A Monocultural Alternative: TheOpenCD

GooseLiverPate writes "Computers and Composition Online has an article by Dr. Paul Cesarini concerning the risks of a Microsoft monoculture in education. He describes the relation between Open Source and Microsoft as: "one of gnats swarming around a large, slow-moving beast." and emphasises the lack of innovation in Internet Explorer and MS-Office. He suggests TheOpenCD as a possible bridge for schools and universities to Open Source, and includes a review of the newly released version 1.2."

Comments

Schools not the best candidates for change

[shystershep]

In advocating resistance to the Microsoft "monoculture" in schools, Cesarini is aiming at the wrong target. Public schools will probably be the very last to "resist" and switch from Microsoft. The "widespread budgetary woes" and "ever-increasing licensing fees" don't effect them. Microsoft gives its products to schools for free or at a steep discount, and is more and more likely to do so the more viable the competition becomes. I don't have any hard data, but I imagine that a transition to Open Source would be more expensive for most schools than hanging on to the goodies from Redmond. And if anybody wonders why MS is so generous to schools, it's not because Bill is such a swell guy - if kids spend their school careers using Windows, Office, Outlook, Exploer . . . well, the first one's always free, right?

Re:Schools not the best candidates for change

[jc42]

...basically schools used to use only Macs and clung to them until recently when they started switching to PCs.

When true, this is rather damning for a school.

Schools exist to educate their students, after all. A "black box" system whose inner workings aren't available to students would be the last thing you'd expect a school to use. It would be proof that the school isn't interested in teaching their students to understand the computers.

It used to be that the Mac was the most extreme black-box computer, with "no user-servicable parts". But Macs have been converted to a unix base in recent years. Not just unix, but a rather open and accessible version of unix. So the Mac has gone from being useless for education to being one of the best.

If a school reacts to this by switching from Macs to MS systems, it is clear proof that they don't want their students to become knowledgable about computers. If they were truly trying to educate, why would they switch to what is now the most closed system on the market?

This would be much like, say, a school offering driver's ed, but not auto shop. Or if they had auto shop, not allowing the students to open the hood and start taking a car apart.

People with kids in school should investigate, and if your school system is using closed, proprietary computers, you should complain loudly. Keeping the students ignorant of how computers work (hardware or software) is not a good way to prepare them for the world that is coming.

Re:Schools not the best candidates for change

[deacent]

Schools exist to educate their students, after all. A "black box" system whose inner workings aren't available to students would be the last thing you'd expect a school to use. It would be proof that the school isn't interested in teaching their students to understand the computers.

In many cases, this is exactly the point. Schools switched to using MS because "everybody knows that's what's used in the real world". Never mind that it probably bears little resemblance to what will be used in the real world when that kid graduates from school. Many schools are not thinking about teaching IT to the majority of their students. They're thinking of teaching them word processing, spreadsheet, and research skills. These skills are really platform agnostic, but that's not generally recognized.

A lot of schools used to use Apples (not just Macs, but Apple IIs as well) because Apple gave enormous discounts to the educational sector. There was a point in time in the dark years when it started to become a foregone conclusion in some people's minds that Apple would be out of business soon, so you might as well get with the winner. Sadly, I think this had the effect of driving up the long term costs to maintain their tech which they're still paying for today. Like business, they have simply accepted that IT has to be expensive, but it's a necessary evil to stay competitive.

Re:Schools not the best candidates for change

[jc42]

Sadly, I think this had the effect of driving up the long term costs to maintain their tech which they're still paying for today. Like business, they have simply accepted that IT has to be expensive, but it's a necessary evil to stay competitive.

You're probably right. But they may well be wrong. After all, this was the same reasoning that, back in the 1970's and early 1980's, led many schools to install IBM equipment. Those schools then found themselves paying exorbitantly to stay in what turned out to be a backwater. The future was in desktop machines, not mainframes.

It's risky trying to be a prophet, but there's a good chance that schools using this reasoning will find themselves in a similar situation. As with biology, the computing future has pretty much always belonged to the small, agile beasts. The big and powerful might look dominant, but they eventually lose out to the little guys. Some of those little guys evolve to big, powerful beasts, and then the pattern repeats.

A school that wants its students to be winners should always bet on the smallest, most versatile computers. This especially means computers which are programmable by individuals, not by huge IT departments. This should be easy, because these are usually the cheapest computers. But this probably won't happen in many schools.

But there's an ongoing question of how much actual education most of our schools are really interested in. There's a lot of evidence to support the theory that schools' basic function is socialization, and education is mostly a side effect. One of the better pieces of evidence is the widespread use of closed, proprietary computer systems, which don't qualify as "educational" except in the most minimal sense.

Oh, well; computer education has always been mostly at the college (and trade school) level. Very few high-school graduates have ever been able to write even a "Hello, world" program in any language. But we've managed to turn out a small population of computer wizards anyway. Maybe it doesn't matter all that what the public schools do.

I disagree.

[H.G. Pennypacker]

Open source is about choice. People should be able to stay with Microsoft if they want to. Why does anyone still on Windows have to be pestered by a swarm of open source gnats about their choice of OS?

When I was in school...

[BagOBones]

They taught word processing, and how to use a spread sheet. It really didn't matter what system it was on because the schools never taught anything but the general concepts.

Innovation in office products? Don't you mean bloat.

Word already does over 100 things I don't need it to do when I am writing a paper. You think it needs more?

Not I.

[aaron_ds]

Most schools are immersed in a Windows monoculture.
My highschool was quite the opposite, Most of the computers ran MacOS, with a few running win98/xp, and none running any kind of open/free software.
It's great that a CD like this was made becasue people need to be given a chioce. However, I hope this doesn't become a war of dogmas (free/ proprietary). As nothing good can come of that.

Choose Windows?

[freeweed]

I'll play devil's advocate here:

Most (and by most, I mean pretty much 99.99%) Windows users do not use Windows because of choice.

They use it because it came with their computer. They've become familiar with it and figure it's the best there is, because "hey, it sells the most".

They use it because they've never heard of anything else. If they have heard, they're too scared to try. If they've tried it, they've gone back to Windows because there is no viable alternative for them.

They use it because their workplace makes them use it, and a surprising number of people take work home with them.

They use it because their ISP only supports it. Or their hardware only supports it. Or, little Jimmy down the street who is "good with computers" supports it, because he can click more efficiently than they can.

I think I've met maybe 5 people in my life who actually CHOOSE to use Windows, when presented with viable alternatives for what they do.

No one in the OSS movement (well, no one sane) advocates forcing people to get off of Windows. What they do advocate is educating users so that they CAN make a choice, which in most cases, is currently unavailable.

Re:Choose Windows?

[Kenja]

Your right, they dont advocate forcing people not to use Windows. They, like you, just claim that anyone using Windows must be being forced to do so and should be liberated. I choose to use Windows becuase (are you ready for this) it runs the software I want to use. Linux, BSD, Macintosh, Solaris, IRIX, BeOS, Palm etc do not. Yet I get Linux advocates telling me I should use Linux all the time. Dispite it not running the apps I want and in many cases dosn't have anything even close to what I need a computer to do.

Re:Choose Windows?

[Hermione Kestrel]

I'm a Gamer.

I choose Windows.

Re:Choose Windows?

[t0ny]

You say most people use Windows because they arent 'given' choices. I have dealt with TONS of users, and I have a quite different opinion- they use it because they have adequate skills using it, and because they dont CARE to know anything else.

Why should a doctor, lawyer, CEO, or even secretary have to learn all the ins and outs of a new OS? THEY DONT CARE!!! They are too concerned with being doctors, lawyers, CEOs, secretaries, etc. These people arent computer geeks, and for the most part they arent even the slightest bit interested in knowing how the OS works.

If it does what they need it to do, they are happy. They arent computer geeks, and they dont concern themselves with the fact that Linux can make their word processor work 10% faster than WinXP/OfficeXP. They know how to use it, and thats all they need.

Another point- every time I see one of those silly "d00d, I used WinXP for xxx days, and HAT3D IT!!!1111" articles that pop up here every so often, the first thing the (BSD, Linux, OSX, MacOS, etc) user starts whining about is how the interface isnt what they are used to using, the browser doesnt work the same, they dont have some custom app they are used to working with, etc. You know what? They are acting just like the doctor, lawyer, CEO, or secretary in my example above. They are complaining about the fact that WinXP doesnt function as the OS they are accustomed to using.

Anyway, as far as choice goes, people are free to use whatever OS they want. If they are so desperate to have an OSS OS on their machine, Gates isnt going to come to their house and bitch-slap them for installing it. Saying they dont have choice because it isnt a pre-install option is a weak, cop-out answer. Most people, given the choice, would just stick with what they already know. Which is, in the majority of cases, Windows.

Innovation lacking in Open Source as well

[cmorriss]

and emphasises the lack of innovation in Internet Explorer and MS-Office.

So often Microsoft is decried as unoriginal with all its products and with this I certainly agree. However, and I'm not trying to troll here, rarely have I seen Open Source software do anything but the same.

Most innovation comes from small closed source companies that have an idea and want to make some money off of it. Microsoft moves forward by either emulating these companies or buying them outright. Open Source software seems to move forward almost exclusively through emulating these innovative companies (Either directly or indirectly by emulating Microsoft).

Almost all open source software provides a piece of functionality already provided in closed source or non-"free as in beer" software

This all begs the question, why doesn't open source encourage more innovation? I really don't know why. Does anyone else have an answer to this?

The OpenCD for Closed Systems.

[mmcguigan]

gnuwin.org has not released a new CD in some time now. I'm glad to see a new CD like this from another group. I have not downloaded this CD yet and I'm sure they have spent a lot of time trying to package these programs up neatly for end-users. I love giving people choices in what software they can use, but why do all of these so called Open CD's that contain sofware for Closed Systems contain software that can only be found on that closed platform?

I really like FileZilla, but it is not based on Mozilla as one might think and it is not available on any platform other than a closed one. Once you get them hooked on this excellent FTP program, what do you say for yourself when the only reason they won't try another system is because their favorite FTP program is not available there?

Is this CD really open?

Re:IE and Office

[CommandNotFound]

What's painful about OpenOffice? If you want more fonts and clip art, buy StarOffice, which uses compatible file formats with OOo.

I thought using a computer...

[ErnstKompressor]

was the skill one had to learn, not pre-disposing kids to using MS software. The greatest fallacy I hear is how different 'other' OS's are from Windows...what a crock. Kids would be better served if they were taught word processing and spreadsheet skills independant of branding their skill-set as being profecient in 'MS Office.'

Hell, the majority of working-age adults cut their teeth on Apple II's, and they seemed to transition to Windows units without much trouble, so I think the 'wisdom' of teaching kids to use Windows is really just marketing spin and 'lock-in tactics.

Re:Joke?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Open office is a 3 year out of date copy of MS Office.
MS Office hasn't changed that much since Office 95! There *are* changes but since most people use Bold, Italic, select fonts, maybe insert pictures sometimes and save, email, print, any changes make little difference to most people.
[snip].. or don't want to pay for MS Office.
Seems like a good reason to me!

I'll say it again -- most people use a small number of features which OpenOffice more than caters for. So, yeah you *can* pay MS if you're charitable, but really OpenOffice does make a lot of sense.

Re:Try again...

[tshak]

On the contrary. If MS is giving away so much software to schools, and giving schools a _steep_ discount on their software, it's a slap in MS's face to be pirating their software in schools. I'd go after them too. If the school can't afford the software, don't pirate it, use a cheaper alternative. I have no problems if a school determines that Linux will work, I do have a problem when a school determines that MS is a better solution, and then pirates $10 copies of WinXP.

Consumers Choose Windows.

[tshak]

The seperation of an OS and a computer is ludacrious from a consumer standpoint. It's like seperating the OS of your cellphone and saying that the consumer did not "choose" the software/OS of the cellphone. The consumer chose Windows just as much as they chose the computer in which they purchased. You can purchase Apple computers, in which part of that choice is choosing OSX. What's different about the x86 hardware platform is that it's more open and therefore has many OS's that run on it, but that doesn't mean that a consumer needs to be aware of that.

The software, particularly the OS, is the interface to the consumer. That's a huge part of what they see when they go to make a purchase decision. The other factor is of course the hardware "specs" that they know little to nothing about (eg: p4 3.2Ghz, 1Gig RAM, etc.), but just make decisions based on "bigger is better". Nevertheless, you have to treat a computer as a whole product.

Finally, Windows95 was one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) _retail_ software launches in terms of sales, ever. So, people who already had computers made the choice to go spend an extra $90 to upgrade their machine.

Re:Consumers Choose Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but then you come to the next hurdle - MS punishing any company who tries to diversify into linux/x86 machines, and MS punishing any hardware OEM who releases specifications to linux developers.

practical obstacles

[bcrowell]

I've been trying hard to make open-source inroads at my own school, but the devil is in the details. Examples:

I teach physics lab courses, and would like my students to be able to use OSS to do their graphs. (E.g., it's a drag when they save their Excel file, take it home, and find out they can't read it with the older version of Excel they have at home.) Unfortunately, Open Office is missing some critical features, like the ability to fit a line to the data and find the slope of the line. (Or maybe the feature is there, but I couldn't find it.) There's other OSS that can find the slope, of course, but my students need something with a familiar-looking UI.

We have lab equipment that we interface to, and the software doesn't run on Linux.

I've tried using Samba to print on the shared laser printer from my desktop FreeBSD machine. Unfortunately, the postscript files I generate have a tendency to cause an error which stops the queue. My co-workers are not happy when that happens, so now I print at home, or, if I have to print at work, I transfer a PDF file to a Windows machine.

Our instructional computing staff is undermanned. They already administer two operating systems (Windows and MacOS). I can't really blame them for not wanting to administer three.

There is no critical mass of faculty members who want to use an open-source OS or open-source apps. The typical reaction is that Linux sounds hard to use. And you know what? They're kind of right. Try explaining to most people -- even the science geeks I work with -- about shared library conflicts, or explaining to them why cut and paste doesn't have consistent behavior.

Insight into a Linux User

[Dalcius]

Hey buddy, I'm really sorry for the Linux newbies who are still fawning over Linux, but don't lump us all up with the idiotic zealots. That's just as much of a logical fallacy as to say nobody uses Windows because they like it over all the other alternatives.

Any true Linux user is all about choice. That's what makes Linux great.

If Windows suits your needs, then so be it. That's great! I'm honestly happy for you. I wish Linux could provide that, maybe someone can help fill that need. It's the same thing I tell the folks I know: Linux isn't for some people.

If there is one piece of advice I can give anyone to understanding the rants of a Linux person, it's this:
Most Linux folks don't care what you use. They found a system that is elegant, suits their needs and let's them tweak things to their exact preferences. They found a system that is very in tune with the way they use a computer. And they want to share the gem that they found. This can start the rabid zealot rants, especially from a new Linux convert. I used to fall in this category; then I got over it, realized that not everyone will do best with Linux and moved on.

NOW, my biggest thing is education. It hurts to see someone down-talking Linux when they know little to nothing about it. I enjoy showing people Linux as most people don't know what it is -- maybe they'll enjoy it as I have. It's when people start spewing misinformation that I get mad.

This has been my experience. I sincerely hope that Linux folks can be a little less rabid and I hope that Windows users will be a little less defensive.

Cheers

Re:How is this different than Knoppix?

[toddestan]

Nor does Knoppix.

But I think I get the idea behind the CD. People are willing to try out free software. Many are not willing to give up Windows just yet though.

So give them a taste of what's out there via free software that runs on top of Windows. Once they get used to the idea and see how great the software is, then they will be more willing to take the plunge and switch to running Linux.

Microsoft easier in education that OSS

[master_p]

It's easier for a teacher armed with Windows to teach computers to small children than using Linux, because Windows have a more consistent GUI and the need for diving into the command line is less often.

On the other hand, children are like sponges, they learn much quicker, and it's far more likely to become experts in Linux rather than their teachers; something most teachers would like to avoid.

There are also economical reasons (i.e. MS giving away Windows and Office) for MS dominance.

So, I don't expect MS to be replaced with Linux anytime soon.

Re:Microsoft easier in education that OSS

[pandrijeczko]

>>Windows have a more consistent GUI and the need >>for diving into the command line is less often.

Please justify this statement. Linux has a large number of GUIs admittedly but those considered to be most "Windows-like" (i.e. that include a number of built-applications like text editors, email programs, etc.) are Gnome and KDE. Both desktop environments have application menus on a button in the bottom left of the screen, a taskbar to which windows are iconified, etc. Added to this, applications within each are compiled to specific Gnome or QT libraries giving a consistent "look and feel" to the applications.

I therefore do not see how the "consistent GUI" argument can be applied.

Also, I would be grateful if you would explain under what circumstances a standard user using Gnome or KDE might need to resort to the command line? The only time I can see this happening is that on some occasions it's necessary to run a "which" or a "find" to find the location of an application so as to create a shortcut icon to it on the desktop - hardly a great problem.

Also, try to perform network diagnostics on a Windows PC without having to resort to "ipconfig", "nslookup", "ping" or "tracert" on the command line.

My concern here is that you are a Windows-oriented user - that's fine, use what OS you are comfortable with and whatever applications you like using. However, please do not decry Linux until you have tried it to a much greater extent than you already clearly have done - you argument is based purely on supposition, not on fact.

Why do we continue to get Windows people who have never used Linux thinking they know all about Linux? If anything, the Linux people on Slashdot (including myself) are always well-informed about Windows also so can put up intelligent arguments - most Windows people use many of the same old tired arguments that they've read elsewhere on the Internet that frequently no longer apply to Linux due to its maturity now.