Most drive manufacturers have gone to fluid bearings. These bearings don't have mechanical contact, the hydroplaning action of the fluid means the bearing parts never touch.
I haven't had a fluid bearing drive fail yet due to bearing failure.
Many shops I know that buy SA rationalize their purchase claiming "support costs are lower".
It has been my experience that those shops need to make the support calls because they deployed a "bleeding-edge" product. (Bleeding-edge is defined as any microsoft product before service pack 1)
The IT shops that I have traditionally run do not buy SA. My strategy is simple - WAIT. Why do you need Exchange 2007 server RIGHT NOW? Is Exchange 2003 really not up to the task?
I've had success deploying products late in the software cycle. This gives Microsoft time to fix the bugs (and update the knowledge base), it gives ISVs time to support Microsoft's new product, and when something does go wrong that we can't solve in-house, we just pay the $250 per incident.
This also gives me the leverage to beat up my Microsoft representative when a new product does come out. The product must have added value or we don't buy.
Some of the files I've seen obtained from file sharing are of absolutely horrible quality, yet most of the people I know who keep and use this stuff do not care.
Even if BD+ can not be cracked (unlikely), does it really matter? If people find the quality of the "free" version acceptable, they probably won't pay for a BluRay version.
The impenetrable security of BD+ only matters if there are no other ways to get the content. It is unlikely that regular DVDs and broadcast TV will go away any time soon.
The bigger challenge for Hollywood is figuring out how to get customers to pay for the product. A mediocre product is not the way.
I have a CS degree, and before that, I did three years in an Engineering program, so I have a grasp of the concepts here:
Computer scientist is to programmer where automotive engineer is to hot-rod builder.
A computer scientist knows the fundamentals of how computation works. The math determines whether or not your software works well and efficiently, and the computer scientist will know if an algorithm will work in an extreme case before building the software. The computer scientist also creates code for unique cases where there are no readily available pre-built libraries available.
A programmer, takes requirements and maps those to pre-built libraries and tools. A programmer is more of an "integrator" than a creator of new technologies.
Example: You want to look for intelligent life in mountains of sample radio data, you ask a computer scientist to design the system. If you want to sort and search through sales data, you get a run of the mill software shop to design you a system.
An automotive engineer creates new engines, suspensions, and safety systems for the application at hand. Many times, in a new design, there are no "off the shelf" components, so the engineer must know the math behind physics, materials science, and production methods to create a new system. The automotive engineer may also need to be familiar with the human body as well.
A hot-rod builder takes existing engines, modification techniques, and pre-engineered systems and integrates them into something unique. Many hotrod builders do not have the engineering knowledge to create a new motor, suspension, or safety system from scratch.
Example: If you want a new hybrid drivetrain that can meet federal and state emissions and safety laws, and can be produced in large quantities, you get an automotive engineer to build you that system. If you want a sub 10 second Camaro, you get a hot-rod builder to build that system.
The computer science field is starting to divide itself into the "white-collar" and "blue-collar" jobs that define other industries. I see a future where engineering jobs are separate from coding jobs, much like engineering/planning/architecture is separate from construction.
Replacement batteries at retail for most phones range from $25.00 to about $50.00, add to that the cost of someone disassembling the phone, soldering in a battery, and reassembling the phone. $79.00 is quite a deal.
What did people think the battery replacement service would cost?
I think the real shock is that a lot of people did not realize the iPhone doesn't have a user replaceable battery.
I'm sure we'll see Toyota Prius drivers with a similar reaction in the next few years.
If you can't count on the US Government taking them to task, you can count on the civil suits brought by trial attorneys. If there is a large scale financial loss due to Microsoft's data collection practices, you can bet there will be an army of lawyers trying to get their pound of flesh from Microsoft.
And GLBA will be their very big stick.
-ted
The key here is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
on
Vista is Watching You
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act otherwise known as GLBA controls how businesses collect, use, and distribute non-public information, and provides for penalties for the misuse of that information. Having managed IT for a bank, I can tell you that this act is serious stuff.
Microsoft's attorneys are not stupid. They know if they collect non-public information, they are bound by GLBA to protect that information. That includes audits of any systems that store or transmit that information.
It would cost Microsoft way more money to collect non-public information from its users than it could make by using or selling that information. Also, it would expose Microsoft's products to outside auditor scrutiny, possibly even requiring the source code of its products to be inspected.
For these reasons, Microsoft does not want to collect non-public information from its users.
Sure iPhone supports POP and Imap, but that is not enough. Shared calendars and contact lists as well as public folders are important to mobile users.
Evolution supports exchange server by using data published from OWA. It works rather nicely and is the best way to connect a Linux machine to Exchange server. Apple could have used this method to get minimum exchange support.
Yup they could have done it, but Steve and company decided not to. We are a half Mac half PC shop and we will not be replacing our Motorola Qs with iPhones since they don't completely support Exchange server.
It is a design decision that will cost Apple corporate and personal sales. I'm certain more than one executive, that has to have the newest shiny toy, will be ultra pissed when he finds out his great new iPhone will not sync his calendar, contacts, or public folders over the air.
I'm the network manager, I decide if we move to Vista or not. Here's why we will not be migrating any time soon:
1. Roaming Profiles. Microsoft has a nasty habit of releasing a technology, proclaiming it as the "standard" and then changing the fucking thing. This time, Vista uses a different profile structure than Windows 2000 or Windows XP. That means EVERYONE's existing profile will not work on Vista. How stupid is that? Favorites, Desktop settings, Application preferences...and the list goes on and on. Microsoft should have migrated the existing profile in the absence of a "V2" profile, but I guess 5 years is not enough time to work that out.
2. Mandatory activation. We re-image machines constantly - currently we use Windows XP Pro volume license so we don't have an activation problem. Now Microsoft wants me to run a Key Management server and all my machines need to touch my network at least every six months. Bullshit. Why is their piracy problem my problem?
3. No perceived benefit. I've been running Windows Vista on my laptop now for a couple of months, and I can't see a single damn reason to go through the headache. Sure, Microsoft moved a bunch of shit around, but it doesn't seem easier or harder than Windows XP - just different. That is not enough of a reason.
No amount of press releases will fix these designed-in fuckups.
No QWERTY keyboard. I use my phone more often for email than actually using it as a phone. A QWERTY keyboard is a necessity - there is nothing more frustrating than trying to type an email on a standard phone keypad. Predictive typing software mostly sucks.
If a company could create the "perfect" phone, the financial rewards of such a device would make either patent licensing, or litigation acceptable costs.
The problem is, no one knows what the "perfect" phone should look like, or how it should operate. For every person that wants a QWERTY keyboard there are those that don't.
The whole argument reminds me of the "cancer cure" conspiracy theorists that say the cure for cancer is not available since it would hurt the profits of those companies that provide treatments. Baloney! The cure would be worth 10 times the entire treatment regimen of the patient.
The perfect phone doesn't exist because it can not be defined.
I would gladly pay full price for the device, if a carrier would let me go month-to-month on the service.
I'm tired of being locked into contracts. Most carriers will not even let you buy the hardware at full price - why? They know that the contract you are signing is worth WAY more than the hardware cost. They use the hardware subsidy as an excuse to get you to sign a contract.
The bullshit has gotten so bad that in the last 10 years, handset prices have fallen tremendously, and the average contract has gone up from one year to two years. What kind of crap is that?
I remember selling cell phones at Circuit City 10 years ago. People used to pay $50-$300 for a phone with a 1 year contract, and $300 to $600 without a contract. Sure, we had free phones, but they only required a one year contract.
Now, thanks to the advances of the chip industry, handsets are dirt cheap. Have you ever seen the price on prepaid phones? Those things are almost throw-away phones. Buyers that can not afford full price hardware can still go the prepaid route.
The hardware is now cheap enough - it's time to separate the hardware from the service.
I don't want the movie or music industry to appear sensible. I want all their representatives to look like raving lunatics.
My hope is that eventually these guys will make the Taliban regime look reasonable. Maybe eventually these organizations will ask for copyright infringement to be punishable by death.
Once that happens, it might just be political suicide for a congressman to support the MPAA or RIAA.
It is only a matter of time until the owners of coffee shops and hotels with free internet access get burned by this. There is no way for these investigators to identify the end user. Their investigation ends at the cable or DSL modem.....and the poor fool that pays the monthly bill.
It's only a matter of time until the wrong guy with deep enough pockets gets burned.....and fights back.
Courts are trying force administrators of systems that do not log activities to start keeping logs.
There are many problems with this:
Technical: RAM contents are not permanently stored due to the technical nature of RAM. This judge wants to change that.....essentially storing everything that passes through RAM.
Cost: Why should the owners and operators of systems bear the cost of copyright enforcement? As a system administrator, what do I gain by spending my company's money on lots of disk and tape to keep logs for the RIAA? Why is that my responsibility?
Responsible party: If my users agree to only use my systems for legal purposes and they break that agreement, why am I required to provide anything to any third party? If they violate my TOS, I should be able to kick them off my network. The RIAA and their civil case should not involve me or my network. Their gripe is with the end user. If they need my help to pursue their case, then they don't have much of a case.
SARBOX forces companies to keep all emails and IM records as potential evidence. What's next? Recording every spoken word just in case someone needs it in court?
The burden of proof should be on the accuser - not on the accused.
don't usually have in house support people. Most companies that I have seen that run QB enterprise are small to medium businesses. They don't have full time IT staff, and the companies are not usually IT related businesses.
I can't see these types of businesses successfully running Linux servers - hell some of them can't even run Windows or Mac OS without difficulty.
I'm glad Intuit is making the leap into Linux. As much as I hate Intuit, I applaud them for this move. Hopefully they will stick with it when Joe's Landscaping company calls asking for help with their Linux server.
As good as Linux is, QB Enterprise is a steaming pile of garbage, and they will get support calls - hopefully they will be ready for them.
Now they'll recommend its use when they go out to work in the real world
That may be a nice thought to have a world where the employees can demand the work environment they want. If that was the case, no one would work in cubicles, everyone would have a corner office with tons of window space, and everyone would have a top of the line computer sitting at their desk.
The real world doesn't work that way (mostly). I doubt, even if you teach students "the right way" they will not be able to demand "the right way" from their employer.
Can you imagine an young new engineering student going into industry and demanding that an Autocad or Solidworks shop use something else? I'm sure his/her employer would say these are the tools we've standardized on, use them or don't come back.
It's nice to think that young kids out of school have that level of influence, but that is not realistic.
Many of the software vendors we deal with have been in business for 20 years, and have yet to "take care of us real good", as you put it.
Why is it so hard to believe that software companies may actually want to provide software to schools at a discount just to be good guys?
Do you really think an anti-virus vendor or a backup software company is trying to get the kids "hooked" on their software? The kids aren't even aware we use the software.
When technology leaders train teachers and students to use proprietary software, it obligates those teachers and students to buy or steal that software or to have wasted their time on the training.
This seems to be a purely economic reason for using free software. This was the one point I chose to make my comment about.
You even included it in your response!
Yes, if you want to teach a class on Photoshop, you obligate the students, and the SCHOOL to buy Photoshop. If you want to teach GIMP, you obligate no one to buy the software, but it may not be suitable software for the curriculum, and teaching that software - while free - might still be a waste of time and tuition dollars.
Sure, the article made some very nice, feel-good points. It warmed my heart. The only points that school administrators seem to care about are: "Do we need this?" and "What does it cost?".
My post focused on the cost. I'm sure that isn't important to you, but it is important to a lot of other people.
Proprietary software at educational pricing is, in most cases, dirt cheap.
Almost every single software company I know provides software to schools at a significant discount.
Our small little school gets windows for $60/copy. We also buy office for $60/copy. Bigger schools get an even bigger discount than that.
Our largest costs are humans and hardware; neither of which have a free/open source equivalent. If you look at the entire budget for a school or a school district, software costs are a tiny blip on the radar. Those costs pale in comparison to payroll, benefits, insurance, utilities, facilities.....etc.
The point is that software should be selected based on ONE criteria: suitability of purpose. The best software that does the job for the lowest total cost should be selected. Sometimes free software is the way to go, sometimes it's not.
We are already struggling with religion creeping into schools, we don't need software religions creeping into schools.
Slashdot Mirror
Most drive manufacturers have gone to fluid bearings. These bearings don't have mechanical contact, the hydroplaning action of the fluid means the bearing parts never touch.
I haven't had a fluid bearing drive fail yet due to bearing failure.
-ted
Many shops I know that buy SA rationalize their purchase claiming "support costs are lower".
It has been my experience that those shops need to make the support calls because they deployed a "bleeding-edge" product. (Bleeding-edge is defined as any microsoft product before service pack 1)
The IT shops that I have traditionally run do not buy SA. My strategy is simple - WAIT. Why do you need Exchange 2007 server RIGHT NOW? Is Exchange 2003 really not up to the task?
I've had success deploying products late in the software cycle. This gives Microsoft time to fix the bugs (and update the knowledge base), it gives ISVs time to support Microsoft's new product, and when something does go wrong that we can't solve in-house, we just pay the $250 per incident.
This also gives me the leverage to beat up my Microsoft representative when a new product does come out. The product must have added value or we don't buy.
-ted
Some of the files I've seen obtained from file sharing are of absolutely horrible quality, yet most of the people I know who keep and use this stuff do not care.
Even if BD+ can not be cracked (unlikely), does it really matter? If people find the quality of the "free" version acceptable, they probably won't pay for a BluRay version.
The impenetrable security of BD+ only matters if there are no other ways to get the content. It is unlikely that regular DVDs and broadcast TV will go away any time soon.
The bigger challenge for Hollywood is figuring out how to get customers to pay for the product. A mediocre product is not the way.
-ted
I have a CS degree, and before that, I did three years in an Engineering program, so I have a grasp of the concepts here:
Computer scientist is to programmer where automotive engineer is to hot-rod builder.
A computer scientist knows the fundamentals of how computation works. The math determines whether or not your software works well and efficiently, and the computer scientist will know if an algorithm will work in an extreme case before building the software. The computer scientist also creates code for unique cases where there are no readily available pre-built libraries available.
A programmer, takes requirements and maps those to pre-built libraries and tools. A programmer is more of an "integrator" than a creator of new technologies.
Example: You want to look for intelligent life in mountains of sample radio data, you ask a computer scientist to design the system. If you want to sort and search through sales data, you get a run of the mill software shop to design you a system.
An automotive engineer creates new engines, suspensions, and safety systems for the application at hand. Many times, in a new design, there are no "off the shelf" components, so the engineer must know the math behind physics, materials science, and production methods to create a new system. The automotive engineer may also need to be familiar with the human body as well.
A hot-rod builder takes existing engines, modification techniques, and pre-engineered systems and integrates them into something unique. Many hotrod builders do not have the engineering knowledge to create a new motor, suspension, or safety system from scratch.
Example: If you want a new hybrid drivetrain that can meet federal and state emissions and safety laws, and can be produced in large quantities, you get an automotive engineer to build you that system. If you want a sub 10 second Camaro, you get a hot-rod builder to build that system.
The computer science field is starting to divide itself into the "white-collar" and "blue-collar" jobs that define other industries. I see a future where engineering jobs are separate from coding jobs, much like engineering/planning/architecture is separate from construction.
-ted
Replacement batteries at retail for most phones range from $25.00 to about $50.00, add to that the cost of someone disassembling the phone, soldering in a battery, and reassembling the phone. $79.00 is quite a deal.
What did people think the battery replacement service would cost?
I think the real shock is that a lot of people did not realize the iPhone doesn't have a user replaceable battery.
I'm sure we'll see Toyota Prius drivers with a similar reaction in the next few years.
-ted
If you can't count on the US Government taking them to task, you can count on the civil suits brought by trial attorneys. If there is a large scale financial loss due to Microsoft's data collection practices, you can bet there will be an army of lawyers trying to get their pound of flesh from Microsoft.
And GLBA will be their very big stick.
-ted
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act otherwise known as GLBA controls how businesses collect, use, and distribute non-public information, and provides for penalties for the misuse of that information. Having managed IT for a bank, I can tell you that this act is serious stuff.
Microsoft's attorneys are not stupid. They know if they collect non-public information, they are bound by GLBA to protect that information. That includes audits of any systems that store or transmit that information.
It would cost Microsoft way more money to collect non-public information from its users than it could make by using or selling that information. Also, it would expose Microsoft's products to outside auditor scrutiny, possibly even requiring the source code of its products to be inspected.
For these reasons, Microsoft does not want to collect non-public information from its users.
-ted
OK, So France doesn't want to use Blackberry since they have a centralized model and the spooks can snoop on their email. That's a valid concern.
So some guy is going to get the bright idea: Exchange servers, SSL encryption, and over the air (OTA) syncronization with windows mobile.
Not a bad idea - you maintain the servers and you have an SSL tunnel between your handheld and your front-end server.
That is, until some induhvidual decides to send his top-secret documents to his gmail account.
Email should never be used for security sensitive stuff. SMTP does not use end-to-end encryption.
When are governments going to get it?
-ted
Sure iPhone supports POP and Imap, but that is not enough. Shared calendars and contact lists as well as public folders are important to mobile users.
Evolution supports exchange server by using data published from OWA. It works rather nicely and is the best way to connect a Linux machine to Exchange server. Apple could have used this method to get minimum exchange support.
Yup they could have done it, but Steve and company decided not to. We are a half Mac half PC shop and we will not be replacing our Motorola Qs with iPhones since they don't completely support Exchange server.
It is a design decision that will cost Apple corporate and personal sales. I'm certain more than one executive, that has to have the newest shiny toy, will be ultra pissed when he finds out his great new iPhone will not sync his calendar, contacts, or public folders over the air.
-ted
I'm the network manager, I decide if we move to Vista or not. Here's why we will not be migrating any time soon:
1. Roaming Profiles. Microsoft has a nasty habit of releasing a technology, proclaiming it as the "standard" and then changing the fucking thing. This time, Vista uses a different profile structure than Windows 2000 or Windows XP. That means EVERYONE's existing profile will not work on Vista. How stupid is that? Favorites, Desktop settings, Application preferences...and the list goes on and on. Microsoft should have migrated the existing profile in the absence of a "V2" profile, but I guess 5 years is not enough time to work that out.
2. Mandatory activation. We re-image machines constantly - currently we use Windows XP Pro volume license so we don't have an activation problem. Now Microsoft wants me to run a Key Management server and all my machines need to touch my network at least every six months. Bullshit. Why is their piracy problem my problem?
3. No perceived benefit. I've been running Windows Vista on my laptop now for a couple of months, and I can't see a single damn reason to go through the headache. Sure, Microsoft moved a bunch of shit around, but it doesn't seem easier or harder than Windows XP - just different. That is not enough of a reason.
No amount of press releases will fix these designed-in fuckups.
-ted
This guy's "perfect" phone sucks for me, why?
No QWERTY keyboard. I use my phone more often for email than actually using it as a phone. A QWERTY keyboard is a necessity - there is nothing more frustrating than trying to type an email on a standard phone keypad. Predictive typing software mostly sucks.
If a company could create the "perfect" phone, the financial rewards of such a device would make either patent licensing, or litigation acceptable costs.
The problem is, no one knows what the "perfect" phone should look like, or how it should operate. For every person that wants a QWERTY keyboard there are those that don't.
The whole argument reminds me of the "cancer cure" conspiracy theorists that say the cure for cancer is not available since it would hurt the profits of those companies that provide treatments. Baloney! The cure would be worth 10 times the entire treatment regimen of the patient.
The perfect phone doesn't exist because it can not be defined.
-ted
I don't care what it costs. If they restrict my ability to get to things on the internet, their service is worthless.
-ted
I would gladly pay full price for the device, if a carrier would let me go month-to-month on the service.
I'm tired of being locked into contracts. Most carriers will not even let you buy the hardware at full price - why? They know that the contract you are signing is worth WAY more than the hardware cost. They use the hardware subsidy as an excuse to get you to sign a contract.
The bullshit has gotten so bad that in the last 10 years, handset prices have fallen tremendously, and the average contract has gone up from one year to two years. What kind of crap is that?
I remember selling cell phones at Circuit City 10 years ago. People used to pay $50-$300 for a phone with a 1 year contract, and $300 to $600 without a contract. Sure, we had free phones, but they only required a one year contract.
Now, thanks to the advances of the chip industry, handsets are dirt cheap. Have you ever seen the price on prepaid phones? Those things are almost throw-away phones. Buyers that can not afford full price hardware can still go the prepaid route.
The hardware is now cheap enough - it's time to separate the hardware from the service.
-ted
I don't want the movie or music industry to appear sensible. I want all their representatives to look like raving lunatics.
My hope is that eventually these guys will make the Taliban regime look reasonable. Maybe eventually these organizations will ask for copyright infringement to be punishable by death.
Once that happens, it might just be political suicide for a congressman to support the MPAA or RIAA.
One can hope.
-ted
had a cryptic label that spelled MEMOREX.
-ted
Ray,
It is only a matter of time until the owners of coffee shops and hotels with free internet access get burned by this. There is no way for these investigators to identify the end user. Their investigation ends at the cable or DSL modem.....and the poor fool that pays the monthly bill.
It's only a matter of time until the wrong guy with deep enough pockets gets burned.....and fights back.
-ted
Courts are trying force administrators of systems that do not log activities to start keeping logs.
There are many problems with this:
Technical: RAM contents are not permanently stored due to the technical nature of RAM. This judge wants to change that.....essentially storing everything that passes through RAM.
Cost: Why should the owners and operators of systems bear the cost of copyright enforcement? As a system administrator, what do I gain by spending my company's money on lots of disk and tape to keep logs for the RIAA? Why is that my responsibility?
Responsible party: If my users agree to only use my systems for legal purposes and they break that agreement, why am I required to provide anything to any third party? If they violate my TOS, I should be able to kick them off my network. The RIAA and their civil case should not involve me or my network. Their gripe is with the end user. If they need my help to pursue their case, then they don't have much of a case.
SARBOX forces companies to keep all emails and IM records as potential evidence. What's next? Recording every spoken word just in case someone needs it in court?
The burden of proof should be on the accuser - not on the accused.
-ted
don't usually have in house support people. Most companies that I have seen that run QB enterprise are small to medium businesses. They don't have full time IT staff, and the companies are not usually IT related businesses.
I can't see these types of businesses successfully running Linux servers - hell some of them can't even run Windows or Mac OS without difficulty.
I'm glad Intuit is making the leap into Linux. As much as I hate Intuit, I applaud them for this move. Hopefully they will stick with it when Joe's Landscaping company calls asking for help with their Linux server.
As good as Linux is, QB Enterprise is a steaming pile of garbage, and they will get support calls - hopefully they will be ready for them.
-ted
NewYorkCountryLawyer,
The Exhibits in Elektra v. Barker appear to be screenshots of file sharing software (and a list of infringing files compiled by an unknown party).
Surely, this can't be all the evidence that was presented in that case, can it?
Screenshots can be easily forged, and do not necessarily identify the person using the file trading software. Is this the sole basis of their case?
-ted
So does this mean anything that makes is past their filters is OK to use how ever I want?
-ted
It's sad, but I think today's youth take technology for granted and I don't think today's youth would have been as interested in his show.
It's a damn shame. I think shows like Mr. Wizard sparked an interest in science, in a generation of kids, that made the US a technological powerhouse.
Hopefully something like Mr. Wizard will attract today's kids to science. The future of our country depends on it.
-ted
Now they'll recommend its use when they go out to work in the real world
That may be a nice thought to have a world where the employees can demand the work environment they want. If that was the case, no one would work in cubicles, everyone would have a corner office with tons of window space, and everyone would have a top of the line computer sitting at their desk.
The real world doesn't work that way (mostly). I doubt, even if you teach students "the right way" they will not be able to demand "the right way" from their employer.
Can you imagine an young new engineering student going into industry and demanding that an Autocad or Solidworks shop use something else? I'm sure his/her employer would say these are the tools we've standardized on, use them or don't come back.
It's nice to think that young kids out of school have that level of influence, but that is not realistic.
-ted
Many of the software vendors we deal with have been in business for 20 years, and have yet to "take care of us real good", as you put it.
Why is it so hard to believe that software companies may actually want to provide software to schools at a discount just to be good guys?
Do you really think an anti-virus vendor or a backup software company is trying to get the kids "hooked" on their software? The kids aren't even aware we use the software.
-ted
When technology leaders train teachers and students to use proprietary software, it obligates those teachers and students to buy or steal that software or to have wasted their time on the training.
This seems to be a purely economic reason for using free software. This was the one point I chose to make my comment about.
You even included it in your response!
Yes, if you want to teach a class on Photoshop, you obligate the students, and the SCHOOL to buy Photoshop. If you want to teach GIMP, you obligate no one to buy the software, but it may not be suitable software for the curriculum, and teaching that software - while free - might still be a waste of time and tuition dollars.
Sure, the article made some very nice, feel-good points. It warmed my heart. The only points that school administrators seem to care about are: "Do we need this?" and "What does it cost?".
My post focused on the cost. I'm sure that isn't important to you, but it is important to a lot of other people.
-ted
Proprietary software at educational pricing is, in most cases, dirt cheap.
Almost every single software company I know provides software to schools at a significant discount.
Our small little school gets windows for $60/copy. We also buy office for $60/copy. Bigger schools get an even bigger discount than that.
Our largest costs are humans and hardware; neither of which have a free/open source equivalent. If you look at the entire budget for a school or a school district, software costs are a tiny blip on the radar. Those costs pale in comparison to payroll, benefits, insurance, utilities, facilities.....etc.
The point is that software should be selected based on ONE criteria: suitability of purpose. The best software that does the job for the lowest total cost should be selected. Sometimes free software is the way to go, sometimes it's not.
We are already struggling with religion creeping into schools, we don't need software religions creeping into schools.
-ted