Thufir wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:57:22 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> [...]
>>> OLPC seems to have missed their chance. Now many others are coming
>>> into this market that will provide sales to others.
>>>
>>> Too bad they could have used the money to pay for more OLPC for the
>>> kids who needed them.
>>
>> Some say that the children are the winners because this 'competition'
>> will lower prices and improve quality. Given the documents Nick has
>> shown, it's a shame that Intel felt inclined to become
>> anti-not-for-profit. The scummy stories behind this say a lot.
>
> I'm mystified as to why intel didn't opt to jump on the OLPC band-wagon,
> aside from rivalry with AMD. Perhaps the OLPC folks weren't sufficiently
> vocal with their invitations.
>
> However, I'm also suprised that the from the get-go there wasn't an
> attempt to get the XO working with Intel chips, or at least to get
> Intel's tacit involvement given their size. Also, there appears to have
> been some naivete at work on the OLPC side in assuming that Intel's
> feathers being ruffled wouldn't have consequences. Did the OLPC folks at
> least try to bring Intel onboard?
I am not sure about the hardware side and I'm sure the answer is out there.
On the software side, bear in mind that Steve Jobs offered OS X for free
(haha! It would have to get lighter, no? Maybe the iPhone proves it's at
least versatile and modular enough to 'bend' and rescale). Another issue
that OLPC has had was $3 Windows (Starter Edition bundle), AKA "Kill OLPC"
project".
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Othello: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 769196k used, 740872k free, 56512k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
