Slashdot Mirror
Are Colleges Helping to Maintain the Microsoft Monopoly?
lexus99 asks: "Recently, while attending college and wanting to take tests in order to avoid taking basic computer courses, I have signed up for a few SAM (Skills Assessment Manager) tests. What really surprised me is that these tests are entirely based upon Microsoft products (Windows XP and Office XP). Note that this course is -required- before taking any any of the more advanced courses. Is this not a clear cut case of U.S. Colleges forcing its students to exclusively use Microsoft's software? Does Microsoft pay for this 'privledge', or do the schools get some type of M$ discounts? I don't believe that I will have any problem passing these tests, as I frequently use M$ software in my workplace, but I cannot help but feel insulted that I have to take them in order to take more advanced UNIX courses." This issue is a lot more complex than it sounds. Many colleges fall into Microsoft's software because they do get decent volume discounts and Microsoft provides them with decent service, so why change what works? However, with the new licensing schemes that Microsoft is beginning to push, maybe we'll see some change in this area in the near future. Have any of you seen evidence of Microsoft worming it's way into your college courses?
In my 400 level 'intro to graphics' the professor REQUIRED that we use MS Products for developement.
Several weeks later after ~50% of the class wouldn't be quiet about it, he said he'd allow any language, but no others were supported by the TA.
The following semester he continued to allow any tools/language, but only 'supported' M$.
This is not a troll ... I use Linux/FreeBSD exclusively; don't even own a Windoze box ... BUT ;), but this is the real world. (Unfortunately, IMHO), windows is what is "out there", predominantly. While I am excited by the growth in Linux's market share, and anticipate the day MS is no longer an effective monopoly, I am realistic; One needs a minimal level of proficiency in MS Products to succeed. At work, we are a GNU Linux/FreeBSD shop; all servers, all development,EXCEPT for the workstations in Sales, which are Win2000 ... So, even though I am a "Unix Guy", I still have to deal with Windows, which is the case in, I suspect, virtually any job (hell, even if you are a web developer in a strictly Unix Server environment, you STILL should test on Windows browsers!!)
... What exactly is your problem here? do you think you should be graduated ignorant of the OS with the *vastly* greater market share? What would *that* say about your school?
1) requiring students to have a proficiency in MS Products in no way "forcing its students to exclusively use Microsoft's software?" The problem here is your [mis]use of the word "exclusively".
2) I am as pro OSS as anyone (except perhaps RMS
So
I go to University of Texas at Arlington, and we have similar requirements here called Computer User Profeciency. Everyone is required to take it and demonstrate basic skills in Word processing and spreadsheets (also internet and e-mail). The tests occur on MS products, simply because that's what 90% of the world uses. However, they keep the tests as general as possible, and anyone who uses KOffice, the Gnome suite, or Open Office can do fine.
My CS 171 course is taught using solely VC++. In fact alot of students noticed when I brought in a non-Windows lappy into our lab (our classroom is several long tables with Thinkpads with NT4 on them) -- they look at me differently because I get all my work done with vim in a console. I am by no means even a power *NIX user, and it concerns me that I get the feeling that they think I'm doing something they couldn't do.
At UTD where I currently am attending, and the same with all UT system schools (including, but not limited to Tyler, El Paso, Austin, etc.) its $6 a copy for Win98SE, Win2k or WinXP Pro.
$6
I know this is not the popular opinion here, but for $6, I can have me a Legal copy of any of the preceeding OSes. I hate to say it, because I think that Micro$oft (ooo.. look at me, I'm cool becuase I used $ in stead of an 's.' I'm a clever boy) has too much sway and control over computing these days, but this is simply good business. Continuing to keep people using your products is not a sign of a monopoly, its a sign of a competitive business. All smart companies that desire to remain companies will do this.
I went out and got all three and then some other MS software because its dirt cheap, it does what I want and its what the world uses. Eventually, I will have a server running, using Linux, but not for my desktop.
But then again, I'm probably just a troll sell out or something. I can kiss my kharma good bye for this one can't because I have original ideas can't I?
I believe the root of this question lays in a general education requirements that a number of colleges/universities.
Lets say a university wants to employ a basic computing skills class for the general education requirements. So, you make a CS101 class. But, how do you create a lesson plan for this class? How do you teach word processing on a computer that's inexpensive from installation to support? Not to mention having the attempt for the class material to be applicable in the lives of the student.
As much as I would like to see a more competitive/open environment, the open source products of word processing and operating systems in general are not at that level yet, and certainly not in the past 10+ years. The only real player has been Microsoft with Corel/WordPerfect in a very distant 2nd.
At this point in time it makes economical and educational sense to go with MS products. However, this could change if a number of things happen, which I personally would like to see.
AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
" I get all my work done with vim in a console. I am by no means even a power *NIX user, and it concerns me that I get the feeling that they think I'm doing something they couldn't do."
(I'm quoting a post but not replying to it, because this is on a different topic, but Im quoting for relevance)
It's sad to see them teach students how to use a product, instead of how to use the language.
I think they should spend the first month on enviroments, 2 weeks to learn vc++, a few days on pico, a week and some change on vi(only the basic movement/insertion/deletion, stuff vimtutor would show), and the rest on all the fun gcc options. Then the students would be able to code in most standard enviroments, and the rest of the time should be spent teaching the kids the actual language. The teacher shouldnt even care what editor you use, as long as you turn in working code.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
"...but feel insulted that I have to take them in order to take more advanced UNIX courses."
Bah ha ha! So you see, Unix truly is better than Windows. They save the best for last. Windows is like the crappy job you take and keep for a reference before going onto the really good one.
On a side note, my university gave out copies of WinXP for free to computer science/computer engineering majors. Microsoft PAID groupd of students who headed a group called MSUG (MicroSoft Users Group) to brainwash people into being Microsoft junkies. They got an assist by handing out free copies of Win2K, Office, Visual Studio, etc. Digital crack.
Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
The web classes have a similar approach. They teach outdated 1996ish table-based and pixel-based HTML for Exploiter and Netscape 4.x, and don't give a fuck about standards and more legitimate web techniques. The WIN-DOS labs have Internet Exploiter 5 and Netscape Communicator 4.79. Mozilla is not known, and they really don't care about the Mozilla-based Netscape 7.
Well, in all fairness, the purpose of those classes is to reflect the real world, right? For the same reason that you rightfully complain about teaching a graphics class with Corel PhotoPaint, it would be kind of silly to teach a web class with Mozilla. Internet Explorer 5 and Netscape 4 (on both Windows and Mac) represent the vast majority of web clients out there. (There's a significant fraction of IE 6 for Windows, too, but I understand that it's pretty much bug-for-bug compatible with IE 5, so it doesn't really count.)
I'm this close --><-- to launching into a rant about how Mozilla would be a much more useful browser if it had been written to be fully compatible with the various quirks of IE 5 as well as all those new-fangled standards that lots of people talk about but hardly anyone uses. This is neither the time or the place for it, so I'll abstain. But it's there, just below the surface, and it would be dishonest of me to try to hide it.
I write in my journal
Universities have been promoting Unix for many years and prior to Linux were probably the single most important factor keeping it alive.
Just as Unix and its derivatives have played a prominent role in industry on the server, MS OS's obviously have played a prominent role on the desktop. If a university wants to prepare students for the real world, it needs to include all the most important OS's, languages, etc. Instructors should point out the strengths and weaknesses of each and let the students draw their own conclusions.
The quirks are not simply quirks. They are Flat-Out-Absolutely-Wrong implimentations of web standards. There are more than a few web browsers out there: Opera, Mozilla (phoenix, chimera, k-meleon), Omniweb, Konqueror, even Links (lynx does not parse CSS). All of them, except IE5 and IE6 (and only on Windows... IE5:mac is correct), calculate css width, margins, border, and padding the exact same way. IE[5,6]:Win, however, conclude that border and padding are included in width, in direct literal contradiction with the CSS1 and CSS2 W3C recomendations.
Quirks like that I do not want to see Mozilla adopt. It's incorrect, and it doesn't even make sense to do it that way, unless you include margins, which is impossible because of the way margin-top and margin-bottom interact. It'd be a quirk if there weren't a spec. IE is, however, wrong, and there are ten other implimentations of the same standard that prove it.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
The only computer science classes you're going to get on Windows at Carnegie Mellon University is if you're a non-CS major taking intro CS classes. These are done using Metrowerks' suite (as opposed to MS's).
Everything else is done on Linux or Solaris. I'm taking a *video games* course that is taught on Linux.
Couldn't be a better place if you like doing your work in a UNIX environment.
Students are told in their third CS course that while they can turn in proofs written in Microsoft Equation Editor, that it will be harder, and that they are strongly recommended to learn LaTeX.
I still remember a philosophy professor that handed out an assignment in Word format.
I thought about complaining, but thought that it wasn't worth it, so I just printed it out at one of the clusters that have Windows installed.
The next day, in class, the professor said "due to overwhelming demand, future assignments will be given in PDF format..."
There's no reliance within the university on Microsoft file formats, and serious animosity to moving to anything that's available only from Microsoft.
If you want a good CS curriculum that isn't a bunch of regurgitated "how to design foo in Visual Studio", and you like UNIX...you're likely to like CMU.
May we never see th
Everything you said is true-- I assume. I won't bother fact-checking you, because the facts of your post aren't relevant.
Saying "IE does it wrong" is kind of like choosing only to speak Esperanto. You may be technically right, but your solution isn't a practical one.
I think Mozilla would be a more useful browser if it could render pages the same way IE renders them. This isn't the case now; pages that render perfectly well in IE fail to render correctly in Mozilla. (I'm too lazy to find an example for you; finding one for yourself shouldn't be difficult, if you're interested in trying.) If I'm looking at a page in Mozilla that doesn't render correctly, I can sit back in my chair and say to myself, with satisfaction, "Well, that's another web site that's written incorrectly. Shame on them!"
And then I close Mozilla and fire up IE, so I can see the page I was looking for. And, since there aren't really any pages that fail to render correctly in IE, I don't see much reason to ever go back to Mozilla. See, because in this example Mozilla has failed to perform its one and only function: rendering web pages.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: web standards are relevant only to the extent that they reflect the real world. If the page renders correctly in 90% of the world's browser instances, but is in violation of the standard, then it seems to me that the standard-- or at least an up-and-coming implementation of the standard-- needs to be reevaluated.
I write in my journal
I have to agree.
GCC is a much better tool than Visual Studio for most people.
You could drop $100-$2000 on your development system for a product that's limited to few languages, doesn't support C anymore, and can't run anywhere but Windows, and has a UI that keeps changing, rendering old skills obsolete.
You could also get a software package that's freely downloadable, supports lots of languages (and keeps getting more), and runs on just about every software package known to mankind.
The choice seems pretty straightforward to me.
May we never see th
Thanks to Balmer and our good Linux-friendly friend news.com, we have more wonderful Microsoft quotes.
.Net is obviously XML): Well, the benefit of .Net is XML...We take the XML connection and we extended it across both client and server -- while other guys are only server-focused. It's about connecting people to people, people to information, businesses to businesses, businesses to information, and so on. That is the benefit....it's a set of code we ship that...people use to help build applications that process XML information....it's getting to be conventional wisdom that the future of IT is around XML. But I'd like conventional wisdom to be that XML brings benefits today, and the best way to participate in the XML revolution -- in terms of user benefits and productivity -- is Visual Studio.Net.
...next major Windows release, called Longhorn. I'm sure we will have some service packs in between.
Balmer Quote 1: The truth is, we probably made (.Net) a little harder to understand than we (should) have.
Balmer Quote 2 (in which Balmer makes it quite plain that he's going to drive home the point that the marketroids prepped him with -- that XML is Good, money should be spent on XML, and
Balmer Quote 3 (in which Balmer shows himself happily living in his own world): A Yankee Group study says 40 percent of corporations surveyed were looking at operating system alternatives such as Linux, in part because of the Microsoft licensing program. But I think they are okay with where they are.
Balmer Quote 4: The Linux [platform] hardly runs any applications, except a bunch of shareware stuff that's not very good.
Balmer Quote 5: There has yet to be any innovation, new features or new capabilities out of the Linux platform. [Me -- so how the hell has *Microsoft* pushed technology forward?] But I don't think anyone should expect anything innovative coming out of that [Linux] world.
Balmer Quote 6: And we are going to have as or more a community as Linux does. [Me -- in your wet dreams, Balmer]
Balmer Quote 7 (in which Balmer discusses the buggy nature of Windows):
May we never see th
I consult for a law firm and this is a big problem. Interns come in straight from undergrad and bitch and cry because they don't have Word. Despite the glaring security holes and lesser functionality for lawyers, they are considering deploying Word on their workstations alongside Wordperfect just to stay compatible with their clients and to pacify these interns.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I just recently graduated from the Comp Sci department at SFU. My impression: The business faculty is very pro-Microsoft. Everything is done using Word, PPT, IE, etc. The problem is that the people making the decisions have gained their skills on MS platforms.
A good chunk (probably about 2/3) of the professors in the Comp Sci department despise MS products and are *nix guys. In other terms, prefer to use *nix on their primary machine. But, and a big but, a lot of stuff that is taught that is platform specific, is taught with respect to MS products. For example, GUI development is taught using MFC.
And that is the problem. When general computing methodolgies/techniques are taught, they apply to *nix platforms without much tinkering. But when you try to apply techniques to MS platforms, there is a poop-load of exceptions that you have to be aware of.
For example:
This how you code in C++, but this is how VC++ implements for-scoping.
These are the techniques to design "good" user interfaces, but this is how you would implement them in Windows.
There is a lot of pressure from industry for students to learn to be efficient on the Windows platform and other "high demand" tools/methodoligies (such as Java/extreme programming/XML/etc). What usually happens is that companies screen based on "buzz words". And there is a lot of pressure from industry to produce graduates that have training in licking the flavour of the month, rather than having solid understanding of Comp Sci principles. They seem to want MCSEs, that can get the particular task done now and do not care about the future; rather than people who understand general principles that will apply for decades to come.
For example, a local Vancouver company [cough]Crystal Decisions[/cough] did not want to hire me for a position because I had not programmed in Java. Despite the fact that I have been writing Object-Oriented C++ code for 5+ years and that I'm currently teaching my sister Java who is taking CS101.
The problem is that CS departments are very heavily influenced by industry. And who is the biggest heavy-weight in industry? (That question was rhetorical).
I'll not dwell too long on this; Your analogy to Esperanto is flawed. Mozilla speak's the Queen's HTML/CSS/DOM/etc, while IE speaks a slang popularlized by MTV & friends. Those who understand the slang might not understand all your fancy words or be confused when you respond positively to a double negative, but you're speaking pure English.
I see you don't claim to be a web designer. A casual speaker of English wouldn't care at the misuse of a semicolon. A professional writer wishing to write to a casual audience might curse that he can't convey the exact meaning a semicolon would bring, because the causal audience wouldn't pick up on it. So he curses and writes longer sentences that everyone will grasp.
Web designers writing for the causal, apathetic, audience have to write so that IE understands. IE is the 7th-grade English level that novels need to be written for. IE doesn't understand what a comma splice is, but it understands "UR K-KOOL DUDE", even though "UR" should be "U R".
I see many pages that IE renders blatantly wrongly, but then, like most web designers, I've usually written those pages: The next 75% of my job is getting IE to display it the way my other 7-10 browsers do. Successful web designs are done this way because it is impossible to start with an IE-specific design and go to a design everyone can use.
Your last paragraph is curious. The standards are set, and people build implimentations off those standards. Because I impliment the standard in a sub-par way, but I market well, should the quality of the standard be lowered and invalidate the work of dozens of higher quality projects?
It has been a long time since I saw a web site Mozilla does not render properly, by the way. css/edge is one I usually point out when arguing for standards acceptance. These designs are beautiful and elegant, but fail in IE and old versions of Opera. These are simple things. This copy of the OGF's SRD demonstrates one of the simpler things IE just can't grasp.
Anyhow, I understand your run-with-mob perspective, but I don't believe it can apply rationally in this case. It's a quick step to communication lockdown if we allow our method of communication to be controlled entirely by a single corporate entity, whoever the hell they are.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
There are really two important questions here:
The first question seems to about whether colleges are getting people comfortable with Microsoft products, or accomodating them if they are already comfortable. OTOH, the second question is a matter of whether courses specifically teach skills in a Microsoft-centric fashion.
Realistically, I can't speak to a trend, but I can tell you how things are at my school. I attend an engineering college. Obviously, this makes us not big on CS; therefore, we tend to deploy Windows on most of our open labs. It's what most students and professors are comfortable with when they arrive. Therefore, a lot of non-CS students see a lot of Windows. At least at first.
But simultaneously there is an open Linux lab in which anyone can get accounts with non-too-shabby computers. Almost no one but Geophysics uses it, but they require its use for some courses. And all of the nice physics labs for 3rd year and higher physics majors run Redhat. They're set up with Linux because all junior level and above reports must be done in LaTeX.
Everyone is required to take at least one programming course, which normally winds up being Fortran or C/C++ for everyone. Chemical engineers can take VB. C/C++ is taught almost exclusively on IRIX boxes. Only recently have we had a teacher that even required any exposure to visual studio for that class -- or any low-to-mid level CS class.
As far as CS students go, all high-level CS classes tend to either be a Unix-environment or a 'use any environment available on campus'. Most teaching is mathematically and theoretically centered. I can't count how many times teachers have said in lecture that we're being taught important theory and not too much application because we might as well go to a trade school if we just want to learn current applications.
What about non-CS required courses? We're all required to take a lot of general courses, one of which (EPICS) includes required use of Microsoft Project. We're all required to take a year of calculus-based physics whose labs were taught in additional Redhat labs. They're not Windows labs.
Myself, I find this pretty mixed. There are a lot of *nix machines on campus but they're frequently not obvious until you get in a class that requires them or you simply seek them out. We more-or-less force some cross-platform experience on all majors. But if someone wants to be all Microsoft, he can probably get by like that if he doesn't mind taking alternate courses and debating with his counselor. And the same can be done for someone who wants to go all Linux.
My experience is, despite heavy Microsoft pressure, we're a rather OS-balanced school. I can only hope all schools are along the same lines.
Oh, and how do I know we have heavy Microsoft pressure?
Just a hunch.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara