So why not leave the batteries out and use a small gasoline powered generator to provide the power? Wouldn't that take care of all the negatives you list?
True, battery life is a problem and will continue to be for some time. But, what about putting a small gasoline powered generator in there to provide the electricity? Some of those portable emergency generators run all day on a couple gallons of gas and would produce significantly more power than any battery pack ever would.
Of course, it doesn't eliminate the need for gas, but would greatly reduce it. Then, in the future, if fuel cell technology ever became feasible and economical, the generator could be replaced by a fuel cell.
An approach like this seems much simpler to impliment than the current hybrid cars that need to switch between gas powered and electric power depending on the load.
Ok, so the other team, the one with government funding, gets to cross the finish line first. That hurts us how? Unless you think the other researcher is going to hoard the knowledge and not share it, but then, unless it is a government funded project, that's not how research works. It's only the government projects that are secret.
But hey, you may be right, the US put a whole lot more money in the space race and got to the moon first. No one has been back since.
It is just that simple. You are wrong. You don't lose your federal funding for the whole university. Unless you are proposing that the major universities in California will no longer receive any funding.
The federal ban prevents federal money from being used on embryonic stem cells other than the approved strains. That's it.
Besides, if this is so promising, where are the corporate backers? Just think, if you are the one to patent replacement you'd clean up. The reason that you don't find the massive corporate backers is that financial people aren't buying into all of the hype surrounding embryonic stem cells. Only the public, because of the media, is doing so.
Regardless, the Bush ban doesn't stop any research from going on. It only stops the federal funding of this specific research if new strains are used.
Upgrading now, may not make sense since things are working. But, in the next year or so, when the new versions of Windows and Office come out, the hardware you describe won't run it. The school is already two versions behind.
However, switching when the new versions come out, to say Linux or BSD, would make sense in that it won't require hardware upgrades.
Starting to switch over now would make further sense, in that the school could gain experience, before a wholesale switchover.
As for personal/home computers, I figure they are like cars, as long as they are doing what you want, there's no reason to go out and buy a new one. Once they no longer are supported, and you can't get updates (ie Windows NT 4.0), then it's time to start considering it.
Speaking of FUD, oh Anonymous Coward, I don't know what you mean by Microsoft not charging fees for maintenance. Every organization I've worked for with a large installed base of computers has paid some sort of Microsoft support fee. It is true that they don't charge for their patches when they release them, but then neither does RedHat. You can download every patch that Redhat releases for free. If you want the priority service, well, then you pay for that. Same goes for Microsoft. When I worked for a large government agency, we got Microsoft patches a lot sooner than the general public. Heck, we helped write some of them. But, we paid a premium fee for that service.
So, before you go spouting about Linux users and how they lie, you might want to check your facts. Or is that why you posted anonymously in the first place?
It's true that computers weren't as numerous back when Apple lost the market, but they cost significantly more, too (both Apple and PCs). So, as a percentage of budget, it was a similar situation.
I agree about Apple blowing the education market, but what most don't seem to realize is that Microsoft purposely sells at a loss to schools as their business model, because they are getting free training/indoctrination into their products of the next generation by doing so.
There model has worked quite well, too. So given, that, they make a ton of money from software sold to schools, just not from the schools themself.
That would be even better. Your local high school is running on old hardware and unsupported versions of Windows. Why not make the switch to Linux on such equipment.
As for your Duron 700 with 256MB of RAM, yes it will run Windows XP, but try opening Pagemaker, IE, Word, etc. I'm not bashing the computer, just the software. Even if they do run, Microsoft has already stated that in the next version of Windows, many of the "new" features will be disabled on older equipment.
Not too many people want to buy an OS that is disabled, so, this will involve hardware upgrades.
I commend you and your school for maximizing the use of existing equipment without jumping on the upgrade bandwagon. Face it, most schools are using their computers for minimal word processing and web surfing. A Windows 98 class machine, would easily fill their needs (assuming it was running 98 and not XP).
The $500 Dells don't usually come with Office, but come with Works, instead. Furthermore, Dell doesn't discount, or at least not significantly, for education, government, etc. Furthermore, setting up a pre-installed computer is not the same as setting up the entire lab, unless you are just having them surf the internet. I would venture, though, that most schools use some form of ghosting their machines to set them up. If so, then ghosting to Windows vs Linux is the same process. Even if they don't ghost, Booting from an install CD is not significantly more work.
So, since the support or labor cost is equivalent for installing Windows vs Linux and the setup time is equivalent, what's left to make the difference? Acquisition cost. Linux requires less frequent hardware upgrades and software acquisition costs are next to nil.
Your last line of "Office/Windows upgrades will not happen until computer upgrades occur," actually strengthens my argument. To upgrae Office/Windows almost always takes a hardware upgrade. Although, as of yet, I haven't heard anyone explain why Office 97 or IE 5.01 is no longer able to do the job and requires an upgrade in the first place.
I'm pretty sure if funding for schools was given in a lump sum to be allocated on the local level, there would be far fewer computer lab upgrades. As it is now, the budget process has bought into how the computers need to be upgraded every three years. That's fine for businesses, because they have a profit motive and can show a cost-benefit. Schools, unless private, are non-profits and have limited resources. If they spent less on web surfing classes and powerpoint presentations and more on core subjects, then maybe we (U.S) wouldn't be falling behind all the other western countries in math and science.
But hey, Johnny can't read, but he can sure make a nice powerpoint presentation!
But, if that is the case, then you don't need to figure in support costs for Linux or BSD, either. All that is left is the software/hardware acquisitions costs and it has been shown time and time again, that in those areas Linux is a fraction of the cost.
Even in Microsoft's own studies, where they show MIcrosoft to be cheaper, it's only when you figure in the support costs (and they use highly inflated Linux ones, at that).
In a Linux/BSD solutions, the machines that were in the lab wouldn't have to go to secondary purposes, they could still be used.
The problem is that most educators don't know enough about computers to make intelligent decisions. So, they rely on school boards which have even less experience and recommend what the individuals use at work -- Windows. Or worse yet, they contract with a consultant to make the decisions and almost always end up with a company who is in the business of selling Microsoft products. It's kind of hard to give an un-biased recommendation when your livelyhood is dependent on Microsoft alone.
If you are on Microsoft support, then you need to upgrade frequently to stay on that support. Even without frequent upgrades, the only thing that changes is the "Repeat this process..." part. Eventually, your Office 97 and Windows 98 (?) will need to be upgraded and then the costs still apply (although, you might need new hardware in your case, so the savings will only be $37,500).
But, if you did switch to linux, there are good alternatives to KDE/OpenOffice that won't choke that PII300 laptop (XFCE/Abiword comes to mind).
"Why is it always about costs?" Because it's business/budget managers who make the final decision. All of Stallman's philosophy in the world won't answer the simple budget question of "How much will it cost?"
Most schools, once out of the early grades rely on Office as their sole computer curriculum for students. But, even so, someone already posted a link to other educational software available for linux. So, yes, there are off-the-shelf replacements available.
And assuming you are referring to hardware in the upgrading a Linux box, surely you don't think a linux box would cost more to replace than a windows box, and it would only need to be replaced a fraction of the time that a windows box would need.
Case in point. Linux runs very well on a relatively old 1ghz computer with 256MB ram, running Openoffice. 650mhz and 128MB ram if you run XFCE and Abiword, instead. Try Windows XP on that setup. Yes it will run, but how well? At the rate schools are upgrading hardware, not very.
Somehow, Microsoft replaced Apple as the education platform at a time when all education software was geared towards Apple. If schools could switch platforms then, why is it so hard to do so now?
Get real. If you say that you only need to deal with Microsoft every 4-5 years, then you are only referring to the acquisition cost, not the maintenance cost. Even that's not true since Office is on a quicker release cycle than Windows.
But back to your point, if you are only talking about the acquisition costs then download your Linux for free. The fee the vendors charge is for maintenance (and is a lot cheaper than Microsoft's fee at that).
The error with your logic is that it's not just Linux applies in your ABC, but any operating system, including Windows.
As for the economics, conceding that both have maintenance costs, that rules out A. The fact that Microsoft will be releasing a new and different interface in the next version of Windows and Office, rule out B. Finally, Linux on a partition is no more a threat (and I'm sure many would argue it's less a threat) than having Windows on a partition, so that rules out C.
Here is some real economics for your situation. Your computer lab has 125 computers. The next OS upgrade from Microsoft will cost, say $100 to upgrade. That's $12,500. Upgrade to the next version of Office at the same time, to eliminate incompatabilities with the new OS, of course, say another $100 per machine, so another $12,500.
So far we are at $25,000. Now, this is assuming that you pay the same to install Windows as you would Linux, etc. So these costs don't really factor in, nor do maintenance costs, as both systems have these. The $25,000 is just the cost of new software.
Of course, we are assuming that your then three year old computers will have enough power to run all of this new software, chances are it won't or won't for long. So, you buy 125 brand new Dell computers for $500 each, or another $62,500. This time you will need to pay someone to install these and haul away the old, so figure another $100/machine for an additional $12,500. None of this would be required with Linux or one of the other FOSS operating systems and software.
To make a long story short, your computer lab, just to stay compatable with Microsoft will cost $100,000 more than switching to FOSS. Repeat this process every three years to maintain the upgrade cycle and you will see the true cost of your computer lab staying proprietary.
In time, it will change. For the last ten years, more and more kids in college have been exposed the Unix/Linux/bsd variants. As they enter the work force and migrate up the corporate ladder into management positions, they won't be as resistant to change as their predecessors were.
This has happened before. At one time, the IBM Mainframe reigned supreme. PCs were justs toys to play with. Eventually, though, enough people exposed to PCs moved into management positions and new their potential that today, there is far more cumulative computing power on corporate desktops than in their mainframe.
The same will happen to Windows. History repeats itself.
Hmmm, they do in this part of the country, at least at the high school level. Not special ed schools, though. Just the regular ones. Maybe you need to move to a different school district.
Sadly, kids need skills with Windows, specifically its office applicatons for jobs and the real world(tm) in general. I can't get hired by some places because I've refused to learn how to learn some MS products.
That's pretty much a myth since most schools don't teach kids how to use these apps except in the most rudimentary way. Granted, if you had no exposure to a word processor or a spreadsheet, that might keep you from being hired, but most kids coming out of school don't know anything but the minimal basics of those products. Otherwise, why would businesses spend so much money on training courses for employees?
Kids don't need skills in Windows or Microsoft products. They need skills in using word processors to put their ideas together in a coherent and esthetical fashion. They need to know how to use a spreadsheet to solve a problem, but first they need to know how to solve the problem, conceptually.
None of those things require a single Microsoft product. If it were the case that those skills don't transfer from one vendor's product to another, then we'd all still be using Wordstar and Visicalc.
My point was that if Microsoft is correct and Unix/Linux administrators cost more (make more) than Windows administrators, then shouldn't the schools be teaching kids what will enable them to maximize their earnings potential (versus, say Microsofts)?
Slashdot Mirror
So why not leave the batteries out and use a small gasoline powered generator to provide the power? Wouldn't that take care of all the negatives you list?
True, battery life is a problem and will continue to be for some time. But, what about putting a small gasoline powered generator in there to provide the electricity? Some of those portable emergency generators run all day on a couple gallons of gas and would produce significantly more power than any battery pack ever would.
Of course, it doesn't eliminate the need for gas, but would greatly reduce it. Then, in the future, if fuel cell technology ever became feasible and economical, the generator could be replaced by a fuel cell.
An approach like this seems much simpler to impliment than the current hybrid cars that need to switch between gas powered and electric power depending on the load.
Ok, so the other team, the one with government funding, gets to cross the finish line first. That hurts us how? Unless you think the other researcher is going to hoard the knowledge and not share it, but then, unless it is a government funded project, that's not how research works. It's only the government projects that are secret.
But hey, you may be right, the US put a whole lot more money in the space race and got to the moon first. No one has been back since.
It is just that simple. You are wrong. You don't lose your federal funding for the whole university. Unless you are proposing that the major universities in California will no longer receive any funding.
The federal ban prevents federal money from being used on embryonic stem cells other than the approved strains. That's it.
Besides, if this is so promising, where are the corporate backers? Just think, if you are the one to patent replacement you'd clean up. The reason that you don't find the massive corporate backers is that financial people aren't buying into all of the hype surrounding embryonic stem cells. Only the public, because of the media, is doing so.
Regardless, the Bush ban doesn't stop any research from going on. It only stops the federal funding of this specific research if new strains are used.
Upgrading now, may not make sense since things are working. But, in the next year or so, when the new versions of Windows and Office come out, the hardware you describe won't run it. The school is already two versions behind.
However, switching when the new versions come out, to say Linux or BSD, would make sense in that it won't require hardware upgrades.
Starting to switch over now would make further sense, in that the school could gain experience, before a wholesale switchover.
As for personal/home computers, I figure they are like cars, as long as they are doing what you want, there's no reason to go out and buy a new one. Once they no longer are supported, and you can't get updates (ie Windows NT 4.0), then it's time to start considering it.
Speaking of FUD, oh Anonymous Coward, I don't know what you mean by Microsoft not charging fees for maintenance. Every organization I've worked for with a large installed base of computers has paid some sort of Microsoft support fee. It is true that they don't charge for their patches when they release them, but then neither does RedHat. You can download every patch that Redhat releases for free. If you want the priority service, well, then you pay for that. Same goes for Microsoft. When I worked for a large government agency, we got Microsoft patches a lot sooner than the general public. Heck, we helped write some of them. But, we paid a premium fee for that service.
So, before you go spouting about Linux users and how they lie, you might want to check your facts. Or is that why you posted anonymously in the first place?
It's true that computers weren't as numerous back when Apple lost the market, but they cost significantly more, too (both Apple and PCs). So, as a percentage of budget, it was a similar situation.
I agree about Apple blowing the education market, but what most don't seem to realize is that Microsoft purposely sells at a loss to schools as their business model, because they are getting free training/indoctrination into their products of the next generation by doing so.
There model has worked quite well, too. So given, that, they make a ton of money from software sold to schools, just not from the schools themself.
That would be even better. Your local high school is running on old hardware and unsupported versions of Windows. Why not make the switch to Linux on such equipment.
As for your Duron 700 with 256MB of RAM, yes it will run Windows XP, but try opening Pagemaker, IE, Word, etc. I'm not bashing the computer, just the software. Even if they do run, Microsoft has already stated that in the next version of Windows, many of the "new" features will be disabled on older equipment.
Not too many people want to buy an OS that is disabled, so, this will involve hardware upgrades.
I commend you and your school for maximizing the use of existing equipment without jumping on the upgrade bandwagon. Face it, most schools are using their computers for minimal word processing and web surfing. A Windows 98 class machine, would easily fill their needs (assuming it was running 98 and not XP).
The $500 Dells don't usually come with Office, but come with Works, instead. Furthermore, Dell doesn't discount, or at least not significantly, for education, government, etc. Furthermore, setting up a pre-installed computer is not the same as setting up the entire lab, unless you are just having them surf the internet. I would venture, though, that most schools use some form of ghosting their machines to set them up. If so, then ghosting to Windows vs Linux is the same process. Even if they don't ghost, Booting from an install CD is not significantly more work.
So, since the support or labor cost is equivalent for installing Windows vs Linux and the setup time is equivalent, what's left to make the difference? Acquisition cost. Linux requires less frequent hardware upgrades and software acquisition costs are next to nil.
Your last line of "Office/Windows upgrades will not happen until computer upgrades occur," actually strengthens my argument. To upgrae Office/Windows almost always takes a hardware upgrade. Although, as of yet, I haven't heard anyone explain why Office 97 or IE 5.01 is no longer able to do the job and requires an upgrade in the first place.
I'm pretty sure if funding for schools was given in a lump sum to be allocated on the local level, there would be far fewer computer lab upgrades. As it is now, the budget process has bought into how the computers need to be upgraded every three years. That's fine for businesses, because they have a profit motive and can show a cost-benefit. Schools, unless private, are non-profits and have limited resources. If they spent less on web surfing classes and powerpoint presentations and more on core subjects, then maybe we (U.S) wouldn't be falling behind all the other western countries in math and science.
But hey, Johnny can't read, but he can sure make a nice powerpoint presentation!
But, if that is the case, then you don't need to figure in support costs for Linux or BSD, either. All that is left is the software/hardware acquisitions costs and it has been shown time and time again, that in those areas Linux is a fraction of the cost.
Even in Microsoft's own studies, where they show MIcrosoft to be cheaper, it's only when you figure in the support costs (and they use highly inflated Linux ones, at that).
In a Linux/BSD solutions, the machines that were in the lab wouldn't have to go to secondary purposes, they could still be used.
The problem is that most educators don't know enough about computers to make intelligent decisions. So, they rely on school boards which have even less experience and recommend what the individuals use at work -- Windows. Or worse yet, they contract with a consultant to make the decisions and almost always end up with a company who is in the business of selling Microsoft products. It's kind of hard to give an un-biased recommendation when your livelyhood is dependent on Microsoft alone.
If you are on Microsoft support, then you need to upgrade frequently to stay on that support. Even without frequent upgrades, the only thing that changes is the "Repeat this process..." part. Eventually, your Office 97 and Windows 98 (?) will need to be upgraded and then the costs still apply (although, you might need new hardware in your case, so the savings will only be $37,500).
But, if you did switch to linux, there are good alternatives to KDE/OpenOffice that won't choke that PII300 laptop (XFCE/Abiword comes to mind).
"Why is it always about costs?" Because it's business/budget managers who make the final decision. All of Stallman's philosophy in the world won't answer the simple budget question of "How much will it cost?"
I should either come up with a new one...
I think the line from your other post would make a great SIG:
"Windows is so easy to use, we give courses in it - but Linux is hard, so we don't? What's wrong with this picture?"
Please, don't feed the trolls! The topic of Evolution vs ID was beaten to death the other day on a different thread.
I agree with your post, but I don't understand the point of your SIG. Could you elaborate?
Most schools, once out of the early grades rely on Office as their sole computer curriculum for students. But, even so, someone already posted a link to other educational software available for linux. So, yes, there are off-the-shelf replacements available.
And assuming you are referring to hardware in the upgrading a Linux box, surely you don't think a linux box would cost more to replace than a windows box, and it would only need to be replaced a fraction of the time that a windows box would need.
Case in point. Linux runs very well on a relatively old 1ghz computer with 256MB ram, running Openoffice. 650mhz and 128MB ram if you run XFCE and Abiword, instead. Try Windows XP on that setup. Yes it will run, but how well? At the rate schools are upgrading hardware, not very.
Somehow, Microsoft replaced Apple as the education platform at a time when all education software was geared towards Apple. If schools could switch platforms then, why is it so hard to do so now?
They are tax payers too, and less money in the school budget in many places in the world means lower municipal or provincial taxes.
Or teacher's salaries, too.
Get real. If you say that you only need to deal with Microsoft every 4-5 years, then you are only referring to the acquisition cost, not the maintenance cost. Even that's not true since Office is on a quicker release cycle than Windows.
But back to your point, if you are only talking about the acquisition costs then download your Linux for free. The fee the vendors charge is for maintenance (and is a lot cheaper than Microsoft's fee at that).
The error with your logic is that it's not just Linux applies in your ABC, but any operating system, including Windows.
As for the economics, conceding that both have maintenance costs, that rules out A. The fact that Microsoft will be releasing a new and different interface in the next version of Windows and Office, rule out B. Finally, Linux on a partition is no more a threat (and I'm sure many would argue it's less a threat) than having Windows on a partition, so that rules out C.
Here is some real economics for your situation. Your computer lab has 125 computers. The next OS upgrade from Microsoft will cost, say $100 to upgrade. That's $12,500. Upgrade to the next version of Office at the same time, to eliminate incompatabilities with the new OS, of course, say another $100 per machine, so another $12,500.
So far we are at $25,000. Now, this is assuming that you pay the same to install Windows as you would Linux, etc. So these costs don't really factor in, nor do maintenance costs, as both systems have these. The $25,000 is just the cost of new software.
Of course, we are assuming that your then three year old computers will have enough power to run all of this new software, chances are it won't or won't for long. So, you buy 125 brand new Dell computers for $500 each, or another $62,500. This time you will need to pay someone to install these and haul away the old, so figure another $100/machine for an additional $12,500. None of this would be required with Linux or one of the other FOSS operating systems and software.
To make a long story short, your computer lab, just to stay compatable with Microsoft will cost $100,000 more than switching to FOSS. Repeat this process every three years to maintain the upgrade cycle and you will see the true cost of your computer lab staying proprietary.
In time, it will change. For the last ten years, more and more kids in college have been exposed the Unix/Linux/bsd variants. As they enter the work force and migrate up the corporate ladder into management positions, they won't be as resistant to change as their predecessors were.
This has happened before. At one time, the IBM Mainframe reigned supreme. PCs were justs toys to play with. Eventually, though, enough people exposed to PCs moved into management positions and new their potential that today, there is far more cumulative computing power on corporate desktops than in their mainframe.
The same will happen to Windows. History repeats itself.
Hmmm, they do in this part of the country, at least at the high school level. Not special ed schools, though. Just the regular ones. Maybe you need to move to a different school district.
Maybe you are ignorant that Linux vendors charge you annually until the end of time.
And Microsoft doesn't?
Sadly, kids need skills with Windows, specifically its office applicatons for jobs and the real world(tm) in general. I can't get hired by some places because I've refused to learn how to learn some MS products.
That's pretty much a myth since most schools don't teach kids how to use these apps except in the most rudimentary way. Granted, if you had no exposure to a word processor or a spreadsheet, that might keep you from being hired, but most kids coming out of school don't know anything but the minimal basics of those products. Otherwise, why would businesses spend so much money on training courses for employees?
Kids don't need skills in Windows or Microsoft products. They need skills in using word processors to put their ideas together in a coherent and esthetical fashion. They need to know how to use a spreadsheet to solve a problem, but first they need to know how to solve the problem, conceptually.
None of those things require a single Microsoft product. If it were the case that those skills don't transfer from one vendor's product to another, then we'd all still be using Wordstar and Visicalc.
My point was that if Microsoft is correct and Unix/Linux administrators cost more (make more) than Windows administrators, then shouldn't the schools be teaching kids what will enable them to maximize their earnings potential (versus, say Microsofts)?