Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sun 10th Aug 2008 16:38 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "Microsoft, makers of most of the computer software in the world, tried to kill it with words, and Intel, maker of most computer chips, tried to kill it with dirty tricks. Of course, they don't admit to being attempted murderers. And when I introduce you to Intel's lovely spokesperson, Agnes Kwan, you'll realise how far their denials go. But the truth is the two mightiest high-tech companies in the world looked on Negroponte's philanthropic scheme and decided it had to die."
Thread beginning with comment 326400
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
dress it up any way you like
by raver31 on Sun 10th Aug 2008 17:15 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

The project was a good idea, and there might have been a bit of mis-management in there somewhere.

BUT

Microsoft fanbois can apologise for this company as much as they like, it still does not change the fact that this company is a f$&king immoral plethora of scumbags who would stab their grandmothers for a few quid.

The project was to educate the worlds poorest, and these Microsoft retards destroyed the project in case it made a few Linux users and took the food from Microsofts mouth.

Whats That There Member since:
2005-09-21

I think you are one of these fanbois the other person was talking about

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Eh? What was Microsoft supposed to do?


They don't have an Allah-given right to kill any and all competition - especially one helping the Third world - although you obviously think so. PlatformAgnostic my azz, in many discussions you've proven to be a shill through-and-through, you should at least write a disclaimer to state that you're on the MS payroll - then I'd have no problem with you stating your opinion (since their wouldn't be the astroturf facade any more).


I think I read that they offered a very cheap or no-cost version of Windows for these laptops, but the OLPC people didn't want it. Apple also made a similar offer with OS X that was similarly rebuffed.

What else would you expect?

Few have a problem that MS made an offer, I certainly don't. The difference is, Apple didn't try and kill the XO when their offer was declined.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Eh? What was Microsoft supposed to do? I think I read that they offered a very cheap or no-cost version of Windows for these laptops, but the OLPC people didn't want it. Apple also made a similar offer with OS X that was similarly rebuffed.

Yer, and? Are we supposed to be astonished that they turned down Windows and OS X that shipped with absolutely no software of any educational value whatsoever?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE: dress it up any way you like
by SJ87 on Sun 10th Aug 2008 19:47 in reply to "dress it up any way you like"
SJ87 Member since:
2007-12-16

Microsoft fanbois can apologise for this company as much as they like, it still does not change the fact that this company is a f$&king immoral plethora of scumbags who would stab their grandmothers for a few quid.


Or something even worse; sell a copy of Windows to their grandmothers.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE: dress it up any way you like
by tomcat on Sun 10th Aug 2008 20:15 in reply to "dress it up any way you like"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

... might have been a bit of mis-management in there somewhere...


I love how you throw this in, as if it were an after-thought, a coincidental thing that had nothing to do with XO's failure. But, the fact of the matter is that Negronte and his team were a bunch of academics naively trying to deliver a commercial project without the slightest clue about what makes a project successful. For example, they had NO PLAN and NO MEANS to provide the necessary support infrastructure for a successful deployment of XO. In most cases, there was only a single person assigned to countries that signed-up. Was that Microsoft or Intel's fault? No, of course it wasn't. Negroponte and team failed to develop the relationships that would have been necessary, and it was only after they realized that their project was going down the tubes that they started to partner with organizations that would help them deliver. Quite frankly, blaming Microsoft and Intel for XO's failure is a complete and utter distortion of the events in question.

BUT Microsoft fanbois can apologise for this company as much as they like, it still does not change the fact that this company is a f$&king immoral plethora of scumbags who would stab their grandmothers for a few quid.


No one should feel like they need to apologize for Microsoft. It's a for-profit business. It's not a charity. I mean, for Chrissakes, they're selling SOFTWARE. They're not selling drugs or promoting violence. The fact that you're getting so emotional over SOFTWARE only indicates how little perspective you have on life ... and the world. Wanna be pissed over something that MATTERS? Try being pissed at the price of oil, political oppression, drug cartels, overfishing, deforestation, child pornography, prostitution, global warming, etc, etc. Use of software is OPTIONAL, and believing that it is the center of human existence is the ultimate in ego-centrism.

The project was to educate the worlds poorest, and these Microsoft retards destroyed the project in case it made a few Linux users and took the food from Microsofts mouth.


If XO was unable to meet the need for which it was designed, it's due solely to the XO team's failures. Blaming Microsoft and Intel is just wrong and lame. Negroponte's team tried to cut too many corners, and they got slapped HARD in the face by the reality that it simply costs a lot of money to get a product to market. What they should have done -- if they really cared about getting laptops into the hands of poor children -- was partner early on with Microsoft and Intel. But, no, they decided that drawing artificial restrictions around the sole use of FOSS software was more important. There are no shortcuts. It's time that the academics started accepting responsibility for their failures, rather than blaming companies.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 12

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If XO was unable to meet the need for which it was designed, it's due solely to the XO team's failures. Blaming Microsoft and Intel is just wrong and lame. Negroponte's team tried to cut too many corners, and they got slapped HARD in the face by the reality that it simply costs a lot of money to get a product to market. What they should have done -- if they really cared about getting laptops into the hands of poor children -- was partner early on with Microsoft and Intel. But, no, they decided that drawing artificial restrictions around the sole use of FOSS software was more important. There are no shortcuts. It's time that the academics started accepting responsibility for their failures, rather than blaming companies.


Finally someone who gets it. Bravo.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

troc Member since:
2006-05-01

'artificial restrictions around the sole use of FOSS software was more important'

there is nothing artificial about them. They were carefully crafted and then chosen so that software as knowledge and skill does not have to be licensed or bought. FOSS was precisely chosen so that the software could be modified and re-distributed with-out the permissions or restrictions of businesses who do not have their best interests at heart.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

If XO was unable to meet the need for which it was designed, it's due solely to the XO team's failures. Blaming Microsoft and Intel is just wrong and lame.


Why is it wrong to blame companies who clearly set out to destroy a humanitarian effort? Because you like those companies? That doesn't mitigate their culpability in this.

Negroponte's team tried to cut too many corners, and they got slapped HARD in the face by the reality that it simply costs a lot of money to get a product to market. What they should have done -- if they really cared about getting laptops into the hands of poor children -- was partner early on with Microsoft and Intel. But, no, they decided that drawing artificial restrictions around the sole use of FOSS software was more important. There are no shortcuts. It's time that the academics started accepting responsibility for their failures, rather than blaming companies.


So it's OLPC's fault for not buying into the system and trying to do things RIGHT instead of taking the easy out. Maybe they should have also hired people to break legs to get orders as well. That seems to be your idea of "successful" business operation. Anything goes as long as you make a profit. Excuse the rest of us for having principles and trying to stick by them.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 6