22,000 Indiana Students Using Linux Desktops

Anonymous writes "Indiana's Department of Education has moved 22,000 students onto Linux desktops, and it's looking like that's only going to accelerate with SLED 10, Linspire, and other distributions getting better."

Comments

One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[RuBLed]

When I RTFA, I noticed that yes, they are using one flavor of Linux now but what worries me is that they're "planning" to use more flavors in the future, ranging from Ubuntu to Freespire. I don't have anything against it but if it is under the state grant program, it should try to standarize on one or two flavors of Linux. I think they're getting too excited on this and not thinking of the small consequences when 22000+ students are divided into 10 or more Linux flavors. Although they said those are "future" plans, I really would like to see them standarize. (or it is just me that wants them to use Ubuntu, hehe...)

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[Denial93]

The various flavors aren't that different from each other, especially in the areas that (should) matter to students. As long as they all run OOo and Firefox, are free of spyware and WoW clients, and can talk to each other, little more will be required. A heterogenous Linux environment isn't the end of the world, nor an administration nightmare. This has the same reason as the switch in the first place: the OS matters less and less. (Of course it'd be all different with proprietary business software or groupware, but these aren't needed here.)

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[megaditto]

VMware??

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[sbrown123]

A good quote in the article states that they don't bring up Linux or open source with the students but keep the focus on the cirriculum. Thats good, and makes Microsofts job really, really hard when they want to undo this. As for the different distros you will notice that they point out that these are being implemented at a school by school basis. But why should that matter? They are using the OS to just be an OS and thats about all. They probably just want it to run a web browser and Open Office. I live in Indiana, and have several friends who teach in the school system, so I know from talking to them that the hardware is dated and just keeping Microsoft Windows running is a fulltime job on its own (patching, removing kids "tweaks", spyware removal, etc).

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[csubi]

I really don't think that would be of such a big problem - as soon as you get the hang of using any of the most popular distros, you're set to use most of the others (again, speaking about the popular ones like Fedora, Suse, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc).
    I started with Mandrake 9.2, suffered like hell for a few months, two years later I use Ubuntu at work and Gentoo ~x86 a home.
    So as long as they see something else than Windows, it will be a largely beneficial experience, making them learn more!

    Idealism apart, one should still assure that the workstations deployed fulfill a few criteria:
      1. have functional local networking capacity
              Samba works like charm
      2. network printing
              CUPS
      3. don't be distro package format limited when installing software
          what I mean: I often had problems with Mandrake 9.2 in such regard that the compile toolchain was broken - the distro of choice sould give you the capacity to compile anything from source. In such case, the sysadmin is not tearing his hair out when tryong o install something that is not in the correct .rpm/.deb/whatever format.

    And why standardize the Linux distro to be deployed? Let the kids choose which distro suits them best.After all, all these distros aim at the same thing : be a capable and functional desktop OS

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[ComputerizedYoga]

Let the kids choose which distro suits them best.

The kids aren't going to have any say in what distro gets chosen (which is fine, in my opinion). But each district's IT department will certainly have that degree of autonomy.

Incidentally, that's also the response to the fears of too many distros. It's not going to be the department of education (as in statewide) micromanaging things, doing OS installs and maintenance, etc. It's going to be the IT people in every individual district ... the people who've been trying to get by on freeware and the cheapest possible systems management solutions for ages.

Districts need to train, hire/fire people for the required skillsets, and will probably also have time to work out a way to come into line with the state's policy. That'd be my expectation anyway.

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[Chaffar]

I don't have anything against it but if it is under the state grant program, it should try to standarize on one or two flavors of Linux

Err, no. The "biodiversity" of Linux is one of its strong points, and one that is frequently brought up by supporters of OSS. If we start "standardizing", then all we are doing is replacing Windoze by 2 (or 3) different Linux distros. Better, but not the optimal solution.

Of all people, students should be the first to learn how to cope with new OSes (or distros) as they arise, to build fundamental computer skills instead of learning through the click here to do this approach.

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[BoberFett]

I guess I still don't understand. To most people, a computer is a tool. It's like a hammer. As long as it pounds in nails, it really doesn't matter if it's yellow, red, wood, plastic, it just doesn't make a difference.

Those of us who inhabit nerd havens such as /. seem to lose sight of the fact that most people simply don't care about computers enough to develop preferences. As long as it performs the task they want to achieve, it doesn't matter what's under the hood, so to speak.

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[clifyt]

"Err, no. The "biodiversity" of Linux is one of its strong points, and one that is frequently brought up by supporters of OSS."

It is until you have to support it.

I helped write / support a few packages that will be distributed for these students over the last few years. In the past, I could design a single install that worked for 99% of all the students. Now I have to worry about several installs. And whats on each? And will my software work on all of them?

Case in point, a friend called me in to help her with a DOE application that was running under Java. Worked on Redhat, but not Linspire. Worked on Mac and PC. Didn't work under any of the other linux desktops. Just figuring out where the fonts are stored on each of these was a pain (we needed specialized math symbols installed...next version I've told her to just use bitmaps instead). And then all the other crap involved in writing up instructions for folks to run this stuff. Some desktops required admin access to get it in...others could run perfectly as an ordinary user (as all Unix apps should).

Biodiversity is nice. Compatibility is another thing. Their is NO reason for a modern unix to decide I WANT THIS STUFF HERE BECAUSE I HAVE A PERSONAL PREFERENCE. I thought that was the idea of the whole Linux Standard Distribution -- or whatever they were calling it.

All in all, until the Linux Desktop companies get their eff'n heads out of their asses, biodiversity is not a good thing. I don't care if they decide to tweak things differently or have different versions of installed software or different desktop management schemes so long as the applications work the same and an administrator that is reasonably trained on one can install software on another machine.

"Of all people, students should be the first to learn how to cope with new OSes (or distros) as they arise, to build fundamental computer skills instead of learning through the click here to do this approach."

I'm all fine with this -- just don't make it hard on the guys on the back end.

Thats my rant for today...

Re:One or two Linux "flavors" are not enough?

[Chandon Seldon]

Students who have to 'see' the graph on a screen, rotating in three dimensions, are always going to struggle with the subject.

It's better that they struggle and understand then never understand at all.

I'm pretty good with math (3 semesters of college calculus so far - still having fun), but some of the stuff is just easier to see visually. In fact, a lot of time in my classes has been spent with the professor drawing really bad diagrams on a blackboard.

The thing that's key about computer graphs is that you can vary the parameters and see the results immediately. "What happens if I make 'A' negitive?" Once you've experimented yourself and visually seen the result, you have a much better chance of remembering it later.

Stigma

[treak007]

Using Linux in colleges provides two benefits. First, colleges can provide very powerful applications such as blender, bluefish, etc to college students without the cost involved. Secondly, if these students, after using Linux in college, begin to realize the stigmas about Linux are wrong, they are more likely to use the distributions on their own, if at least to run the software they are used to using, thus expanding the OSS community.

Can someone explain to me the Relevance

[Goalie_Ca]

Can someone please explain to me the relevance of all these "Switch" stories. Maybe back a few years it would have been news but nowadays people are switching every day. Newsforge had a story a while back on why switching isn't news anymore. Maybe /. should take a hint from its sister site.

fitter, happier, more productive

[elmartinos]

When I switched to Linux I have noticed an instant productivity gain. Not because it is better, more secure, faster or anything, but because of the lack of Counterstrike et al. This effect should not be underestimated, especially in schools.

Re:fitter, happier, more productive

[phalse phace]

I know a lot of people who use Windows as their OS and they are very productive. Why? Because they are responsible and are able to manage their time. It has nothing to do with Linux. It's about getting your priorities in order.

Re:fitter, happier, more productive

[debiansid]

I guess you haven't tried NetHack yet. It gets you really really hooked.

Solution

[joshier]

The problem that has been with linux always has been the popularity.

The more users, the more development, the more programs, the more users, the more .. you get the picture.

I'm very happy with this, and I don't mind what distribution they use.

Change and fear

[jolterhead]

This all boils down to fear. Fear of making a change in the infrastructure. In every sector of the government, it's up to the IT dept. what system is used. Not the administration or central regulations. They trust the IT dept. with this decision. As long as it "works". If all IT depts. were competent and fearless like those pioneers running Indiana Schools, all would probably move away from Microsoft products. Arguments like "but we need Microsoft products to run program x", is just plain fear. It should be "but you (developers) need to make this program run on x".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:But think of the Children !!

[l3v1]

Nothing useful [...] using Linux only damages its reputation.

You know, there are people on this planet, who think knowing only the other os and nothing else is what damages your reputation. And also, FYI, people are capable to learn and use not just only one os, and there are plenty of tasks that can be done with plenty of tools, not just one and nothing else. If I'd hire someone who said that can do word processing, then I'd expect him/her to know word processing, not using a one and only word processor application to compose some documents. Oh well, whatever.

Standard installers == Bullshit!

[tomhudson]

I call bullshit on all this fud from people decrying the "need" for standard installers.

1. Try an installer from any of the major distros. They're ALL easier than Windows.

2. You only install the installer once, then you image the drive and copy the image to the other N computers in the sale.

3. The end user will NOT be the one installing any of these.

So everyone, who gives a shit about a common installer? Let the installers proliferate, and we'll continue to have competition for the BEST installer, which will change from year to year, rather than those lame ones we see with the bitch from Redmond that can barely install an OS, never mind 10 gigs of software in one shot (that 10 gigs figure is what I got from installing the latest opensuse distro, fwiw).

Re:Standard installers == Bullshit!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Try an installer from any of the major distros. They're ALL easier than Windows.

If I install a Window's program as an installer, it usually will install on any Windows box. If I download a Linux install image or source, or just try to run a particular program on a bunch of different Linux boxes, I run into problems. That is the issue.

You only install the installer once, then you image the drive and copy the image to the other N computers in the sale. The end user will NOT be the one installing any of these.

People don't like switching OS's and having incompatible file types and different programs at home and at school and at work. People will want to run software on some machines that is not installed by the admin on the install image. Thus, if there is not a user friendly way to install a program on workstations of different varieties, that end users find convenient, it will slow the adoption of Linux as a desktop/workstation.

So everyone, who gives a shit about a common installer? Let the installers proliferate, and we'll continue to have competition for the BEST installer, which will change from year to year

Competition for installers and package managers is great, but the package format and some functions should really be common standards. I describe what I'd like to see an an installer in a previous post in this discussion. It is great to have different OS's include different programs to do this, so long as they are interoperable and using a common standard to avoid the problems I described above.

Re:Standard installers == Bullshit!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Installing software only from a terminal is fine for a server, or even a developer workstation, but it is not ideal for a normal user's desktop or workstation. Compare the instructions you listed above to dragging an application anywhere on your hard drive, which is what OS X provides. That may give you a hint as to why people are moving from Linux to OS X in droves for workstations. The other part is that such an installation does not always work on every linux variant without dealing with numerous other factors. It does not always handle dependencies, nor updates, nor licensing, nor registration. It does not handle permissions on a per user and per system basis. It does not allow already installed programs to be portable. A standard that does not provide the benefits and features needed to compete is largely useless.

The procedure is exactly the same for every package prepared with GNU autotools.

Which accounts for what percentage of software that runs on Linux? We've all had to compile our own software to get the features we want and we've all had to mess with things to get that software working on different distributions. Most of us have failed to get at least something working on some distribution. If you want to compete in the corporate and educational workstation space, you also need to be able to function or at least heavily interoperate with the home workstation, portable, and pro workstation space. That means easy installs and stuff that just works. This is just one of the many reasons I run OS X instead of Linux as my workstation of choice. I use Linux for servers and appliances, but it is just a too much of a pain for my laptop. Now Linux does a few things right, including package managers that link to repositories for software discovery and signing. Also, automated updates of most software are a big plus. In general though, it is just not enough and ideally applications would have all the benefits of Linux and OS X and more besides. I don't think we'll get there for Linux, in general unless there is a standard format for installs with the advantages of GNUStep and a standard for connecting to repositories and update services.

Re:Standard installers == Bullshit!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Eh?? Linux is booming in the film, animation and scientific industries.

Linux is doing fine as a server OS. It is doing poorly as a workstation in most fields. It does well in the film industry because of filmgimp, but even there a lot of people have moved to OS X for the workstation. As for scientific "industry" the number of macs as workstations and laptops in most of the sciences has skyrocketed in the last few years, much more so than Linux.

Because Linux is a minority OS.

[jotaeleemeese]

If we hope that Linux will ever have the hardware and software support it needs, the only way will be to sing its praises.

As long as Linux is not in 20% or 30% of desktop machine (at least) it is worth building a body of evidence showing why Linux is a valid alternative.

Those aren't problems for kids at school

[mrchaotica]

Your point #1 (lack of documentation) is valid in the Real World, but not for kids at school. If anything, the most important computer-related thing schools teach is how to do research. Considering what you said, Linux is perfect for that! ; )

Besides, both points are irrelevant anyway because these computers are going to be administered by the school system's IT department, not the students. Presumably, they (a) know what they're doing, and (b) will buy compatible hardware.

Re:In indiana...

[StormReaver]

"There is no standardize API's or installers."

The core standard API is POSIX.
The standard 3D graphics API is OpenGL.
The standard 3D audio API is OpenAL.
The standard 2D graphics API is SDL (which is a shame, because Allegro is much easier).
The standard 2D GUI API is XLib (with higher level GUIs made from it).
The standard packaging format is RPM.

He's got a point on installers. While there are several installers, there is no common installer/uninstaller. This is where I think that all major distributions are failing horribly. It doesn't matter if the installer is apt, urpmi, up2date, or yum. All the major distributions need to pull their heads out of the asses, and get together to agree on a single installer.

It didn't matter to me what package format was chosen as the standard, but RPM format (actually an RPM format subset) was chosen. All those Debian distributions are doing more harm than good by not adopting it. There are areas where diversity is good, such as the back-end implementation), and areas where diversity is not good (the presentation layer).

The installer falls squarely in the presentation layer, with the package format arguably having a foot in both places: users will be looking for a specific type of distributable, so they should have to look for only one type. They shouldn't have to care about the container format (RPM or Deb).

Re:A common API?

[Ibag]

I'm not sure what he means by a common API, but maybe he wants binary compatibility? If the state wants to deploy a new program but different distros are compiled with different versions of GCC and include different versions of the standard libraries (or even different subsets of the standard libraries), they can't just distribute a single binary. Depending on what the app is, they could give all of the district admins the source and say "compile this for your system and make it work" but that would be at least slightly annoying. Also, if they wanted to distribute some proprietary closed source program, that would not be an option.

Asking for a common installer is lunacy, but asking for a common way to install a single binary program across the state isn't.

My Dream Installer

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Brings up an interesting point there as well. Why does there need to be a common installer? There's no common installer in Windows.

Ahh, but a single installer executable can easily run on most all Windows versions. The same cannot be said of a single installer for all Linux distros. Secondly, installation on Windows is a mess. Part of the reason for moving away from Windows is because they have not fixed problems like these. To make Linux a really good desktop, it should be a lot better than Windows so that when people have a choice of platforms, they choose Linux.

I don't think anyone does installation perfectly. What I'd like to see is all platforms standardize on a GNUStep-like package format combined with a package manager that integrates licensing, updates, and the like for all software available to a machine, including on network drives, removable media, and for different users. No one has done it completely right yet, that I have seen. I want the drag and drop installation functionality of OS X, including the ability to IM a functional program to someone or plug in a thumb drive and have my preferences from two years ago when I last had access to that program on a network drive to be saved. I want all the dependancies included in the package with versioning and dynamic linking so getting a new library with some program I download can fix bugs in other programs I'm running. I want easy access to the resources of the program like movies, images, and sounds, just by navigating into the folder-is-the-program directory. Similarly I want easy access to fat binaries for multiple processors and even OS's. I want the integrated option to build from the included source instead of using a pre-compiled binary. Disk space is not that expensive anymore. I want a management application built into the OS that knows when I run a new application for the first time, handles registration over the internet or by keys through an official service. I want to be able to manage inherited preferences for the whole machine and for individual users from this manager and handle uninstalls and automated updates.

Right now Apple has half the solution and Linux has about a third. Sadly GNUStep on Linux seems to have lost momentum since most people who care about Linux as a convenient workstation jumped ship and went to OS X.

Maybe this is too much to ask, but I really don't think so. The real problem is not even building this system, it is standardizing it and getting all the major players, including Apple and Sun to get onboard.

Preinstalled Linux

[Kadin2048]

People keep talking about this, but I have not seen any evidence on the Dell website that I can select Linux as an OS when I'm buying a computer. I haven't checked in the past few days or anything, but I did play around a few months ago and the only options under "OS" for their consumer machines was "Windows XP Home Edition" and "Windows XP Professional."

It'll be a big step forward when Linux is available there as well, just because--even if people don't order it--the fact that it's on the list right next to Windows makes it seem more 'official.'

The only place I've seen Linux as an option for a preinstalled OS from a major vendor is HP's "Workstation" line (which are really nice computers, and certainly better than the shit they foist on consumers, but not something average people are likely to see). I keep hearing that Dell offers Linux as some sort of option: can anyone explain where it's offered, or what the secret is?

Of course there are the small companies that offer preinstalled Linux systems, but sadly they seem to be charging a price premium that's really the wrong direction to be going in. Looking only at them versus at Windows boxes, you'd assume that the "Linux tax" is a few hundred dollars more than the Redmond one.

it somehow appears that....

[stewie's deuce]

Macs for the rich, Linux for the poor, and Windows for everybody else.

Forget it, deb is so Worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

The debian/ubuntu/etc distros might switch to RPM when it starts to WORK. As long as it isn't possible to maintain the same high level repositories with as little problems, anything else would be a HUGE downgrade. Some people don't believe this until they try it, but please do.

There's DLL hell on Windows, and there's plenty of RPM hell on Linux, but never any DEB hell, and there are reasons for this. RPM is ill thought out, handles dependencies poorly, generally breaks down and then we haven't even gotten to the TOOLS yet... where the poster boy Yum, for instance is slow as glued molasses.

Some may argue that choosing RPM was a good idea because it is a common format, but that is a logical fallcy; if so, maybe a reimplementation of MSI would have been in order... We are using Linux because, for whatever reason, we think it is a better choice. We do not compromise when it comes to that choice. I see no reason to compromise when it comes ot installers either. The choice of RPM as "standard" was bullied and lobbied through without any more reasoning that "we have to choose something fast". Doesn't make it one bit more right.

If the RPM distros *fixes* their format (probably can't be done), we might consider it. But we won't take an inferior experience just because some asshats made a poor descision. So there's two real ways this could go now, either they adopt debs too, or they will dwindle slowly as Ubuntu and Debian takes over most of the main market, solving the problem in quite another way. Ubuntu, btw, does not participate in Linux Standards Base, because all they do is slowing everyone down to no use.

In the meantime, one can usually use alien. Not that one should feed the seagulls like that...

Re:In indiana...

[backwardMechanic]

The trouble is, RPM isn't very good. It doesn't hide the hard work from the user. I also use Gentoo, and love Portage. I don't need to know anything about dependencies to install a package, the computer works it out for me. It makes it stupidly easy. This seems like a good idea.

All those different package managers are looking for the best solution. We haven't found it yet. Sure, we don't need the perfect answer, but I'm glad nobody stopped at RPMs.