MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-05-20 |
| FROM | Marco Scoffier
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Alt schools demo
|
Hi,
I switched around the order of your post to put what I found to be the
most important part first.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:14:59AM -0400, Sunny Dubey wrote:
> You are dealing with a bunch of people who tend to know only of Microsoft, and
> also the DoE has city wide contracts with Microsoft as well, so the software
> is essentially "free" for a school to use. (Use some common sense and don't
> debate me on the usage of the word free in this context.) These people
> often won't care about ideals, the only time they will care about OSS is when
> they notice the gimp is free, and photoshop is not.
>
BTW the head tech guy said that in order to get out of a Microsoft audit the
DoE agreed to pay $42 per computer in the system, regardless of whether
it worked or was in use. That said, we will never win on the "free as
in beer issue" I have no doubt whatsoever that Microsoft, Apple, Adobe,
Oracle and every other software vendor is prepared to go to zero dollars
in the education sector to fight off free software.
The most important part of free software is the message it carries, of
openness and infinite tinkerability. Exposure to such a system can set
off curiousities which will last a lifetime, and that is what education
is all about. Not about creating consumers, or clients.
There would be a huge revolt if the gym teachers required Nike shoes to
take Phys Ed. Training kids on a particular brand of anything is wrong.
These arguements have come up around TV in the classroom (with the
targeted ads), around snack machines on campuses trying to create
addicts as early as possible. There is the exact same problem with
computer systems. We have a fully functional commercial free alternative
today.
>
> On Sunday 18 May 2003 11:07 am, Marco Scoffier wrote:
>
> > The reliance on external companies, or web-service portals shocked me
> > because the teachers are imputting their entire lesson plans through
> > a web form and relying on the continued well being of a distant company
> > offering a "free as in beer" service over the net, which seems to me to
> > be an incredibly precarious way of running classes.
>
> The reality that having it done externally might be cheaper than doing it in
> house on a per school basis ... if this was done at each individual school,
If the BoE would contract one external place, or recommend one place
where the license made sense (such as making clear that the teachers own
the copyrights to the course materials they are putting on line), I
don't have much of an issue. What amazed me was the level cluelessness
among the teachers. This is what Dave has said all along. They haven't
even thought through what it means to farm their courses out to some
site in California, just that it was easy and answered a need the BoE
hasn't been able to meet. Were the BoE to investigate these types of
services and find a responsible one, I have no issues.
> there would always be a demand for someone with that specific know-how
> ... and even for the better schools of NYC that is much easier said
> then done ...
One tech could run all the slash servers for the entire BoE remotely. A
small team could adapt the software specifically to the needs of the
BoE. If another company in california can do this in california
cheaper. An agreement has to be made, so the situation is not so
precarious.
>
--
Marco
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
