Not Free at Any Price
Why I switched to the OLPC—and why I dropped itThe One Laptop Per Child project, launched by MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in 2003, was supposed to lead millions of children around the world to information technology and freedom. The plans aimed for low cost, enabling many children to use the machines, and free software, so they would have freedom while using them. I thought it was a good idea; I even planned to use one myself when I found in the OLPC’s promise of free software a way to escape the proprietary startup programs that all commercial laptops used.
But just as I was switching to an OLPC, the project backed away from its commitment to freedom and allowed the machine to become a platform for running Windows, a non-free operating system.
What makes this issue so important, and OLPC’s retreat from free software so unfortunate, is that the “free” in free software refers to freedom of knowledge and action, not to price. A program (whatever job it does) is free software if you, the user, have the four essential freedoms:
• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish. Some proprietary software packages come with licenses that restrict even the use of authorized copies.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study the source code—the algebra-like statements that specify what the program does—and then change it to make the program do what you wish. For instance, you could add new features to suit your taste. Or, if the program has malicious features, as Windows and MacOS do, you could remove them.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute exact copies when you wish. We call this the freedom to help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish. We call this the freedom to contribute to your community.
To exercise freedoms 1 and 3 requires programming, but you can take advantage of them indirectly without knowing anything about coding. If you want the program changed, you can give a copy to the programmer of your choice (exercising Freedom 2), the programmer can implement the changes you asked for (exercising Freedom 1), and give you the result (exercising Freedom 3); you will then pay the programmer as you agreed at the outset. This possibility is especially useful for companies, but individuals can take advantage of it too.
A free program develops democratically under the control of its users. By contrast, a non-free program develops under the autocracy of one developer—typically a corporation—and subjects the users to that developer’s power. The developer has sole control over what the program will do—and what it won’t do.
The worshipers of the invisible hand dogmatically claim that developers will always do what the users want. Empirically, what we see is that developers tend to abuse their power, even to the point of installing malicious features. Windows Vista has features to spy on the user, restrict use of data in the machine, and even attack the user (Microsoft can forcibly install changes in the system at any time). Windows Media Player restricts copying, format conversion, and even viewing of files. The Macintosh operating system is similar. You may think you use these tools, but really they are using you.
What makes OLPC’s retreat from free software so unfortunate is that the 'free' refers to freedom of knowledge and
action, not to price.
Free software rarely suffers from malicious features because no developer has the power to make them stick: any user might find them, remove them, and publish a modified version improved by their absence. Thus, even if you never take the trouble to change the free program or pay someone else to change it, you still receive the benefits of living in a democracy, the benefits of keeping development under the control of the users.
Teaching children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco—in a world where only one company sells tobacco. Like any addictive drug, it inculcates a harmful dependency. (Bill Gates made this comparison in a 1998 issue of Fortune Magazine.) No wonder Microsoft offers the first dose to children at a low price. Microsoft aims to teach poor children this dependency so they can smoke Windows for their whole lives. I don’t think governments or schools should support that aim.
The OLPC was supposed to avoid that harmful result by using the free operating system GNU/Linux. Even more exciting for me, a lower-level piece of software, the startup program or “BIOS,” was going to be free as well. There were many laptops capable of running a free GNU/Linux system, and I used one of them; there was already a free BIOS, but no manufacturers had ever published the information a developer would need to make the free BIOS run on their laptops.
When the OLPC appeared, it fell one step short of full freedom: the highly publicized wireless mesh network device, which allows OLPCs to connect to the Internet through nearby OLPCs, required a non-free program. This piece of non-free code prevented me from fully endorsing the OLPC. But that would not stop me from using one: I would just have to delete the non-free code and do without the internal wireless device.
The OLPC had practical inconveniences, too: no internal hard disk, a small screen, and a tiny keyboard. In December 2007 I test-drove the OLPC with an external keyboard, and concluded I could use it with an external disk despite the small screen. I decided to switch.
The OLPC developers advised me to wait for the next batch of machines, in which some technical glitches would be resolved. After the machine arrived and the Free Software Foundation obtained the necessary external disk, ethernet, Wi-Fi and modem devices, I had a week in April to move my files to the OLPC and prepare it to take on my next trip.
That very week, Negroponte announced that future OLPC machines would be designed so they could run Windows. In Peru they will be delivered with Windows installed. (I plan to try to organize counterpressure while in Peru this November.) But even the OLPCs delivered with GNU/Linux will be easy to convert subsequently to Windows. It only requires a small card that is supposed to cost $7. (I expect Microsoft will hand these out to the kiddies like free samples of cigarettes.)
Teaching children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco—in a world where only one company sells tobacco.
This reversal of policy flew in the face of the project’s stated goals of promoting freedom. Several OLPC developers quit in disgust, and some members of the user community tried to oppose the change. But Negroponte ignored them and proceeded with his decision. As a result, I now expect that the main effect of the OLPC project—if it succeeds—will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft users. That is a negative effect, so the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed.
People seeing me with an OLPC at my speeches took that as an endorsement of the project. This made me uncomfortable, so I decided to counteract the appearance by explicitly raising the issue of OLPC’s surrender to Windows.
Fortunately I soon came across a better machine. In May, while in China, by pure chance I met people from Lemote, which produces a laptop based on a variant of the MIPS processor. They say it contains no non-free software, and that seems to be true.
The Lemote machine I am using now is a prototype, and it has some inconveniences; for instance, it burns a great deal of electricity. I trust the production model will be better. Other companies in Europe and China are likewise planning to start selling cheap MIPS-based laptops soon. As a bonus, Windows does not run on the MIPS processor; it never has.
* * *
In 2007 the OLPC project asked the public for donations, basing its plea on its stated principles of freedom. Many people paid the price of two machines to receive one, with the other meant as a gift to a child in the developing world. Now the project proposes to make a similar appeal again, but is it worthy of support? It has not lived up to the commitments on the basis of which it received backing before. Some of their computers will be delivered with user-subjugating Windows software, and the rest are likely to be converted to Windows afterward.
If you want to support a venture to distribute low-priced laptops to children, wait a few months, then choose one that donates MIPS-based machines that run entirely free software. That way you can be sure to give the gift of freedom.
Copyright Richard M. Stallman, 2008. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
A small correction: I was mistaken in saying that Windows has
never run on MIPS processors. It turns out that some Windows
versions (either past, or stripped-down) have been able to run on
some MIPS-based machines. However, they would not work on the
Lemote machines. -RMS, November 6, 2008
Comments
About the Author
Richard M. Stallman launched the free software movement in 1983 and began development of the GNU operating system in 1984. He is a MacArthur Fellow and president of the Free Software Foundation.
Related Articles
New Democracy Forum, Saving the Internet (Without Wrecking It)
Richard M. Stallman’s response
BR Footnote:
Boston Review’s intern blog
A small point, but Windows NT 4.0 was available for the MIPS processor.
While software freedom is important for everyone, it's especially important for the target audience of the OLPC project. This audience consists of relatively poor children in developing countries.
While that first hit of Windows may be free, you can be sure that the next hit won't be, and these kids (and their families) are not in a good position to be spending money on new software.
Software freedom also has significant educational benefits. Once a child has a laptop, the fact that it runs free software provides a great path to programming. They can get the source for any part of the system, modify it, and then run that modified version on their own computer. This is a great way to learn about technology, and these skills could serve them well later in life.
This freedom to tinker and experiment simply doesn't exist with proprietary software like Windows. Instead, your ability to experiment is limited to what Microsoft says is okay.
Personally, I can't wait for those $7 XP SD cards to be passed out, because maybe then I'll be able to use this hunk for something. As it is, it's a terrible conglomeration of unusable, half-finished software.
Jiff
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Say you give out 100 computers in the developing world, and 99 of them are used to goof around on the internet.. That One user in a hundred who will get under the hood and use it for more than that is worth the investment.
From their site: "The Playpower Foundation is creating a platform for 8-bit learning games in order to improve education for millions of children worldwide. We are using radically affordable TV-connected computers – public domain hardware clones of the Nintendo Entertainment System®/Famicom®, which are packaged with a keyboard and mouse for $12. Our goal is to create original 8-bit learning software and distribute it through low-cost hardware."
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense."
I am glad that all of the commenters here had computers when they were kids, be they VIC-20s or whatever. You could use them, figure out how they worked, like them or not like them - decide that open source software was the best and off you go.
Now - substitute that lifetime of experience with nothing because you never got a computer...
It is nice to have high ideals. It is impractical if you want to actually get kids computers that otherwise wouldn't have any. I hate windows. But I would rather kids have that than have nothing at all.
This sentence just underlines the incredible, unbelievable presumption of the whole article. I'm afraid it's sentences like this that build anger towards the developed world. As John R said, it's ridiculous to say that children should not be given computers if they have any proprietary software. Secondly, software is not easy to make. I know, I'm a software eng. Proprietary software is usually overpriced. It also has high quality. Everyone hates windows, but most lay-people cannot use linux at all. It is not user-friendly in the least.
And as for goofing around on the internet - that is exactly the point of the OLPC. It's not to make whole nations into comp engineers, but to give them access to basic information that you people take for granted.
Good day,
While I find my XO impractical for everyday use, I enjoy playing/experimenting with it.
Could your laptop be given to kids in the third world running windows?
If so, then you're in the same position as someone with an XO.
Be clear about this. The machines shipping to the US are shipping with GNU/Linux. Microsoft has donated a classroom worth of XO's running Linux to Peru. If a government interested in deploying XO's with Windows, they can do so, for the cost of an SD card and $3 license.
I hope they don't.
Sugar (the XO's interface that runs on linux) just released it's 8.2 release. Meetings are being held planning the 9.1 release. Red Hat is a member of OLPC's board, not Microsoft.
GNU/Linux isn't going away from the OLPC project.
I fail to see how the ability to run Windows XP fundamentally changes anything about the project.
it is disappointing that you spend so much energy on rejecting microsoft instead of promoting more free software. making it possible to run windows on the olpc xo does not make the xo any worse than most other computers today, and if current models can be made to run windows for $7 then that is microsofts work and nothing that olpc could have prevented.
the xo will still continue to be able to run free software and it will still be one of the very few machines with a free bios. support for windows does not change that fact.
given the fact that there now are alternatives to the olpc xo lack of windows support would not prevent any anyone from buying a low cost laptop.
anyone who wants a low cost windows laptop can get one, with or without the support of olpc. however, if those people chose to buy an olpc xo they always have the option to switch to linux and enjoy a machine that thanks to the free bios is more free than any alternatives they could get.
greetings, eMBee.
Apparently lots of hackers want to read Linux kernel source code, but why should they only be restricted to kernel source code? They should be free to read, share, and modify the entire GNU/Linux OS.
Finally, promoting choice is a means of promoting free software as if it's the equal to non-free software. Free software is better because it gives you freedom.
Microsoft is a commercial organization that stands to financially profit from an increased user base. This project puts dollars in their pocket while hampering the end-user's right to use his machine as he sees fit.
Linux and Open Source will profit from an increased user base as well - The difference being that Open Source profits are in terms of additional developers and better code, which are freely available to everyone.
It's only a matter of time before someone ports WinCE to these MIPS notebooks, then you will need to contemn them as well.
I do think that OLPC is dramatically more useful for education with GNU/Linux than with Windows, and most deployments will probably not be with Windows.
If you feel that there's no harm in opting for Windows now(because those kids really need computers today), you might want to read this old article about MS in S Korea(where MS has a near total stranglehold)
http://blog.mozilla.com/gen/2007/02/27/the-cost-of-monoculture/
just to get an idea of what hurdles these nations will end probably end up facing. Seriously, if it's the children and their future we're thinking about, they're better off learning about computers, not learning 'Windows'. They need to be freed from 'ignorance'. but 'slavery' to Windows shouldn't be the price they pay.
I am not pro Microsoft and loaded every pc that I build with free software such as Open Office, IrfanView, Spyware Blaster and similar.
I am glad that Microsoft has established itself as a primary operating system. This means that once a user learns any current version of Windows, they will be able to go to the library or a work place and have the skills to operate the pc there to.
In an alternate universe, we would be running 40 different operating systems and unable to share information.
Richard needs to put down his prejudices long enough to realize that the children of Peru would like the same freedom that he has to decide what they use and not have people like Richard to make decisions for them that may not be in their best interest.
Two problems with that statement are:
1. The children aren't getting to choose.
2. As well as once you go Microsoft the "Lock In" is almost insurmountable.
I believe the Windows option is seen as a *safe* choice (you won't get fired for choosing it) but I doubt very much that these computers will make good Windows boxes. The screens are small, running off an SD card will be sluggish, and the limited RAM will slow things down too. Plus Windows is just harder for a kid to master. If a country wants to teach kids to be the next generation of PowerPoint users there are cheaper ways of doing it than running Windows on the XO. There are plenty of surplus computers around, and schools could just buy some of those and make the kids share.
The point of OLPC was to give kids PCs as their own property and to give them a user interface designed to help them learn, not just about computers but about everything. That is still a worthwhile goal, and it is still being worked on. Also, Sugar is being improved to make it run on all Linux distributions. I wish the OLPC project had the resources to achieve both of these goals faster, but they are making progress.
The XO as shipped has 1 GB of internal storage and 256 meg of RAM, and the OS must work without swapping because that would make the internal storage wear out quickly. You can add a 2 gig SD card for supplemental storage, which is what Windows would run from. Any user of Windows can guess what using such a computer would be like running Windows XP.
So I'm guessing that if the kids were allowed to choose they would go with the Sugar interface every time, and I think the teachers would agree.
Free software makes it possible for this to happen, but it isn't something you can sell people on. You have to focus on which solution gives the kids a better learning experience.
Slavery is freedom.
Platforms are only free if they exclude specific operating systems at the behest of Richard Stallman.
The make-Windows-possible decision upset me, too, but I'm glad I didn't lose my grasp on reality about it
Like any laptop, you can wipe out the OS that it's shipped with, and install another one. No big deal there. Besides the installed OLPC software release, versions of Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Windows are all known to run (or walk) on the laptop.
So skip the bogus threat to freedom represented by Windows on the XO. There is a real threat to freedom in what OLPC is doing. OLPC and its country education partners have installed DRM in the laptops to prevent kids from exercising the Four Freedoms, despite the GPL licenses on most of the code they ship. The laptops do not ship with source code, nor an offer of source code that's practical for rural third world recipients. The firmware contains DRM that prevents it from booting a kernel or OS of the owner's choice. That DRM can be disabled by making an online request to OLPC and waiting a day (under current policy, changeable at whim). But many kids are not in locations that have Internet access, and thus would have a very hard time unlocking the DRM on their laptops. Even the laptops shipped to US and Canadian donors via Amazon will be lockdown DRM'd -- arriving more restrictive than any other laptop in the market.
Search http://dev.laptop.org for "DRM" or "GPL" to see all the bugs filed on these topics, and their current status.
OLPC should abandon its DRM scheme and should fully follow the GPLv2 and v3 licenses on the software they ship -- before some smart developer sues them into compliance.
But _NO_, OLPC has not abandoned Linux. It has allowed Microsoft to make 10,000 units with Windows only, for trials, because the dual-boot version of Open Firmware wasn't ready in time. But there will be no more Windows-only XOs. There will be Linux-only XOs, and dual-boot XOs. That's all.
I entirely understand RMS's anguish over the possibility of losing this opportunity to get Free Software to millions of children. However, that is not what will happen. Instead, Microsoft has very carefully and deliberately backed itself into a corner that it has been sedulously avoiding for years: trials of Windows and Linux on the same hardware by the same people, hardly any of them on the Microsoft payroll. In fact, most of them will be children who don't care *who* you are.
I'm looking forward to it. Free Software is better in every way than Windows. Why would you suppose that children can't see that?
most will contain a copy of the GNU/Linux operating system. If this
is the case, most children will have the option of running GNU/Linux;
but that does nothing for them if what they really use is Windows.
GNU/Linux works well enough, but children may not choose on that
basis. Like tobacco companies, Microsoft can hint that "using Windows
makes you like grown-ups", and spend millions of dollars making OLPC
Windows superfically attractive to children. This approach lures many
children to use tobacco even though adults warn them it is dangerous.
Most children will not know an adult who could warn them about the
danger of giving Microsoft control of your computer. Is it wise to
offer young children the opportunity to give up their freedom, and
then invitet them to decide without teaching them about the issue?
And what if Windows has a real practical advantages in 2009 -- which
society could overtake with time and an effort -- should we make the
effort or abandon our children's freedom?
I think we would be wiser to give children computers which Windows
does not support.
Personal computers must run any OS including Windows. PC which can not run Windows is not PC. It is fake.
Having said this, the OLPC project itself has had many interesting effects, including some useful inventions (Pixel Qi, Bitfrost, mesh...) and a shift in the perception of "netbooks" by the geek public in North America. The point is, though, that this effort isn't about "people in the developing world being able to use computers." There already are computers in the poorest regions of the world and diverse technologies already are being used as people empower themselves.
True freedom, in my mind, would come from local movements. People building their own solutions, exchanging ideas with others, investing in their own futures.
Despite the "humanitarian" attitude of the proiject's members, the OLPC is clearly not that.
Just a note about what happens here in the developing countries, or at least, my experience as a teacher for over 10 years with students form Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru: our kids may get free computers, but EVERYONE knows no-one, and this even includes many teaching organisations, buys Microsoft software. No-one I know (and not only poor people) did buy Microsoft. They either downloaded it totally free form the Internet or got pirate copies for less than 2 dollars, that really run just as well as the originals. And Microsoft knows that too, don't be naive... It's just that even so, they profit. So, dont worry about giving free computers to the kids because later on they will have to buy Microsoft. They dont and they won't.
OLPC started a movement with a beautiful industrial design, and open source software, showing that ruggedized computers can be built inexpensively. If this were their only achievement, that would be plenty.
I'd be happy to see 100 computer hardware companies started in 100 countries, because now the learning software platform (Sugar) has been separated from any specific hardware.
While I might disagree with the shortcuts that OLPC (the hardware project) has taken, I should point out that if nobody had taken the first step, no progress would have been made. We similarly acknowledge the Minix project for inspiring Linus Torvalds to add a Kernel to GNU utilities to develop the GNU/Linux standard.
Now, in 2009, we have an active software project (Sugar Labs), and there is a whole ecosystem that can build on the GNU/Linux standards to advance education.
Regardless of any specific hardware choice, we can thank the OLPC project for that initial vision.
That will get microsoft some money and others will just deal with it. Microsoft has ever right to lock up your pirated copy of windows later if it pleases them.
These people from these countries are now being given the option to run windows which microsoft still sells, despite costing them virtually nothing to distribute, windows xp.
You think they did this out of charity? Microsoft will just get everyone in countries like peru used to using windows. Peru will then pirate windows because they can't afford it and its what they know, even endorsed by the government and then they will do what they did to china. Microsoft is just planting seeds and waiting to reap the crop.
That will get microsoft some money and others will just deal with it. Microsoft has ever right to lock up your pirated copy of windows later if it pleases them.
These people from these countries are now being given the option to run windows which microsoft still sells, despite costing them virtually nothing to distribute, windows xp.
You think they did this out of charity? Microsoft will just get everyone in countries like peru used to using windows. Peru will then pirate windows because they can't afford it and its what they know, even endorsed by the government and then they will do what they did to china. Microsoft is just planting seeds and waiting to reap the crop.