/
  
  > OLPC...
  >
  ....
  >
  > But this topic is about the chipset, not about my rant.
  
  No. the topic is about
  
  1) Freely redistributable firmware
  2) Documentation for the interface created by the above.
  
  So stop sabotaging it with the obvious rant.
By Chas (147.154.235.52) on 2006-10-10 14:58

So this thing has both an ARM and a souped-up 486 (aka Cyrix 5x86 aka National Semiconductor Geode aka AMD Geode)?

* Why is it using a power-guzzling x86 at all?
* Why not just go ARM all the way? ARM is more popular than x86 (by CPUs shipped), and in switching to ARM the wireless hardware could be simplified (the attached CPU could be removed).
* If a high-speed ARM consumes too much power, then implement two CPUs, one that is active only in low-power mode.

Why not just ditch x86 and go ARM exclusively? Is x86 binary compatibility that important?

You could even label it a "BBC Micro" or an "Acorn" for old time's sake.
Comments
1. By Sean (65.174.122.201) on 2006-10-10 19:32
  
  > Why not just ditch x86 and go ARM exclusively? Is x86 binary compatibility that important?
  
  If you want to run a lot of software it probably is.
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on 2006-10-11 06:06
    
    > > Why not just ditch x86 and go ARM exclusively? Is x86 binary compatibility that important?
    >
    > If you want to run a lot of software it probably is.
    
    Actually, PowerPC would be another viable, energy-efficient alternative. There is a lot of software for PowerPC as well, since so much of it is either BSD- or GPL-licensed (e. g. OpenOffice.org, AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc.). It'd just be a matter of paring down either Yellow Dog Linux or Ubuntu PPC, or even configuring OpenBSD as a desktop OS, since it's been PPC-friendly for years.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on 2006-10-11 17:53
    
    NetBSD has probably the best PPC support of all the open source operating systems.
  2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on 2006-10-11 17:51
    
    If you want pre-compiled binaries
2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on 2006-10-11 20:51
  
  http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=200007&cid=16377195
  Comments
  1. By Chas (147.154.235.52) on 2006-10-12 14:07
    
    ...doesn't mean that I get good answers in either place.
    
    I find it hard to believe that an FP-capable, competetive ARM can't be found at the price of a Geode.
    
    While this doesn't support FP, I'd buy it if it was OpenBSD-capable.
    
    Comments
    
    By Anonymous Coward (74.12.75.77) on 2006-10-12 14:40
    
    > ...doesn't mean that I get good answers in either place.
    >
    > I find it hard to believe that an FP-capable, competetive ARM can't be found at the price of a Geode.
    >
    > While this doesn't support FP, I'd buy it if it was OpenBSD-capable.
    
    Other than needing the kernel to be less than 1 meg in size, is there any other reason why the armish port won't run on the nslu2?
    
    By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on 2006-10-12 19:23
    
    I'm not sure I care if it supports FP
By Nate (74.13.33.153) on 2006-10-10 16:20

A comment from Theo, <a href="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=116049570712270&w=2">http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=116049570712270&w=2</a>

Basically he's released his OLPC-related discussion to the internet <a href="http://www.theos.com/deraadt/jg">http://www.theos.com/deraadt/jg</a>
By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on 2006-10-10 19:15

If the hardware used by the OLPC is redundant in 2 years, and the system is not maintainable, that just leaves a lot of junk laptops lying around in the third world, doesn't it ?

This whole issue with OLPC is really what making sustainable open systems is all about. Vendor lockin will hurt users in the third world a lot more than users in the first.

Bringing technology to the third world can create enormous benefits for it's inhabitants, but it has to be done right, OLPC is very much in the public eye, and if they screw it up, it can cause more damage than doing nothing at all. Added to this, OLPC's failiures will further prevent others from doing it correctly in the future.
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (66.199.184.254) on 2006-10-10 20:48
  
  > If the hardware used by the OLPC is redundant in 2 years, and the system is not maintainable, that just leaves a lot of junk laptops lying around in the third world, doesn't it ?
  >
  > This whole issue with OLPC is really what making sustainable open systems is all about. Vendor lockin will hurt users in the third world a lot more than users in the first.
  >
  > Bringing technology to the third world can create enormous benefits for it's inhabitants, but it has to be done right, OLPC is very much in the public eye, and if they screw it up, it can cause more damage than doing nothing at all. Added to this, OLPC's failiures will further prevent others from doing it correctly in the future.
  
  Well don`t get me wrong but providing Laptops to those who don`t even own a simple Radio or even just a power-connector in their cities is the wrong way. You may better spend the money to infrastructure investments (so that they propably get "hospitals" wich can use tecnics base on electricity (heyho x-rays.. just for example).
  Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on 2006-10-11 00:12
    
    As to wether or not the money could be better spent is really outside the scope of this conversation, though as it turns out looking at the figures it looks like they are throwing away an awful lot of money that could be better invested.
    
    http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/argentina/olpc_in_argentina_by.html
    
    This is all beside the point, the OLPC project looks like it's going ahead and standing round saying the money could be better spent doesn't really help.
    
    If this all goes horribly wrong, the laptops become unmaintainable after a couple of years, these countries are going to end up a lot worse, not just ecconomically, but most likely environmentally too.
    
    There is also the problem with forcing people in the third world into vendor lockin from the start.
  2. By wim (88.82.33.37) wim@kd85.com on 2006-10-11 09:08 https://kd85.com/notforsale.html
    
    > Well don`t get me wrong but providing Laptops to those who don`t even own a simple Radio > or even just a power-connector in their cities is the wrong way. You may better spend the
    > money to infrastructure investments (so that they propably get "hospitals" wich can use
    > tecnics base on electricity (heyho x-rays.. just for example).
    
    This is not the place to discuss if we should pend money in malaria drugs or laptops. The project is already going ahead and in it's little effort, it could change the life for a lot of people.
    Money is wasted every day. Invading countries and throwing bombs on children is also a giant waste of money, or did we forget what else is going on in the world?
    
    The real point is how clueless an open source project like this is by picking components conflicting to their own cause and objectives. An open project should use it's political and financial influence to push vendors to change their ways for the better, not bend over...
    
    This is all a huge missed oportunity.

By jb (88.96.119.110) on 2006-10-11 10:01

I know here is not the place to discuss the non-technical merits 
of the project, but indulge with me as I am trying to find any 
sense in it.

Surely, someone in there has some sort of good intention, but it 
is amazing that otherwise intelligent people would make so many 
assumptions:
 - that laptops, or computers in general, actually improve 
   education;
 - that folks that are otherwise in deep trouble are going to 
   care about it;
 - that the folks are going to use the laptop, appart for trading 
   it for goods or services that are otherwise too expensive 
   (I mean, bring it on, with a bit of luck it will be traded for 
   something useful.)

This isn't the first time people from the US decide it's good for 
South American folks to be sent computers (without asking them) - 
they've been told how irrelevant these projects were.  This is more 
of the same, the folks in charge have corporate background and 
probably don't have the faintest clue of the local realities: just 
go and ask folks in a small town in Patagonia or elsewhere and see 
what they say...

Theo is making quite a simple point and you have to give it to the 
OLPC folks that they're being quite creative in trying not to 
understand it: honest, I know nothing about how hardware works, but 
I have understood the difference between firmare and driver by now;
Gettys and other are fine programmers, so it is plain clear that 
they are taking the piss.

If OLPC treats non technical matters with the same sort of creative 
misunderstanding as the technical ones, that's quite a fine mess
we're in.

Comments

By Anonymous Coward (82.231.136.192) on 2006-10-11 12:13

Yes, you're perfectly right about this. It seems that Gettys is too proud of himself.... he should just admit that he didn't get the point initially ... If he wants to continue damaging his own reputation, well... ok, it's his problem.

I especially did like his "we don't have an alternative" so he just sticks with Marvell... what is of greater benefit - free and open software on _all_ machines, even on their laptop, or blobs everywhere and a laptop that largely misses the real needs of the targeted countries... How can one ignore all the principles of a community one belongs to just in order to get a tiny little piece of hardware working ? Where are these wonderful capabilities of their hardware that make it so unique ? And even if it's some kind of silver bullet - why not bugging marvell to give away some documentation ? It's them, marvells clients, and marvell can't live without their clients, so why do they stick to these NDA's ?

By Anonymous Coward (82.43.92.127) on 2006-10-11 12:29

Quote from Jim Gettys:

"As an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation, having signed the Digital employee agreement, I was personally responsible for causing Digital to release the programming specifications for the MIPS based workstations and Turbochannel cards.

In my long experience on the other side of the fence, often the documentation doesn't really exist, are in some random directory where no-one knows where it is, or is so intertwined with hardware documentation that extricating programming specifications from those documents is a long and arduous process. Very often it is out-dated and incorrect. Sometimes, it is entwined with future product plans and specifications.

The reason that the MIPS documents happened is that I bothered to track them down and clean them up enough to get them out there, and also that the engineering group involved was better than average at doing documentation. I spent more than a month getting those documents in shape that the could be released, personally."

Am I the only person who reads this quote as meaning: "If vendors won't provide documentation it's because they are incompetent and don't have it themselves. These vendors probably don't even fully understand how their own device works."

All sounds like the old argument that if your work is subject to public analysis and critique then it forces you to do good work and avoid the lazy sloppiness that closed systems foster.
Comments
1. By Anonymous Coward (151.136.100.2) on 2006-10-13 11:32
  
  yes. most of hw vendors suck in properly documenting their things so much.
  people that made things do not need docs to continue working on new
  hw. same as grandma does not need a recipe for that awesome pie she
  makes on christmass or grandpa making his moonshine every week.
  the effort in those cases is to make them understand the importance of
  proper documentation (for their own good). same as creating free software
  forces crappy sw vendors adopt better stuff and make our life easier.
  one can use crappy docs as an excuse but really clever dudes would
  actually try and improve their docs.

Latest Articles

Thu, Apr 18
- 05:05 Coming soon to a -current system near you: parallel raw IP input (0)
Wed, Apr 17
- 05:33 In -current, default write format for tar(1) changed to "pax" (10)
Wed, Apr 10
- 18:50 OpenSMTPD 7.5.0p0 Released (2)
Tue, Apr 09
- 04:49 20 years since "and we're just starting": undeadly.org turns 20 (2024-04-09) (13)
Fri, Apr 05
- 06:16 OpenBSD 7.5 released (3)
Thu, Mar 28
- 18:18 LibreSSL 3.8.4 and 3.9.1 released (0)
Tue, Mar 12
- 06:53 OpenSSH 9.7/9.7p1 released! (0)
Mon, Mar 11
- 11:28 Game of Trees 0.97 released (0)
Sun, Mar 10
- 09:06 LibreSSL versions 3.8.3 and 3.9.0 released (0)

Credits

Copyright © 2004-2008 Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]