<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: $100 OLPC to Cost $176 and May Run WINDOWS!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:40:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Conner</title>
		<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/comment-page-1/#comment-385399</link>
		<dc:creator>Conner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/#comment-385399</guid>
		<description>Dumb choice. It better run linux though, cause windows is not open source either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dumb choice. It better run linux though, cause windows is not open source either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Agudo</title>
		<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/comment-page-1/#comment-385272</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Agudo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/#comment-385272</guid>
		<description>@Chris and Jeff:

The reason that OLPC has opened up to Windows is a bit lost in the media hype. From the OLPC Wiki&#039;s FAQ page(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_myths), you&#039;ll see an item that explains their view on alternate software packages:

&quot;The proposed $100 machine will run a Microsoft Windows operating system

True: Microsoft is working on a Windows based system that can be executed on the OLPC laptop. False: There is no strategy change. The OLPC is continuing to develop a Linux-based software set for the laptop in conjunction with Red Hat. But since the OLPC project is open we cannot (and maybe even don&#039;t want to) stop other people from developing and supplying alternate software packages.&quot;

And keep in mind that entry has been there for a while, long before today&#039;s announcement from Nicholas Negroponte. And Apple can still get on board, but the project will still focus on the Linux platform, since it&#039;s the most open option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Chris and Jeff:</p>
<p>The reason that OLPC has opened up to Windows is a bit lost in the media hype. From the OLPC Wiki&#8217;s FAQ page(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_myths), you&#8217;ll see an item that explains their view on alternate software packages:</p>
<p>&#8220;The proposed $100 machine will run a Microsoft Windows operating system</p>
<p>True: Microsoft is working on a Windows based system that can be executed on the OLPC laptop. False: There is no strategy change. The OLPC is continuing to develop a Linux-based software set for the laptop in conjunction with Red Hat. But since the OLPC project is open we cannot (and maybe even don&#8217;t want to) stop other people from developing and supplying alternate software packages.&#8221;</p>
<p>And keep in mind that entry has been there for a while, long before today&#8217;s announcement from Nicholas Negroponte. And Apple can still get on board, but the project will still focus on the Linux platform, since it&#8217;s the most open option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/comment-page-1/#comment-385266</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/#comment-385266</guid>
		<description>If they were to choose Windows to run on the OLPC, I would have to reverse my support for it and actively campaign against it. We have already subjected the &quot;third&quot; world to far too much already, forcing them to have to deal with the nightmare that is Windows would be cruel and unfair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If they were to choose Windows to run on the OLPC, I would have to reverse my support for it and actively campaign against it. We have already subjected the &#8220;third&#8221; world to far too much already, forcing them to have to deal with the nightmare that is Windows would be cruel and unfair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/comment-page-1/#comment-385255</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/#comment-385255</guid>
		<description>The article&#039;s tense is a bit off.  The Windows development is recent.  The group was originally looking for an open source solution and rejected OSX because they wanted something open source.  It seems like their views have changed, but it still seems a bit odd that Windows might be a possibility.  I got the impression that they wanted to use an open source solution so the could grind it down to the simplest setup possible for the kids and I don&#039;t know if they can do that nearly as well with Windows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article&#8217;s tense is a bit off.  The Windows development is recent.  The group was originally looking for an open source solution and rejected OSX because they wanted something open source.  It seems like their views have changed, but it still seems a bit odd that Windows might be a possibility.  I got the impression that they wanted to use an open source solution so the could grind it down to the simplest setup possible for the kids and I don&#8217;t know if they can do that nearly as well with Windows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Decker</title>
		<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/comment-page-1/#comment-385230</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Decker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/#comment-385230</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s funny that Windows might run on it when OS X was refused because it is not open source.  And Windows is???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s funny that Windows might run on it when OS X was refused because it is not open source.  And Windows is???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: morepowerr</title>
		<link>http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/comment-page-1/#comment-385229</link>
		<dc:creator>morepowerr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/04/10458/#comment-385229</guid>
		<description>Hope ubuntu throw there hat in the ring on this one. Would be nice to see M$ cry over every student in the US using linux.  /evil gren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hope ubuntu throw there hat in the ring on this one. Would be nice to see M$ cry over every student in the US using linux.  /evil gren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
