Comments on: Of e-books, the XO-1 and OLPC’s possible Windows switch: Wake-up call for ‘free’ and open source boosters http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:53:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: David Rothman http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780535 David Rothman Thu, 01 May 2008 17:53:32 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780535 So, Alan, you don't think OLPC could change Sugar to make it more developer-friendly for e-book apps and others? I'm welcome further discussion on this from you and others. Thanks. David So, Alan, you don’t think OLPC could change Sugar to make it more developer-friendly for e-book apps and others? I’m welcome further discussion on this from you and others. Thanks. David

]]> By: Alan Wallcraft http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780530 Alan Wallcraft Thu, 01 May 2008 17:50:56 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780530 I agree that Windows has many more ebook applications than Linux, but it is the XO-1's Sugar interface that is (unnecessarily) locking out applications like FBReader. It seems that the switch to Windows is in part an attempt to get beyond the Sugar straight jacket, which is a good thing that would have been equally possible under Linux. I agree that Windows has many more ebook applications than Linux, but it is the XO-1’s Sugar interface that is (unnecessarily) locking out applications like FBReader. It seems that the switch to Windows is in part an attempt to get beyond the Sugar straight jacket, which is a good thing that would have been equally possible under Linux.

]]> By: David Rothman http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780226 David Rothman Thu, 01 May 2008 13:45:19 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780226 Thanks, Garson, for reminding folks what clueful readers we have. Now, at least, after a tweak, we should probably be on the money. Email me if not and I'll tweak again. Thanks again. David From Wikipedia: "The FSF recommends using the term 'free software' and never 'open source software' because that term and the associated marketing campaign focuses on technical issues and avoids talking about the value of freedom.[3] 'Libre' is used to avoid the ambiguity of the word 'free'. However, amongst English speakers,libre is mostly used within the free software movement." Thanks, Garson, for reminding folks what clueful readers we have. Now, at least, after a tweak, we should probably be on the money. Email me if not and I’ll tweak again. Thanks again. David

From Wikipedia: “The FSF recommends using the term ‘free software’ and never ‘open source software’ because that term and the associated marketing campaign focuses on technical issues and avoids talking about the value of freedom.[3] ‘Libre’ is used to avoid the ambiguity of the word ‘free’. However, amongst English speakers,libre is mostly used within the free software movement.”

]]> By: Garson O'Toole http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780203 Garson O'Toole Thu, 01 May 2008 13:27:42 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/05/01/of-e-books-the-xo-and-the-olpcs-possible-shift-to-windows-a-wake-up-call-for-open-source-boosters/#comment-780203 David Rothman identifies Richard Stallman as “one of the world’s foremost advocates of open source software”. Stallman himself would disagree with this characterization. He prefers the term “free software” and greatly dislikes the term “open source software”. The difference in philosophical views associated with these two terms may seem recondite to some observers but Stallman has strongly held positions. The article <a HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" rel="nofollow">Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software</A> contains an explanation of Stallman’s nomenclatural preferences. Of course an individual cannot always dictate how others portray or label his or her beliefs. David Rothman identifies Richard Stallman as “one of the world’s foremost advocates of open source software”. Stallman himself would disagree with this characterization. He prefers the term “free software” and greatly dislikes the term “open source software”. The difference in philosophical views associated with these two terms may seem recondite to some observers but Stallman has strongly held positions. The article Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software contains an explanation of Stallman’s nomenclatural preferences. Of course an individual cannot always dictate how others portray or label his or her beliefs.

]]>