Slashdot Mirror
Maine School & Linux
Feztaa writes "This story talks about a private school in Maine that has introduced linux into their computer labs, with smashing success. Apparently, they spent less than half of the money that other schools spent on new computer labs, and got better hardware to boot."
Although I wish this would happen in more *public schools*.
Instead of going with decent free software, it seems like the majority of public schools are so Windows-dependent that they'd rather keep Windows 95 until the end of time than switch. And that's just dumb. Sure, if the school system has enough to keep upgrading, it might be a little easier... but they never do.
The primary reason usually lies somewhere along the lines of 'but we have this database and our database guy doesn't know how to do anything but Access!' Sigh.
Windows has its merits. Continuing to use it when the only merits left are 'we're lazy and our tech people are ignorant'... that's not good.
This seems to be a great market for Linux, especially with the downturn in the US economy. With software like the Linux Terminal Server Project the machines don't even have to have a disk in them. An old clunker with a fast network connection can easily serve the needs of a school computer lab.
Linux also makes a lot of sense from a durability standpoint in primary/secondary education lab situations. The machines can be administered remotely, and can easily be kept in a consitent state. Administration becomes a breeze, keeping the Linux machines up and running can be a pretty much automated process. Try and do that with a Windows lab!
The only problem I see with using Linux in these situations is finding trained personell to staff the labs. Good Linux people are still hard to find, especially with the lower-than-typical pay scale in primary/secondary education. I suppose this will change little by little as more users adopt Linux both in education and enterprise applications.
Not true. Software change over time. When they exit school the windows software has already changed a lot.
:)
Applicationspecific learning does not yield any exceptionally good students. Also, the software range is much larger for linux, and in addition it has more fun software which they can try out.
If you wanna try out random software in windows, you're subjected to a lot of crappy software. Eg. are there any good free astronomy programs for windows? And are they just as freely available?
I think the "everyone uses Widnows apps, so kids should learn to use Windows" is a silly bugaboo. I mean, take a look at the interface of Word next to the interface of OpenOffice. Same toolbar, same, editing screen, same drop-down menus. Ditto spreadsheets. If a person who knows OpenOffice pretty well sits down at a Windows machine, would it really take them very long to figure out how to write a letter in Word? It's not as if extensive retraining is required - the *concepts* are al the same.
I think a lot of businesses get hung up on this, too. "We can't use Linux, we'd have to re-train all our people to use new applications." How long do they really thing it would take someone that used to use IE, to use Mozilla? The "back" button works the same way. The "Bold" button in OpenOffice works the same way as in Word. Evolution has folders for mail just like outlook.
There's just not much of a learning curve at all for standard office apps. Once you learn to use one spreadsheet, it just ain't that hard to pick up another one. 95% of the concepts are the same.
If you're teaching a student how to use a spreadsheet, it really doesn't make a difference whether they learn gnumeric or excel. The _principles_ are what you want to teach, not the specific application.
The same thing with word processors. It should take more than 15 minutes for the average highschooler to adjust from Word to WordPerfect to Abiword. It's not like they're learning how to automatically generate table of contents or advanced table formatting; they're kids who are learning computers so they can write term papers...
Especially since school computers don't get updated as frequently, it makes sense to use free software. What's the difference:
I assert that both of them will equally prepare the average kid for the 'real' business world (Word 2002 on Windows XP).
My father is a blogger.
I'm not sure I get your point -- If there was a lack of technical expertise, the teacher would do the same thing that all people do now when their Windows boxen crashes, sigh (or curse!) and reboot the machine. In the case of total system collapse, and lacking a guru, I'd imagine they'd do what all Windows users are forced to do even now; reinstall or get someone who knows how to reinstall to reinstall for them.
... but I'm not convinced this is much of problem -- based of course on my personal experience, and mileage varies --)
I guess I don't understand why this is a sticking point for Linux not being ready, nor why this is different from the Windows experience.
Worst case scenario would be pulling the plug and restarting the machine (journaling file systems would help with this atrocity?).
Am I missing something?
(there are other sticking points, like maybe some websites that won't work w/o IE
i would assume that they would have teachers that had some sort of basic knowledge about linux.
as for segfaults, coredumps, etc...remember: macs crash and windows crash, too, so i'm sure they would do whatever in the same case with linux (force quit, reboot, ctl-alt-del, etc)
in my high school, in 1985, we had a classroom full og TRS-80s, and the newcomer was the apple ][, which people didn't think would take off in the classroom....and later, it did.
so i think taking the "chance" of linux working is both bold and great.
This is a general school. It's not a computer science school in college -- it's teaching business students and the like. Its goal is to provide the most useful knowledge over the long term to its students. A student going into business is, frankly, better off with Windows experience than Linux. Heck, at this very moment (though I personally think things are shifting), most software developers are better off with Windows experience than Linux experience, and that's a pretty ideal set of people.
While I like Linux myself, using Linux over Windows is a public-good problem. Everyone is better off if everyone uses Linux over Windows, but if a single school gives students experience with Linux and the rest Windows, it's doing a worse job of helping its students.
People these days put *applications* down as job skills. "Excel", "Word", etc. To not have your students be familiar with these when the vast majority of businesses use these (and likely will for at least a few more years) is doing the school's students a disservice. If you have a choice between hiring Jonny, who knows Word (which your company uses) and Jimmy, who knows KWord (which you've never heard of)...well, you're going to grab the one that's going to generate less support costs.
And simply using Linux does not turn students into experienced computer scientists or IT personnel, doesn't make them suddenly far more capable of learning to use different software packages.
I realize that there are budget issues involved, I realize that there are stability issues involved, and I still have to say that the majority of students are currently better off being familiarized with Microsoft's operating system and application suite than Open Office and Linux or KWord and Linux or AbiWord and Linux.
Finally, for the people that say that school is for teaching you general concepts, not a specific skill set -- yes, that's true. In twenty years, it's very unlikely if people will be using something much like the current iteration of MS Word *or* Open Office. But there is a not insignificant short-term benefit, and I don't think it's entirely fair to the students to deprive them of that edge. Word and Excel are nearly everwhere, whether we like it or not.
May we never see th
Uh, No. Anyone who thinks the point of computers in school is to, teach kids how to use the currently popular software appications, is absolutely wrong. This attitude harkens back to the 80's when schools would use DOS computers, 'cause that's what kids would use in the "real world," not these toy Macs.
Now, we all know that a deep understanding of DOS is not of critical importance for 99%+ of those working in the "real world." Applicatios, OSes and even interface paradigms change. If you ask me, the use of computers in school should be geared towards in no particular order.
1) Becoming familiar and comfortable with how to use computers; not teaching kids how to hack the kernel, but more geared towards general computing concepts that will carry over from one platform to another, one appication to another, etc.
2) Using computers as tools to do research and write papers. By this, I don't mean making sure kids use computers to do stuff; but help kids identify when the computer is the most appropiate tool for a task. General research is done well on a computer, so it preparation for deep research, but at some point you have to go to the library to do serious work. Using a spreadsheet to keep track of expenses for a business class is a great idea, but only well after the principles are understood.
Computers are tools and should be treated as much. The best way to learn how to use a tool is by using it; guidance is nice, but I bet the kids who learn the most about computers are those who use them as an integrated part of study to get stuff done. Because THAT'S how there used in the real world.
Children should be taught the fundamental computer applications such as Ms Word, Visual Basic, Internet Explorer, Excel, ect... not the hacked together "gnu" versions featured in linux.
I apologize to other /. readers for troll-feeding, but this one was just too much to pass up...
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Oh, bah... when I was in grade school we had Apple II's. No hard disk, no OS to speak of, just 5.25" floppies. In short, nothing even remotely resembling the "fundamental computer applications" you speak of. Can I use a Windows machine now? Yup. Can the kids I grew up with? Yup. And you'd better believe that KDE, StarOffice, and Mozilla are a hell of a lot more like the apps found on a "normal computer" than anything I had back in the day.
Heck, to me the real crime is teaching kids nothing BUT Windows, by which I mean not really teaching them anything but to click A to make B happen, and to go into a panic if they can't find a button labelled "Start". People should be subjected to all sorts of different computer environments, otherwise how will they really know what they prefer? And since these kids will inevitably see windows later in life if they haven't already, school doesn't really need to spend much time on it.
Computers are all basically the same. The important thing is that when they're faced with Windows, or Linux, or MacOS, or *BSD, or whatever, that they're not immediately put off by it, because after all, a computer is a computer is a computer.
Stating linux skills and alternative applications is a good way to show that you can think for yourselves and at least for now makes you stand out.
Help fight continental drift.
You're absolutely right. It's much better to teach our children how to use specific applications, rather than how to user computers in general. Are you fucking mad????
I've been to college (CS major), been around computers my ENTIRE life, and been deep in Unix for the past 7 years. (And I'm only 24.)
You know what I do with User Manuals? I throw them the fuck away, because I understand how computers work, and the thought process that developers are going through when they write software. Because of this understanding, I'm able to be proficient at new software within a matter of minutes, and an expert within a few days.
I think we are better off teaching our children the fundemental computer application TYPES. Fuck the specific apps. MS Word and Open Office are the same as far as 90% of users are concerned. They provide text formatting, spell check, and can print.
Instead of teaching Visual Basic, teach them programming concepts. Variables, loops, arrays, functions, data structures. Visual Basic is a syntax. You can take the same basic concepts and apply them to C, Java, Fortran, Shell scripting, etc.
Instead of Excel, teach them about SPREADSHEETS. How they work. Some cells contain data, some contain functions. What good are spreadsheets? When should we use them?
Don't teach Access. Teach database concepts. Tables, select statements, how joins work. How to think like a database optimizer to keep your statements from taking 9 years to complete.
Instead of Internet Explorer, teach them about the internet in general. What is it? How does it work? How to I make a website? How do you make dynamic websites? How do I find the information I'm looking for on the internet?
Computers are general machines. They are completely programmable, and to teach our children any specific application is a sure waste of time. Any application you teach them in 5th grade can easily be obsolete by the time they graduate highschool. Teach them the real fundamentals, and they'll have the knowldege to adapt to the industry as it changes.
And don't whine about having to relearn computers after school. Buttons are buttons, a cursor is a cursor, an icon is an icon, and a command line is a command line. The desktop paradigm hasn't changed since Xerox invented the fucking thing. When it happened, everyone relearned the interface. When it happens again, everyone will again relearn. (Including the "lucky" children that were taught the way you seem to prefer.) However, when the paradigm shifts, those with the true fundamental knowledge will adapt more quickly. The rest will be playing catch-up.
On a more personal note, I could give less of a fuck what the school system teaches when it comes to computers. I've had a computer my whole life, and so will my children, and you can bet your ass that they will know how things really work in the 5th grade, just as I did.
Cheers!
I think the "everyone uses Widnows apps, so kids should learn to use Windows" is a silly bugaboo.
It's even simpler than that, especially in reference to the fact that the software that "everyone uses" changes through time. Because it changes to what? Mostly to the software that they were using at school and uni. So if you let kids play with linux instead of windows at school, and extend that through uni by giving them good and preferential access to linux computers, when they come out of school/uni and their employers realise that all these kids can use linux software, which is cheaper, and so don't need retraining, they'll switch to linux without a second thought.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
As expected though, the laptop program is not going well at all. It will probably be abandoned in the coming couple of years when Apple drops their support contract and refuses to renew it due to tens of dozens of damaged iBooks that are shipped back every few months. I don't think it has to do with Apple, but rather more with the idea of giving seventh graders laptops. See my post above about not having enough good teachers in public schools. What do you think they're actually doing with the laptops? Nothing of use really. The idea was that if you give the schools the technology, they'd find some way to use it. This is simply not true because the staff can't do much more than open MS Word and type a letter, or do some basic Excel spreadsheeting. They have NO idea about how computers work at all, or to how to make them work in a school environment. Lets face it.. google searching the web isn't going to be that helpful in an educational setting. This is mostly what you see in public schools when it comes down to using the internet for class.
I guess I may just be underestimating the abilities of 4 year olds, but I tell you, when this generation leave school and get jobs tech support will be a thing of the past...
There will be a point where you won't be able to / won't want to keep up with all the new stuff, and just stick to the old stuff that you know. Then, that 4 year old who has grown up to be a 24 year old, has to give you tech support for whatever cyberspace/brainlink/Windows2023 we use then, and it'll be just as boring to him as it is to you now...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I'm afraid you're wrong. As long as you have one *license* per machine, and you have the documentation, you use one serial number to install them all. I know this because I helped admin a Windows network back in HS, and I know for a fact we were in full license compliance.
In fact (as someone else mentioned), Microsoft created a utility called sysprep that preps Windows 2000 machines for being cloned (see here - "The Windows 2000 System Preparation Tool (Sysprep) Version 1.1 enables administrators to prepare Windows 2000 System Images as part of an automated deployment.") It resets stuff like SIDs (which are used by Windows NT -- each machine should have a unique one on the network) so that after cloning, the boxes will eventually be unique as well.
This is yet another case of blatant overmoderation.
While I think he's wrong, it's a common point of view and the pilar or the "switch / lock-in" problem.
If the kids know linux and main GNU apps , those apps he mentions (bloated pieces of software) can be learnt in 10 minutes. At least, the important 10% we use 99% of the time.
Another thing you should think about is unstability in the IT world. When I was 15, Wordperfect was dominant (5.1 for MSDOS then 6.0 for windows 16bit) and some people still used wordstar. I learnt Ashton Tate's Framework 3 and dBase. Those were the standards by then. I had to relearn EVERYTHING because in some years windows took over and then win95 (completely different BTW). I spent hundreds of hours getting used to countless key combos - things are a lot easier now.
Doesn't matter what those kids learn, it will be outdated when they leave college for a job.
As opposed to just being able to do a bit for bit copy like you used to be able to do pre-W2K.
I have used Sysprep and even RIS on W2K. It is NOT as easy or fast as doing straight "ghosting" of images. Problems can and do occur.
Despite what any pro-MS people want to believe, licensing is just one more step that isn't necessary in what should be an otherwise simple process.
IMHO, that is exactly why free software will succeed faster in most cases than proprietary. If you have an image with nothing but free software, you don't have to even stop to think about whether you have enough licenses to intall.
I think RedHat is barking up the right tree by charging for access to their RH Network. Then if companies want to make it easier to update software, they pay per machine. If they don't really care about some workstation set up in a dark room for nothing but scanning and it isn't even hooked to the internet, do they really need to pay for support/updates?
Indeed. No job would take me on, because I only had skill with Netscape, and they needed someone who knows how to use IE. It's really crippled my career options.
Most jobs don't need skill with Word or Excel either. Basic familiarity with how a spreadsheet and word processor work are more useful than having used Word a lot. I don't know about you, but when I learned to use a word processor. And when I was taught to use a spread sheet, I was told what it does, not just how to put little numbers into the boxes. Too many people were clearly not taught this, and think that a spreadsheet is just for presentations. They use a frickin calculator with it!
A Linux spreadsheet will probably be more use if this is the case.
I think the "everyone uses Widnows apps, so kids should learn to use Windows" is a silly bugaboo.
Many people seem stuck in this reasoning:
Why should everyone learn Windows? Because everyone uses Windows.
Why should everyone use Windows? Because everyone is learning Windows.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but it is an easy mistake. (And I posted this from a Redhat 8.0 box.)
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Everyone is better off if everyone uses Linux over Windows, but if a single school gives students experience with Linux and the rest Windows, it's doing a worse job of helping its students.
Using Word is like operating a television set: anyone can do it. Not everyone is familiar with UNIX based operating systems. That gives them an edge. If they don't know how to make a borderless text box in Word, they can pick it up in a day. Applications are honestly dirt easy if you have a broad enough experience base. It is virtually impossible to avoid MS Office these days, and enough to put down on a resume is trivial. Being able to add Linux on a resume at least is interesting and at most shows competence.
Quite honestly, Putting MS Office on your resume is like putting "Can use Pencil."
If you have a choice between hiring Jonny, who knows Word (which your company uses) and Jimmy, who knows KWord (which you've never heard of)...well, you're going to grab the one that's going to generate less support costs.
And if Jimmy comes to you and says that he can save your organization tens of thousands of dollars per year by switching you to an OS and an Office Suite you have never heard of, you are going to like that initiative. Even if you are hesitant and don't follow through with it, you will see Jimmy as a managerial material, rather than another office drone.
In twenty years, it's very unlikely if people will be using something much like the current iteration of MS Word *or* Open Office. But there is a not insignificant short-term benefit, and I don't think it's entirely fair to the students to deprive them of that edge.
Sorry, it's pretty insignificant, compared to being able to offer a programming elective. These kids are growing up in a world where the average 5 year old is more familiar with a computer than the average current office worker. They can undo in their sleep. What you hold prescious and dear just isn't that impressive. There may have been some debate originally about whether to use rotary or numeric phones in diagrams for children, but the distinction was, quite honestly, a trivial one. The ability to use MS Office and Open Office is trivial, but using MS Office is unavoidable while having used Open Office is at least a little special. Picking up a windowed interface is unavoidable, but picking up a powerful command line is actually useful (even in a business setting, typing ftp somehost@somewhere.com is much easier than opening Internet Explorer, going to a download site, getting administrator priveledges...).
You're probably trolling too (as judging from your previous comments you don't seem to be experienced), but this is exactly the sort of argument that you hear from many computer-illiterate managers who are struggling to learn the "industry standard" interface. To the next generation, Office is a 4-th grade computer literacy level. We can do better.
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
> "everyone uses Widnows apps, so kids should learn to use Windows" is a silly bugaboo.
Not only that but when the current students get out into the workforce in 5 or so years time there is _no_ guarantee that Windows or Word will be the 'required' product to know.
In 1981 the hot products were CP/M, WordStar and Supercalc. In 1986 this was dead and MS-DOS, WordPerfect and Loyus 123 were used by business. Another 5 years and the switch was to Windows 3.1 and early Word and Excell (or Multiplan).
MS has only held on so long since then through strangling the competition, but in 5 years time MS Office may be obsolete, possibly just because of the punitive licence fees, or possibly just because a better product can survive long enough to be noticed.
It may not be Star Office or OpenOffice.org either, but why throw money at MS when these will do the task.
Stanley Feinbaum, dimwit.
Ok, again, from the top. These are CHILDREN. They learn well, have access to Windows in other places (read the article, Stan), and are somewhere between five and eighteen years from the job market.
In other words, what you're saying is the equivalent of "these kids aren't learning DOS 4.0 so they'll be utterly crippled when they try and get jobs using Windows 98".
Oh, and by the way, as somebody with about a decade in corporate IT, who has helped out in quite a few schools, and who has taught remedial computer skills classes for middle-aged unemployables, I can tell you that the amount of time that it takes to learn one OS if one is truly comfortable in another (please note that Curran at this school made a point of teaching that) is measured in weeks at most.
And I can also tell you from hard experience with hundreds of users that the biggest obstacle to learning how to use a given OS is crashing/failure. Put a user in front of a machine that is out of date and keeps crashing and they will blame first themselves, then the OS, then you, the teacher. All of these translate into resentment and all of them will create long-term barriers to use. So if this guy says that his system saves tons of money and thereby cuts seriously down on crashes then that right there will make the kids more computer-capable.
I'll try and say this over in small words to help you out.
1.) Linux today and Windoze today both are very different from whatever these kids will need to know when they graduate.
2.) These kids are nowhere near the job market.
3.) It gets easier every year to teach people to switch OSes.
and 4.) An approach that let the school buy and maintain better computers will right there help these kids on the way to being good with computers. All computers.
There. Was that so hard?
I swear, one of these days . . .
Rustin
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
I work with a school district in Central Washington that has networked the entire district (only three schools really) using Linux as the infrastructure (routers, mail, proxies and the like) and Winblows and Macs for the end (l)users. This mix has resulted in a huge increase in the number of computers supportable in the district and given students the skills employers expect. However my personal opinion is anyone who can use OpenOffice or KOffice would be able to learn MSOffice in just a few hours.
Therefore, a lot of our users are still using Office 97. We are in the midst of planning an upgrade to Office XP, but that will take at least a year and half to achieve.
*Plus* most users don't know a lick about Linux, and quite frankly, don't have the inclination to go through the 'hassle' of learning how it works and how to install the various packages required for a given application.
Reconcile these two statements, if you don't mind. :) In a business, do the individual users who don't know jack about computers handle such mission-critical tasks as upgrading software on their machines?
Furthermore, to upgrade the software on a GNU/Linux network, you only need to upgrade the software on the server. Mount /usr on all the clients and it's magically done. Does that take a year and a half to perform? Not when you do it during your initial setup, it doesn't. Then upgrades are just a matter of installing the new software on the server. There's some fine points, still, such as upgrading the kernel. But since you can spend a small amount of money putting small hard drives in a machine (or no hard drive at all!) and having it boot from the network, you can easily make it possible to upgrade kernels as simply as changing a floppy.
Bring on the flame, but Linux still isn't ready for prime-user use. It just isn't and it's gonna take a very long time before it gets to the point that companies are going to be ready to adopt it.
My 4-year-old doesn't have any trouble at all using KDE, and you mean to tell me that a grown adult can't use it? My little girl can barely read, but she has an easier time understanding single-clicking over double-clicking to open an application. (read: game)
The #1 reason GNU/Linux isn't ready for prime-time use is because people don't believe it is. It has nothing to do with technical capabilities or anything else of the sort. It's all about believing in it, or not, as the case may be. In a business setting, it's not only irresponsible, but blatantly stupid to depend on everyone in the company to be able to install software. Let the administrators do it, and you'll find GNU/Linux is not only ready for prime-time use, but indeed it is the best solution available.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Funny but true; My wife who is really computerphobic used to use my Gnome desktop quite regularly for games and web browsing, although she mostly prefers windows98.
She refuses to use XP at all because it's 'too different' from what she's used to.
WTF?!! The difference between Gnome and 98 is less than the difference between 98 and XP? Well, that's what Sue seems to think!
Amongst other things, XP keeps shifting things around on the start menu and hides stuff if you haven't used it for a while. Sue HATES that!!
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
The problem with your analogy, is that few if any of the tasks you mentioned require any retraining at all when moving between MS and OO. Typewriter to PC is a major conceptual leap. I taught basic computer skills to total newbies for a while. The word processor feature that really blew them away was insertion, being able to type something BEFORE the stuff you'd already typed. And everything just moves and makes room for it! Incredible! On the other hand, the concept of files and saving your work was almost too much for them.
The effort of going from even WordStar 1.0 to Word XP would be insignificant compared to going from a typewriter to any word processor. I can imagine that going from OO to MS would be a bit frustrating (OO tends to be more rational and less obtrusive), but I can't imagine it being at all difficult to make the switch.