You guys gotta get your heads out of... well... anyway...

This $100 laptop isn't just going to be a cheapo-Dell. It's going to be custom-designed to be inexpensive, robust, and hopefully easy to use. It's not like they're just going to slap a Linux distribution on it. This will have a custom designed interface and limited setup options so that will prove to be reliable. It's not just brokering a deal on cheap laptops and slapping an OS on them.

Not only that, this laptop will undoubtedly go through many iterations. With a dependence on Apple, they'd have to wait for Apple to make the OS compatibile. They're going with open source so they don't have to wait on anyone, and can make changes, pull out or add features as they see fit.

It makes sense to go with an open source OS. Look, I'm as big of a Mac fan as anyone else here, but even I can see why it may not be a good idea to use MacOS X.

"And since its got 1GB flash instead of a hard disk, you're certainly not going to be using HFS+ since you need a flash-aware file system to do proper wear leveling so the flash doesn't die after 6 months. "

FAT isn't flash-aware and nobody's CF/SD/MMC cards are dying. Wear-leveling is part of the interface controller, not the file system.

"Wear-leveling is part of the interface controller, not the file system."

Not necessarily. You don't even _have_ to go through an interface controller if you hook the flash chips up directly to the memory bus. Sticking the flash on the other side of an IDE controller with questionable wear-leveling (which many cheapo-CF cards have) isnt' something you really want to do. Furthermore, the AMD Geode's on-chip IDE controller doesn't do wear leveling AFAICT.

Take a look at JFFS2, which is what the iPAQ and other Linux-on-handhelds projects usually use. That uses the flash directly and does wear-leveling in the driver. The specs on this project look a lot closer to handheld/embedded applications than a run-of-the-mill Dell or PowerBook.

... as offering up a closed product when they preferred (and I believe, requested) an open source OS was pretty doofus.

If Steve was serious about getting on board with the project, he would have offered up Darwin, as it IS open source, and has most of the significant features that make OS X superior to Linux.

These would be the more secure BSD unix infrastructure, the directory organization of "application bundles" that allows apps to be moved around with much greater flexibility than Linux, the use of XML-ish plists to store preferences instead of a motley assortment of plain text files of differing layouts, the microkernel approach to separating the system from the hardware details, and other differences.

This was a chance to highlight the innovations that make OS X superior to Linux. Pushing Darwin as the open source OS for the $100 computer would have done that.

I suspect that Red Hat Linux selected will wind up not using a fancy GUI window manager like Gnome, KDE or Enlightenment, but will be using a much simpler (and less resource intensive) -- whatever is chosen, the same user interface will work with Darwin.

Steve has passed up a chance to put the essentials of OS X into the spotlight, in favor of being turned down for offering a set of handcuffs to lock in the $100 computer to a proprietary system. Bill Gates couldn't have been more parochial.

10.3x made our original Bondi 233 iMacs run the best ever under OSX. I believe a few of them still had 128MB - and anyway they could prolly tailor it to optimize for the ram and space... They'd be smart to get this market for two reasons - the project seems worth it and is the right thing to do (other than linspire there's not really a ready for prime time joe sixpack linux - and that's not free either) and it's a great biz exposure for Apple.

have given them Windows XP for free, too. That said, I too think they were foolish to turn down OS/X, assuming that the target laptops actually could support it.

Greg Shenaut

I think everyone is missing the real point of this project. MIT is wanting to give computers to people who don't need them, don't have electricity to run them, water to clean them (using a damp cloth which is also scarce, not hosing them down), or in many cases food to keep the user alive for the 15 years it will take to teach Linux.

Drinking water or a laptop for 1 years wages from the whole family (leaving no money left for food, medicine, clothing, etc). A small generator for the village to at least give light at night or laptops for the kiddies to play doom on until the battery goes flat.

Wouldn't a more practical application of brain power on MIT's part be to figure out a manufacturing process to make ethanol gel fuel canisters for cooking cheaper than the production of charcoal? Women in the third world mostly cook with charcoal indoors and end up with all sorts of respiratory illnesses. Make gel fuel a viable alternative and you get rid of those unnecessary drains on already fragile medical infrastructure because it's exhaust is water vapour and carbon dioxide which isn't toxic at all.

There are far better ways for MIT to try and help people who have to look up with binoculars to see the bottom of the barrel than produce something they can't afford, can't use, don't need. And don't give me that their countries can buy them. Accra's sewer system suffered major damage because Ghana couldn't afford to buy toilet paper. If a country can't afford to import toilet paper because their currency is completely worthless, where are they going to get $100USD for just one of these computers. A good example of people who want to help but who want to tell people what they need, not show them the respect of asking what is needed.

This is about more than providing a computer for one big run. They want to run pilot programs to see if the idea works, they want to see how people use the tool, and they want to see whether a completely open OS is actually usable by the masses.

This is not a trivial thing - many claims have been made about the stability, usability, and security of open source operating systems and programs. They want to test those claims with machines made available to the lowest common denominator. If those claims prove true, then they will see many benefits. If not, then we know to try something else.

Unless SJ wants to open source the OS as well as give it to them free, neither MacOS nor Windows fits the desired model.

Put simply, it is not about spending the least amount of money today, it is about lowest TCO from a nontechnical audience without a large support organization. Apple claims they have the lowest TCO, but so does Linux, and depending on the numbers you use, you can justify either one.

Scott

I think everyone needs to start coming up with some more logical arguments. Blasting MIT because they didn't choose your favorite corporation is not sound. I am a longtime Mac user but can easily see why they would not choose OSX.

1. The performance of OSX is simply not very good when compared to Linux. For example, look at the published benchmarks of SQL on OSX and they are terrible when compared to almost any other OS.

2. They want less graphical eye candy, which would hinder performance. However, I concede a nice GUI would be useful given the target audience (see below).

3. The target audience of these laptops is supposed to be impoverished school children around the world. Let's not forget that. I can guarantee they don't want these kids to feel that they are locked into some companies marketing trap. Paying $129 for a new OS every year falls into this category (and I personally HATE that plan).

I had hoped they would use Ubuntu Linux, truly an Open Source environment rather than Red Hat. Yes, Red Hat is in it for the money so I don't understand this move, and that particular decision might in fact be political in nature.

If a $100 laptop could run OSX decently enough to be usable then I want 2500 back that I overpaid for this powerbook.

>and if its SO Good, why isn't it more popular?? As the Windows user said to the Mac Owner.

OS/X performance - the SQL benchmarks refer to mySQL. Other SQLs such as Oracle perform fine, as they have optimized their software for Mac rather than porting code that has really been optimized primarily for a Linux based architecture. The main issue seems to be the 'weight' of a thread, and mySQL making heavy use of threading. It's enough that it would put me off using a Mac to power a LAMP web-server, but I don't think OS/X (and as a wider point BSD) performance generally sucks.

Oh, and I agree - Ubuntu would be a more logical choice than Red Hat - aimed at education and backing from a South African philanthropist with similar intentions. The only thing against it, I guess, is that it might still be a bit top-heavy for the specs. But I'm sure with some money to fund optimization, such as reducing application size and bloat (if you don't have an MS-Office dependency, you don't need EVERY feature of Open Office) it would be do-able.

I'm sure Uncle Steve was aware of all the specifications are requirements of their $100 machine. Doubtless he knew it was AMD based and so forth which has to mean that Apple already have OSX running on AMD based machines and given the storage and other limitations, do Apple have a Mini-Me version of OSX for other devices...er like a (choke) PDA or a true palmtop device. Makes you wonder...well, it makes ME wonder!!!

Wow, the mac fanatics have really come out for this one.

Research the computer. See what they're trying to do with it. They're trying to replace books with the laptop in schools across the world (especially in developing countries). OS X doesn't have the apps they need, it doesn't have the same number of international developers, and it can't be customized to the cultures and languages needed.

It's nice of apple to offer, but all of you rabies-bitten fools are missing the big picture of what they're trying to do with this project.

I'm all for open source, but I think it was irresponsible to turn down a full-functioning operating system for basically nil. If MS had offered and been turned down it would have been equally irresponsible, although I wouldn't have minded all that much personally. I think the first poster had it right. What good is a $100 laptop when it takes 100 hours to learn how to use the thing.

I'm all for open source, but I think it was irresponsible to turn down a full-functioning operating system for basically nil. If MS had offered and been turned down it would have been equally irresponsible, although I wouldn't have minded all that much personally. I think the first poster had it right. What good is a $100 laptop when it takes 100 hours to learn how to use the thing.

First, where do you get the idea it takes 100 hours to learn to use the laptop in question? If it was running OS X, sure. Or Windows, even longer. But the great thing about Linux is that they can customize their UI to the intended audience. They can also limit what's installed to what's needed, not everything under the sun (why the h*** is someone with a $100 laptop going to need ColorSync, for example). They can hide the complexity, and leave just a simplistic interface (like MS's Bob, or Apple's At Ease).

There's lots they can do they can't with OS X. Plus, why should they wait for OS X to be updated to work with their system. And what about bug fixes. h***, we can't even get bugs fixed for the OS we paid for. You think finder issues with these computers would get fixed quickly? Plus, by choosing Linux, they also get their choice of a ton of different variants, so they can pick the one that most closely meets their needs and tailor it from there.

Actually, the real shame is how so many die-hard mac-heads can't actually believe someone wouldn't want to use OS X, and so must be completely stupid. If MS had made the offer, you'd all be slamming Gates as trying to corner the third-world market, and that the MIT folks would be stupid to do it. But Jobs makes the offer, and its "I can't believe they said no! Man, if jobs offered to let me eat his s***, I'd be pulling out my spoon and asking for seconds!"

And just because something costs $100 a copy doesn't mean its worth $100 a copy. [I remember MS offering up software to settle antitrust case in CA, and people claimed the same thing, just because the software costs that much doesn't mean it costs MS that much to supply it] If Apple wanted to be really generous, why not offer up $10 million, and let them use it as they see fit, be it to buy OS X, Windows, or just cheaper hardware.

Right on! I'm with you!

Oh, wait, you're talking about the MIT people, not the Apple fanatics posting on this board.

Sorry, nevermind.

Of course, does no one care that there's such a paltry supply of third-party software for OS X, and the open-source front is more X-Window than Aqua, that there really isn't any benefit.

Oh, as for this:

Instead, a bunch of idealist technophiles have obviously sat down and decided "No software giants!" without any real practical consideration beyond their personal distaste for the capitalist practices of big technology companies.

Isn't the fear of what capitalist practices that have been done in the past the reason they want to avoid them.

Look guys/gals it's not about how great Mac OS X is in all of its UNIX goodness its about providing computers to change people's lives who are in a state of abject poverty.

The fit with Linux or any open source OS and apps is perfect. This is one of the ideal uses for Open Source software.

And to the gentleman who sez MIT should be placing there efforts elsewhere. There are MANY projects going on to elevate people and entire nations in parts of Africa and other areas where electricity doesn't exist and even drinking water isn't available.

LED technology over the past few years has made a HUGE impact on third world communities actually pulling themselves out of squalour. Sometimes technology can have a spin off that cannot be anticipated.

The $100 laptop is just another one of MANY things technologically oriented or otherwise that are being done to help people in desolate third world conditions.

It's a great idea. They should go open source and they know it. It was a nice gesture from Jobs but MIT would be remiss if they didn't follow their initial instincts and use an open source OS.

Just think eBay and $100 laptops going up for bids. It would threaten the existence of the $100 laptop program.

Since many of you feel that an opportunity was missed, please check out a petition I posted at http://www.petitiononline.com/m1a2c/petition.html which specifically asks Apple about developing a laptop specifically for the developing world. Check it out and tell any Mac users you can about it.

"...if its SO Good, why isn't it more popular??"

Jarod, were you intending to be humorous when making this comment? I have a Mac OS X box and WinXP box both on my desk. When I think about it I am amazed that to first approximation the market share for OS X is zero compared to WinXP. Does popularity inform us about the relative virtues of those two products?

What I think is missing from the thinking of many on this topic is how literally foreign the issues are for this project. The support structure implicit in locations in the developed world is simply not present. The ability to engage and modify the product at all levels including the OS should not be so casually dismissed. The people who would get these devices are as smart as you and I. If you think they will remain unqualified to improve the OS you are wrong.

For those who like to belittle the pointy headed tools from MIT with their "irrational" attachment to open source I'd like to point out an easily appreciated counter-example. Consider those equally nerdish hackers from Stanford and their insistance on building a business based on commodity components and their own tweaked version of Linux. You've probably heard of them. It has a market capitalization of about $150 billion and its called Google. Yes, I know it is apples and oranges but the point is that dismissing Linux is a stupid thing to do.

"...if its SO Good, why isn't it more popular??"

Jarod, were you intending to be humorous when making this comment? I have a Mac OS X box and WinXP box both on my desk. When I think about it I am amazed that to first approximation the market share for OS X is zero compared to WinXP. Does popularity inform us about the relative virtues of those two products?

What I think is missing from the thinking of many on this topic is how literally foreign the issues are for this project. The support structure implicit in locations in the developed world is simply not present. The ability to engage and modify the product at all levels including the OS should not be so casually dismissed. The people who would get these devices are as smart as you and I. If you think they will remain unqualified to improve the OS you are wrong.

For those who like to belittle the pointy headed tools from MIT with their "irrational" attachment to open source I'd like to point out an easily appreciated counter-example. Consider those equally nerdish hackers from Stanford and their insistance on building a business based on commodity components and their own tweaked version of Linux. You've probably heard of them. It has a market capitalization of about $150 billion and its called Google. Yes, I know it is apples and oranges but the point is that dismissing Linux is a stupid thing to do.