Slashdot Mirror
Old Software or Open Source?
Pakled writes "I teach a high school multimedia course. We were scheduled to get new software this year but due to several pointy haired bosses, no software was ordered. The software I have to teach is Flash 5, Dreamweaver 2000, Photoshop 7 and (god help me) Movie Maker. The question is: is it better to teach old commercial software or their open source counterparts (Komposer, Gimp, etc.)?
Is the steep learning curve and slightly less uniform design worth a little student frustration to teach them software written in the past 5 years?"
In my opinion, a gathering of both would be far better... I mean, realistically in the commercial world, it tends to be the "high flyers" which companies go for, (Photoshop, Flash etc) however, teaching students the opensrouce alternatives, gives them a better feel for newer software, and shows them how adaptions have been made.
Well, is a little of both an option? For some of them at least. Flash 5 is almost a completely different program from the modern versions of flash, the actionscript has changed almost entirely, and the layout is very different. The other legacy programs still have *some* semebelence to their newer versions, so letting them get their feet wet might be a good idea. However, you can present it in a way "this is what photoshop looked like a couple years ago and it still looks pretty similar. Due to restrictions we can't show you a current copy, however here is a free alternative called gimp that can do all of the same things, and you can play with it at home!"
The question is: is it better to teach old commercial software or their open source counterparts (Komposer, Gimp, etc.)?
What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to teach them design or are you trying to train them in the use of software programs to accomplish any old goal?
If you're trying to teach them design principles in general, then I don't see what the difference is between outdated commercial software and their OSS counterparts. If you're trying to teach them to use software skills in software packages they are likely to see in the real world/college after graduation then that's not the best way to go about it.
If you're trying to teach both, I really don't know what to tell you. Probably retool a bit to put more emphasis on the design part and less on the use of specific software. Design skills change but not like specific software needs.
Good luck.
Use whatever software allows you to teach the concepts to your students in the easiest manner. The tools change much faster than the concepts so don't fret too much about which tool to use. Whichever one is easier for you to use and teach with, use that
it doesn't matter, just don't teach them the program, but teach them what the program does.
It doesn't matter if its gimp or photoshop, just as long as you know what the diffrent between ansharpen mask, blur and gaussian blur is.
It's probably worth teaching the students on a selection of software, concentrating on "how to get stuff done" rather than on what particular apps to use.
People who were only taught a single app for a single purpose often have problems adjusting to other programs, they don't understand what features to look for but rather just where to look for them which ofcourse falls over if the software changes, even between different versions of the same application.
It's also worth considering, even if you teach the most up to date and widely used software today... A lot can change very quickly in software, the apps you teach may not be used anymore when your students go out into the world of work, or there may be much newer versions in use. Conversely, many companies keep using even older versions of apps because they still get the job done.
So basically teach the widest selection of apps you can, explain the differences and similarities and focus on the job that needs doing rather than the tools for doing it. Also for anything that is open/free provide your students with a copy of it so they can take it home.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Oh come on. Is PS7 really that different than more recent versions? Not really. Better to teach them on old commercially viable software, where there is a real market for the skillset. Very very few people get hired for their skills with the Gimp.
How about teaching your students the principles of what they are going to do, so that (with some acclimatization) they can adapt to any software within the category you've taught.
For instance, as far as image editing is concerned, it would be nice to talk about brushes and layers, and filters, all the while showing that while different software can have various options, located in various menus, the work can be accomplished on either, as long as the person knows exactly what they are trying to do.
That way, your students would be more than just click-monkeys, who know little more than what sequence of buttons to push according to a flowchart.
Because otherwise they will wind up like our Pathology department administrator who, when I suggested that to save the school tens of thousands of dollars a year they should use OpenOffice and discontinue the MSOffice site license, turned to me and asked: "But without MSOffice, how will our people do any work?"
How old is the hardware? Something to keep in mind is that an older version of Photoshop may run better on older hardware than the latest version of Gimp.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The older software will be your best bet - why? Many places still use older versions of the industry standards. It wasn't until recently that my place of employment upgraded to CS2 on every primary production machine - some machines still had Photoshop 6, and I think we've got one with 5.5 still that some sales reps use (this is at a newspaper). Second, the UI will still be relatively uniform and familiar in subsequent versions.
It sucks, but better to teach them something they are more likely to encounter in some version or another. Don't hesitate to introduce them to open-source alternatives, but keep in mind that they will rarely be used in a professional environment (cue flames here - I'm an open source user myself, but I have yet to encounter any place that uses The GIMP in any sort of professional high volume production)
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
Why not teach students how
- to think along procedural and functional lines
- to consider the information in the abstract
- to decompose the system and troubleshoot the gazintas and the gazoutas
- to RTFM and search the web when the politician hits the fan
- to calmly view ideas that one finds objectionable (Creationism, proprietary licensing)
- to implement sound practices (version control, unit testing)
Binding the conversation to specific software versions seems a cop-out.Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
A person who understands theory can figure out anything. A person who learns how to click a specific button in a specific place is useless.
It's not a vocational school, so don't teach to a vocation.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Seriously: if you can find a F/OSS package that's analogous to Flash in behaviour and output, then yes, by all means, teach them the F/OSS stuff - they'll learn to think outside the GUI, which will do them no end of good. If, however, you can't find a suitable replacement, then don't. Flash 5 is not even remotely appropriate any more - it bears little to no resemblance to the current versions of Flash. Photoshop 7 is fine, although the layering method has changed a bit: you can now nest them, as well as play about with layer comps, which you can't do in pre-CS versions. Dreamweaver - well, do you really need to ask? As for Movie Maker: you can download a free version of Avid, or try and get hold of Kino or something along those lines. Teaching them Movie Maker will not do anyone any favours.
http://xkcd.com/313/
Since you are talking about highschool and not college, I'd say go with the open source option and touch on the older versions of the commercial software. Here's why...
-If they find that they enjoy what you are teaching, knowing an open source (and FREE) software tool will make it easy for them to continue tinkering with it at home. They can download the same tool they used in the classroom and continue to hone their skills at home if that really is their area of interest/career path. In the end, it's their eye and talent as an artist that will determine if their career at this early stage, learning the software is secondary. Practice is key. Chances are a student can't afford a legal copy of Photoshop for their home computer.
-Odds are that it will be a few years before they get into the working world anyway, so even if the school board gave you the latest versions of the commercial software, chances are that what they end up using in the working world will be several versions in the future anyway.
- Once you've learned one tool, it's usually easy to learn another of the same type. Like learning programming languages. Once you have the basics, the icons for the tools and the menus are trivial.
- Many artists do freelance work when they are first trying to break into the graphic design/art world. Knowing a free tool will keep their costs down.
- It will help support the free/open source software movement, and make them aware of the wide variety of awesome free/open apps available to them.
- Many employers even if they provide a commercial graphics program, will allow you to install and use your own preferred tool if it's free/legal/legit/compatible.
- Giving them an additional taste of the old version commercial software you have will mean they've been exposed to two different tools- an advantage in the long run. Choice is good.
Yes, the percentage of your class that will be in the industry will be using Photoshop and Dreamweaver (although those programs will be totally different in 5 years).
But, I think you're better off encouraging students' curiosity for use *at home*. Which would you rather hire to use Photoshop, someone who's spent 100 hours using Photoshop 5 in a classroom a several years ago, or someone who's played with everything in GIMP for 600+ hours, built some webpages, entered some silly photo-editing contests, etc, and is still using it?
In reality, of course, if you subtly imply that Photoshop is the only way to go, they'll just pirate it to work at home. This is pernicious. I'm betting 'moral education' is a part of your school's mission statement. Live it.
Teach students to use Open Source software. Hand out discs with the PortableApps files. Accept ODF/RTF/TXT/PDF files as well as DOC.
From a short-term practical standpoint, i don't see a problem with teaching e.g. GIMP instead of an old Photoshop version - as long as you don't require features the free alternative doesn't have (GIMP has no HDR) you should be fine. Additionally, kids can also use the software at home and when they have completed the course, which is a big benefit - I am required to learn Maple [1] and didn't pay up for the draconian license which would require me to wipe it off disk as soon as i am no longer an university student. Also, old Photoshop knowledge most certainly won't help them in the job.
Ethically speaking, as a good teacher you should absolutely abstain from proprietary concepts: Your obligation is to teach them something useful for society, not to teach them something useful for Adobe. Proprietary software essentially says that research into the functions and cooperation between people is forbidden, while free software actually encourages sharing knowledge and cooperation for a mutual goal. Read Stallman's essay on the topic [2] and decide what would be the ethically correct alternative.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_(software)
[2] http://www.linux.com/articles/32587
Your students are far better off using tools that people used 8 years ago, than tools that no one uses today.
In particular, anyone who suggests using the GIMP over any moderately recent version of Photoshop for serious work should be sacked, tarred, feathered and shipped to Guantanamo. Photoshop 7 is light years ahead of GIMP today, and I will bet anyone here $5 that it's way ahead of where GIMP will be in ten years. (GIMP will then be twice as old, and if it's twice as good then it will still suck rod.)
Dreamweaver and Flash are also non-negotiable components of any web authoring introduction.
The students who are good candidates for open-source software will usually find their own way there. Don't force them to use OSS tools which are practically assured of leaving a bad taste in their mouths.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Well I'll be haarrd-pressed![1] I work for a small business, and I use GIMP to prepare product images for the web store.
[1] Said in the tone of "Well I'll be dog-gone!"
This is high school, man. High school. The only thing unsuitable about teaching the gimp instead of photoshop -- and saving thousands in the process -- is the freaking name.
It's time to get over it. We all know that photoshop currently has no equal in the professional graphics design industry. But again, what exactly does that have to do with an introductory graphics class in freaking high school? Don't try to blow the situation out of hand.
Having been modded as redundant I feel need to elaborate. (Sorry was in a strange rush to get my first ever first post) We are talking about high school children now - and as such the emphasis is surely on the do's and don't of good graphic design, its about teaching kids good techniques, and style. This in my opinion is best performed using tools which are freely available to the children so that they can go away and practice what they have been taught. Using the latest version of Photoshop is likely to hinder their ability to practice as not many highschool kids in my experiance have the money to drop on the latest and greatest Adobe produce, sure they can go and download a copy from a torrent site - but is this something which we should encourage, all be it indirectly. If you use GIMP and the other Open Source software which are freely available, they can practice techniques and gain a good insight into the design - before they go on and perfect those skills in higher education. Where they may have the budget to purchase the latest over priced packages.
If you teach them to use Gimp, then they can legally and without cost do their assignments at home. They could also use the skills you've taught in order to, from home, make nice art for friends' web pages, etc.
If you only teach them PhotoShop, they may be forced to (a) use a pirated copy at home or (b) not use their home computer at all.
am I the only one that sees the irony of labeling a first post as redundant?
I am not a crackpot.
Having been modded as redundant I feel need to elaborate
That was priceless! Thanks, you made my day! As to your point, I agree completely. What's wrong with pencils and rulers? The newest software will be out of date by the time these kids get out of college.
All a REAL artist needs is mud and a stick, and he can do without either in a pinch. You have to learn to see before you can learn to render.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You *could* have each student download a trial copy of the software, namely Flash and Dreamweaver, and use that. It gives you 30 days to play with it.
HTH
Don't teach 'software.' Teach concepts. Whatever you use that lets the kids be productive with the concept should be fine, right?
In college we used some sort of cad software that I don't even remember the name of. That didn't mean that the concept of snapping, lineto, center, tangent, etc didn't translate when I used autocad (which I most certainly did not take a class on) for a few things before becoming a full time computer geek. Same applies to firewalls and routers and such. If you know TCP/IP and Routing and such, how to configure the stuff is simply a matter of looking up how to do it on that particular device in the manual (how do I define a tunnel, how do I define a route, etc). I *hate* working with cisco guys who took their class, and can't think beyond the ciscoese (bringing up partner IPSec VPNs being the best example of this).
Which will be the easier transition: Photoshop 7 to Photoshop CS3, or GIMP to Photoshop CS3?
If the answer is the old version of the commercial software, then you should teach the old version of the commercial software.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
NO. My answer is NO. Do not teach DreamWeaver 5, or Quanta or NVu or Photoshop or GIMP. Do not do it, STOP doing it.
What you should do instead is to teach about web developing (HTML, etc), image manipulation, etc. If you teach only how to press x or y button you will be robbing the students because when the next version of X program goes out they wont do how to achieve that misterious effect the teacher shown them how to achieve which made the picture look better.
You do not need to teach them the science of what they are doing (i.e., no need for an extensive programming class, just HTML and the basics of web design). But you could very well teach them the concepts and apply the conecpts in your "old" propietary software and the "new" open source. In that way, they will be able to onder the benefits and disbenefits of each tool.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
You could use both types of software, commercial and open source, to reinforce the abstract concepts. In Photoshop, for example, the basic concepts are layers, selections, filters, brushes, levels, curves, etc., but when a digital artist plans an image, it's an abstract process, wholly independent of software interfaces (although familiarity with a particular interface can boost productivity). Many of those same concepts transfer to web design and film editing.
Also, the commercial versions of the software you mentioned are expensive, so your students might like to know that there are freeware alternatives to piracy.
Because you are faced with a time constraint, though, it might be better to go with the commercial products. There will be fewer technical snags, more options for further education, more employment opportunities and so on. Besides, as others here have said, the commercial versions available to you are quite advanced. More recent versions have cool tools, but artists got by without them for the longest time, and had to be very creative to get past those limitations.
I think the purpose of high school is to prepare young adults for the so called real world. That being said, I would recommend using Photoshop. It would be a real disappointment to know that you taught the kids all about GIMP, but they could not take their GIMP skills to the local web design company.
However, I think it is also wise to teach diversity. I would recommend also teaching GIMP and maybe a few other software packages, for the purpose of literacy for many different graphics packages available.
"...Using the latest version of Photoshop is likely to hinder their ability to practice as not many highschool kids in my experiance have the money to drop on the latest and greatest Adobe..."
Technically, there's nothing wrong with Photoshop 5. Version 10/CS3 has many more bells and whistles but for high school students learning the ropes they could use Photoshop LE (aka v5 OEM), which was included when I purchased a $50 graphics tablet and again when I bought a $75 scanner.
You are talking about high school here? This isn't a College prep course for the "real world". They aren't going to get a job at a high paying graphic design firm right out of 12th grade! Come on! Just use what you have and if you want to introduce the free tools as well - go ahead. PhotoShop is a highly specialized tool used by professionals IN THE FEILD. If they want to learn PhotoShop they should have to take a corporate course or graphic design college.
Besides that fact, Whether you do get PhotoShop CS3 or not, in 4 years when they start looking for a job it will be obsolete anyway. The only difference between PhotoShop 7 and CS2 is a couple more features to convert it to bloatware and THAT'S IT! Say thank you that you even have those older programs. Students in Africa and Asia struggle to find a computer running Windows 95!!!
There is a lot to be learned about the GIMP that also applies to Photoshop. ...and these in my opinion are the skills they ought to be learning. Learn how to use layers, masks, channels, the pen tool, not which keyboard shortcut does what (you can change those anyway, this isn't 1987).
Besides, they can't take just a high school diploma to most design firms anyway, they are only just learning the basics, and design concepts that you could apply with paint and construction paper if needed. The high level nitty gritty details of how to smooth one's workflow by learning the specifics of a certain version of software isn't something they really need to worry about at this stage.
Besides, by the time they are finished their education CS3 will be just as outdated as PS7 is now, so there is no real advantage to upgrading when the features they'd gain aren't really what they should be concentrating on anyway.
Use the GIMP or use PS7 it doesn't matter really, they both have the features the kids need, but I am with the others who say using the GIMP in the classroom makes it easier for the kids to get and use the same software at home.
"You are talking about high school here? This isn't a College prep course for the "real world". They aren't going to get a job at a high paying graphic design firm right out of 12th grade! Come on!"
Actually, you are horribly wrong. Anyone can get a job in the creative field, even with little or no 'academic or professional experience'. Why? Because if your portfolio is f#*&ing kick-ass, any company will see that and hire that person, period. I know several people that have tons of experience, but their portfolios stink. Thus, that's probably why they're having problems getting a job in the field they studied in. I was having the same problem, so I reworked my portfolio, added some newly-created content and I finally got a job in the field I studied to work in. One of the better artists that is in our department was hired fresh out of high school, so, I'd say you're completely wrong.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
What you'd really like to teach is what industry will be using when the students hit the workforce in 2-7 years. But obviously you can't use what doesn't exist, so the next best thing (according to your philosophy) is to teach what industry is using now. Except that's not an option either. Instead, all that's available is either the open source tools or what industry was using 5 years ago. So, you can teach on commercial tools that will be a decade (!) out of date by the time the kids hit the job market, or you can use something roughly equivalent that (perhaps) will never be used in industry.
Seems like the commercial tool is still the best choice, until you consider the fact that the kids' learning time with the commercial tool will be limited to their time in the classroom. No fiddling around at home. Given that you can't teach what is being used in the industry now, it seems to me you're better off at least teaching with a tool that they can use at home.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.