Linux.com

beautifully written. it helps me promote free software/open source software in my unfortunately low-budget university.

#

I worked in a school district in IT and the problem is that most teachers in that district use the computers as baby sitters and have no real interest in learning anything deeper about computers. I realize there are alot of good teachers out there, but to do anthing besides shoving a cd into the computer and follow someone's canned teaching of Word, Excel or Powerpoint would would of been a miracle.
I think that government, where I work now, would benefit greatly from free software as well. Cost is definitely important for the same reasons, but I think that Open Standards is a more important reason. Here's an example: I had created a Powerpoint in Office 2000 on VOIP and recently had updated to Office XP and was going to speak at a conference and went to use it and realized the rendering engine would not display the jpeg's correctly. I booted into Linux and used OpenOffice instead, which worked flawlessly. Saved by free software. This is an extremely important issue. Our government is saving files in propietary formats and that should cause for us to have concern. We have no assurance 5 years from now the accessability of those documents. Open standards requirement would resolve this issue.
Another reason is security. Using both propietary and free systems at work I find computers running a free OS is definitely more secure and stable.

#

I find it amazing (as a high school student) how ignorant most teachers are about their computers. I've seen teachers ohh and ahh at simple web pages that I, or friends, have created. I think that if the IT professional at any given school district would be aloowed to load linux on all the machines, and if he got X working, with some sort of office suite installed (i.e. star office or open office etc.), then most teachers wouldn't even notice that much of a difference, except that it works most of the time. Schools, government, home users, I think everyone should use free software. It's cheap (duh) and relatively simple (Mandrake has a wonderful gui installer). It's just that most people wouldnt be able to cope with out their handy muliticolored "window" start button.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

#

I agree; most teachers don't have the necessary skills. However, the problem is compounded by apathy and the current security paranoia. Two years ago, I retired from a career in which I did operating system development for 15 years, followed by WAN/LAN development/testing. I tried volunteering to local schools but they were not interested. The only interest I got was from my sister (a teacher in a school 150 miles away), but her school wouldn't even let me in the building without 2 weeks of background checks. Not that that's a problem, but I wasn't going to commute 150 miles as a volunteer. Two years later, I still haven't found anyone interested in allowing me to come in as a "guest speaker" or for a "career day" chat.

The situation in (pre-college) schools today is horrible in regards to computer education. My nephews knew more about computers when they were 5 years old than they are learning in school at 16.

When I was in elementary school, we had speakers that rotated through the classrooms teaching specialty subjects. It gave the students the depth they wanted (and needed) on those subjects, and gave the primary instructor a break for an hour or two. That was the environment that sparked my interest in science and computers to begin with. I feel sorry for the kids in public elementary schools today.

#

Personally I think that educating children with only one version of anything is a bad idea, forcing a certain way of doing anything will only get a response of rebellion. Furthermore, schools should act in the best intrest of the ones they are educating - and their best interest is too know as much about as much as possible. Exposing students to only one way of doing anything would be doing them much discredit - which is mostly what is being done now as almost all school computers I have seen have been running proprietary software. Yes, "free" software should be present in schools, but keep in mind that "free" will probobly come from a vendor like red hat, where its not at all free (assuming support contracts), but still "open", and able to be tinkered with. Please do not trivialize your own arguments by refering to open source software as free - free implies "free as in beer", I can get plently of "freeware" for windows that comes with no source code, the advantages the open source communtiy has to offer are far more reaching than lunch for nothing.

#

Did you even see who wrote this essay?? Sorry, but somehow I think RMS knows the difference between freeware and open source. When RMS says 'free software', it's safe to assume he always means 'as in speech' as opposed to beer.

#

We all know how many children rebel against eating after being told to eat in school every day. Perhaps a bad analogy, but still valid. Not everything causes rebellion.

#

Forcing moral values upon children does.

Eating is not a moral value, its a basic human need. Free access to the obscure source codes of some piece of computer software that the majority of children don't care about anyway, is not a basic human need, its a moral value.

#

The method of teaching IT needs to be completely revamped - to be less application-specific.

Right now, most teachers are teaching children how to use "Microsoft Word", not how to use "a wordprocessor"

Of course - the standard arguments from lazy teachers and students... 'Too many things to learn/teach', 'they will only use Microsoft Word in the real world'...

RMS is the author of this article. Free software refers to software that can be freely modified, freely redistributed. 'Open Source' is the term that trivialises Free software. Availability of source code is not enough.

#

You have to hand this guy the award for most clueless in the F/OSS world... he's trying to teach RMS, the guy who coined the expression, what "free software" means... it's so dumb it hurts!

Dude, don't wanna sound paternalist, but did you know RMS created something called "Free Software Foundation"?

Aren't you a Windows user, by any chance?

#

>educating children with only one version of anything is a bad idea



Yes but being free is not a "version" of anything. Windows could be GPLd, for example.



To me, restricting their freedom, or ability to learn something (perhaps) faster or deeper than the teacher can dole it out are bigger issues. We should never err on the side of market momentum or convenience of the faculty.



If you consider the licensing a merit of deployment, instead of a product in
and of itself, it makes more sense.



I would ask if excluding the option of learning how the software works or how it is written is somehow an advantage to anyone?



As for what 'free' implies, that is another story. A country built on freedom shouldn't default to the commercial definition, if it takes an extra "free as in speech" disclaimer, so be it.

#

By using free software exclusively your denying yourself choice (the choice to use shrink rap software) and limiting your freedom to software that that's free. Exclusively using free software is every bit as bad as exclusively using shrink rap software.

#

The above comment is a facile rationalization, and on that is used time and again.

Shrink-wrapped commercial software is not going away, and that disappearance is not the goal of the Free Software movement. Please read the essay again, and notice the reasons he supplies for using Free Software. After that, please notice the complete absence of reasons mentioned for exclusively using anything, let alone depriving anyone of any choices.

#

"let alone depriving anyone of any choices."

Ok, so if I choose to only use proprietary software from now on, you and Richard Stallman will stop trying to coerce me to change my stand by insinuating in public that my kind is stupid, evil, etc.? No, I didn't think so.

You don't give a shit about freedom. You just want people to do as you say so you can reap the benefits.

#

"Please read the essay again, and notice the reasons he supplies for using Free Software."

With possible exception of saving money (you normally end up paying for support, and no one has done creditable look at the TOC) his reasons are less than compelling (communism comes to mind).

"School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole."

Supporting the economy benefits society.

"If schools teach students free software, then the students will use free software after they graduate."

That's not necessarly the case. If you get and IT job you'll use what the company provides (while you're on their time).

"Those corporations offer free samples to schools for the same reason tobacco companies distribute free cigarettes: to get children addicted (1). They will not give discounts to these students once they grow up and graduate."

Software isn't addictive like tobacco. Just because I use a demo doesn't mean I am going to buy the full version.

"After that, please notice the complete absence of reasons mentioned for exclusively using anything, let alone depriving anyone of any choices."

Let not forget the title of this article is
"Why schools should use exclusively free software". So one is lead to believe his arguments will be to that effect, if not maybe he should have choosen a better, more fitting title.

I would continue but their is limited space and I have other things to do.

#

"""
"School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole."

Supporting the economy benefits society.
"""

This is called the 'Broken Windows Fallacy' --that spending money that didn't have to be spent somehow benefits the economy. This has been thoroughly debunked in economic circles for decades.

""""
If schools teach students free software, then the students will use free software after they graduate."

That's not necessarly the case. If you get and IT job you'll use what the company provides (while you're on their time).
"""

You make the false assumption that everyone on the planet will be forever in a bottom-feeder role and never in decision-making positions. This is clearly false.

"""
"Those corporations offer free samples to schools for the same reason tobacco companies distribute free cigarettes: to get children addicted (1). They will not give discounts to these students once they grow up and graduate."

Software isn't addictive like tobacco. Just because I use a demo doesn't mean I am going to buy the full version.
"""

It sure is addictive if your data is stored in formats that you can only get to with one particular program (Word, anyone?) and even more restrictive if everyone whom you attempt to deal with also sends you the 'poison' (Word documents) so that you can't escape from having to use this one particular program.

"""
Let not forget the title of this article is
"Why schools should use exclusively free software". So one is lead to believe his arguments will be to that effect, if not maybe he should have choosen a better, more fitting title.
"""

I believe that you have just performed a classic semantic error and read the title as 'Why schools should exclusively use free software' rather than what it *actually* says, which is 'Why schools should use exclusively free [software which is wholely free] software.

More factual and ontological errors than one can shake a pointy stick at, tut-tut.

#

By using free software exclusively your denying yourself choice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and limiting your freedom

This doesn't make sense. Each school has to choose SOMETHING for each software need. Choosing Free/Libre Open Source Software puts the least constraints on your freedom.

Schools are supposed to educate people. This means that:

* They should teach good morals through example. Sharing knowledge is a good thing. All the kids who are going to become scientist will have to learn that sharing ideas is fundamental to progress.

* They should use software that is affordable and enhances the learning experience. Free/Libre Open Source Software has a strong tendency to meet these requirements.

#

"They should teach good morals through example"

Using schools to imprint particular beliefs into the minds of children is hardly an example of good morals. What a sad being you must be...

#

"Using schools to imprint particular beliefs into the minds of children..."

Since you're so clever, would you tell us how NOT to do that, then?

#

Nice try at changing the subject. The parent poster didn't say that schools shouldn't influence the morals of children. He said that somebody wanting to use schools, intentionally, for the purpose of pushing children into a particular political direction shouldn't be talking about good morals.

Wanting to take advantage of children to obtain particular political goals, yeah, that is very, very sad.

#

Nice try at changing the subject. The parent poster didn't say that schools shouldn't influence the morals of children. He said that somebody wanting to use schools, intentionally, for the purpose of pushing children into a particular political direction shouldn't be talking about good morals.

Wanting to take advantage of children to obtain particular political goals, yeah, that is very, very sad.

Those childern using free software are not
being indoctrinated into the religion of sharing, they
are merely using a product which is the end result of
that co-operation. The moral benefit is that no-one
prevents them from sharing. I see that as a
plus.

To use an (very) extreme example, suppose some brands of sports
balls required a "licence" for each player handling them.
A school should choose balls which are free for all
to play with, just so they are able to teach teamwork!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:v)

I agree with you that we should not shove our own
morality down other people (especially children's)
throats. But free software is only an example of
how adults share. It is an object lesson; it teaches
cooperation the exact same way that competitive sports teach
competition -- it allows children to experience the results.
Both are valuable.

#

Refusing to address issues of morality at school is itself a statement about morality children can readily pick up on. While some issues (such as religion) shouldn't be imposed, others (such as sharing or not beating up on each other) make the difference between a functional or non-functional society, and must be addressed. It's possible to disagree on where software fits, but not taking a stance is a statement that morality is only something to consider when it doesn't interfere with practicality.

#

"...not taking a stance is a statement that morality is only something to consider when it doesn't interfere with practicality."

We are not talking about whether or not to openly take a stance. We are talking about the morality of wanting to use schools to push children into a particular ideologic direction by subtly favoring particular political ideals over others.

#

RMS, cheers for a wonderfully clear essay. I have only one suggestion, which is to replace 'free' with 'unfettered'; I believe it more accurately/clearly connotes the concept to freedom that is so crucially important to the software debate.

Many regards,
Darryl Dixon
esrever_otuaNOSP@Mhotmail.com

#

Hi Darryl, I must agree with your idea. Most are hung up on words.

#

I suggested "unrestricted" to RMS once, but he commented that the "Unrestricted Software Foundation" sounded a bit clunky. Personally, I think the FSF should be renamed the "Foundation of Software Freedom" anyway - the 'freedom' is better than the 'free' in the current name, IMHO.

#

It's always difficult for me to accept this kind of proposals at face value because they are typically wrapped in a cloak of ideology and quasi-philosophy that is almost always grossly misplaced, as in this case. Certainly, to equate a software development model with "public service" is a perversity that must be driven by a very distorted vision.

Schools should be free to choose and use the software they decide best meets their needs. Better to support greater tax revenues for schools than to encumber them with a gift from RMS.

#

It's always difficult for me to accept this kind of writing at face value because they are typically wrapped in a cloak of stupid ideology and quasi-philosophy cloaked in anonimity that is always grossly misplaced, as is always the case in anonymous reader writings.

Certainly, to come up with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:" to equate a software development model with "public service" is a perversity" that is the distorted vision.

Schools should be free and choose to use the software that best meets their needs , Free software. Better to lower tax revenues for schools than to encumber the country with a totally stupid writing gift from Anonymous reader.

#

How ironic Mr., uh Mrs., uh Anonymous.....

#

"""
Better to support greater tax revenues for schools...
"""

Riiiight, and that would be so that your local resident court-found monopoly software supplier would be able to charge them more for the privilege of using their products, right?

#

In an ideal world, schools, like everyone else, would use Free Software. This is not an ideal world.

The problem is that businesses almost exclusively use Windows / MS Office, not Linux / OpenOffice.org . They will expect people to have MS Office skills.

For experienced computer users, this isn't a problem - it's easy to pick up one package which is like another. For most users, it isn't so easy. I'm sure we've all seen people write down exact steps to perform a task - giving them anything other than MS Office simply won't teach them as much. It seems businesses really do have to take the lead on this one. Once enough switch, OOo skills will be in demand, and schools should fill it.

Outside of this, though, there's a ton of great software which can be used. Celestia comes to mind as an example - and I'm sure everyone has their favourites.

#

The solution then is not to teach OpenOffice, or MS Office, or Wordperfect, or any other software package. The solution is to educate these children (or adults for that matter) not to rely on specific steps in learning, but to rely on CONCEPTS. Every package is really pretty much the same. If you master one word processor, then you have really mastered them all. The differences are really negligable. This conceptual learning can be performed on free software as well as it can be on non-free, at a significantly lower cost. Now I hear you say, "But then we must retrain". Bollocks. These teachers, for the most part, have no real computer training anyway. Besides, once a GNU/Linux system is set-up, the differences in interaction, or how to perform foo, are practically nil. Any argument for non-free software, except for the arguments presented by those with a vested interest in the aging, propritart business model, are easily shot down.

My own ramblings,

rdc

#

Yep no more updates and business still use it even that it is a secuity risk.

Now Software makes its way into business from the numbers of skilled people if no one is skill is microsoft stuff it will die.

Now free software have many features that can be helped by schools. New templates and so on.

Basicly what is being run in business will change.

People take the point of view that stuff will not change. Basicly the game is over. Just people have to wake up companys running OpenOffice will be ahead in the It bottom line. So they will be able to under cut Microsoft setup companys.

#

We teach people computer operation much like teaching spelling or multiplication tables. By rote. Any change including upgrades of the software they were trained on (or deleting a desktop shortcut) will throw them into a tailspin. This is totally unacceptable. Peoples entire approach to computer use needs to be changed from an early age. This will take time however because rote computer operation is the level the vast majority of the teachers function on. Computer operation cannot be taught in the way that typing used to be. Regardless of what software is in use on the machines at school. Teaching OOo by having them memorize which icon to click will be no more effective than teaching them MS or Apple in that way.

my $.02

#

I have had this exact view for not only school systems but for governments as well. Not only will our school children be smarter, but they will make the company/corporation they ultimately end up working for (or leading) smarter and more efficient. Another nice benefit (albeit selfish one) is the fewer number of tax dollars I will have to send in!

#

A school is not the place where proprietary software vendors should be allowed to dominate. A school is meant as a place of education, not indoctrination.
You could think of it this way. When you take Drivers Education in your local school its not "Ford Drivers Education" or "Toyota Drivers Education", its simply "Drivers Education" with the emphasis on teaching you how to drive all the different types of cars you may end up driving in the real world.
On the other hand when you take "Word Processing" or "Spreadsheets" in most schools in the US, you are going to be learning about Microsoft Office, Word, and Excel. The argument that most of the business world uses those products does not justify teaching those products to the exclusion of all others no more than "Drivers Training" should concentrate on whatever is the biggest selling car model in the US or because the manufacturer decided to "donate" cars to the training program we place our teaching emphasis on that brand only. Its inherently wrong and needs to be corrected.

#

RMS's article was excellent. And this Drivers Ed analogy is one of the best posts I've seen in this thread.

-bill!
(author of Tux Paint, open source painting program for the kiddies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^) )

#

"School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole." -- Richard Stallman

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." --Hillary Clinton, 1993

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." --Adolph Hitler, 1933

You're in bad company there, Mr. Stallman. I don't disagree with the fact that schools should use free software, but it's not for this reason. Schools should not be in the business of teaching children to be mindless sheep. They should be in the business of teaching children how to think for themselves and come to rational conclusions which will benefit them as an individual and become less dependent on the rest of society. Students who are able to do so, will choose the best software for the job, accordingly.

It makes good business sense for schools to choose free software, and it makes good educational sense for students to learn how to use software that has the source readily available, but for people to choose broken, hard to use software just to adhere to collectivist ideals is absurd and dangerous.

#

Nice troll.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
from the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy, delivered in 1961

"There is but one just use of power and it is to serve people."

George Bush the First

#

No wonder he got shot, that snake-like little dictator. America had to be liberated from his wrath. I spit on his grave. Puh.

#

Oh, because you think that our society isn't individualist enough?

Your quotes prove absolutely nothing; as if everybody who ever talked about the common good turned out to be a dictator.

Please, go shovel your FUD elsewhere.

#

I agree with you that these purposes for school -- especially the public school system as paid for by our tax dollars -- should not have these social connotations to them. However, it has been my observation that not only the American school system, but rather all publicly funded school systems are created only for the purpose of creating individuals who will blindly follow the current political regime. Education, when it happens, is a side effect that is truly rare.

#

We have one of the most corrupt democracies in the Western world. Don't assume that other nations can't do it better.

#

Dude, I hope you were trolling. It was a bad troll, but at least you tried, which is better than doing nothing...

OTOH, if you really are serious about what you said, I don't know what to say... Seek treatment, that's the best advice I can give. If you're taking some antidepressives, think about a second medical opinion.

And don't despair: *no one* is really normal.

#

I can't wait to see what the Hillary Clinton dictatoral regime is like, I have already got my fill of George W's...

Being able to read is one thing. Being able to comprehend is another completely. However I do appreciate the thought, after all I did respond.

#

To address the more serious point in Alethes' comments, I think it's just within reasonable political boundaries to want to dictate to schools what software they use on their machines as a matter of public finance, if nothing else. But it's the red herring in the post that's particularly distrubing.

It says a lot about the state of American education that such an attempt at guilt by association is so common. Not to mention that what Hitler was saying bears almost no resemblance to either of those other quotes. Specifically, two highly different concepts are presented: "Nation" vs. "society." Hitler was implying the nation (that is, race) is more important than the individual.

Look at Hitler's words and compare them to Hillary's/Stallman's. Now, of course Hitler's sentiment wasn't a positive one; I don't think any statement that an individual is a tool in some holistic national/racial being to be positive. Simply wanting what's best for society does not equal nationalism or collectivism. Presumably any person who is not being disingenuous wants what's best for society. As quite an individualist myself, I want what's best for society. Certainly abandoning the rich texture of human thought that an individual is capable of in order to promote a vague notion such as race is not only absurd, it's reprehensible. Having a social conscience does not preclude lacking individuality.

Next, even if we go by what Alethes apparently thought Hitler was saying, the quotation isn't supervened on a Hitler-like personality. Hitler isn't a "bad" guy because he made that statement or the myriad other statements that affirm or contradict that one. Hitler was famous for using all sorts of rhetoric to get power. (Modern American Republicans don't seem lacking in this skill either.) I think it's fair to say Hitler was a bad guy primarily because he systematically murdered millions of people, not because he supported ideas like an old-age pension or free distribution of superior Germanic industrial schematics under the GPL (as some revisionist sources indicate, to fight the Jewish monopoly on industrial innovation).

Somehow, I don't think making a statement in favor for what's best for society is strong evidence for a personality capable of utilizing modern industry to exterminate fellow human beings.

The modern purpose of politics is to find what's best for society. It took human beings a long time to realize that. The problem with many people today is they still don't understand that.

Richard Fassett

Ricky at Fassett dot Net.

#

RMS yeah you are right I think the young student will learn to share & help society if free software is used in school. If schools use non free software the young students will learn with not to share knowladge or software because some high monkey of some evil big comapny said them to do so or else they will learn to steal software & wil become a pirate

As for me in my university I had a sem for COBOL ( though it was horrible) we wanted the compiler from the professor so that we can program at our home but he said sorry He could not share cause it is non free so I did a google search & find tinny COBOL a GNU COBOL compiler which I later give to the professor & also to my friends & we able to practice COBOL at home. It also help me to incease my friendship with others.

Anirban Biswas.

PS: thanks RMS for visiting Calcutta & giving me GNU/Linux Stickers.

#

Do you have some Perl script spewing out the same old moralist bullshit at regular intervals or do you use a template where you just have to type in the target user group of the day?

#

Taken straight from the troll template.

I believe that's troll.pm, in Perl.

#

Can't deal with reality? Call it a troll!

#

Or just have a messenger a vile and vulgar as RMS and it immediately becomes a troll. This guy's done alot for Free Software but he's done just as much to hurt it...I don't blame people for shying away from his fanatical views.

#

Open-source kids adapt better to novel software or interfaces, and are therefore better prepared for the future. I have seen a group of late primary kids (grade 5/6) start working with a new version of Windows, and the Linux nuts among them got fully up to speed faster than the Windows-only kids.

I would expect the same to apply for spreadsheets, word processors, databases,....

Imagine the understanding of maths and the ability to use a calculator if you are only shown one brand of calculator at school, versus practicing with a lot of different brands.

That's why I would even encourage kids to use Microsoft occasionally.

#

There is a very interesting new project in progress at the moment to build a free, open source school administration package, SchoolTool. Think SAP for education. It's funded, so hopefully it won't just fade away.

#

One of the main advantages of using Open Source, is that it puts no obligation on the students using it.

When using Ms Windows, what happens in fact is a way for Ms to advertise their software in school -often exclusively!

School should be an island, where pupils can learn and prosper without any attempted favorisation or indoctrination. Advertising in schools is often highly-debated, yet Ms gets free advertising space for their Os, IE, Visual Basic/C++, Messenger,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... clearly giving them an unfair advantage.

What's more important is, school is not the sacred ground anymore -a bit shielded from the outside commercial world- where pupils can make up their own mind without external influences.

Meaning that you do not advertise for M$, but neither for Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, Debian,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just a 'faceless' distribution with no brand name, only a mention that the OS/software is open source. After all, fair is as fair does.

Darkelve

#

I've been saying this for some time, and I should know. I'm the technology coordinator at the Linden Hall School in Lititz, PA. We switched to Open/StarOffice two years ago and don't look back.

The trouble is, bigger schools than ours are always offered deals by MS. "If your district buys 10,000 copies of XP Home we'll "throw in" Word and Excel." Which is terrific if you're a huge district (or, maybe not if you consider what may happen later). But we're a small (140 students), all girls school.

This is similar to what's happened in the insurance industry. Every year our school struggles to find a plan to suit but we're not alone. Small business owners also struggle to find an affordable plan.

Huge companies love the big sales (even with the huge discounts) because there's less overhead, less support issues to worry about. But what happens to the "little guy"? I can tell you, it's not pretty.

Two years ago, I stood in front of an auditorium of non-plussed faculty and asked then who was willing to give up their job so I could give their paycheck to Microsoft? That's how much we were looking at just for Office. But there were other issues:

1) We are a boarding school, but if you think about it, this applies elsewhere. What happens when a student works on a document in one place and can't open/modify it properly in another? By going with OpenOffice.org and StarOffice, we're able to insure total compatibility schoolwide. It's not phoney XML support like in Office 2003. It's industry standard, and it's supported in the entire line (not just select editions).

2) As if OpenOffice wasn't enough, under StarOffice 7's modified educational license, every single teacher gets a full copy for free now.

3) Early on in our trials, I asked the teachers to compile a list of things they were concerned about. Specifically, what things they felt only Microsoft products could provide them with. After a bit of education about StarOffice's quirks, all of these were resolved.

4) This was hardly the first time we've switched Office suites. In fact, if you look through the history of most companies/schools that have been around for a while, you'll find that they've all been through the gamut of Wordperfect, Word for DOS, XYWrite, and others. MS Office is not the 'standard' everyone thinks it is.

5) Speaking of standards, ever have an MS document not open in Word? Yeah, me too. Different international versions, weird consumer versions (Works), and 95/DOS versions have splintered the so-called<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc 'standard'. In fact, I'd venture to say that outside of macro support, document recovery is BETTER with StarOffice 7.

6) PDF's and Flash. Unbelievable. It's all good.

StarOffice costs $79 CAMPUS-WIDE. Every computer, every teacher. We're a private school, but I pay taxes. Do you pay taxes much? It's your money. Think about it.

RMS may have a point after all.

#

Don't forget that with free software if a student needs a software program that the school is
using, it would be easy for the school to just charge $1.00 or so for each copy of the software if the software was open source.

#

The most fundamental mission of schools is to teach people to be good citizens and good neighbors

No, I believe that is the job of the parents. When it becomes the job of a government, its public school system, or its state based religion, it is brainwashing, no matter how benevolant that government's approach might be.

#

"No, I believe that is the job of the parents. When it becomes
the job of a government, its public school system, or its state
based religion, it is brainwashing, no matter how benevolant
that government's approach might be. "

I don't believe Richard is proposing laws to make using
non-free software illegal. He is giving reasons why rational
school teachers may prefer using free software instead.

(We may also fear the brainwashing of powerful
corporations -- many of whom back legislation to
make free speech which is inconvenient to them illegal.)

By the way, most people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/are/ good citizens and good
neighbors because it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/works/. Similarly, free software
demonstrates that co-operation can benefit everyone
involved individually, which is definately a lesson I want
my children to learn, indeed a lesson which can *only*
be learned in the real world, not in my house.

#

Yes, but if the parents do not know how to teach their child/children ?

This is what we have in France, in our suburbs: non-integrated people, mainly from Algeria, just do not know how to educate their children, who play ball forever in the streets instead of studying at home or wherever...

The schools should try to teach at least something about being "good citizens and good neighbors". Free software, taught for what it is (sharing knowledge, increasing comprehension, mastering the informatics tool better than with MS-Win...), cannot do harm as to showing a good example of what "good" human behaviour is.

I do not think that RMS wanted any religion war. Just propose that Free Software can be a good ground (again, just for what it is) to show a GOOD example.

Just my idea

Filippo

#

Note : English is not my motherthong so don't look at mistakes

I'm a high school student and I'm in a computer science program. Before intering that program, I tought that many students would have an interest like me in computer science but that is not the case. My computer science teacher likes linux and free software so he installed Linux as a second OS on every PCs of the school. He don't force students to use it but encourage them to do so. Well, me and my teacher are the only two persons booting in linux and learning things about it.

It shows that students that are not interested in computed science wont go naturaly with free software because they are not interested in learning things in this area.

There is a week, while I was just surfing the web, a student said to me "Why are you on linux ?" and my answer was "Why I would have been on windows ?".

In conclusion, it shows that we have mind to change and that we would have to force students and don't let them choose.

#

Its obvious that all of you can read, But I certainly don't think you all comprend what you read.

In my opinion you should read the article again with less venom in your minds about whatever ideology you bring to the table. Focus on the benefical aspects of the article which appeal to you. I think the whole point is not feel like you are bound to any one thing, and to advocate a system that broadens your choices and capabilities.

#