Slashdot Mirror
A College Without Microsoft?
An anonymous reader asks: "My grandfather is the president of a well-known undergraduate-only college of about 7,000 students. He tells me that an alumnus has agreed to donate $2.4 million initially (and up to $800,000 each succeeding year for 10 years) to the school for computer equipment and staff if the school agrees not to renew any contract and to buy no products or services (either directly or through an intermediary like Gateway) from Microsoft. I'm told that this isn't the enormous amount of money that it sounds like and that a change-over to non-Microsoft products would be costly. I think it'd be great for college students to use computers apart from Microsoft, but I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students. Does the Slashdot community have any points that I can give my grandfather to present to the Board next month?"
I work in a Systems office at a univeristy, and understand full well cost savings over a students education. It is a problem that my office fights with all the time.
Perhaps though, Your grandfather is in a position to change this trend where the dollar comes before the student.
Perhaps, it would even be a good PR tool to boost enrollment in the future, bringing in more money and students.
Just a though.
My university, New Mexico State University, has it's entire Computer Science department running Linux. We don't use any Microsoft programs at all for our CS dept. We use it in just about every other dept (Journalism has Macs, if I recall correctly)
I think it's very nice. It gets us out of programming for just the Microsoft world, but a lot of students are upset because we're learning nothing about VisualStudio and stuff, which is what "we'll be using in the real world"
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
The reality is, the kids are going to need to know how to use Microsoft tools once they graduate in order to be successful in the real world.
Plus, imagine all the chaos as non-computer science majors try to struggle with Linux on the desktop in computer labs and so on. It will indeed probably cost a lot more than $2.4 million in the end.
This post might sound pro-M$, but it's not. I'm just trying to give the reality of the situation. Oh well, there goes my karma.
that they should put the good of the students ahead of any politics. That being said, the gift should be politely turned down. The best education these students could receive is a broad one.
That is, one that doesn't show any bias towards or against any one company's products. An education that includes zero microsoft products could be just as harmful as one that includes 100% microsoft products.
Fast forward to the first interviewer saying to a kid "What do you mean you've never heard of Visual Basic?"
Best to see if there's some negotiating room with this benefactor, i.e. set up and Open Source lab and fund at least one faculty position to instruct in the use of whatever the curriculum calls for.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Think about it... A Mac can do everything a Desktop PC does (multimedia, web browsing, etc) and a Linux machine can do everything a CS/technical student needs (C/C++/Java compilers, technical programs like Autocad and ProE). I think the most useless machines here at Purdue are the overpriced Windows machines that need so much security/rollback software that they are rednered useless 10% of the time!
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
1) If Microsoft did something like this, everyone would be screaming and calling the Justice Dept. It isn't right for someone else to do the same thing.
2) Taking all MS products off the campus would be a dis-service to the students. Do some of us like non-MS products? Sure. But when those students graduate and go to work, are they going to see a lot of MS in the workplace? You bet. To hide them from MS products for 4 years would be harming their education.
Chuck
OS X has proven to be a very stable OS and it gives you the UNIX underbelly to teach students how to program with free compilers, while at the same time maintaining an extreme ease of use for all computer skill levels.
Apple and OpenOffice would fill the void nicely in my opinion. It won't be as cheap as x86 by any means, but it could be easier to support and teach.
btw, this isn't a flame. I'm using Linux right now and I love it, but distributing it to total novices can be frustrating.
-----
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
How much "alternate-os"..ok..linux..do you plan on using? Getting rid of MS altogether, in any capacity, is stupid. I don't have specific facts but I'm willing to bet that windows shop outnumber linux shops 10 to 1. So while it's great that they have all this linux experience, I fear the jobs will go to those that have windows knowledge. Not saying it's right, just saying it's how it is. Linux shops in honest, real world productive companies still aren't that common. And I mean true linux, nothing MS on the entire site.
I say prepare them for MS, it's the world uses, like it or not.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
You're not going to get an entire university to drop MS completely from the school for measly 2.4 million. Instead, try for a more narrow target. Something like "funds for the engineer school, if no engineering classes use MS products for classwork." Substitute for "engineering school" and "classwork" until you get a balance that is acceptable to both the donor and the school.
Here is the list of things I would tell your Grandfather:
1) Qualified (i.e. not test taking wonders) MCSE can physically manage about 14 MS Servers... However, a qualified Linux Admin can handle (depending upon variations in OS release) from 50-75. Much lower people cost.
2) The Admin time saved can be either be converted to cash (fewer employee admins), used to increase support of University Departments and Staff, or a combination of the two.
3) No BSA audits, papertrails, etc. which does not mean that inventory isn't maintained, it's just that it doesn't have to be a resource and legal liability issue (read, cheaper to operate).
4) I promise to send my son to this institution when he's ready for College (about 17 years from now).
You're thinking in binary. There are more options than Linux and Microsoft. Can you imagine people having problems running on Apple computers? Even OS X is simpler than Windows. Macs for the n00bs, Linux for the engineers.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Linux simply IS NOT READY FOR THE DESKTOP YET.
This is an entire student body, not just the CS dept we're talking about here.
The kids are going to need their MS Office with its Word, Powerpoint and Excell apps. No crappy Open/StarOffice need apply.
Not to mention all the apps they won't be able to use since they won't have Windows as their OS.
They are also going to have to use Windows in the workplace after graduation so they would acutually be BEHIND the rest of their generation once school is over. No thanks. No way. No how. Keep the GNU stuff where it belongs, on the server.
All in all, lets keep software politics out of college purchasing decisions. Buy the best practical, not idealogical, tool for the job.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
From the post: "...I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students."
So, this is not about what's good for the students? Ok, so this is partisan, anti-Micrsoftism, at it's best then, yes? Looking at base of cost alone might be ok but perhaps they're not aware that MS does provide huge discounts to educational institutions (educational institutions get special pricing from MS.) If a University is so hell-bent to not assist their students, to not do that which is in the best interest of the students, then clearly this is a University I'm glad I did not choose to attend.
It seems to me that a college without Microsoft is just as bad, or worse than one without Linux.
Lets just ignore for a moment that certain software is only available from microsoft - or at least that there are no comparible products from other supplilers.
By having no microsoft you are forcing everyone into the same mindset. Microsoft is the predominant software supplier, but that does not make their products necesarily bad.
University's are there to broaden knowledge, not to stifle it. This seems to me like a great way to stifle knowledge, and restrict achademic freedom.
I have been in the Linux community since the MINIX days, so I am not a Microsoft lover. I just feel that diversity is needed, rather than uniformity
Well, there are plenty of alternatives to MS products, many of which are actually cheaper. The best thing to do would be finding out (or at least estimate) what they do have in terms of hardware/software and so forth.
My college mostly used Sun equipment in the CS arena, and had labs of Macs and Win machines. The x86 hardware can always run Linux or BSD. For people who just need to type a paper up, there are lots of alternatives to MS Word on the Mac (Appleworks, Thinkfree, etc).
Since linux and a lot of it's programs are free, the only cost incurred by switching would be paying the technician/sysadmin to keep the system/network running fine.
Also, the learning potiential is definatly greater, because if any student wants to find out how a certain program works in terms of code, said student can almost always look and find out.
I really dont see how it would be costly to stop paying for software and switch to a free operating system.
With the donated money they could easily pay a whole team of lab techs etc to install and admin the *nix OS's.
You could even have different labs with different operating systems to give students a wide view on how things COULD be done.
Just my 2c.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Forget the whole CS department, think about the other students who use the computer labs. So far, every place I have worked has used Microsoft software as the standard. Word, Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, and so on are what 90% of the business world uses I imagine, on Macs or on PC's. Putting out 7,000 students who can't use the most widely used work software and are used to something like OpenOffice that, while great, isn't what they'll be using in their jobs, seems like a horrible idea.
That said, the Microsoft products are just better to use for most people as well. They have features that everyone else is trying to catch up with, and keep innovating more than anyone else. Not teaching Visual Studio to programmers is one thing, but not using Microsoft products is a totally different one.
Refuse. Not just because of the students who are going to enter the real world, and need to be fluent in the Microsoft products that, like it or not, are the cornerstone of business. Don't do it because your faculty and administration already knows Microsoft products. I assure you, it was a headache to get your faculty and admin as computer literate as they are, however literate or illiterate that might be. It will be fifty times worse to change them over to something new.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
doing fine. The school I went to only taught on unix/solaris/linux. We never once used Visual C++, Visual Basic, etc... I have a job and am doing fine. It doesn't matter what system you learn on, other than GUI programming, or even what language for the most part. I can pick up a new language very quickly, because it's just syntax, the actual design and architecture of your program is what matters.
Bad idea.
Love it or hate it Microsoft is part of the real world just like Open Source, Apple, Sun, Oracle & IBM. I would much prefer undergrads get a balanced approach to IT. That way they can decide for themselves, and be able to see through the marketing when the actually have to work for someone else.
I don't think that it will fly, since business/commerce will never give up Office, and Visual Arts will never give up Macs.
How small is this alumnus' dick that he feels the need to hold his alma mater hostage for a donation?
Yes, he's offering a lot of money, but colleges get far more than that from the alumni base as a whole.
The one thing a college doesn't want to do is piss off a group of graduating undergrads, because they won't give money in 5-10 years down the road when they're making bank.
What kind of a revolt would a college see if students couldn't run Word in the computer labs to write their papers?
Not to mention all the other software packages that are mandatory learning in many disciplines, but are only available (or affordable) on Windows. (I'm thinking stats packages like SPSS, I'm sure there are more.)
When alumni make my-way-or-the-highway offers like this, it makes the donors look like jerks, and makes presidents who accept them look like spineless beggars.
At my university (Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany) most of the computers in the CS department are Linux or Sparc stations. Thats what the students do most of the work on and thats also what most of the stuff uses. In anyway we have Windows machines for several good reasons I think.
:-)
:-) than you won't have many problems using Visual Studio. You won't master all its features, but you'll come to it when you need them.
First, there is a public Windows NT computer pool for the students which is used for several things courses which depend on Windows Software. Chip design comes to my mind. We use the Altera Max circuit design software and the corresponding PGA chips to develop 4 bit processors in the 2nd year. It is free for students to use at home.
Second, try to find a good secretary who knows how to write a text with anything else but Word. I guess you will have troubles doing so. Professors (and students likewise) depend on the secretaries
Third, of course students should have access to as many different platforms as possible. We also have a public Mac pool with a couple of PowerMacs.
Last but not least, many other departments than the CS people will have to learn how to do stuff on Windows because in fact that is what they'll have to use later anyway. For CS people it's not a big deal if you have never seen Visual Studio in your courses. If you know what a compiler is and how to debug (and what a stack is
Economics or business students just learn how to use Excel and Powerpoint. You can laugh about it, I do so too at times, but in fact, that's what suits them best. They will simply not have a choice when they start at any company.
Anyone with a half brain and three weeks to spare should be able to get up to speed in a VS environment. Do really think you learn the ins and outs of VS in a half year college course programming MFC anyway? The college should be teaching principles, not tools. In '94 I took an introductory course in programming, where we used VB. When I look back, we didn't really learn anything valuable about programming that semester, only how to make an app look nice and change colors on the buttons.
The next semester, we had an OO course using C++, which was IDE/compiler neutral, and it was much more useful.
Can't you see this Ask Slashdot is a total troll? The situation is as follows.
Geek #1: I'll bet you ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS that you can't post an Ask Slashdot question that will get regular Slashdot constituents to propose a non-Linux solution.
Geek #2: One hundred dollars, eh? JUST WATCH ME.
And so we have today's Ask Slashdot.
'Tis true.
"How will the university provide a professionally-relevant education when you will teach students without using the de-facto stanadard tools of the trade in use by a great majority of employers?"
and (along the same lines):
"What will your answer be to a prospective employer of our students when he asks you why our accounting students have not mastered basic accounting tools such as Microsoft Excel?"
I went through an entire CS program without ever directly using a windows-based technology.
Sure, we used NT workstations, but that's mighty quick to learn and most people know that anyway. Furthermore, with cygwin, it's as easy as extending your knowledge about X.
However, we used Java, and C, and other languages that were either free (beer) or free (libre).
The problem is a little more disconcerting for MIS students. However, how many programs do you know that teach troubleshooting skills, anyway? Usually, it's more business-oriented.
What I would suggest is asking the alum to further describe his vision, and how hee feels it can be accomplished without sacrificing the general quality of education.
___
That said, The cost depends on your current licensing structure. Assuming you don't have any renewable licenses, that all can be slowly transitioned.
The methodology you need is
1. The cost of new servers to avoid licensing issues.
2. the cost of training. (Faculty, student)
Macs or *ix/X servers?
3. If you plan on an *ix/X based technology, the cost of customizing a distribution and making an X desktop that minimizes transition anxieties will pay for itself.
The real answer is to engage the alum and have him help with the vision.
The college experience is about choice. Students and professors should be free to choose what platform suits them best.
I used a Unix/Linux machine for all my CS work. I would not have chosen to learn on a Windows machine. Others will chose differently. You must give people the opportunity to make choices, good or bad.
I can see quite a few stick-in-mud professors getting a little angry when you tell them their curriculum. Choice is more important.
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
I'd like to meet this person. Anyway, as far as making the case for acceptance: Show the board MS License 6.0. Highlight the "good" parts, and append some of the better industry commentary about them. Make it clear that, if whatever academic licensing MS offers doesn't already include these provisions, it will soon. (A reasonable assumption.) Run some numbers on the projected TCO of M$ software over those ten years. Be sure to include some reasonable extrapolation of past losses due to viruses & such. Then run the same numbers for Linux. With a reasonable effort, you might well be able to demonstrate to the board a lower ten-year expenditure for a Linux environment before taking the donation into account. Might not succeed (esp. now that MS knows about the proposal - thanks /. [G]), but at worst you'll certainly get a cost-conscious board thinking about open source.
Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students.
To have no Windows anywhere is going to cost the college a lot of prospective students who are told, "We have weird computers in our labs with Linux and they won't allow us to have normal computers with Windows because the college gets more money that way." And the prospective students are going to run away, confused.
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
It's one thing to offer the money saying that his money can't be used to buy MS products. It's another to use the money to blackmail the school into NEVER buying ANY MS product with ANYONE's money. Tell your grandpa that the guy is a jerk.
Your grandfather should tell the board that students that don't know how to use Microsoft products are useless in the workplace, and that therefore it is the college's duty to make sure their students are familiar with Microsoft products. Completely ridding the place of all things Microsoft is not the way to do that.
At the risk of sounding like a Linux zealot, I must ask - what is the goal here, education or training?
I guess I always imagined, (and my Lit professors consistently agreed) that education was an experience that was supposed to transcend job skills and give you something you couldn't get from a technical guide, training bootcamp, etc.
If you are any sort of computer professional, you are training all the time. If you can't handle changing gears in terms of the development platform you use, you are already behind the game before you've even gotten started. If, on the other hand, you've gotten some real Computer Science with emphasis on theory, you are going to have a framework of knowledge which I personally understand to be education.
If one were to recognize the need to get into the nuts and bolts of a system, free from constraints of filtering the information to remove marketing intent, and free from anticompetitive obfuscation and outright deceit, which would be the best option to look at if one wanted an education?
although this comment may seem like flamebait at first to all the bias linux hugging moderators, it most certainly is not.
The above user understands that the Windows OS's are much larger (negative) and more advanced (positive). It is coded by thousands of professionals who are paid very well.
"Superior" isn't far off from what Windows is to Linux. Superior does not necessarily mean "better" (I am superior to my younger sister, for example), it simply means that it is used more in the real world (The OS's, not me vs. my sister) and more practical when it comes to "which one should i learn?".
Now think about it, which OS is used more in the real world? that's right! Windows.
The above post is 'interesting', not flamebait.
It seems like everyone one here thinks the only users of computers on campus are the students. You have to keep in mind that it's the faculty and administration that are probably going to have even more trouble than the students would.
;)
Think about it, the administrative secretaries that have used MS Word for the last X years and have learned exactly what the button looks like that does so and so would be totally lost if you just up and moved them to something so radically different.
Granted, if everyone understood what the computer was doing and what, for example, the magical thing called a "Mail Merge" actually tries to accomplish instead of knowing, I need envelopes printed so I click this "Mail Merge" thing, then everything would be a little easier...
I don't know if any of that makes a lot of sense to the people that haven't actually worked in an IT department, but as a current student and IT worker at a major university, you need to think about the whole picture.
Another thing to mention (which may have already been mentioned before I get done typing this) is that software is just a tool. It doesn't matter if you're running Linux, OSX, Windows, DOS, custom ASM kernel, etc.... all that matters is does the software you use accomplish the job and is it the best tool to use to accomplish the job.
I would really like to see just how much the CS world could accomplish if religious wars over dinky stuff like this never existed...oh well, until then, the wars are fun to read!
-Adam
Other than strong arming them into an alternative they might not want? Because the major ramification here, especially for a small college, is that they won't be able to support students' machines that are running Microsoft operating systems.
There's little difficulty in getting them to interoperate. But that the support resources -- help desks, IT staff, trainers -- would have to switch to linux/OSS. And that means that the necessary knowledge base isn't there to help people out. If a student is using MS Word on his laptop, and doesn't know how to do something, you'd have to tell him "we don't support Windows because it's too costly." A very patriotic phrase. But it doesn't help the student. Which means it doesn't help the school.
I'm not saying "don't use linux in schools." I'm saying don't put all your eggs in ANY basket. The college I went to had about 600 Windows machines, 200 Macintoshes, 100 Sun stations and about an equal number of RedHat machines. A lot of savvy students used the Sun and RedHat machines, and I don't mean just engineers. My wife, who wouldn't know open source from cold sores, used to use the $9000 Ultras to check her email, because they had these huge trinitron monitors and didn't have lines around them like the Windows machines.
The hodge podge of machines meant that we each had our own preferences and our own specialties. I think that's the best situation for a school; a technical equivalent to a "liberal arts" education.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
That being said, if I were presenting this to the board, I would recommend against accepting it. It is too restrictive, and isn't a good idea. It isn't a business, it is a learning institution. The students are the ones that would have to go into the marketplace, and they shouldn't have this restriction placed on them. However, I would propose an alternate plan, and see if the donor would accept it. Maybe a "[insert name of donor] Linux Lab" could be set up with all Linux based machines. (assuming here that non-MS means Linux, I guess it could mean other things too). Or the "Free Software Lab". Or let the donor name it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If I was in the administrator's shoes, I'd try to talk this donor into giving the money (or some of the money) in agreement to substantially reduce MS usage, not eliminate it.
I can't live without MS software, and its not for lack of trying - I doubt an entire university could do it for any millions (unless it gets into the billions, then they could just pay to have someone rewrite the MS software - pipe dream, now returning to reality).
This guy obviously has something against Microsoft. I'd explain that his no-MS demand is unreasonable, so he isn't going to be helping rid the world of MS by ofering a donation they can't accept. But a less-MS demand could be met, and would have the desired effect, or as much of the desired effect as possible.
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
There is a reason why trade schools teach MS products: They let you get a product to Market FAST. Wizards, N generation languages, OCX component integration, etc. lend themselves to a high paced development environment. For the purposes of teaching, research and mathematical foundations such >4GL languages are actually detrimental to learning the art of programming IMHO. *nix based development environments are typicallly much more opened ended than something like Visual Studio. Through the wonders of scripting a program like XEMACS can let you develop efficiently in hundreds of languages. If you are working with VB, you can use...VB...maybe some c# and some scripting tie-ins.
Programming and technical students will learn how to use microsoft products on their own. It is more important to teach them the fundamentals using a wide scope. Not to say that MS products dont have a niche and a function even for hardcore programmers, but more often than not they seem to adapt an "the ends justify the means" attitude. Dizzying libraries rarely supply you with optimal code, but greatly speed the development process. Its a trade off I guess.
1. Users can be given accounts on all the systems, so that they can change their settings without disturbing others. Security can work without being suffocating.
2. Those people that would have trouble with Linux probably don't know Windows. Despite layman opinion Linux can work in such a way that clicking on pictures causes stuff to happen.
3. $2.4 million - $1/Debian floppies = $2,399,999 cash.
4. The 8 grand a year will go toward buying winshit licenses for the school board.
5. A professor or CS class could admin the servers.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
The extra cost savings over the 10-year period (not renewing/upgrading Windows, Office, no Windows viruses, etc) should also be factored in.
Not only will they have a lower TCO, but they're getting paid $$$ on top if it.
Hell, I went to a mostly M$ endowed CS program (at the time), and when I have to code against the win32api, or MFC, I spend about that amount of time in the books too.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The protection against BSA audits is a HUGE benefit. Schools are regularly targeted (often for good reason) for audits.
The cost in person-hours for school staff is very high, as is the tension created by the whole event. I daresay it's more stress than an IRS audit.
Of course, since most schools (and companies for that matter) haven't begun with a good license management system, they have no idea where their licenses are for most of their installed software.
In the future of course, we're all learning to be vigilant with our license tracking, but big companies and institutions have a much harder climb to get there. Meanwhile they get slammed periodically at a big cost.
Of course, if all of your software is open source, and you pay even modest attention to the licenses of the apps, you can rest very easy.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
If I were a board member I wouldn't want any part of such an arrangement. And if I were an IT Admin or an instructor in such an institution I'd be outraged that such a thing would even be considered.
Decisions about what software are used in teaching and administrative tasks should be left to the people who actually use the software. Making sweeping decisions based on the whims of a wealthy patron is not in the best interests of any institution.
I think it'd be great for college students to use computers apart from Microsoft, but I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students.
What benefit to students is that, exactly?There's nothing to prevent the college from using open source or non-MS products wherever they want to, if they think it would benefit the students or the instutition as a whole.
It seems strange to me to completly remove all MS software from campus, because it is prevelent in the rest of the world, and students will most likely need to understand how to use it once they leave school.
On the same token, it seems like an excelent idea to bring in other platforms, truly teaching students about the varity of computing.
So, a grant that is supposed to be used for non-MS products seems like a great way to help students find out about alternative computing platforms, but to create an MS free zone I think would do the students an injustice.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Linux free, M$ expensiveblah blah blah. But it's not true.
First, what critical systems run under Windows? I work at a small liberal arts college. Our student registration and billing systems are Windows. There are no Unix versions of the software we use. Comparable Unix products cost, quite literally, millions of dollars. (Price Banner recently? Our IT director did: it's buy Banner or renovate the library.)
Oh, did I mention that we'd lose all the extensive customizations, support documentation and the like we've made to those products? Let's redo a few man-years of effort.
Then there's all the costs to switch the Windows software over to Unix. What various professors use *isn't* free. Rebuying SPSS alone would run a small fortune. Forget all the econometrics programs the Econ folks have, the CAD programs, the quantum chemistry codes...
Of course, some software simply isn't available, period. I'd lose Chime, a great plug-in that I can do all sorts of neat chemistry tricks with. There is no comparable Unix program.
Next, you've probably got close to 1000 computer using staff and faculty on that campus. How much will it cost to retrain all of them? Oh, and finding secretaries and office workers that know StarOffice is damn hard. We can hire MS Office-knowing temps cheap.
At least double the size of the Help Desk, to handle the increased volume of calls. You're going to need a full-time person just to handle the inevitable complaints about losing formatting on all of those Word documents the profs get mailed.
Now, how many of your current IT staff can handle the changes to Linux? We've got some good network admins, server gurus and programmers here, but they're Windows folks. Do you fire those staff or switch them to Unix, where their 10+ years of experience is suddenly null?
It's not enough money. Not even close.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Many of the comments claim that is important for students to learn to use microsoft products.
Read the restrictions on the donation again. There is no restriction on students buying, using, or learning microsoft products. The restriction is on the University buying microsoft products.
Does the student really care what operating system the campus servers use? Do they really need IIS to serve the campus web pages?
This donation could save the University millions in the long run by helping it to get away from cost of Microsoft licenses. My university is considering moving away from Microsoft, and $2.4 million might be just enough to tip the balance. Tell your grandfather to give his donor my address if his university doesn't want the money.
Existing PC's wouldn't have to be converted right away. Still, you'd want to migrate to Linux to get experience with the alternatives. If you have tons of Word documents, you should start exporting them to RTF, and experimenting with using them on new software right away. You DO run into issues.
Let's say that you use the $800K/year for new hardware, and hardware is turned over every 3 years. That gives you $2.4 million for your total hardware budget. For 7000 students, that's $342 per student. That's a pretty cheap system for each student. If you go with 4 years for hardware turnover (average) you get a much easier $457 per student. For that, you can get useable Linux systems from Walmart.
You might want to allocate some money to a few higher end systems. These would be put together from parts - which would save some money, get you exactly what you want, and still avoid the MS tax.
One outcome of this experiment would be a working cross platform word processing file format. That, IMO, would be worth the effort.
The price point might make you rethink individual systems. If they all have a network card, they don't all have to have CD drives or CD burners. These can be shared. A few might have scanners. They could all be used to back up each other's data. The network is the machine. This idea may make it hard to purchase Walmart systems, though.
-- Stephen.
Pros:
1) The university gets millions of dollars from an unnamed donor. A lot of the rougher parts of the transition could be smoothed over by this money. The other points will focus on the transition itself.
2) The university saves a bundle on licensing fees. This may be especially important since Microsoft is trying to move towards a subscription model.
3) While open source solutions aren't drop-in replacements for Microsoft products, the end user apps are similar enough to minimize the need for retraining. If someone knows their way around a Windows desktop, Gnome and KDE are pretty easy to grasp. The same goes for Office vs. OpenOffice and IE vs. Mozilla. With power users, its sometimes trickier, since they may have come to rely on certain obscure features.
4) With OSS, you don't need to rely on Microsoft for technical support. The fact is, Microsoft is the only company capable of adding features and fixing bugs in Microsoft products. So if you have a problem with those products, and MS isn't interested in fixing them, you're out of luck. Open source is more flexible in this regard.
5) A better CS program. If we assume that dropping MS will substantially increase the use of open source software, then it's very likely that CS students will have reasons to explore the code of the products they use every day. So they're being exposed to non-trivial implementations of structures, algorithms, software design decisions, and everything else that comes along with it.
I realize that Microsoft's "Shared Source Initiative" also allows some level of access to the code. But the barriers are much higher (NDAs), and the rewards are much lower (can't recompile, bugfix, or experiment).
Cons:
1) Ten years is a long time. You don't know what new products and services Microsoft will be coming out with over that time, or how useful they might be to the campus. Think about how the computing world has changed since 1993, and ask if the school really should be making such long term decisions about their IT infrastructure.
2) You lose the option to buy Microsoft products. By itself, this fact is too obvious to mention. But what are the ramifications?
3) You lose compatability with important Windows-only software (like certain CAD products). The university may be able to hobble along with the licenses they already own, but that's going to be more and more difficult.
4) People don't like change. Such a transition could make for an ugly political brawl.
[note: Five pros, four cons! Obviously, this means they should take it.]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Windows and Linux are just different. One is better than the other in different areas. For example, Windows has a great user interface and offers outstanding tools such as Excel, Word, Internet Explorer, etc. On the other hand, Linux has the ability to handle Internet related matter in a flexible way. Linux also allows developers to manipulate the way the operating system functions by simply editing text files. Only offering one operating system to students decreases their ability to learn two great systems. It's no different then capitalism. The success of capitalism is greatly due to the available options the consumer has to choose from. If we want American schools to produce dynamic, experienced graduates who can bring the best solutions to the work place, all mediums of education should be available.
If the university system is based on OSS then the students will be free to use whatever they like to connect to it. IE has no problems connecting to Apache, OE has no problems connecting to a *nix mail server.
If the college systems are based on MS software on the other hand... connecting to an Exchange or Notes server pretty much requires Windows if the university want to use all of the 'advanced' functions that are available to anyone in something like Horde.
As far as programming goes, again, work done in Ansi C or Java (or even C++) will be easily portable to Windows to run at home. Stuff done in Visual Basic or even C# is _not_ easily portable.
Students can log into the university boxes with PuTTy/Exeed if they like, can you log into a Windows terminal server box (easily/free/at all) from Linux? Yeah, right.
Universites should pick the most stards compliant, open systems they can (so, Linux, BSD, something else) when setting p their network so they can retain access for all, no matter what their client wants to learn. The £2.4 million will just help them get there faster in this case.
Beep beep.
Not allowing your students to know and understand the prevalant technology and forcing on them a poor substitute is short changing them.
Likewise, not allowing your students to learn to operate a computer and its applications (as opposed to learning to operate Windows and Office), is an equal disservice. People must be taught concepts, not products, or we'll have a generation of grads who panic and break out into a cold sweat when they don't see a Start menu on the screen.
Teaching only what is prevalent is a pretty brain-dead way to approach education. Do medical schools only teach how to treat the most prevalent ailments? Do you ever hear, "Hey, sorry I can't help you with that hemophilia, but you come back when you need stitches or a broken bone set!"?
Going out into the world ONLY knowing Microsoft stuff became a bad idea the day "Become an MCSE!" commercials started replacing "Learn to drive 18-wheelers!" commercials on daytime TV.
~Philly
I would be more apt to sympathize with the strings attached to this donation if it weren't so clearly going to dictate the educational doctrine of my school.
Am I missing the obvious?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
It just so happens I'm planning on setting up a non-MS campus of my own called "University of Me". I'm looking for donations to help out.
No sig for you!!
Congratulations. In your haste to advocate open source, you have just prevented them from using most of the best software in the world. Well done.
God damn, I hate "Use open source, just because" posts.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Ever wonder why some universities have money to build new sports stadiums and swimming pools, but no money to fix a broken dining hall? Or why a liberal-arts school might have a brand-new Science building while the library is about to crumble?
One reason is that too many donors are only willing to give money with strings attached. You want to build a Science building, so you ask the Keck or Broad foundation to give you money. No problem. You need to raise an extra 100K here, another 100K there for general maintenance and repair, and nobody wants to give.
If you're in the position to donate a significant amount of money to a university, please consider giving it with no strings attached. I understand that sometimes it's nice to have your name on a building, but don't forget about all of the programs that get neglected because all of the school's money is already earmarked for other projects.
Doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen.
I've read many statements saying that students should be prepared for the real world, and for using Microsoft products. I've also seen discussion that CS students should be tought concepts and not just languages and libraries.
Now, put these two ideas together. Using OpenOffice is very similar to using Microsoft Office. A student who graduates knowing how to use either one should be able to quickly learn the differences between them and master the alternative once they are in the work place. It is not only CS students that should be tought concepts and not just specifics.
The other thing, that many have pointed out is that the change need not be immediate. Perhaps a frank discussion with the man donating the money could point out to him that for certain applications, it isn't possible to switch over to non-Microsoft programs. Perhaps until other alternatives become a feasible option (as determined, say, by the admins and perhaps *gritting teeth* a board as designated by the school administration), Microsoft products could be purchased for this usage.
Personally, I'd say that much of this depends on the composition of the school, and the type of school. Many previous posts have simply ASSUMED that the school is only a CS school, or ASSUMED that the school isn't... I think one person even kindly ASSUMED that there's graduate students after it was stated this is an undergraduate only school. Without further details, it is fairly hard to offer any specific insight. Since you have a month, perhaps you could get some more details down, including the financial state of the school, the predominant majors, and other appropriate factors (current budget might be a notable factor), and then bounce if off Slashdotters again.
Anyone giving advice with only partial details is bound to be giving at least partially flawed advice.
"If God's on our side, he'll stop the next war." -- Bob Dylan
Your grandfather should look into MIT's implementation of information systems. There is virtually no reliance on MS yet complete choice for students. The IS implementation at MIT is really a beautiful thing. Too often schools fail to seek best practices before diving into new projects.
I have few years of commercial Windows coding experience and probably half as much of *nix one and I've gotta tell you that different APIs is not the biggest obstacle (and IDEs certainly are even the lesser one). It's more of the general practices issue. On Windows due to its closedness and incomplete documentation, the developer is haunted by a constant feeling of uncertainty. From simple things like an API call suddenly falling on patched version of WinNT to a methods declared as BOOL something() returing anything but 0 and 1.
:)
Dont get me wrong - it's perfectly fine to have bugs in any code, including the OS, but the inability to fully investigate the problem forces developer to stay as independent from the system API as possible and be constantly ready for the weirdest induced f*ckups possible. Sure, there are tons of people who write the code tightly coupled with Windows, but with this often means creating a lot of work for support and deployment departments.
My general impression is that a good (as in "geeky professional") windows developer does not have much trouble moving to the *nix, while the move in the opposite direction is quite likely to be painful. Scroll the this very thread and see what I'm talking about - *nixoids complaining about Windows, and not the other way around
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Try explaining to a non-geek how to use basic multimedia, dialup or broadband internet or email in Windows, and you'll very, very quickly reach the same problems.
Windows will never be suitable for the average desktop user, because to install it they have to know about things like partitioning hard disks, and formatting and stuff. It's too hard for the average non-geek to understand how to install Windows. Guess what though? It doesn't matter. Non-geeks *don't* install Windows, just as non-geeks don't install Linux. They use it, and it works. It took my incredibly non-techie mother something like 30 minutes to realise she wasn't using Windows when she came round to my house. Didn't stop her using Galeon though.
Much and all as I'd encourage universities to switch to open source solutions and dump expensive Microsoft ones as quickly and as much as possible, I suspect that there are areas where that just can't happen...yet.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Well, I guess this will probably send you into an apoplectic fit but please understand that that is not my intent.
I would advise this student to recommend to his/her grandfather to actually go one step further and deploy free software for the university but I won't support my reasoning with a "just because" argument.
In an educational environment, students should not only be able to learn from source code, but they should be encouraged to play with it, modify it, and be able to give the product of their endeavors away. That way, their modifications can played with, modified, and shared by others to the benefit of everyone. Everyone has the opportunity to scrutinize, modify, and (most importantly) share with everyone else. I find it hard to imagine an environment more conducive to the sharing of information...aka education.
While I believe that promoting free software primarily on the campus is a worthy goal, I do not think that prohibiting the teaching or usage of alternatives should be prohibited (even if the maker of the software is Microsoft). As others have noted, there is some great software that is not free or even open-source. Much can be learned from this software so it should not be banned completely. But beware the effects of embrace-and-extend business practices.
The primary goal of any learning institution should be to teach its students. The instructors can not do that if their hands are tied by political or philosophical agendas. I recommend encouraging free software for its open nature and the ability to share (especially for the CS majors), but don't lock anything out unilaterally...especially for the faculty. As anathema as it might be to say here on
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
How about, instead of banning MS software, this person offers to subsidize faculty/staff/student purchases for non-MS licenses.
... just an idea. Don't lock MS out, just make it more attractive to NOT use them.
Buy a Mac, get 20% subsidized. Buy a software license for something that directly competes with an MS app or license and have his fund kick in some money.
This would certainly work for Unix boxes.. but maybe you could even offer discounts for x86 boxes that were preinstalled with Linux.. if the faculty/staff/student signs a contract to NOT install an MS product on it.
This person could even kick in money to make an open-office package the standard for the university. $500K for training and deployment of an opensource office suite.. plus the licensing money they'd save!
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
When I was in school, I did all my English papers in LateX. Probably overkill, but there is nothing like compiling your paper before printing it out!
Georgia Tech's CS department seems to be about equally divided into two camps, MS and *NIX, with a small fringe element going to Macs. Now, most of the students I deal with seem to love using the *NIX systems, and the main undergrad CS cluster dual boots RH7.3 and Win2k, each box spending most of its time in RH. The ultrasparc solaris workstations see a lot of use, too. Some of the early-on required CS courses teach the use of gcc, lint (proprietary but TASTY!), dbx (I like it better than gdb simply because gdb doesn't handle threads very well), and some other linux/solaris tools.
:) Most of them panic the moment they see a non-windows machine they're forced to use. Maybe they'll like OS X.
However, the curriculum for some required courses still focuses or uses in some integral manner proprietary utilities from Microsoft. Additionally, MS has launched this MSDN:Academic Alliance program, whereby CS students at GT (and presumably at other schools) can download and use for free just about any MS recent software that exists, be it application, development tool, or operating system altogether. Are these MS tools better or easier to use than their free counterparts? Not in my experience. gcc is still the best compiler out there, IMHO, and nothing beats eclipse for java. poseidon/dia make great visio replacements (for UML purposes at least), OpenOffice does everything I need for office functionality. Savvy students have no problem doing without a windows-based environment/curriculum at GT.
The problem is when you bring non-CS students into the picture
I dislike Microsoft intensely - I think they are a great negative force in the software industry and have done much to crush innovation in the desktop PC platform.
BUT I think any university that considers taking a grant like this is making a mistake. University policies should be based on intellectual and academic goals, not who has the bucks to buy them off. It is repugnant in the worst way.
How about changing the restriction on the donation to this:
The university may spend the money only on non-Microsoft computer goods and services. That includes no computers with Microsoft software pre-loaded, or Microsoft licenses to run on blank computers.
This would not restrict choice - Microsoft wouldn't be banned from the campus - but it would put other options (Mac, Linux, etc. etc) in front of the student and faculty.
I think it really depends on the type of school
if it is a IT/tech type of school go for it as these students would probably love to have Linux on the desktop
if it is a business/marketing/teaching.... (Basically anything other than IT/tech/science) then I would stay with MS because these people just don't care about the OS, they just want to get the job done on a system that they are familiar with. Given that MS in on 90%+ of the desktops out there then the OS they are familiar with is most probably MS.
also consider the hidden costs like
It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
But the terms are unacceptable. The College has a mission that unfortunately has to include Microsoft products. Until there are better apps, they need to know Microsoft. There are ads for MCSE's and others related to Microsoft. Microsoft is the standard as much as you'd hate it. Tell the alum that they will try to expand into other products such as Linux and Unix, but due to mission of the College they could not guarantee that it would never be spent on Microsoft products.
Gorkman
Most people go to college to get a degree, to get a career to make a living. That is a real-world answer if you ask a college student. This is the way I felt when I went to school.
During my time in a small school's CompSci program, I was exposed to many different programming environments, including Windows and a very young Linux (at the time).
I think it would have been profoundly wrong to deny myself and my peers (other students) the ability to use M$ stuff in college. One of the major recruiters on campus was MicroSquish. A lot of my friends got jobs with them, or programming in a Windows environment for someone else. I also know people working in Sun, AIX, HP-UX, Mac and Linux environments. However, the majority of programmers I know from college are on M$ in some fashion or another for their daily work lives.
While I admire the spirit of the donation in question, I think it would be detrimental to not allow the individual student the choice to take advantage of all career paths available.
Use the money to promote Linux, but don't blackmail the school by doing it. Maybe insist that none of the money can be used to by machines that will ever run M$, or M$ software. But don't take the freedom of choice away from kids trying to get a job in a tough economy.
That is from a purely CompSci perspective.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
My mother was an educator, and this was one of her favorite sayings - - that the greatest gift you can give a student is an interest in continued learning. Learning how to learn is of the utmost importance. So, in the situation described here, one might put forward the idea that the potential for exploration through contact with Open Source software is inherently greater than that from working with restrictive, proprietary products. With Microsoft software, you have a tool. With Open Source software, you own a foundry.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Let me just present my own situation. I go to a college of 12,000+ and we have many computer clusters. Most are split between PC's and Mac's. The Mac's are used, but few use them willingly. It's mostly because the Pc's are always busy, so someone jumps on a MAc until a Pc opens up. We are presented with a choice between MAC and PCS, and I routintely see half a cluster comprised of unused MACs, simply to be fair and have a 50/50 ratio.
Inversely, our CS department is solely comprised of Linux and Linux programming. Everything is done in the console, and all programs are compiled with gcc. The result is that my roommate who's a CS senior with a high GPA is completely inept in Windows. I'm a business major, when he asks me for help routinely. While some will say that maybe he's dumb, the truth is that he doesn't play with computers in his free time, most of his work is done for school. Therefore, he has minimal Windows knowledge for his own computer in the apartment, and when presented with a problem is completely lost. I once asked him to create a "Hello World" program for Windows, and after 30 minutes he gave up, despite having Visual Studio at his disposal. His entire class and department has the same issues, because he's been taught in a Slashdot-type of community. His teachers routinely make fun of MS and all their tools, and refuse to use them. They have a vague premonition that their punishing MS and making a statement, but the only ones being hurt are the students. I left the CS department for these reasons, as did many others, being an overly passionate Linux junky is unfair to students dependant on the leadership of thier teachers. There's something to be said about intuitive OS and software.
who thinks this might be a less than subtle attempt to get Microsoft's team of crack PR monkeys to come swooping in scattering a few million dollars worth of licenses about the place? or am I just getting cynical...
One thing I've espoused for quite some time is to standardise on a technology, not an implementation. For example, rather than using MS Exchange, standardise on SMTP and IMAP. Rather than standardising on Mozilla, make sure all of your web apps produce valid HTML. This allows you to easily swap out one server package for another if you need to and allows people to choose their own clients (though you could always enforce specific clients for support reasons).
Now, certainly this is not always possible in all cases. There isn't, afaik, a standard for spreadsheet documents for example.
It seems to me that if more companies took this approach, they'd be better off. Email server overloaded? Add an additional server or swap it out for other software that scales better. The end-users don't even need to know.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
my point is you have to take the big picture when making a choice.
.DOC files, it's not the main criteria that they be smaller.
There is no objective "best tool" in general, there are a lot of criteria and the "best tool" depends directly on their relative priority.
Using OSS at any cost is akin to using democracy at any cost, that is, the freedom as a software engineer to see the code and have standard tools IS a part of the goal of that sort of attitude.
How fast the process runs, or every little feature are important in niche areas, but in other areas it doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter if Word dumps out big bloated
So when talking about freedom in a software context there is a goal there to preserve ones flexibility. One can get there by ussing OSS tools, but not by using closed tools.
It's perfectly sensible to consider the criteria of [insert type of freedom here] as weighing more heavily than [insert type of engineering constraint here].
And a good example of where most people make exactly that kind of judgement is prefering messy out of control democracy to clean and orderly totalitarianism. So that's the example I used, although the real issue is a simple matter of the logistics of decision making.
-pyrrho
Ok, maybe my mind is on hydrogen cars because of the recent article, maybe it's because I always compare computers to cars, but basically, this will look the same to many people as stating that you cannot drive a gasoline-powered car if you attend this University.
What does restricting your car choice have to do with education? Absolutley nothing! What does restricting your vendor choice have to do with education? Absolutley nothing! While I dislike Microsoft as much as any of you (I am currently unemployed, despite knowing I could get hired by MS if I wanted that), how stupid does this make the University look? You can only decide that something sucks if you actually get to see what it is. Remember how much we laugh at those religious organizations that boycott movies without actually seeing them? Censorship is bad, mkay?
What I would propose to the donor is that the University use their money to use for the purchase of Microsoft-free technology: Linux, Mac, Solaris, whatever. These purchases would not affect the normal purchasing of such systems, so that if they were going to spend $1 Million on linux boxes, this year they'll now be spending $3.4 million. And since Linux is largely free / low-cost, those millions can go quite a way.
Often what is needed in a situation like this is a beach head... if the board sees that they can get 10 Linux boxes for the price of one MS-equiped box, and that people aren't seeing any other major differences, which do you think they'll buy in the future?
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
As has been proven by every impartial study done (those funded by MS don't count), the TCO of a GNU/Linux system is just cheaper than that of a Windows system. I won't go into all of the reasons, but will list a few:
1. Upgrades are free ($).
2. Initial acquirement is free ($).
3. Support can be purchased on a competitive basis among competing companies, thus producing superior support. How many times have you called up inept technical support guys who obviously don't know what the fuck they're talking about, can't speak English, know less about the system than you do, and are obviously reading from a TO-DO cookbook, which ends in "if all else fails, tell them to wipe the hard-drive and reinstall everything"? The simple fact is, there's a reasonable solution for the vast majority of problems you run into, which doesn't involve reinstalling everything from scratch.
Call up a windows support guy and complain that your computer won't start up due to a corrupted IO.sys file. What will he tell you? He'll take you through the usual motions, and then -- invariably -- tell you there's nothing else you can do, back up your data, and reinstall the OS (conveniently ignoring the fact that it's difficult if not impossible to back up one's data when one can only boot into DOS and has no access to the CD-writer). He will tell you this despite the fact that there is a much simpler solution, which is simply to replace the corrupt IO.sys file with a valid working one. Why can't he tell you that, or send you the file that would allow you to do that? Because the technical support contract doesn't support that. Don't like your technical support contract options? Too fucking bad, there's no alternative.
Not so with GNU/Linux. First of all, such problems are rarely encountered, even in the rare case where a power failure occurs, due to journaling file-systems. Secondly, technical support can be purchased at a competitive price -- which means, ultimately, cheaper for you if you section out the tech-support aspect of your bill from a proprietary vendor. It also means better service.
GNU/Linux also provides the benefit of being able to run on much older hardware than does Windows, allowing the university to upgrade their hardware less frequently. Microsoft apparently thinks that it needs to provide hardware developers with motivation to produce better hardware by continually increasing requirements that it's software need to run acceptably. Though this is true with regards to some modern bloat-ware in GNU/Linux, there are always non-bloatware alternatives which are usually just as functional, if not more so. KDE and GNOME can be replaced with the lighter Xfce. The bloated WM's that come with them can be replaced by the streamlined and elegant WindowMaker.
Let's not forget some of the obvious benefits. Universities are big organizations, which can afford to fix their own problems if given the means. Because GNU/Linux uses FS and OSS software, universities can fix their own problems. Indeed, they need not even pay for the solution -- they can simply throw a problem at CS students to solve, making it a mandatory part of the course.
Let's not pretend that the university would be denying students choice by not buying MS products. These students could use whatever they want on their own computers. Exposing them to Linux at the libraries and other public areas would expose them to an operating system which is more likely than not the direction of the future. MS may be the dominant force, but it has no-where to go but down, and it's insistence on making crappy products, illegally using it's monopoly power, and depriving consumers of their rights will certainly accelerate its downfall. On the contrary, GNU/Linux is gaining more and more support. It is growing extremely quickly, and is a fertile ground for new ideas and innovation.
Finally, exposing students to Linux exposes them to the way computer's really work. Linux -- though it now has easy-to-use inte
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
My university signed this thing with microsoft called 'Campus Agreement'. Basically it means they get MS software really cheap, almost free for the students, but tha catch is that this "Agreement" is exclusive. They're not allowed to work other similar liceses. This results classes about VB programming, where there used to be C++ and Pascal courses. This happened after I graduated, so I did enyoy learning a lot of different languages, but now, that's a thing of the past, thanks (again) to MS (or should I say M$?) As for my favorite language, C/C++, they could be using one of Borland's tools (C++ Builder, Kylix), but as a product of the agreement, they're stuck with the very inferior Visual C++.
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
Given that this is not considered "a lot of money" why not instead see if you can come to a compromise. Perhaps a figure less than 2.4 million, to promise not to buy/renew any Microsoft new contracts for 7 years with a 100% refund clause on any significant violation.
7 years is an eternity for the computer industry -- if Linux cannot be able to hold its own accross the board in 7 years, then there's little point. It gives the school two possible outs -- forfeiture or just wait out the 7 year time limit before returning to MS.
I currently am a student worker in my University's ITS dept. To give you an idea about what kind of university, out of many many thousands, we're #31 (with whatever rating scheme is used). Frankly, only 2-3 people who work here in ITS are computer science majors. Most of the people are just savvy users that can learn a new app in a day instead of a year. This lends one to think that a changeover would be just a weeks worth or so of new-learning for ITS staff, but that's not true.
On the various computer classroom computers, there are at least 10 pieces of windows-only software that professors use to teach classes, and some professors (not the CS dept. interestingly enough) write their own apps for their classes.
I don't mean to speculate on whether a complete switch over would be a Good Thing (even though I think the end result would be worth it, at least in the sciences), just to show that the dependency on whatever system is in place is often rather strong.
Also, there is some handi-capped accessible software that is installed on some of the computers that we are required by law to provide, and it happens to be windows-only. (It's called ZoomText, and it's use is rather self-explanatory).
Have your Grandfather go to RedHat and explain the situation. Tell the RedHat Executives that they need to supply the software & support for that time period. Then they (RedHat) can use this as a case study for other schools. Additionally, RedHat can use this promotionally.
syouell@realanswers.org
Speaking as a Pro-Linux Manager in a university environment, money talks....the trick here is to show savings that exceed the switching costs.
The hardest past is to put a price tag on "soft dollars". Some things need to be done to make it happen right.
Costs
1. CIS instructor retraining
Develop training and perform for 2,3,4 below
2. Faculty Retraining
Necessary to aid in 3,4 below
Will require new lesson plans or updates, screenshots, etc.
3. Staff Retraining
Trails 1 and 2 because it will take time to switch administrative systems.
4. Student Retraining
Happens by 2 above as part of normal classes
5. Alternative Package purchases
Recommendations:
1. There's some training out there already, including StarOffice training provided by Sun
2. Get IBM, Sun, and Oracle onboard to help plan, supply, and rollout. They will probably jump at the chance to move an entire university, as a model for other universities and businesses.
3. Sun has training (see #1 above) and trainers for staroffice that could do large on-site training.
4. IBM has trainers who can do large onsite training at a very nominal cost for large groups, get them to donate some and pay for the rest.
5. Oracle has training, administrative ERP packages aimed at university management, etc. as well as Linux training and Support.
6.Ask Alumn for time frame for switching....you're looking at a 2-3 year project for the administrative systems, unless you get IBM/Sun/Oracle to supply a small army of consultants, trainers, etc.
7. Try to put a number on "soft dollars" i.e. "Look how much time and personnel costs we can save by moving to reliable, managable servers and desktops..."
8. Discuss the future of IT and business, desktop, and home users. MS may be in use today, but that's chainging faster than most MS fans would like to admit. People are hiring Linux users NOW...
Also, contrary to popular MS fan beliefs...Linux users can run MS with a minimum of trouble...
The reverse is not as true.
These funds do not just go for people getting CS degrees. Computer labs, art departments, secretaries, on and on. And i will tell you this, unless someone is in to computers, and youve all seen it, they are completly programmed for MS computing. At a web cafe, i recently added a linux machine, and the first customer to use it came up to the counter and said the computer was broken. Well i got the call, and it turns out he didnt see the IE icon on the desktop and could get no further. THIS is the problem, and id wager even people with a masters in some non computer related field do the same thing.
Why does this happen? Because people become homoginized on MS software, and dont REALLY learn how to use a computer. I made a web kiosk with only mozilla. It took a few tries, as people would fight tooth and nail to not use mozilla. The point of this, is the average user is brainwashed.
So, money aside, i think the point of this "gift" is to force people, no matter how they will use it, to learn the computer beyond the microsoft microcosm. To learn there IS a world w/o MS, you CAN use mozilla, etc. You are only doing students a diservice by having a computing platform where they dont have to think (since they all "know" how to use it already) and wont know wht to do if presented with anythign outside the teeny scope of that.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that old hardware is staying useable longer and longer. A 1ghz PC will IMHO do everytyhing you could do day to day 10 years from now. You could make all of these dual boot, and do a slow changeover from your current licenses.
I say go for it, change the face of university computing, be a pioneer. This is like a free ride to try something new.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
and your grandfather for having the tenacity to take this to the board of trustees. Microsoft is guilty of violating federal statutes relating to conduct of free trade in capitalist markets. Given these circumstances, it is my view that no public funds derived from government grants or other taxpayer sources, or from private donors should be used to support the extension of Microsoft's criminal activity, especially in academic institutions. As long as alternatives exist it is important to use them to curb continued abuse and proprietary extension by Microsoft. Academics have traditionally paved the way in such anti-monopolist movements and should continue to do so.
I posted the previous comment hoping to remind you that "Programming" is creating a program, NOT typing up an implementation on a particular computer language in a particular computing platform.
It doesn't matter if it's in your head, in paper, in a screen or in memory. It doesn't matter if it's expressed as a set of graphs, diagrams, mathematical symbols and numbers, strings of text in C/Java/COBOL/English, binary numbers that represent machine code, mechanical or electric operations....
A program is an algorithm is computation is symbol-manipulation is a program.
I see that I failed.
AI starts with an implicit question: "Is Intelligence Computation?"
For which it gives an implicit answer: "Yes".
All inquiries on the nature of intelligence after that have to do with which kinds of computation are we talking about.
Sure, this will inevitably lead to psychology, philosophy, and an area of knowledge and education that most engineers and scientists don't know as well as they should.
But don't forget that you're asking about Intelligence, to begin with, because you're studying/working on ARTIFICIAL Intelligence, which means you have a goal, "to simulate/replicate/create intelligence", and a fundamental method/metaphor to use, Computation. Philosophers study intelligence from a different POV.
Define "virtually anything else".
When I learned design, I learned all the methods you mention to achieve specifically two things necessary to solve problems: model knowledge (represent data), and model processes (represent algorithms).
That is computation.
Yes, you do the same thing in other fields of engineering. Yes, we can always learn more from their techniques. But what they're doing in that case is also computation, which is programming in the strict sense.
Computation is a very very VERY general concept. That's the reason we can even dare to talk about AI in CS and imply that cognitive process are basically computation (as Turing believed) or at least largely defined by computation.
That's the whole reason we invented a fundamental science (not engineering) to deal with the subject.
Yes, testing can be applied to other subjects. So can writing. And reading. And the ability to count. And they're all useful out of context.
But the reason CS people learn about testing instead of political science (also useful to understand) is because they need the first in order to test programs, not the second.
Yes, the rigours of math. The ability to know, when given a program, exactly what it does.
Except that this only applies to software, math, and formal languages which are... yep, symbol manipulation == computation.
You learn this to compute.
Of course.
Coding is literally writing code, and is to Programming what laying bricks is to civil engineering and architecture.
If you spend more than 10% of your "programming" time typing the code, even
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
It took my incredibly non-techie mother something like 30 minutes to realise she wasn't using Windows.
Do you have a blue desktop picture that says; "Page fault in kernel32.dll"?
When I worked for a major New Jersey located Ivy League university's (to be left unnamed) Computer Science department, they received a multi-year grant from Microsoft which consisted of several hundred computers, supplied by Dell, with Windows NT/2000 on them.
The grant was written in such a was as to say that the Windows operating system MUST remain on the machine. If the machine were to be reloaded, it MUST be a Windows operating system. If the systems were found to have another operating system installed, the contract would be in violation and Microsoft would have the ability to take back all of the grant equipment and cancel the grant entirely.
That contract put the fear of god in the entire departmental management. And, as expected, Microsoft did do periodic audits.
Because the University environment (a very unique environment, indeed) lives heavily off of grants, their decisions are swayed yearly by who gives what and how much. For example, the server infrastructure, which was heavily UNIX based for good reason, swayed from DEC Alpha systems to HP-UX to SUN Solaris in a very short span of time. It continues to be SUN based because of the continued grants year-to-year from SUN to maintain their footprint.
Students really do not have choice when it comes down to it (did they ever? C'mon.. students are always treated like second class citizens anyhow!). What the student uses is defined by the University, and, subsequently, the professors teaching the courses. It is the professors who have to adapt to the changing environment defined by the "upper management".
Could an all-non Microsoft environment be done? Sure, anything can be done. Is it cost effective? Probably not (and that pains me) since Microsoft's pockets are much deeper.. They can easily do the 'payoff' since they can shovel more money the way of the University.
This college could be an excellent test bed for what may take many years to happen anywhere else. The college could offer a computing lab where there are empty desks setup with high speed internet connections where they could hook up their laptops. The school would not be buying microsoft products but still provide a means by which it could be used. This would be a gret learning experience for the rest of the world. I hope they go through with it. The school has to take into account what an average computer user is like. They would have to use KDE or gnome and format it in a very windows-like manner to ease transition and use for most users.
If I understand this correctly, then the students are allowed to look at the NT source code. But aren't they now "contaminated" by exposure? They now cannot work on any other project without Microsoft screaming bloody murder about them taking knowledge of their oh-so-important OS with them.
The obvious immediate advice to your grandfather would be to question the board if the ever continuing and increasing amount of money they spend on mandatory upgrades to the OS of each computer will eventually out way the one time cost of changing over to another less costly OS. The same point goes for office and collaboration software from the software giant - and emphasise the point that if the software and OS's aren't upgraded (ie., expensive upgrades and service contracts renewed), support will be discontinued!
Financial considerations aside, what about the educational value of teaching students that there are other functionally usable software platforms besides MS and Apple? And, does the board really want to have a commercial, monopolistic company dictate how they are allowed to use their computing resources, what software they are allowed to run to accomplish any given task? Also remind them that not only does MS do this at the OS level, but are diligently pushing forward at the harware level with the same idea - that they can dictate what software is "trusted" and allowed to be run on the system. Does the board really want MS to tell them that they can only use MS software when another brand might do the job better and for less?
Just some food for thought about what "higher education" should provide or be subject to... Tell him to tell the board to chew on those ideas!
Any donation that restricts what tools the school can offer students is a bad idea. If MS offered a bunch of money to a school (and they probably have) with the condition that no macs can be purchased and no linux boxes are allowed, people would be up in arms. This is no different, and should be avoided such that students who want to use MS products are afforded the opportunity.
Vote for Pedro