An Open Response To 'Sic Transit Gloria Laptopi'

When a friend sent me a link to the blog entry, Sic Transit Gloria Laptopi, I expected a continuation of the OLPC Meme that would not die. I was in for a bit of a surprise, and even as I was getting ready to go about some business that allows me to get into sunlight I found it necessary to pause and write this answering entry.

Frankly, the whole issue of the OLPC is more a matter of marketing than actual headway - it's sort of like discussing which politician is best to become President when the acid test is putting them into the Institution of the Presidency itself - not whether they can charm the underwear off of an easily manipulated media. The reality that most see is what the media presents. The actual reality, the one that is real, is the one that the media shades be it consciously or not. When the New York Times writes an apology for poor coverage which may have swayed opinion on the invasion of Iraq, there should be little doubt of the power of media swing to do things, good or bad, for the wrong reasons. A course is not charted by one point. A course is charted by many, and the direction is guided by reasons.

Back to the subject at hand. I agree with Ivan on some things he wrote:

...The truth is, when it comes to large-scale one-to-one computing programs, we're completely in the dark about what actually works, because hey, no one has done a large-scale one-to-one computing program before...

...This kind of bright-eyed idealism is appealing, but alas, just not backed by fact.

Where Ivan loses me is when he gets into the critique of Free Software, stating that he was 'riled up' by something that Richard Stallman wrote. That's no surprise. Stallman writes to rile people up; whether you agree with the powerhouse of RMS or not (and I have found occasion to disagree with him) one has to respect that he writes many things to rile people up and capture their attention. The offending quote by Stallman that Ivan quotes compares proprietary software to a drug addiction. Granted, it may seem a stretch and far be it from me to defend RMS (he's quite capable - I know it from both ends), one cannot help but consider these things.

• Proprietary software encourages people and businesses to work within a framework which they cannot control other than through having money to pay for it. Plainly stated, if you are not a market demographic that captures the attention of the proprietary software business, you have to adapt the way you do things to what the majority of the tangible market of the product wants. If you're in a small country, for example, don't expect a software package to be adapted to your needs unless you have lots of money.
• Dependence on proprietary software, from the first point, creates a dependence on the way others do things - despite local laws, local culture and so on. In this way, the market of proprietary software can and has marginalized those at a financial disadvantage - particularly small businesses in small countries.
• The dependence written of in the first two points creates artificial business and educational dependence on those that maintain the software, which is at least a potential cause for adverse situations where more money is spent working around the software than working with the software.

That said - and much more could be - proprietary software may not be exactly like a drug addiction, as Stallman wrote, but it shares a base similarity: People may use it even if it is to their own detriment. Of course, this is true of any software, including Free Software - something that Stallman himself seems to ignore more often than not - but the potential to alter the software within a geopolitical region permits people to have a choice in how they use their software as related to their particular mission.

Admittedly, it doesn't seem that many people are as interested in creating their own intelligence. It is much easier to infringe a proprietary copyright license, commonly known as 'piracy', rather than actually modify or have someone modify something to one's own needs. In essence, the proprietary copyright system for software can be seen as self-defeating, at least in some regards. Free Software and Open Source offer potential for choice. That people may not wish to exercise choice in how they do things is really one of the core topics of Free Software and Open Source. If anything, the defense of that right is one that should gain more traction if only to assure that people can make things work the way that they want to.

Further - the business model of Free Software and Open Source puts developers more into contact with users, whereas proprietary software puts a large corporation in between - and you have to depend on the corporation's inner workings to get results. See the diagram at top left (click for a larger view).

And even further - when the software life cycle gets to a point where the cost of the maintenance of the software is more than the profits of the company that creates it, the work becomes orphaned. The profitability of the software to a large corporation is a necessary evil of proprietary software, but it creates products which may still be useful but are completely unsupported.

So, yes, depending on something you don't even have a chance of controlling is a bit like snorting a few lines of cocaine and zipping through oncoming traffic when it comes to some things. It isn't exactly the same - you won't destroy the cartilage in your nose, for example - but the power of a Stallman metaphor isn't found in reading exactly what Stallman wrote. Such literal reading lends credibility to the need for more humanities being considered by those in the more technical disciplines. Life is not Boolean. Boole wasn't even Boolean.

But back to the topic at hand.

Ivan then writes about how he quit using Linux and got a Mac. Let's hit pause a moment. Read this quote (ibid):

...About eight months ago, when I caught myself fighting yet another battle with suspend/resume on my Linux-running laptop, I got so furious that I went to the nearest Apple store and bought a MacBook. After 12 years of almost exclusive use of free software, I switched to Mac OS X. And you know, shitty power management and many other hassles aren't Linux's fault...

Mac OS X is... open source. Sure, it isn't Free Software, but the principles in discussion are not dissimilar at this point in his commentary. The same thing he was complaining of he found in another piece of similarly licensed software - at least in this context. Oops.

Back again to the topic at hand:

...The whole "we're investing into Sugar, it'll just run on Windows" gambit is sheer nonsense. Nicholas knows quite well that Sugar won't magically become better simply by virtue of running on Windows rather than Linux. In reality, Nicholas wants to ship plain XP desktops. He's told me so. That he might possibly fund a Sugar effort to the side and pay lip service to the notion of its "availability" as an option to purchasing countries is at best a tepid effort to avert a PR disaster...

Oh, come now, Ivan. Despite how cozy you are with Negroponte and whatever reason he chooses to shove Windows XP on the OLPC... the real crux of it is that the OLPC is failing, and he's trying something. You can show me all sorts of nice things that the OLPC has done, but for the majority of the world the OLPC is so much marketing hype. It's spin-tastic. The mobile phone is kicking the OLPC to the curb simply because it's more affordable and has a lot more practical functionality than a static copy of the Wikipedia. Many of us knew that before His Royal Negroponteness even got started with his dream containing nocturnal zygote laden fluid emissions.

This isn't about Free Software or Open Source. This is about trying to get something that people want to them - the OLPC has been a business from the start. It's probably spent a major part of the budget on spin instead of actually looking at the problem to be solved. Many places that the OLPC was originally marketed for would have found rights to use more weather resistant crops than a computer dressed like an abandoned Mac. So with one hand, one argues that proprietary is not bad - but with the other, Monsanto and other corporations of its ilk wish to do everything in their power to patent things (make proprietary) that could save people from starvation. Brilliant. What's the next trick?

This isn't about education. It isn't about Free Software. It isn't about Open Source. At it's core, it is about people and that is the problem with most of the solutions to some of the problems. To simplify, the reality of the situation is tossed out like a baby with the bath water (where there is water).

It doesn't matter which operating system the OLPC runs. It matters what the OLPC can do. I guarantee that if you can make a nutritious snack out of the OLPC and ship it to destinations around the world for $10, it will be more useful than handing kids laptops. Why?

It's kind of hard to study when you're hungry.

The cold, hard reality is that the present systems of copyright and patent law assure that the developed nations remain developed and the underdeveloped remain malnourished. There is no question of that - take a good look around. And if there is an argument I would have against a proprietary operating system on the OLPC, it is this: It perpetuates a culture of helplessness and hopelessness to those who most need the ability to help themselves and hope. I have no qualms about a business looking after it's own interests, but when a person or group claims to be doing something for the good of someone else and perpetuates the same things that maintain the status quo, where the people need the help they are receiving, it is nothing but shameless exploitation.

Dress that up in neon green if you so desire, but don't call it anything else or I shall taunt you Yet Another Time.

Unfortunately, I have more words than time right now. Time wins.

Technorati Tags: Business Culture Culture Education Global ICT Linux Marketing Media Open Source People Politics Public Relations Realist Cult Technology Technology and Society Technology Observations Microsoft Windows Microsoft Windows Linux Mac OS X Free Software Open Source OLPC Negroponte development