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?"
Yes, next question?...
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!"
Although Gimp resembles Photoshop it isn't the same. Some skills are transferable but if you are teaching graphic design it's silly to teach anything other then what industry uses. It means they must relearn many skills once they enter the job market. If your teaching at a higher more theoretical level then it might be acceptable because more of it transfers. But if it's a trades school or technical college you're better off teaching the actual industry tools regardless of cost.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
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!
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?"
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
Dear Choir:
I teach a high school theology course. We were scheduled to get new books this year but due to several pointy haired bosses, no books were ordered. The books I have to teach are (god help me) pagan scrolls from the 3rd century BC. The question is: is it better to teach old religions or their open text counterparts (Christianity, Hinduism, etc)? Is the steep learning curve and slightly less uniform world view worth a little damnation to teach them religion founded in the past 5000 years?
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.
$5? Wow, you certainly are sure of your convictions.
Just because you don't like GIMP doesn't mean that it's useless. I find it easier to use than Photoshop. The only problem with it is if you think the Windows way of thinking is the only way to think. But hey, that's what schools are for, right, teach kids what to do, rather than how to think.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with the conclusions. If you do not expose your students to tools they are likely to be using in the workplace, you are likely to do them a disservice, but it depends a lot on how long it will be until the use them professionally. What age does high school start? In the USA, I believe it's age 14. Assuming the students then go on to do a degree (typically 4 years in the USA) then they will be 22 by the time they are looking for a job. Eight years is a long time in software. There is about the same difference between the office apps I was taught at age 14 and OpenOffice as there is between them and Microsoft Office. I was taught Paint Shop Pro (3, I think) at school and it has about as much in common with The GIMP as it does with a recent Photoshop.
Teaching two or more tools will put students in much better position to learn new tools later. If they understand what they are doing, rather than how the tool is used, then they will be much better able to adjust later.
Dreamweaver and Flash are also non-negotiable components of any web authoring introduction. Remember, this is high school, not a vocational college. An understanding of HTML would serve them a lot better than using any WYSIWYG tool, particularly an understanding of the CSS box model. The tools change, but the basic assumptions remain valid. I was taught some WYWIWYG tool that no longer exists, but I was also taught the basics of SGML. Guess which I've found more useful.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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 know I see this stated every time someone mentions GIMP. And rarely is it backed it up with anything factual. At best, people say it sucks because it's not photoshop. Well, by that lame definition, every application in the world sucks, save only one. Hardly a defensible position.
What is so bad about GIMP?? I've used it for very simple purposes. I'm not a professional. I'm equally lost in GIMP as I am Photoshop. And unless you use one or the other every day, you are too; unless you are spinning one for us.
Maybe it's because I'm not a professional artist, I remain ignorant of the details for more complex, day to day operations? But then again, that should tell you the interface isn't fundamentally broken. Why? Because otherwise people wouldn't be able to intuit the interface as experience grows, just as people do with Photoshop. And frankly, I have used it enough now to do all the basic things I need to do without any trouble.
As a side note, I know professional photographers (they get paid big bucks for their work) which use GIMP without trouble. Does this mean it's ready for all photographers? No. What he does is a niche for sure. Nonetheless, with a zero digital editing background, he figured how to do what he needs to do with little effort or pain. This again suggests you're fighting a common bias rather than a fundamental UI flaw.
To be clear, I am not advocating GIMP's interface is the best thing since sliced bread. All I'm saying is it's different but I'm certainly not seeing anything bad; which is in stark contrast to the commonly offered opinion here.
I stand corrected, the fact they there exists one person who was hired for their Gimp skills clearly obviates my claim that very very few people get hired for their skills with the Gimp.
and the switch to GEGL will take care of the 8-bits-per-channel limit.
then again, this all could be excessive optimism and nothing will really change in 2.6.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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'
Part of the problem is that very few professional designers (e.g., print designers) are also cognizant enough about software design to explain to a GIMP developer what the problems are. I am only vaguely aware of some of these issues; my main problem wihth the GIMP boils down to palettes not being truly floating. I can live with the right-click-to-do-anything mode. But designers need to do some additional things: full control of color space (RAW, CMYK, spot colors), they need color space histograms, they need to be able to easily produce color separations, they need to be able to easily put together batch transformations, they need some sophisticated marquis tools, they need to be able to mix raster and vector art, have access to Postscript, TrueType, and now OpenType fonts, and so on. I do not know if these things are available in the GIMP, because I am not a designer, nor do I regularly use the GIMP. But that's just to point out that designers do need specialized tools.
Also-- the GIMP is ugly to these people. As a programmer, I find certain elements very elegant. Most designers couldn't care less that you can write GIMP plugins in Perl; they're irritated that when they double-click on an image in InDesign, it doesn't automatically come up for editing in the GIMP. Some of these issues are petty-- but in my experience, designers tend to work in a more immediate-feeling, less rational domain. Appearance is important-- after all, they're paid because they have a highly developed aesthetic sense. Programmers are so horrendously square to many of them.
Adobe's stuff is expensive, and in many cases overrated, but they have indeed put a lot of thought into the workflow (e.g., integration between DTP app and photo editor) and appearance, and for a lot of people, this is all that matters. These facts combined with certain mailing list posts that lead me to believe that some GIMP developers suffer from a bit of a 'high horse' syndrome lead me to believe that this is why GIMP is not universally accepted, despite the fact that it is a highly capable application.
I gotta say, as a professional, Gimp is not there yet. It's not photoshop, and it's not close. I'm a big supporter of Gimp. I use it all the time. I use it because it's Free. But Photoshop is simply better, from a usability standpoint. It's not that I cannot do in the Gimp what I can do in Photoshop, because for the most part I can. It's that the Gimp is not as intuitive as Photoshop. As a consequence, getting things done is much slower in the Gimp, generally speaking. On top of that, there's always something wrong with the Gimp. I've never had it Just Work(TM), not under windows, not under linux. Now, I've been using them almost equally (I've actually used the Gimp more, honestly) for at least 7 years, and Gimp for longer than that. So I'm not just coming out of left field.
The main two issues with the Gimp are that the various windows not in a single container (Yeah, GimpShop. It sucks, too) and the lack of a good layer system. Nested layers and layer folders are a must, no room for debate. Acting on multiple layers is inconsistent, and that most definitely is unacceptable. For any aspect of the Gimp, as soon as you find yourself fighting the interface, the interface is broken and needs to be fixed. I find myself constantly fighting the window sizes, and constantly find myself looking for pieces of the interface that dropped behind another window. That sucks, and is bad design. I know it's a Unix-ism. But it's still bad design.
Having said all that, let me just say I love the Gimp, and kudos to all who have worked to make it what it is. Which is pretty awesome, but not good enough for professional design, considering the competition.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809