Slashdot Mirror
South African Education Department Bans Free and Open Source Software
An anonymous reader writes "The South African Education Department has effectively banned the use of FOSS software in state-run schools by forcing all candidates writing the Computer Applications Technology examination to use Microsoft's Office 2010 or 2013 as the only supported options. In the same circular, the state has mandated that all schools use Delphi, instead of Java, as the programming language for the country's Information Technology practical paper. South Africa, notorious for its poor performance in Maths and Science and for having vastly over-crowded and underfunded schools, are now locked into costly Microsoft licensing because of this decision."
Yep. I'm a FOSS advocate, and I just read the memo linked in the similarly-hyped FA... but this story is a waste of a good outrage.
A state-led education department has picked a particular product used to cover their basic computing curriculum, and it isn't FOSS. That sucks, but we'll try harder next time. Meanwhile, other schools not under this authority are free to use FOSS, and any schools that can manage extra resources (unlikely, I know) can still present FOSS as alternatives, and FOSS can probably still be used outside the curriculum.
I set up a computer lab in Ghana, and they had similar policies in place, but with vague enough wording that I could use a carefully-configured OpenOffice installation to cover the requirements. I suspect the actual mandated curriculum in South Africa is likely similar, and this news is just a memo from the authority saying they made the easy choice for picking their standard software.
TRWTF is Delphi.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If my $10 mil company can't afford Office 2013 and is switching to Libre, how the hell can an African school system afford it?
The whole "Never ascribe to malice" thing was written by a very malicious person.
It is attributed to Robert J. Hanlon, though the idea predates him by at least 200 years.
That said, most people seem to miss the important clarifications of this adage: 1) the key word is "adequately", otherwise stupidity becomes the perfect cover for malice; 2) the "Heinlein's razor" variant that says "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice,"; 3) the corollary known as Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Far too often, I hear read people talking about various gov't bureaucracy, bloat, and largesse and thus declare gov't as "incompetent". Far too seldom do they ask the question "incompetent for whom?"
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.