I understand the XO runs a version of Fedora. I’m gonna see if I can get Debian to work on it when I get mine next week…

AMD Geode is powerful. Sadly, the XO is being perceived as slow. Could it be the XO software?

Puppy Linux is just another Linux, but it is robust and small enough to run speedily in the GX466, XO’s abandoned processor. OLPC did not welcome Puppy Linux to its laptop project, but Intel did, although belatedly.

If the XO would not be perceived as a performance machine, then the Intel laptop would come out as the market’s low-cost laptop, and not the XO.

Intel’s market dominance in the CPU chip market is due entirely to the fact that Microsoft ONLY works on Intel-compatibles. This leaves companies like AMD with severe disadvantages despite the fact that in my opinion, AMD has had more innovation in their chip designs (generally lower-power consumption for cooler operation at comparable performance levels).

Because of cross-licensing terms between AMD & Intel, I suspect that AMD is unable to get traction with any revolutionary chip designs without also licensing those designs to Intel simply because MS won’t write to their innovations if they did whereas MS *WILL* write to Intel innovations leaving AMD to play catch-up.

I’m glad to see that the fact that Intel has lost track of customer design desires (low cost, cool operation, no need for powered fans or liquid nitrogen for CPU cooling, etc) is coming back to haunt them.

I support the OLPC use of AMD chips because it not only lowers cost, but also promotes competition - providing AMD a market where they can truly lead and where their innovation can be utilized by an OS that is not controlled by a third-party with known ties to their biggest competitor.

I also support the OLPC use of AMD chips because the selection of AMD chips endorses AMD as the more innovative CPU chip developer. I’m tired of the way the MS code bloat has continued to chew up every last bit of the increased CPU power being provided by chip manufacturers and I cannot tell you how pleased I am that someone has recognized the vacuum at the low-end of the desktop/laptop market and that it can be filled using Linux on cheap, low-end hardware.

The OLPC project is scaring MS no end. We now have generations of kids that represent vast future markets growing up and learning on Linux-based laptops - laptops that cannot be coerced by MS to run Windows because they just do not have the vast resources required to handle the MS code-bloat. Add to this that the monolithic design of the MS operating system, the increasing size of the MS operational footprint for minimum performance requirements and the evolution of the entire MS ecosystem all work against MS ever being able to work on low-end hardware again. This is further exasperated by the possibility (probability?) that over time the OLPC may change to a non-x86-based CPU and you find that the third-world market is being pulled out from under MS by the OLPC and Linux’s ability to be hardware and CPU agnostic.

In summary, *ANY* ideas, technology, or R&D that Intel shares with OLPC will ultimately undermine their monopoly hardware position and their partnership with their monopoly software buddies at MS. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that at least some of Intel’s reticence to follow through on commitments made to the OLPC project have much to do with their MS partner’s objections because MS knows this is one game they are totally unprepared to play, but that they can sabotage via Intel’s participation.