Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft vs. Northwest Schools Part III
SymphonicMan writes: "As previously discussed on Slashdot, Microsoft threatened an audit for the 24 largest school districts in the Northwest. Now it appears they may be backing down, according to Steve Duin, the Oregonian columnist who orginally brought this to all of our attention in April. Not only that, he writes that Portland Public Schools is opening 16 Linux computer labs across the districts, at half the cost of a Microsoft-equipped lab. Looks like this might be more than just a PR victory for open source. I'm a senior in one of the districts (Beaverton) included in the audit, and our staff is still going crazy trying to comply. But with districts across Oregon facing major budget shortfalls due to the poor economy, removing the pressure of this audit would be very welcome."
True, not only is this a PR victory for Linux, but more youth will be exposed to Linux and not only will they learn how to use a different operating system, they'll also pick up the abilities to adapt to learning new OSes. In time, this trend can be picked up in schools around the nation. In time, kids will show their parents how to use Linux, just as ten years ago, kids showed their parents how to use Windows.
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Give me your children until the age of 12 and they will be mine forever.
During the American Revolutionary war, the British consistantly believed that the colonies were full of loyalist supporters. When they found far fewer loyalists than they hoped for, they hired indians to fight for them. Suddenly, the large number of people in the middle swung over to support ... the rebels. Oops.
=brian
In my school district, we are facing even more budget cuts, yet I never hear anyone talk about how to reduce costs other than cutting back on salaries or materials. We should be cutting back on other costs like electricity and software. By using 12v lighting, and putting solar panels on the roof of every school we could save a lot of cash. By requiring special permits for not using free (as in beer) software, we could save money there too.
The reason I emphasise the use of "free" in the monetary sense is that I'm talking about school budgets, not software philosophy. Of course once people are into using free (as in beer) software, then you can more easilly talk to them about free (as in speech) software.
t'nera semordnilap
I read Duin's article this morning, & one item that he emphasized -- & hasn't gotten any attention -- was that MS pulled this same tactic with other school systems across the US. As a direct result Randy Baker, the tech coordinator for 16 school districts (& 12,000 end users) in central Iowa, ``completely dumped Microsoft last summer and migrated everything to Linux."
Anybody have more details about this migration?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
In order to fulfill my high school's community service requirements, I decided to volunteer at a local Head Start program for underprivliged children. It was a great feeling to work there and see the smiles on the faces of the children when I would show up in the morning, knowing that there was not much else to be happy about while living in abject poverty. They even had a few old computers (I believe 486s) running Windows 95 for the children to learn on. I always look back upon those last two weeks of my sophomore year (which were dedicated to allowing students to pursue their community service projects) with much fondness.
Well, the next year, when the time to register for community service projects rolled around again, I went to see my service counselor about helping at Head Start again. However, I was shocked at what she told me. Apparently, the Head Start program had to be shut down in the beginning of the school year because Microsoft had decided to audit them and found that they didn't have nearly enough licenses for Windows to be running them on all of the 486s in the school (which were donated by a bank, IIRC). The legal costs alone bankrupted the program, and a bunch of little children will now miss yet another opportunity to enrich themselves and perhaps leave the downward spiral of destitute poverty.
- They'll have a longer product cycle (Macs last forever and retain their value much better than cobbled-together PCs), which means the district won't have to upgrade their hardware nearly as often.
- They'll upgrade their software for much less than with a Windows solution and they won't be compelled to upgrade.
- Macs are already entrenched in education for a good reason: they're ease of use is legendary. Quartz is, without a doubt, the best user interface ever.
- There is a plethora of commercial applications for Mac OS. These are generally easier to use and are better-supported than Free software applications.
- They're inexpensive. You can already get an iMac for $799, and the education discounts that Apple gives are significant.
So, while I don't want to start a flame war here, I do believe that Apple is the most logical solution for education. While Linux is an excellent OS for those who love choice, freedom and hacking (in the "programming" context), it isn't really ready for widespread use on the desktops of non-technical users."I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
"There is an advantage to teaching kids on multiple operating systems. However Unix is not at all suitable for general introductory courses."
You're wrong there. Young kids are a clean slate. Their minds are not yet warped by one way of doing things. Kids can follow instructions and will adapt to whatever you put in front of them.
Kids learn better with a lump of clay than they do with a solid block of concrete...
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Who cares about compatibility for kids? They're LEARNING, not doing anything useful. You could give 'em a Trash80 and teach them to program on it. How 'bout an apple II - teach them to code the 6502 by hand! We don't have them design a car, or audit a company, or transplant a heart, or file a brief to a court, or perform with a touring symphony. We teach them reading, writing, math, history, music. We let them PRETEND to do real things so they can apply their basic knowledge.
...I shall sit in a boat all day, drink beer, and come home smelling like fish)
They don't need Microsoft Office, they need to learn how to use a word processor, spreadsheet, database. They don't need AutoCAD. They don't Pro/ENGINEER. They don't need Timberline. They DO need to learn how to learn a computer program. They would do well to learn how a program works.
Teach them the basics, and don't throw away money on programs made, and priced, for the business market. If Linux works and keeps the budget under control - use it. I don't really care. I think there should be several OSs in each school, and each should be taught - at least the basics.
Give me a fish, and I shall eat for a day. Teach me to fish, and I shall eat for a lifetime. (or is it
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
At first glance, schools are a dream target for the BSA. They have lots of machines, minimal system administration, and plenty of rogue software installations from faculty & students. If you're looking for piracy, you won't have to look very hard if you visit a school. From the "Let's justify our existance" perspective of BSA, schools are a target that is too juicy to be ignored.
But there's a catch: Schools are chronically short of funds. Paying the BSA "fines" or submitting to extortion is not part of anyone's budget. Never underestimate the penny-pinching creativity of a school system. They won't hesitate to throw labor at a problem to make the short-term cost go away. Considering their resources (teachers on salary and students as slave labor), they have inexpensive man-hours available if there is cash to be saved.
What starts out as BSA's dream turns into a nightmare when the schools use their resources to migrate to Linux. For starters, M$ loses the upgrade revenue. Then we have students learning non-M$ technology. Parents who discover that the school finds M$ to be very expensive. If the schools are successful in ditching M$, they become role models for parents who face the same BSA nonsense at work.
Uhh... I guess you're still not sure of it then. (psssstt!! MacOS X is not Linux.... it's BSD!)
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
At the risk of being slammed in moderation, thank goodness they are adopting Linux. Not because it's the way to go, but because it means they are no longer possibly pirating software.
... they are. Many people believe that for some reason Microsoft is evil because they charge for their product. They aren't.
... school districts crying poor ... Microsoft wanting money ...
... do they do it legally or do they do it on the sly.
Many many many people believe that tactics used are heacy handed
It's when the two get together you have horrible perceptions. Heavy handed tactics
Going to Linux solves the money issue and most of the potential piracy issues. Is it a victory for open source? Not so much as it is a victory for living within your means.
It's a choice for schools
I say legally.
Mac dominance in schools? Not in the last decade. MS has been by far dominant in schools in that period of time. This has been mostly due to donations from OEMs like Gateway, but there has also been influence from the business world, which tends to see school as job training.
Basically, Macs have been relegated to art departments since the early 90s. Even my uncle, a high school teacher and die-hard Mac fan, eventually had to come over to the dark side.
Besides, even when Macs weredominant in schools, that wasn't what people had in their homes. Apple's logic was flawed. It was the parents who were shelling out the cash for these systems, and they had the choice between the tech their 12 year old said was cool, or the tech they used every day at work. The only time the Mac won that arguement was when it was the tech the parent used at work, and graphic artists and teachers have never been a large subset of the population.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
of complying to EULA's.
License mgt costs Admin time sure but, getting notice of an audit could cost untold sums in legal and additional admin (checking to make sure, real sure) time in preparation.
I hope every school board across the nation is at least taking a look at this!
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
How much does Windows XP cost? (Not the "home use only" version.) How much does Office cost? And how often do you have to keep paying Micros**t?
Schools often have a lot of donated machines that don't cost anywhere near $800 each.
Also untrue. I have taught your average US high-school students (i.e. the "dumb" ones that the media and the Republicans keep telling us about) intro computer stuff on Linux. I taught them how to use emacs (optional) and LaTeX (required). Not that the US public education system doesn't need serious help -- but you are doing students an even greater injustive if you underestimate them and feed them pablum.Unlimited growth == Cancer.
> However Unix is not at all suitable for general
> introductory courses. If you have highly motivated and intelligent kids they could probably learn on anything, including JCL.
> But most kids are not in that category (just as well or else our skills would not be in the same demand).
At first glance, you might have a point. But last Saturday I heard from a schoolteacher in the Portland Public School District who clearly stated the opposite: the kids actually prefer the computers runing Linux because they are more stable. And she likes them because fixing problems in a Unix-like environment is far easier than tracking down the cause of another hex dump crash in Windows.
The problem isn't with the kids learning: they do quite fine at that. It's the adults who know nothing better than pointing & clicking -- or have to unlearn the three R's of troubleshooting MS Windows: reboot, reinstall, reformat.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
A computer lab isn't just a bunch of standalone computers any more. The computers are networked, and usually talk to at least a file/print server. Students then can store their work on the reliable server rather than on floppy disks or on the individual computers' hard drives.
Once you introduce a file server into the system, the costs of feeding the MS monkey on your back rise rapidly. How come? Simple: Microsoft servers require per-seat client licenses. This is a foreign idea even in the commercial Unix world, so it's understandable that Linux folks might think it unconscionable, but it's how it is for Microsoft-addicted organizations. Per-seat licensing can easily drive your cost of operation up, to the point where you may be paying several times your hardware cost in license fees.
Another savings is that Linux-based OSes can usually be made more efficient in their use of hardware resources than Microsoft systems. "Bloatware" is no myth, which is why the "minimum hardware requirements" for Windows keep escalating. While there are some things you can do in Windows to strip it down and make it more efficient, such as substituting an alternate graphical shell for Windows Explorer, these are not as well known among Windows professionals as the equivalents are among Linux and Unix professionals. Also, due to the less well-designed integration of the Windows system, such changes are more likely to make it unstable.
There are other ways, as well, in which Microsoft systems can cost your organization more. Microsoft recommends, for instance, that you separate your services out among several machines, so that if one crashes, the others remain. While this design is also used for Unix and Linux systems sometimes, it is much less necessary -- you can usually "get away with" less hardware without risking instability.
And then, of course, there are the clerical costs associated with license accounting ... the legal
costs and downtime associated with license audits ... and the miscellaneous other costs of
"compliance" with the lifestyle demands of a
Microsoft addiction. Like any other addiction,
dependency has opportunity costs and social costs
as well as the direct damage it causes.
So no, it is not at all surprising that a Linux-based computer lab would cost dramatically less to operate than a Windows lab, once you factor in all the costs involved.
The truth of the matter is, windows is perfect for what schools teach (which isn't much). They teach 99% of students to be typists, capable of using word and mucking around a bit in excel.
Which is strange when you think about it... the age of the typewriter is dead, there will come a time when we don't have to employ wageslaves to type dead trees back into electronic form.
So, what would you teach kids if not teaching them to be typing monkeys incapable of truly using a computer? Me, I'd dig those apple IIe's out of the closet, and teach them assembly language on the 6502. Teach them to write a compiler, and write their own programs with that compiler. The first kid to write a video game in such a fashion, gets an A+ and doesn't have to do anything but play the game the rest of the year. I'd teach them how to interface to that crappy 8bit bus, and have them dream up things to interface to it. We'd build them in class. They hate crappy resolution, with only a few colors? Maybe we'd take a crack at building an SVGA card for it.
And maybe, just maybe, those who passed that class would be eligible for the classes that use Mac OSX or linux on the g4 powermacs. Why those? Because x86 stinks, even if the rest of the hardware that goes with it is tolerable nowdays.
So, unless you were serious... tell me what *is wrong* with using Apple IIe's in the classroom.
#1. "...the cost of operating system software is typically $100 per machine or less and the cost of hardware is typically $800 or more?"
This is incorrect. If you choose to purchase a copy of a Linux distribution from a distributor then you may pay anywhere from $20 to $120 for the operating system - true. This would be a one time purchase however, not for each seat as with Windows. And as a consultant that builds many systems and deploys many systems, Windows gets very expensive very fast, no matter what it's intended use. Linux does not. Furthermore, if the school or school district has a compitent IT staff (or just a tech or two that understand Linux) then a free download version of your favorate Linux distro (excluding SuSE) would be suitable. Myth #1 has been debunked.
#2. " There is an advantage to teaching kids on multiple operating systems. However Unix is not at all suitable for general introductory courses. If you have highly motivated and intelligent kids they could probably learn on anything, including JCL. But most kids are not in that category (just as well or else our skills would not be in the same demand)."
It is true that proficiency in multiple operating systems is beneficial. But this statement does not fit the context of this arguement. The purpose of Linux in schools is to save money (in this case). The use of Linux and open source tools foster and fuel creativity and give teachers more software options with a smaller budget (if they use *free* software, then almost no additional budget). Furthermore, whatever solution kick-starts the greatest amount of computing know-how in children is obviously the better choice.
#3. "Will they look at the csh command structure and conclude that computers are very hard to use, mysterious and probably deliberately so and resist using them? I suspect so."
I suppose that you have never seen or used KDE or Gnome?
I lived in the Beaverton area for a couple of years, it's not the kind of place that's going to be easily bullied by MSFT, or anybody else for that matter. One of the nicknames for this area was the "silicon forest", a takeoff on the Bay Area's high-tech reputation. There's a very high ratio of technologically clueful folks there. There's also an unusually high level of disdain for MSFT, especially among the Intel folk I used to work with. I never did understand it, why Intel engineers disliked MSFT so much. Anyways, it was up there I got introduced to Linux for the first time.
But it would really surprise me to see the schools that got audited dump MSFT lock, stock, and barrel anytime soon. The only clueless folk I ever did any business with up there were the schools. Stupifyingly dense and criminally arrogant. Thankfully, they're also almost totally inneffective as administrators so they won't be able to keep Linux out.
Say whatever else you want to about him, but you've got to give RMS this: selling free software (including linux) on the basis of anything other than freedom is risky business.
I remember once, just out of highschool with an awful sales job, (for home pop machines, if you can believe it), my sleazy boss used to always say: never try to sell people on cost. They'll get bogged down with numbers and you'll never make the sale. Sell them on xxxx (in that case convenience) and let people work out the numbers for themselves. His logic was that numbers were easy to fudge when you're trying to rationalize something, and better they play around to get the numbers to make themselves happy than they catch you playing around with them.
In the context of free software, the same logic almost holds:
-for a big enough or strategic enough account, you can't beat MSFT on financial terms. That is, they can always either reduce/forgoe the licensing fees or heck, _pay you_ to use the stuff if they want it badly enough. (Just ask Miguel about Vicente Fox and the Mexican initiative.) You can't, (well, _I_ can't), outbid Microsoft.
-on technical merit, they can argue any particular point into the ground, or even, for big enough or strategic enough cases, find what's broken and 'fix' it. (gasp)
But sell freedom and you're onto something. (You _may_ even have people/past-victims making the technical/financial arguments for themselves.) The best part is that, when they use sledgehammers like the BSA, MSFT make the case for you.
Try as they might, MSFT is going to have a hard time erasing the memory of these audits/sales-tools from the overworked/underfunded school systems. Sure, they let you slide on the licensing now... but stick with them and you'll never be free of the threat of the audit. (And that whether you're in compliance or not.)
The story is even better than it appears. Check out The K-12 Linux Project, also in Portland, Oregon. (Moderators: Please don't mod down people who mention this project in other contexts. Mod them up.)
Linux Terminal software is used with diskless workstations to create a 5 workstation network for under $1,000.
Here is a quote: "All applications run on the terminal server. The workstations are "thin." They have no software or hard drives. Thin clients are perfect for schools because they are easy to install and require little maintenance. They are reliable and immune to malicious tampering and viruses".
Intel is giving free processors to schools.
It's all set up and ready to go. Just download the software and follow the instructions.
"The Multnomah Education Service District [Portland, Oregon, again] has moved most of it's core network services to Linux. Linux powers DNS, DHCP, mail relays, proxy servers, web filters, and directory services for the 45,000 administrators, teachers, and students within our agency and the school districts we support . For our agency and a couple of our districts, Linux powers the web, mail, FTP, and file servers."
I was told that it took 4 full-time people to maintain the MESD system when it was using Microsoft software. Now it takes 1 person half time.
Government administrators should note that it is their duty to insure that all government work be done on completely open systems. The citizens and taxpayers of a democracy must have full access to all documents, even 40 or a hundred years from now. There is NO room in a democracy for proprietary, hidden ways of doing things.
Keep in mind that the officials that buy computers actually don't. They receive their information from their technical staff.
Which means, if the school has more of a PC base (the subject of this topic since MS was trying to audit them), then the IT person would probably consider Linux because it would be the path of least resistance--they already have PC hardware, so why rip it out to replace it with Macintosh? Have the students use OpenOffice and Konqueror. Problem solved.
If the school has a mix or a majority of Mac OS systems, an IT person may consider simply ripping Internet Explorer and Word off the systems, and use Netscape and AppleWorks instead. Problem solved again.
I don't understand the Linux zealots who feel that going Apple or Microsoft "locks" them into anything. By using Linux (as in the kernel, not the OS), aren't LINUX USERS "locked" into a single kernel, unable to change (or highly recommended not to change it for fear of instability?) There is no such thing as a democracy in the computer world. You have to pick a side and use what that side offers you. Nothing says you have to stay on that side, and there may be more options and freedoms available on some sides (Apple, BSD, Red Hat, etc.) than others (Microsoft). Try getting a free multiuser licenses from Microsoft. On the other hand, try opening an embedded Outlook mail document inside a Word document in Mac OS X. There is relative good on each side. Don't piss on that of which you have no clue.
And another thing to these fact-challenged people in this topic: While Apple no longer has the vast 75-90% majority of their computers in schools as they did in the '80s, they still have a very large presence overall, especially in the K-12 market. Dell and Apple are the largest percentage holders in a virtual heat for about a year now. The rest is broken up by other manufacturers.
Don't just say "Windows" when you mean to say a PC brand: If you break down the market shares by brand in various areas, Apple still has a presence, and a significant visionary one if nothing else.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
There's a phrase used in American history which mentions the first shot of the American Revolution was "the shot heard around the world".
:) We just need the press to pick this up.... Dan Gilmour, CNN, USAToday, etc where are you?
The Microsoft audit policy might just be known as "the backfire heard around the world". With Linux stability, usefulness, and capabilities where they are today, there's not much stopping most public school systems from switching all their classrooms and labs to Linux. Maybe they'll need one or two with Wine or even a WinFrame system or two but it'll still be cheaper running Linux and "look ma, no more audit threats"
BANG! What a backfire.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
What we have here at my workplace:
Windows Professional: $275
Office Standard: $355
SQL Server CAL: $137
Exchange Server CAL: $64
SMS CAL: $40
Windows CAL: $34
Total MS Software Cost: $905
Harware: Athlom 1.3GHz, 256 DDR RAM, 20GB ATA-100 HDD, 10/100 FD/FC NIC, Intellimouse, TNT2 display: $687
17" monitor: $163
Total Hardware Cost: $850
Removing the MS software would reduce our desktop prices by half.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
That's a very good question that very few people bother to ask. There is a clause in their so-called "license" which states that they are allowed to "audit" you; and that clause, presumably, gives Microsoft the right to send in the enforcers. However, legally, it does not hold any water. Even if we assume that EULA is enforcible as a whole (a dubious assumption), that particular clause would be thrown out if the matter ever went to court.
This "auditing" clause essentially amounts to a search without a search warrant by a non-government agency. In case you didn't know, even the police cannot come to your house and search you whenever they feel like it. They must first obtain a search warrant, which is signed by a judge. And to get the warrant, police need to show that there is a likelihood of finding the desired evidence.
There are two problems with BSA/Microsoft audits. First they are not the police, so they have no authority to conduct the searches. Their "license" doesn't hold any water -- there are certain rights that you cannot sign away. Second, even if the BSA was ever annointed as the official copyright enforcement police, they would still need to show that there is some likelihood of finding unauthorised copies of software at whatever school/business they were trying to search. Random searches wouldn't be permitted. BSA admits -- nay, brags! -- that the vast majority of their tipoffs comes from disgruntled employees. In a court of law such "evidence" would be dismissed as hearsay. And that's without even getting into the issue of good-faith efforts of the companies to stay compliant with the license vs. the unauthorised installations by individual employees (or, perhaps, outright sabotage -- see note above about disgruntled employees).
So, as you can see, legally, Microsoft enforcers have no leg to stand on. BSA backed off the few companies that did decide to fight it.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.