Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Detroit high school opens its desktops
By Kevin Quiggle
on
May 26, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
In 2003, John Hansknecht, the director of technology at the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy, had a tough decision to make. The school had about a hundred older computers running Microsoft Office 97 and Windows NT, and some kind of upgrade was clearly required. It would have been an easy decision to simply upgrade to Microsoft Office 2000, but that would have required replacing all the computers with more powerful systems -- a large expenditure which could be better spent on other technology needs. Hansknecht had a better idea: OpenOffice.org.
The previous year Hansknecht had begun evaluating OpenOffice.org with the assistance of Peter Guenther, the computer applications teacher, and Vondra Abbott, the school librarian. Hansknecht thought that if he could meet the school's requirements with an office suite that worked with both Microsoft Windows and Linux, he could eliminate the cost of Microsoft Office and reduce the need for periodic and expensive hardware upgrades.
However, it was not sufficient that OpenOffice.org was free software; it was also essential that the software meet the school's requirements for quality and functionality. As a college preparatory school with almost a thousand students, U of D Jesuit has a strong commitment to academics, including teaching technology. Any office suite chosen for the school would have to meet the requirements of both students and faculty in terms of stability, functions, and features. Hansknecht would also have to convince the school's Faculty Technology Committee, with both facts and a cost analysis, that OpenOffice.org was a good choice.
The essential facts were these: The school had a total of 158 newer PCs running Microsoft Windows XP, and 110 older PCs running Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Office 97. Realistically, upgrading the older PCs to Windows XP would require a complete hardware replacement. As an alternative, Hansknecht thought the older PCs could be converted to Linux terminals using software from the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP). Although it would be necessary to purchase Linux servers to support LTSP clients, no PC replacements would be required.
The cost analysis was compelling -- the Linux option could be implemented for around $21,000, more than $100,000 less than the Microsoft Windows alternative. The key to enabling the move to Linux, however, was the ability to provide an acceptable office application suite that would run on both Windows XP and Linux. It was impractical for the school to support more than one office application suite, nor was it cost-effective nor beneficial to remove Windows XP from the newer systems.
The functional requirements for an office suite were straightforward: The suite had to include full-featured word processing, spreadsheets with graphs and charts, and presentations. The suite needed to include all of the functions and capabilities being taught in technology classes, be an effective tool for use in school work assignments, and be able to open documents in Microsoft formats for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Ironically, it turned out that OpenOffice.org met the last requirement about as well as Microsoft Office, because the software that students used at home included many older versions of Microsoft Office as well as Microsoft Works, and even Microsoft Office 2000 experienced compatibility issues with other Microsoft office applications.
There was an additional benefit to OpenOffice.org -- because it is free open source software, the school was able to offer the software to all faculty and students. Ultimately, the school provided 30 "library copies" on CD-ROM for students to check out, take home, and install on their own systems.
To support the proposed adoption of OpenOffice.org, Hansknecht presented a cost analysis and implementation plan to the Faculty Technology Committee. He also shared articles and information on OpenOffice.org and the open source philosophy with the faculty and with other decision-makers, to familiarize them with the concepts and benefits of open source software.
Ultimately, Hansknecht's recommendation went to the school's Technology Team, which made a final decision to go ahead in May 2003. With this approval, one of the school computer labs was converted to Linux and OpenOffice.org 1.1 as a pilot test. The lessons learned from the pilot test were used to prepare a complete conversion of all school computers over the summer vacation period (a vacation time for the students, but not for the school technology support staff!).
The school sent notification to the students and their parents advising them of the switch. The school's technology support staff provided orientation sessions to both faculty and students at the beginning of the school year to familiarize them with OpenOffice.org. These 45-minute orientation sessions explained the general layout of the OpenOffice.org suite, discussed key differences between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office, and showed users where to find the "Microsoft Office equivalents" for the most commonly used features and functions. Of course, since U of D Jesuit is a school, students were also given classes in the use of OpenOffice.org.
While OpenOffice.org is now used by 100% of the faculty and students in the school (though some administrative staff still uses Microsoft Office due to specific software requirements), students are not required to use OpenOffice.org when working at home. However, a presentation is given to students at the start of every school year to advise them on the use of OpenOffice.org, the availability of free copies, and potential problems of converting from Microsoft Office formats.
As a practical matter, conversion of documents from Microsoft Office has not been a significant problem, with the exception of some of the more complex PowerPoint files. This has been a concern for some faculty members who have a large number of PowerPoint classroom presentations. Although these presentations could be recreated in OpenOffice.org, faculty members would naturally rather spend their time creating new presentations than recreating existing ones. As a temporary measure, the school has made the free Microsoft PowerPoint viewer software available, although Hansknecht hopes that OpenOffice.org 2.0 will provide improved conversion capabilities and eliminate this interim requirement. The school is evaluating the OpenOffice.org release 2 beta; a decision on whether to implement the upgrade will be made before this summer.
The ability of OpenOffice.org to read and convert Microsoft Office files does not include conversion of macros, but this is not an issue for the school since students and teachers generally do not make significant use of macros. Another minor concern has been the fact that the school uses a "plagiarism prevention" service from Turnitin.com, and the service does not accept files in OpenOffice.org formats. Since OpenOffice.org can save files in Microsoft Office formats, this is merely an annoyance.
U of D Jesuit re-evaluates its implementation of OpenOffice.org at the end of every year. At each re-evaluation, it finds that the project is meeting the school's goals and requirements.
The school has also found some unexpected benefits. Not only has the use of LTSP extended the life of existing hardware, it has actually improved the response time and stability of the systems involved.
Hansknecht does not hesitate to recommend OpenOffice.org to other schools, and he has extended his use of open source software to include the Mozilla browser, GIMP graphics software, Apache Web server, and the Moodle course management system.
The successful adoption of OpenOffice.org at U of D Jesuit did not happen by accident. Thorough planning, hard work, an information campaign, and ongoing support were all required.
However, it was not sufficient that OpenOffice.org was free software; it was also essential that the software meet the school's requirements for quality and functionality. As a college preparatory school with almost a thousand students, U of D Jesuit has a strong commitment to academics, including teaching technology. Any office suite chosen for the school would have to meet the requirements of both students and faculty in terms of stability, functions, and features. Hansknecht would also have to convince the school's Faculty Technology Committee, with both facts and a cost analysis, that OpenOffice.org was a good choice.
The essential facts were these: The school had a total of 158 newer PCs running Microsoft Windows XP, and 110 older PCs running Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Office 97. Realistically, upgrading the older PCs to Windows XP would require a complete hardware replacement. As an alternative, Hansknecht thought the older PCs could be converted to Linux terminals using software from the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP). Although it would be necessary to purchase Linux servers to support LTSP clients, no PC replacements would be required.
The cost analysis was compelling -- the Linux option could be implemented for around $21,000, more than $100,000 less than the Microsoft Windows alternative. The key to enabling the move to Linux, however, was the ability to provide an acceptable office application suite that would run on both Windows XP and Linux. It was impractical for the school to support more than one office application suite, nor was it cost-effective nor beneficial to remove Windows XP from the newer systems.
The functional requirements for an office suite were straightforward: The suite had to include full-featured word processing, spreadsheets with graphs and charts, and presentations. The suite needed to include all of the functions and capabilities being taught in technology classes, be an effective tool for use in school work assignments, and be able to open documents in Microsoft formats for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Ironically, it turned out that OpenOffice.org met the last requirement about as well as Microsoft Office, because the software that students used at home included many older versions of Microsoft Office as well as Microsoft Works, and even Microsoft Office 2000 experienced compatibility issues with other Microsoft office applications.
There was an additional benefit to OpenOffice.org -- because it is free open source software, the school was able to offer the software to all faculty and students. Ultimately, the school provided 30 "library copies" on CD-ROM for students to check out, take home, and install on their own systems.
To support the proposed adoption of OpenOffice.org, Hansknecht presented a cost analysis and implementation plan to the Faculty Technology Committee. He also shared articles and information on OpenOffice.org and the open source philosophy with the faculty and with other decision-makers, to familiarize them with the concepts and benefits of open source software.
Ultimately, Hansknecht's recommendation went to the school's Technology Team, which made a final decision to go ahead in May 2003. With this approval, one of the school computer labs was converted to Linux and OpenOffice.org 1.1 as a pilot test. The lessons learned from the pilot test were used to prepare a complete conversion of all school computers over the summer vacation period (a vacation time for the students, but not for the school technology support staff!).
The school sent notification to the students and their parents advising them of the switch. The school's technology support staff provided orientation sessions to both faculty and students at the beginning of the school year to familiarize them with OpenOffice.org. These 45-minute orientation sessions explained the general layout of the OpenOffice.org suite, discussed key differences between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office, and showed users where to find the "Microsoft Office equivalents" for the most commonly used features and functions. Of course, since U of D Jesuit is a school, students were also given classes in the use of OpenOffice.org.
While OpenOffice.org is now used by 100% of the faculty and students in the school (though some administrative staff still uses Microsoft Office due to specific software requirements), students are not required to use OpenOffice.org when working at home. However, a presentation is given to students at the start of every school year to advise them on the use of OpenOffice.org, the availability of free copies, and potential problems of converting from Microsoft Office formats.
| Six steps to a successful OSS migration |
|---|
If you want to follow the U of D Jesuit model for implementing open source software, here are the six key elements to making the plan work.
|
The ability of OpenOffice.org to read and convert Microsoft Office files does not include conversion of macros, but this is not an issue for the school since students and teachers generally do not make significant use of macros. Another minor concern has been the fact that the school uses a "plagiarism prevention" service from Turnitin.com, and the service does not accept files in OpenOffice.org formats. Since OpenOffice.org can save files in Microsoft Office formats, this is merely an annoyance.
U of D Jesuit re-evaluates its implementation of OpenOffice.org at the end of every year. At each re-evaluation, it finds that the project is meeting the school's goals and requirements.
The school has also found some unexpected benefits. Not only has the use of LTSP extended the life of existing hardware, it has actually improved the response time and stability of the systems involved.
Hansknecht does not hesitate to recommend OpenOffice.org to other schools, and he has extended his use of open source software to include the Mozilla browser, GIMP graphics software, Apache Web server, and the Moodle course management system.
The successful adoption of OpenOffice.org at U of D Jesuit did not happen by accident. Thorough planning, hard work, an information campaign, and ongoing support were all required.
Comments
on Detroit high school opens its desktopsNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Well, you don't really need a draw tool to make org charts or diagrams. The ability to use vector clip art to do that from within an "office" product has been around for at least a decade and is probably now one of those unwritten requirements, like being able to underline or bold is an unwritten requirement of a word processor.
Need a diagram? Just go to the drawing toolbar in word or OpenOffice.org or WP and put your org chart or flow chart or any other vector shape on your document.
Databases are overkill for the vast majority of mailmerges to form letters. You don't need primary keys, relationships or sql. You just need to be able to have a document with a table and table headings or a comma delimited list.
CD inventory is another matter though. If you are doing a true inventory, a database is essential to answer questions like select cd_title where artist like '%stone% and title like '%mama%'. But most people just want to sort by title and see what they own. For that, a word processor or spreadsheet will work fine.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you want a real database, ask the IT person to design it. Staff don't want or need to know about 4th normal form and right vs. left joins.
Need a diagram? Just go to the drawing toolbar in word or OpenOffice.org or WP and put your org chart or flow chart or any other vector shape on your document.
Databases are overkill for the vast majority of mailmerges to form letters. You don't need primary keys, relationships or sql. You just need to be able to have a document with a table and table headings or a comma delimited list.
CD inventory is another matter though. If you are doing a true inventory, a database is essential to answer questions like select cd_title where artist like '%stone% and title like '%mama%'. But most people just want to sort by title and see what they own. For that, a word processor or spreadsheet will work fine.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you want a real database, ask the IT person to design it. Staff don't want or need to know about 4th normal form and right vs. left joins.
As I said in my original post, I was amused that the author, Kevin Quiggle, made the assumption that "what comes with MS Office" is the "correct" definition of an Office Suite. I'll bet that even Mr. Quiggle would be amused by his own assumption, if it was pointed out to him.
But you, apparently, want to argue strongly that Microsoft got it exactly right, and MS Office has the exact right set of tools for Office Suite users.
Interesting.
You argue that the drawing capabilities in MS Word are good enough. But the last time I tried to use MS Word for creating diagrams, it was a painful experience. Prior to that, I tended to use Visio to make diagrams, but my employer at that time considered Visio to be too expensive for anyone except the art department. So I chose to download and learn OpenOffice Draw.
There is just no comparison between the rudimentary drawing capabilities of MS Word, and the full set of features in OpenOffice Draw. Why should someone struggle to use the wrong tool for the job, just because that is all that Microsoft provides?
By the way, if Microsoft added a drawing tool to MS Office, in order to compete with OpenOffice, would you then argue that a drawing tool should be a standard part of any Office Suite?
You also give two arguments against the inclusion of a database tool in an Office Suite.
Your first argument is that a spreadsheet will work for keeping simple lists. And again I would argue that it is using the wrong tool for the job.
Let's take a simple example. Say I want to keep a list of my expenses for a business trip. So I define five columns, named Date, Place, Type of Expense, Amount, and Total, where Total is a running total of Amount.
Now I start to use it. I enter my expenses for the first day. Then I fill in the formula for the running total in the fifth column, and I format the Amount and Total fields to show two decimal places. So far so good.
Now I come to the second day. I fill in another row at the bottom of the list. Did it pick up the formatting, and the formula for the total? Maybe, or maybe not, depending on how I set things up. Then I find a receipt I missed for the first day, so I insert a row in the middle. Did the formula get updated correctly, or is the row after the inserted row still referring the the row before the inserted row? Now lets say I want to sort the list by Type of Expense. What will happen to my running total formula? Or say I want to filter the list to show only meal expenses? What happens then?
A simple database tool gets around all of those problems, because it is the right tool for the job. It was designed to do all those things, simply and easily.
Now you may point out, and I am aware, that some spreadsheets have additional database features built in, however, I have never met anyone who uses them. Spreadsheets are simple to use, but the added database tools tend to be complicated, because they have to fight against the very nature of a spreadsheet.
Again, it is a matter of using the right tool for the job.
You also argued that, for any real database work, you need a full-featured relational database, and a professional designer. But why are you assuming that everyone needs something as complex as MS Access? For most of the things people would want to do with an Office Suite, a simple flat-file database, like the one that came with MS Works, will do the job. It's similar to the difference between a word processor, that comes with most Office Suites, and a Desktop Publisher, that professionals need for doing page layouts.
In short, I think that drawing and database tools are things that a lot of people will use, and are therefore reasonable features to include in an Office Suite. Obviously the developers of OpenOffice think so too.
But, as I said before, I am not here to give the "correct" definition of an Office Suite. I think it would be just as silly to define an Office Suite as "what comes with OpenOffice" as it is to define it as "what comes with MS Office."
I am just pointing out the unwitting assumptions that people tend to make, when all they have known is Windows and MS Office.
But you, apparently, want to argue strongly that Microsoft got it exactly right, and MS Office has the exact right set of tools for Office Suite users.
Interesting.
You argue that the drawing capabilities in MS Word are good enough. But the last time I tried to use MS Word for creating diagrams, it was a painful experience. Prior to that, I tended to use Visio to make diagrams, but my employer at that time considered Visio to be too expensive for anyone except the art department. So I chose to download and learn OpenOffice Draw.
There is just no comparison between the rudimentary drawing capabilities of MS Word, and the full set of features in OpenOffice Draw. Why should someone struggle to use the wrong tool for the job, just because that is all that Microsoft provides?
By the way, if Microsoft added a drawing tool to MS Office, in order to compete with OpenOffice, would you then argue that a drawing tool should be a standard part of any Office Suite?
You also give two arguments against the inclusion of a database tool in an Office Suite.
Your first argument is that a spreadsheet will work for keeping simple lists. And again I would argue that it is using the wrong tool for the job.
Let's take a simple example. Say I want to keep a list of my expenses for a business trip. So I define five columns, named Date, Place, Type of Expense, Amount, and Total, where Total is a running total of Amount.
Now I start to use it. I enter my expenses for the first day. Then I fill in the formula for the running total in the fifth column, and I format the Amount and Total fields to show two decimal places. So far so good.
Now I come to the second day. I fill in another row at the bottom of the list. Did it pick up the formatting, and the formula for the total? Maybe, or maybe not, depending on how I set things up. Then I find a receipt I missed for the first day, so I insert a row in the middle. Did the formula get updated correctly, or is the row after the inserted row still referring the the row before the inserted row? Now lets say I want to sort the list by Type of Expense. What will happen to my running total formula? Or say I want to filter the list to show only meal expenses? What happens then?
A simple database tool gets around all of those problems, because it is the right tool for the job. It was designed to do all those things, simply and easily.
Now you may point out, and I am aware, that some spreadsheets have additional database features built in, however, I have never met anyone who uses them. Spreadsheets are simple to use, but the added database tools tend to be complicated, because they have to fight against the very nature of a spreadsheet.
Again, it is a matter of using the right tool for the job.
You also argued that, for any real database work, you need a full-featured relational database, and a professional designer. But why are you assuming that everyone needs something as complex as MS Access? For most of the things people would want to do with an Office Suite, a simple flat-file database, like the one that came with MS Works, will do the job. It's similar to the difference between a word processor, that comes with most Office Suites, and a Desktop Publisher, that professionals need for doing page layouts.
In short, I think that drawing and database tools are things that a lot of people will use, and are therefore reasonable features to include in an Office Suite. Obviously the developers of OpenOffice think so too.
But, as I said before, I am not here to give the "correct" definition of an Office Suite. I think it would be just as silly to define an Office Suite as "what comes with OpenOffice" as it is to define it as "what comes with MS Office."
I am just pointing out the unwitting assumptions that people tend to make, when all they have known is Windows and MS Office.
Another assumption that you're making, is that a "real" database is a relational one.
Relational - built on C&D's 12 rules that are designed to make life easy for the system guy writing the database program, not to make life easy for the guy using the database.
XML-style (and I didn't say XML) databases are likely to displace relational databases. Again - use the right tool for the job, and relational is the wrong tool for pretty much all databases.
Why use a 2d system to describe a 3d world? It doesn't work! But I'm not naysaying normal form - that's your database axes - but relational imposes a two-axis view. You need more axes to model your data if your data has more axes.
As Occam, Einstein and others said, "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler". Relational makes part of the job simple, at the expense of making the rest of the job a damn sight more complex!
Cheers,
Wol
Relational - built on C&D's 12 rules that are designed to make life easy for the system guy writing the database program, not to make life easy for the guy using the database.
XML-style (and I didn't say XML) databases are likely to displace relational databases. Again - use the right tool for the job, and relational is the wrong tool for pretty much all databases.
Why use a 2d system to describe a 3d world? It doesn't work! But I'm not naysaying normal form - that's your database axes - but relational imposes a two-axis view. You need more axes to model your data if your data has more axes.
As Occam, Einstein and others said, "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler". Relational makes part of the job simple, at the expense of making the rest of the job a damn sight more complex!
Cheers,
Wol
I agree that the draw tool is really important. In the past I usually used versions of Claris Draw or MacDraw and even Dia find them an essential part of desktop computer.
Currently I use the Draw tool in OOo more than either the spreadsheet (#2) or the word processor (#3). I look forward to trying the database in OOo v2. Another one of tne of the bizarre biases MS has been able to shape into people's minds is to get people to favor specific packages regardless of their suitability. With databases, anyone with half an ounce of brains would choose MS-Foxpro over MS-Access, yet the latter seems to be the alpha and omega of databases in many ignorant minds.
Presentation graphics don't figure into the scene for me. I used to lecture and give presentations a lot. I tired of presentation graphics about 10 years ago because most of the questions at the end tended to be about how I made the presentation, even as I made them simpler and simpler. Later in 1997 and 1998, I tried to revive using the presentation graphics, but by then all there were was variants of MS tools and the presentation site never had a compatible version AND the MV virus problem had gotten really bad so many sites locked or removed the floppy drive. So my solution was to drop presentation graphics for good and stick with web based ones. People like getting the URL and looking at the material afterwards anyway.
So, the definition of a productivity suite ought to be re addressed. Perhaps it is time to go back to a la carte style software, using shared libraries of course.
I think that those capabilities were all the school was currently using and planned to need, not what they thought is the definition of an office suite...
I suspect that the cash-strapped city's public school system could benefit from something similar.
I hope they get with the program...
marytee
detroit
I hope they get with the program...
marytee
detroit
Could you try to get this article posted on eSchool News?? That is the publication ed tech folks read.
The savings comparison didn't compare Apples to Apples. The new server running Linux could have been set up with Windows and run Terminal Services while the clients run the client software at the older workstations instead of the Linux client software.
While there may have still been a measurable difference in costs between the two solutions (Licenses for the Office software would have still been required for the end users) it would have been an Apples to Apples cost comparison.
Just a nit though, as long as the school is happy with their results it's not up to us to second guess them.
While there may have still been a measurable difference in costs between the two solutions (Licenses for the Office software would have still been required for the end users) it would have been an Apples to Apples cost comparison.
Just a nit though, as long as the school is happy with their results it's not up to us to second guess them.
> The new server running Linux
> could have been set up with
> Windows and run Terminal
> Services while the clients
> run the client software at
> the older workstations instead
> of the Linux client software.
You do know that a license is needed to connect to a Windows server don't you? Generally, licenses for thin clients are purchased in groups of 10 or 100 or whatever. If you buy 10, the 11th connection is refused, if you buy 100 and only use 11, then you've wasted some money.
It is perhaps a tart Pippen to sweet Red Delicious comparison, but it is still in the apple to apple comparison family.
> could have been set up with
> Windows and run Terminal
> Services while the clients
> run the client software at
> the older workstations instead
> of the Linux client software.
You do know that a license is needed to connect to a Windows server don't you? Generally, licenses for thin clients are purchased in groups of 10 or 100 or whatever. If you buy 10, the 11th connection is refused, if you buy 100 and only use 11, then you've wasted some money.
It is perhaps a tart Pippen to sweet Red Delicious comparison, but it is still in the apple to apple comparison family.
"The savings comparison didn't compare Apples to Apples. The new server running Linux could have been set up with Windows and run Terminal Services while the clients run the client software at the older workstations instead of the Linux client software."
Except that Linux Terminal Server runs the whole shebang. There is no "client" software in this model. And cost-wise you are looking at Windows + Terminal Server + Client Access Licenses + Terminal Server Client Access Licenses + per seat licenses for each piece of software that you want to run. This hardly compares to add a computer without a hard drive to the wire that LTSP allows.
Except that Linux Terminal Server runs the whole shebang. There is no "client" software in this model. And cost-wise you are looking at Windows + Terminal Server + Client Access Licenses + Terminal Server Client Access Licenses + per seat licenses for each piece of software that you want to run. This hardly compares to add a computer without a hard drive to the wire that LTSP allows.
What is it that list-moms say? Something like 'if you ask yourself if you really SHOULD respond to a message, you probably shouldn't'? Oh well... I can't help myself!
[open rant]
Ummm, actually that should have read 'as long as I haven't been in their shoes, its not up to a conclusion-jumping anonymous poster to second guess them.'
The anonymous gentleman or lady has obviously never experienced paying for and setting up a Windows Terminal Services solution in a K-12 education environment. Also obvious is the person's relative inexperience with formulating ROI and COO conclusions.
As one reader has already pointed out, Windows Terminal Services introduces additional licensing issues above and beyond the normal OS licensing. Couple that with the fact that Win Terminal Services does not perform well for more than a handful of machines per server without add-on third-party server software (that, I might add, costs quite a bit) and you have quite a bill on your hands. And how many low-cost educational titles has the anonymous poster attempted to install and successfully use in a Win Terminal Services environment? At least I know that the educational software I can recommend to my client to use on the Linux side will work in a thin environment.
Frankly, I think that the article's author would have been well-served to include those omitted points and others,but the article wasn't as much about the OS as it was the software, so a mere mention of the cost study was sufficient. Anyway, anyone in a real position to judge the subjects of this article would have enough industrial insight to see those points as well as others and open with an experienced opinion, whether against or for.
If I'm wrong and the person actually has knowledge giving him/her the ability to know an affordable way to use Win TS, I still fault the person for not expounding upon such interesting knowledge.
And don't think that I'm a Linux nut of some kind. Actually, I support all three major OS types in a variety of settings (Win, Mac, *nix) and my pick among them at home is a happy mix between Win XP SP2 and Mac OS X. What some people (on all sides) don't understand is that an OS is a tool and not a religion. You must pick the right tool for the job. In the high school's case, picking a Windows Terminal Services solution versus the Linux solution mentioned would have been the equivalent of buying a $250 chainsaw to cut through a quarter-inch thick board rather than just getting out the old trusty handsaw. Both get the job done, but one of the tools is not only overkill, it costs more to maintain and takes longer to get up and running.
Yes, there are a million other unknowns here and yes, I could be wrong. However, I just feel that the idea the poster expressed simply came from inexperience with the situation and that more of us should realize when we do not have enough of the big picture to make a Apples=Apples vs. Apples!=Oranges judgement.
[end rant]
"Just a nit though, as long as the school is happy with their results it's not up to us to second guess them."
[open rant]
Ummm, actually that should have read 'as long as I haven't been in their shoes, its not up to a conclusion-jumping anonymous poster to second guess them.'
The anonymous gentleman or lady has obviously never experienced paying for and setting up a Windows Terminal Services solution in a K-12 education environment. Also obvious is the person's relative inexperience with formulating ROI and COO conclusions.
As one reader has already pointed out, Windows Terminal Services introduces additional licensing issues above and beyond the normal OS licensing. Couple that with the fact that Win Terminal Services does not perform well for more than a handful of machines per server without add-on third-party server software (that, I might add, costs quite a bit) and you have quite a bill on your hands. And how many low-cost educational titles has the anonymous poster attempted to install and successfully use in a Win Terminal Services environment? At least I know that the educational software I can recommend to my client to use on the Linux side will work in a thin environment.
Frankly, I think that the article's author would have been well-served to include those omitted points and others,but the article wasn't as much about the OS as it was the software, so a mere mention of the cost study was sufficient. Anyway, anyone in a real position to judge the subjects of this article would have enough industrial insight to see those points as well as others and open with an experienced opinion, whether against or for.
If I'm wrong and the person actually has knowledge giving him/her the ability to know an affordable way to use Win TS, I still fault the person for not expounding upon such interesting knowledge.
And don't think that I'm a Linux nut of some kind. Actually, I support all three major OS types in a variety of settings (Win, Mac, *nix) and my pick among them at home is a happy mix between Win XP SP2 and Mac OS X. What some people (on all sides) don't understand is that an OS is a tool and not a religion. You must pick the right tool for the job. In the high school's case, picking a Windows Terminal Services solution versus the Linux solution mentioned would have been the equivalent of buying a $250 chainsaw to cut through a quarter-inch thick board rather than just getting out the old trusty handsaw. Both get the job done, but one of the tools is not only overkill, it costs more to maintain and takes longer to get up and running.
Yes, there are a million other unknowns here and yes, I could be wrong. However, I just feel that the idea the poster expressed simply came from inexperience with the situation and that more of us should realize when we do not have enough of the big picture to make a Apples=Apples vs. Apples!=Oranges judgement.
[end rant]
I agree mostly, until the end of your post. Going with Windows Terminal Services would be like buying a $250 handsaw, when the neighbor down the street is making an infinite supply of multi-saws that function as both had and chainsaws for all uses, and he's giving them away for free.
Office 97 is more than capable. I would suggest that its not clear at all that an upgrade was needed.
Indeed until recently I was still using office 97, and my brother, who is a financial analyst working for weight-watchers, is still using Office 97 (Excel, to be precise).
And why give up the deliciously slick usability of MS software for the clunky, slow, awkward OpenOffice offering? Do you want to wait half an hour for OpenOffice to start up? With old machines that's what you can expect. With Office 97 on a 300Mhz PII Word and Excel open almost instantly (all things being well: defragged drive etc).
Until the recent betas OpenOffice didn't even have support for word-counts of text selections! Outrageous!
I like the free software thing, but it has its limits. See my website for all my free software (you'll have to scroll manually as I bodged the links recently : <a href="http://www.lorriman.com/" title="lorriman.com">http://www.lorriman.com/</a lorriman.com> ). Even in a communist society you don't get something for nothing (ultimately), unless you are a criminal, and even thats debatable. this is also true of software. There's plenty of crap commercial software, but there's an awful lot more more crap free software; its the only way crap software can perpetuate (like linux 2.6; have you noticed how web hosts won't touch it). Commercial software, however, eventually disappears if its crap.
The only reason that free software exists is because of :
a)the glory/recognition of your efforts being used by so many
b)programming being so infernally addictive (and there are a lot of addicts out there looking for a more meaningful fix than writing another image re-sizer).
Take away a man's motivation and you'd better start offering money or good food <a href="http://www.lorriman.com/misc/chickenlivers/" title="lorriman.com">http://www.lorriman.com/misc/chickenlivers/</a lorriman.com> .
Ultimately this article is bogus.
Indeed until recently I was still using office 97, and my brother, who is a financial analyst working for weight-watchers, is still using Office 97 (Excel, to be precise).
And why give up the deliciously slick usability of MS software for the clunky, slow, awkward OpenOffice offering? Do you want to wait half an hour for OpenOffice to start up? With old machines that's what you can expect. With Office 97 on a 300Mhz PII Word and Excel open almost instantly (all things being well: defragged drive etc).
Until the recent betas OpenOffice didn't even have support for word-counts of text selections! Outrageous!
I like the free software thing, but it has its limits. See my website for all my free software (you'll have to scroll manually as I bodged the links recently : <a href="http://www.lorriman.com/" title="lorriman.com">http://www.lorriman.com/</a lorriman.com> ). Even in a communist society you don't get something for nothing (ultimately), unless you are a criminal, and even thats debatable. this is also true of software. There's plenty of crap commercial software, but there's an awful lot more more crap free software; its the only way crap software can perpetuate (like linux 2.6; have you noticed how web hosts won't touch it). Commercial software, however, eventually disappears if its crap.
The only reason that free software exists is because of :
a)the glory/recognition of your efforts being used by so many
b)programming being so infernally addictive (and there are a lot of addicts out there looking for a more meaningful fix than writing another image re-sizer).
Take away a man's motivation and you'd better start offering money or good food <a href="http://www.lorriman.com/misc/chickenlivers/" title="lorriman.com">http://www.lorriman.com/misc/chickenlivers/</a lorriman.com> .
Ultimately this article is bogus.
If you want terminal servers, there is a very active school project, aimed exactly at using old underpowered machines as terminals and running OOo on a powerful central school server. There is then no startup issue, as it is already in memory of the server, and appears instantly on the local terminal.
Yes, I agree. Heck, I even use K12LTSP at home! Unfortunately, my school district is in a state of total worship of all things Microsoft. It's hard to get *any* GNU/Linux or other Free Software in my district, even as a back-end, not-that-visible-to-end-users server. Free Software on the desktop would be viewed as pure heresy.
The mentality that perpetuates this silliness is the major reason why I'm now looking for another job. I'm just sick of it.
The mentality that perpetuates this silliness is the major reason why I'm now looking for another job. I'm just sick of it.
Free as in Freedom not price - I suspect you just don't get it. You are free to contribute to Open Office if you have some gripes rather than just whinge. If you are happy with Office 97 good on you.
Run off some copies and help schools that can't afford to purchase MS Office. On second thoughts you'd better not, you'd end up in jail.
Run off some copies and help schools that can't afford to purchase MS Office. On second thoughts you'd better not, you'd end up in jail.
> Office 97 is more than capable. I would suggest that its not clear at all that an upgrade was needed.
Sure, that works fine for a single user at home.
But you must have missed the part of the article where it said that, in addition to the 110 older PCs running Windows NT and Office 97, they also had 158 newer PCs running Microsoft Windows XP.
Those newer PCs were probably running a newer version of MS Office. And that's a problem, because Microsoft intentionally leaves out full backward compatability. Thus, once you have one PC with a newer version of Office, it causes a lot of inconvenience, until you are eventually forced to upgrade all of your PCs to the newer version of Office.
But this school chose not to succumb to Microsoft's extortionary tactics, and instead migrated to Linux and OpenOffice. Good for them!
> And why give up the deliciously slick usability of MS software for the clunky, slow, awkward OpenOffice offering?
Well, that just proves that you've never used OpenOffice. I have, and it is just as slick as MS Office.
But even if I had never used OpenOffice, I would still be less inclined to listen to you, and more inclined to listen to the City of Munich, the Government of Brazil, and companies like IBM and Novell, all of whom did an evaluation, and chose to switch to Linux and OpenOffice on the desktop.
> Until the recent betas OpenOffice didn't even have support for word-counts of text selections! Outrageous!
Yes, I know.
And how about that Microsoft Office? It won't even write PDF files! Shocking!
> Even in a communist society you don't get something for nothing (ultimately)...
That's right. And that means that I am never going to get what I want if I let dishonest, lazy monopolies like Microsoft run the IT industry.
On the contrary, in order to get what I want, I have to put out some effort. And that's why I do what I can to support Linux. I am also glad that companies like IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Sun, and Oracle find it profitable to support Linux.
> There's plenty of crap commercial software, but there's an awful lot more more crap free software;
True. And there is also some _excellent_ commercial software (like, say, Visio, or Windows NT 3.51, before Microsoft ruined them), just as there is some excellent Open Source software.
> Commercial software, however, eventually disappears if its crap.
Commercial software can also disappear when it's good, because the company that owns it goes out of business, or stops producing it.
Worse yet, Commercial software that starts out good can degrade, as in the examples of Visio, or NT 3.51, mentioned earlier.
Open Source software, on the other hand, only tends to disappear if no one is using it.
And Open Source software rarely degrades. If the current developers screw up the software, or allow it to stagnate, then someone will fork it, and improve it. The migration from XFree86 to X.org is a good example of this.
> The only reason that free software exists is because of [glory or addictiveness]...
So, you're saying that IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, and Oracle are only contributing to Open Source development for the glory, or to satisfy some programmers' whims. Wow. Have their stockholders heard of this?
But of course, you're wrong. Those companies are into Open Source for the profit it earns them.
Sure, that works fine for a single user at home.
But you must have missed the part of the article where it said that, in addition to the 110 older PCs running Windows NT and Office 97, they also had 158 newer PCs running Microsoft Windows XP.
Those newer PCs were probably running a newer version of MS Office. And that's a problem, because Microsoft intentionally leaves out full backward compatability. Thus, once you have one PC with a newer version of Office, it causes a lot of inconvenience, until you are eventually forced to upgrade all of your PCs to the newer version of Office.
But this school chose not to succumb to Microsoft's extortionary tactics, and instead migrated to Linux and OpenOffice. Good for them!
> And why give up the deliciously slick usability of MS software for the clunky, slow, awkward OpenOffice offering?
Well, that just proves that you've never used OpenOffice. I have, and it is just as slick as MS Office.
But even if I had never used OpenOffice, I would still be less inclined to listen to you, and more inclined to listen to the City of Munich, the Government of Brazil, and companies like IBM and Novell, all of whom did an evaluation, and chose to switch to Linux and OpenOffice on the desktop.
> Until the recent betas OpenOffice didn't even have support for word-counts of text selections! Outrageous!
Yes, I know.
And how about that Microsoft Office? It won't even write PDF files! Shocking!
> Even in a communist society you don't get something for nothing (ultimately)...
That's right. And that means that I am never going to get what I want if I let dishonest, lazy monopolies like Microsoft run the IT industry.
On the contrary, in order to get what I want, I have to put out some effort. And that's why I do what I can to support Linux. I am also glad that companies like IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Sun, and Oracle find it profitable to support Linux.
> There's plenty of crap commercial software, but there's an awful lot more more crap free software;
True. And there is also some _excellent_ commercial software (like, say, Visio, or Windows NT 3.51, before Microsoft ruined them), just as there is some excellent Open Source software.
> Commercial software, however, eventually disappears if its crap.
Commercial software can also disappear when it's good, because the company that owns it goes out of business, or stops producing it.
Worse yet, Commercial software that starts out good can degrade, as in the examples of Visio, or NT 3.51, mentioned earlier.
Open Source software, on the other hand, only tends to disappear if no one is using it.
And Open Source software rarely degrades. If the current developers screw up the software, or allow it to stagnate, then someone will fork it, and improve it. The migration from XFree86 to X.org is a good example of this.
> The only reason that free software exists is because of [glory or addictiveness]...
So, you're saying that IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, and Oracle are only contributing to Open Source development for the glory, or to satisfy some programmers' whims. Wow. Have their stockholders heard of this?
But of course, you're wrong. Those companies are into Open Source for the profit it earns them.
But you must have missed the part of the article where it said that, in addition to the 110 older PCs running Windows NT and Office 97, they also had 158 newer PCs running Microsoft Windows XP.
Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing that out. If something is offered for nothing then I would take that offer seriously, particulaly if I don't have any money. However I would also take seriously the fact that my users will be cursing me for lumping them with OpenOffice.
I have, and it is just as slick as MS Office.
I should add that Open Office is the only Office suite I use, and I have no choice. Oh for the days of MS Office, [sob]!. That you consider OpenOffice as slick as MS Office is just bizarre. Even the install is a pig (for multi-user systems), and I would go so far as to suggest : unusable with an enterprise environment.
And how about that Microsoft Office? It won't even write PDF files! Shocking!
PDF's are a publishing feature. It isn't technically within the scope of a document editor to provide such a feature. How may other innapropriate add-ons is OpenOffice going to add as standard weighing it down even more. SWF generation? O, I forgot: it already has swf generation. Absurd! One may as well add a coffee maker as well, and I could do with a swimming pool.
You made some reasonable points about Open source later in your reply. However you are blaming the wrong people for the short-comings of commercial offerings. That Microsoft uses extortion is only true in so far as it is allowed to use extortion. You can't entirely blame commerce for the sins of law-makers and the justice system. If one accepts the concept of competition then one must also accept that competitors are forced to do whatever they can to the limits of the law - even testing those limits - to survive and ultimately to win the race. (And yes I know that MS was found guilty of going beyond those limits, but that would be to miss the point).
> You can't entirely blame commerce for the sins of law-makers and the justice system.
On that we agree 100 percent. I am a big believer in Capitalism. But Capitalism requires a framework of law -- it doesn't work if my neighbor can "compete" with me by blowing up my factory.
> If one accepts the concept of competition then one must also accept that competitors are forced to do whatever they can to the limits of the law - even testing those limits - to survive and ultimately to win the race.
Yes and no. Even when the law is deficient, unscrupulous competitors will eventually run into the limits of what their suppliers, partners, customers, and employees will tolerate.
Still, those groups won't know everything unless they make it their business to know. And, even then, they can't learn as much on their own as a legal investigation would reveal. So, as you said, there is still the need for a proper legal framework.
> And yes I know that MS was found guilty of going beyond those limits...
Again, yes and no. The antitrust laws are very fuzzy, and their effect is to punish success, as much as any real crimes.
Thus, Microsoft was found guilty of doing something, but it was never really clear what that was, nor what it is they should stop doing. As a result (along with, perhaps, corruption on the part of the officials), Microsoft was never really punished, nor was their behavior properly limited.
I would much rather see the law go after Microsoft for specific things that can be defined, and limited. These might include:
1. Fraud:
Examples include spreading FUD, such as MS used to defeat DR-DOS; lying about your own products, such as MS claiming that J++ was cross-platform, and compatible with Java, when it was actually designed to lock users into Windows; and falsified studies, such as MS is currently using against Linux.
2. Extortion:
The main example of this, rampant throughout the computer industry, is locking up customers' data in secret file formats. The law would say something if a bank refused to give me back my money, or a parking garage refused to give me back my car, but encoding my data, and refusing to give it back (all of it, including formatting, formulas, and links) is deemed to be okay.
This form of extortion then leads to others, such as when MS threatened to drop MS Office for the Mac, if Apple didn't drop Netscape, or when MS forces customers to upgrade, by not supporting older file formats.
Note that Microsoft's next strategy is more of the same, i.e. locking up customers' data on central servers, where it can only be access via secret<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net protocols.
3. Sabotage:
Examples include when MS changed DOS to cause Geoworks to break; when MS changed Windows to cause it to not work on DR-DOS; and when MS made J++ incompatible in order to "pollute" Java.
If the law went after the specific things, when they occur, then there would be no need for the antitrust laws, which are a very blunt instrument. Unfortunately, we live in badly-educated times, where the lawyers, judges, and politicians have learned the mechanics of the law, but not the philosophy. Thus they fail to understand that my PC, my applications, and my data are all property, deserving just as much protection as my car. If the law was based on a rational philosophy, then there would be no need, for example, for new anti-phishing laws, which should already be covered by the anti-fraud laws, or anti-spyware laws, which should already be covered by the anti-trespassing laws.
While we're on the subject, of course, the other thing that needs to be fixed is the patent system.
On that we agree 100 percent. I am a big believer in Capitalism. But Capitalism requires a framework of law -- it doesn't work if my neighbor can "compete" with me by blowing up my factory.
> If one accepts the concept of competition then one must also accept that competitors are forced to do whatever they can to the limits of the law - even testing those limits - to survive and ultimately to win the race.
Yes and no. Even when the law is deficient, unscrupulous competitors will eventually run into the limits of what their suppliers, partners, customers, and employees will tolerate.
Still, those groups won't know everything unless they make it their business to know. And, even then, they can't learn as much on their own as a legal investigation would reveal. So, as you said, there is still the need for a proper legal framework.
> And yes I know that MS was found guilty of going beyond those limits...
Again, yes and no. The antitrust laws are very fuzzy, and their effect is to punish success, as much as any real crimes.
Thus, Microsoft was found guilty of doing something, but it was never really clear what that was, nor what it is they should stop doing. As a result (along with, perhaps, corruption on the part of the officials), Microsoft was never really punished, nor was their behavior properly limited.
I would much rather see the law go after Microsoft for specific things that can be defined, and limited. These might include:
1. Fraud:
Examples include spreading FUD, such as MS used to defeat DR-DOS; lying about your own products, such as MS claiming that J++ was cross-platform, and compatible with Java, when it was actually designed to lock users into Windows; and falsified studies, such as MS is currently using against Linux.
2. Extortion:
The main example of this, rampant throughout the computer industry, is locking up customers' data in secret file formats. The law would say something if a bank refused to give me back my money, or a parking garage refused to give me back my car, but encoding my data, and refusing to give it back (all of it, including formatting, formulas, and links) is deemed to be okay.
This form of extortion then leads to others, such as when MS threatened to drop MS Office for the Mac, if Apple didn't drop Netscape, or when MS forces customers to upgrade, by not supporting older file formats.
Note that Microsoft's next strategy is more of the same, i.e. locking up customers' data on central servers, where it can only be access via secret<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net protocols.
3. Sabotage:
Examples include when MS changed DOS to cause Geoworks to break; when MS changed Windows to cause it to not work on DR-DOS; and when MS made J++ incompatible in order to "pollute" Java.
If the law went after the specific things, when they occur, then there would be no need for the antitrust laws, which are a very blunt instrument. Unfortunately, we live in badly-educated times, where the lawyers, judges, and politicians have learned the mechanics of the law, but not the philosophy. Thus they fail to understand that my PC, my applications, and my data are all property, deserving just as much protection as my car. If the law was based on a rational philosophy, then there would be no need, for example, for new anti-phishing laws, which should already be covered by the anti-fraud laws, or anti-spyware laws, which should already be covered by the anti-trespassing laws.
While we're on the subject, of course, the other thing that needs to be fixed is the patent system.
1. Fraud:
Examples include spreading FUD, such as MS used to defeat DR-DOS; lying about your own products, such as MS claiming that J++ was cross-platform, and compatible with Java, when it was actually designed to lock users into Windows; and falsified studies, such as MS is currently using against Linux.
I agree with much of the above, but must add that if their competitors are not willing or capable of protecting their assets (which Sun did prove capable in the case of Java) then thats their problem. The GPL and all the rest are there for this very reason.
In other words : a society without an army is some kind of utopia, and is doomed. If linux can't raise an army (of lawers or anti-FUD spinmeisters or whatever) then it should quit right now.
It should quit anyway simply for being a monolithic kernel (what a bad bad choice, and so obviously bad). At least Windows got that one right even if they don't have condition variables (a threading construct that's kinda critical). [apologies for the programmer's perspective that just crept in there].
2. Extortion:
The main example of this, rampant throughout the computer industry, is locking up customers' data in secret file formats.[snip]
i.e. locking up customers' data on central servers, where it can only be access via secret<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net protocols.
I can't think of any examples of where this is true (not being able to get at one's own data), though I believe their are some. In the case of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net example it would seem to me to strike the balance between freedom and money: you can get your data but must assent to a strictly controlled protocol. (I can think of some good reasons for favouring the strict control indpenedent of MS's bank balance).
If the law went after the specific things, when they occur, then there would be no need for the antitrust laws
I disagree with this simpy because I reckon that to follow the spirit of what you are suggesting would result in an infinite number of laws and fantastic complexity forcing and the standardising of particular opinions. Further forcing a model of law more akin to the German system of being able to do what the law says you can and anything else is illegal, rather than the US/UK model which is the reverse.
When I ask for better laws I personally want a mature broadening; a re-evaluation in the light of experience. Better still for the law to retract its (overly-specific) claws and become more abstract (in the light of maturity/experience), thereby covering more with less (as you also suggest later).
Mid-life crises are not always a bad thing. And that, I think, is what the US and UK are facing.
[...]and when MS made J++ incompatible in order to "pollute" Java.
From a programmers perspective the change MS made was actually quite marvellous. I reckon it was only bloody-mindedness and pride on the part of Gosling or Sun that didn't see MS's change adopted into standard Java. I would have chosen to program in Java if MS had also re-oriented Java's truly horrible exception model (checked exceptions; nasty!).
In my view MS, when it has "embraced" the competition, has almost always produced a most excellent refinement of their competitors idea (IE is an excellent example). They called almost be called a model of the civilised jungle.
Perhaps the solution to the law problem is to unify the French system (spirit of the law) with the Anglo-Saxon (letter of the law), which are usually considered mutually exclusive, but I bet that one day a holy genius will demonstrate that they are not.
In classical christian theology (I'm a thomistic catholic) its all about union. Apply union and the solution presents itself. Its rather like magnetic poles; they are only mutually exlusive in a narrow sense - but really they are two distinctions of the same singularity. Quite unlike opposites of absence, like light and darkness, good and evil (the absence of good), a union of which results in compromise (oh horror!), instead of a balance.
The gin is going to my head, so here I'll stop.
Good Article, with one Amused Quibble
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 27, 2005 07:14 AMI was amused by one point, however, that showed just how subtly Microsoft has been able to create biases in people's thinking. It appears in this quote:
> The functional requirements for an office suite were straightforward: The suite had to include full-featured word processing, spreadsheets with graphs and charts, and presentations.
It is funny how an Office Suite has come to mean exactly what Microsoft provides -- no more, and no less.
Personally, I would have said that a drawing tool is an indespensible part of an Office Suite. How else are managers going to produce org-charts, or students going to make diagrams of their lab experiments? Gem had a drawing tool; Geoworks had one; And OpenOffice has one.
I would have also considered a basic database tool to be part of an Office Suite. It's what you should be using, instead of spreadsheets, to generate form letters, or keep your CD inventory. MS Works had a database, Lotus SmartSuite had one, and the next version of OpenOffice will have one.
There are lots of other functions that one could argue to be part of an Office Suite, such as Internet browsing, e-mail, chat, a calendar, a personal planner, desktop publishing, and so on. Some Office Suites have come with some of these capabilities, though they are usually associated with other applications.
But I'm not here to give the "correct" definition of an Office Suite. As I said, I'm just amused that, for the author of this article, the "correct" definition was "what comes with MS Office."
#