Linux is a win-win for education
By apexwm, 25 January, 2011 15:48
Articles on the use of Linux for educational purposes have come up frequently, some focus on the use of Linux in educational institutions. Often times, these institutions are looking to save as much money as possible, and using Linux can be a good option for just that reason.
But there are other advantages of using Linux in educational environments, that we may not realize. It can save a considerable amount of money if a school or institution cannot afford to upgrade hardware every few years, to stay up to high standards that Windows requires. Linux is known to run very well on older hardware, which means the PC hardware can have a longer lifecycle. For instance, obtaining the latest version of Fedora 14 Linux, and installing on a Pentium II machine, will work just fine. It isn't the fastest, but it works, and will allow the user to keep updated with the latest and greatest versions of software like Firefox, Thunderbird, or system related tools like rsync, ssh, etc.
It is a well known fact that learning multiple languages aids in becoming more fluent in those languages. The same concept can apply to operating systems. Learning Windows is key for getting out in the world since it is predominantly Windows-based, but learning a second operating system like Linux is also very valuable as well. Getting to know both increases knowledge of their different behavior and increases general knowledge about operating systems as a whole.
There is a wide range of software available as well. For example, GCompris is a suite of educational games designed for children age 2+. There are other scientific programs and a while range of applications available that all run on Linux. Fedora (and I'm sure other distributions) have a spin released that is specifically targeted for educational use. The spin includes software specifically designed for teachers and students. You don't have to use a spin, simply add whatever software you want to the distribution you already use. Fedora and Ubuntu are excellent with this, by using graphical tools that download, add/remove software with a simple click. The best part is that a test PC can easily be set up and looked at, with no cost other than using the hardware. And keep in mind that since all software is open source, teachers and students are actively involved in developing and improving the software.
And finally, one thing that I think is extremely valuable about Linux that proprietary software cannot offer is the fact that it is open source. This means anybody, including students, can download the source code and study it. It can be modified and tested, and even distributed to friends in that fashion. Now I am not a programmer, but I have cracked open some source code and fixed problems on my own, and it has further increased my knowledge of how things work. Simply installing software and using it is one thing, but finding out how and why it works the way it does, is another. This is the beauty of the GNU General Public License, that the Linux kernel and 99% of software within most common Linux distributions fall under.
A lot of educational institutions ranging from grade schools to colleges and universities use Linux today. Both in classrooms and public labs. I expect to see more and more pick it up in the future, despite the lobbying from Microsoft and others. Linux is a win for teachers, and a win for students.
Talkback
The only problem with this philosophy is that it's likely that Microsoft will still be dominant in the workplace when he current generation of students are job hunting, and for the vast majority being a skilled user will be more important that having a detailed technical knowledge of how everything works.
I feel the best compromise would be to teach in both MS and Linux environments
so students are aware that there is more to the world of IT than just MS. This
is an important fact that a whole generation seems to have forgotten. It's vitally
important to debunk the myth that MS has always been around and always will.
The IT world tends to go through revolutions (as in 'The French..') followed
by long periods of stability. I.e. Once mainframe technology became affordable
in the 1960s we had 20 years of stability with core business functionality running
on big-iron, then in the late 1980s the networked micro swept all that away
and we had another 20 years of stability. We're about due for another revolution
and I suspect MS will be swept away with it. We need a new generation of developers
& techies capable of handling that transition.
AndyPagin 27 January, 2011 11:07
Report offensive content Reply
The important thing is to teach students tools and not technologies. Teach
them about operating systems and not Linux or Windows. Teach them about word
processing and not openoffice or MS office. A student with sound understanding
of the fundamentals of computing and computer tools is more likely to survive
better on any environment compared to student who are thought to use a particular
product. Over the years products like MS office and even Linuxs changes and
it could be that when the student is ready for employment the progamm he used
in school as gone through a rewrite requiring him to relearn everything again.
When the student have an idea of the fundamentals he would not have a problem
adjusting easily.
bigbrovar 27 January, 2011 12:53
Report offensive content Reply
MS Windows is the reality today, like it or not. The battle for market leadership
was fought in the early 1990s and Windows was the winner. We have had a long
period of calm, marked by continued product refinement for almost 20 years now.
Linux works great, but there is no need for it on the desktop. All that it does
is try to replace Windows at a lower price, but the price is rather artificial
and is not seperable from the computer package itself. Where manufacturers have
offered Linux pre-loaded machines in conjunction with Windows machines, the
price difference has been close to non-existent. Where problems may exist with
Windows, it is far easier to just fix those problems than to try to replace
it on a wholesale basis. Linux is redundant.
amicus_curious 27 January, 2011 13:23
Report offensive content Reply
Thank you for the comments.
I definitely agree, Windows will be around and is actively used all over, but even Windows itself is constantly evolving and changing. Well, everything is. Learning Linux in conjunction with Windows and the concepts of both, is more valuable than learning just Windows. But Linux is a solid platform and can run virtual machines with Windows, too. You could do it the other way around, run Windows and Linux in virtual machines. Take your pick.
AndyPagin's point about a revolution is a good one. Let's teach students today
about multiple environments, so that they are well prepared for our future.
apexwm 27 January, 2011 14:11
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply
Well, to the extent that we all learn new things as life goes on, we are all students. We will be taught by life's experiences regardless of levels and methods of formal education. It is only a platitude to say that "students must be prepared for the future". The future will prepare the students in any case.
The main purpose of any sort of "computer training" is to explain
the "How To" of its operation, not the principles of operation which
are trivially obvious and self-explanatory. Whether or not Linux can run Windows
on a virtual machine or vice-versa is immaterial. With few exceptions, any computer
that a common student is likely to encounter will be a Windows computer and
how to use it effectively is a desirable talent. Knowing how to derivatively
operate some obscure substitute is essentially useless for the 99% of the students
who will never see one.
amicus_curious 27 January, 2011 17:24
Report offensive content Reply
@apexwm, Excellent article. While it is true we live in a "windows world",
full of viruses, adware, malware, and trojans, and we have to learn how and
when to run defrag, anti, virus, registry cleaners, malware, and adware removers.
This takes up a lot of our time. Today a child can sit down in front of a computer,
and use it, whether it be a PC, MAC, or a Linux machine. The only difference
is the software has to be purchased for a PC and MAC. I have two grandsons,
ages 6 and 7. They both use my main computer, and can use both Linux and XP,
with no problems. By knowing both systems, they will be ahead of their classmates
who only use windows. And in case one of them gets into an IT department, after
college, they can make more money by knowing both systems. @amicus_curious,
I don't know what position you hold at MS, but it's obvious you have never used
Linux, or MAC. How sad.
ator1940 31 January, 2011 15:47
Report offensive content Reply
Ator1940, do you really think that all of the 500 million or so purchases of
Microsot products worldwide each year in lieu of selecting an open source alternative
are made by MS employees? I am not an MS employee and never have been one. And
I have a Ubuntu workstation and also an Ubuntu server on my local network as
well. My only transgression here seems to be a disbelief that know how to use
a Linux workstation has any benefit for the 99 out of a 100 students who will
never encounter one. It would be a waste of the taxpayer's money to just add
Linux to the curriculum and it would be a disservice to the students to remove
Windows from the schools.
amicus_curious 2 February, 2011 01:29
Report offensive content Reply
Oddly enough much the same could have been said in times past. Why learn DOS when there was all sorts of other more common OS's out there? When DOS became prevalent why learn Windows or Mac? And now your claiming it's worthless to learn Linux because it's not all that common.
History doesn't support the "only learn it if it's as common as muck"
theory. That and even if they learn Windows [insert version here] it'll all
be out of date by the time they use it all in a job. Note that schools really
can't afford the latest and greatest hardware/software combinations anyway.
ego.sum.stig 2 February, 2011 02:47
Report offensive content Reply
Long, long ago, in the DOS days, the industry was in an infant stage of product development and user expectations. What was smart to do then is not possible now as the industry has become a mass market and so subject to different rules and levels of scale.
Don't misconstrue my opinion, either. I am not saying that leaning Linux has
no value as an absolute, I am saying that it has no value for anyone who would
never use it and so the cost to the schools in terms to time, money, and administrative
focus is wasted. Anyone needing to learn about Linux can do so quickly, I think,
after all, it is, from a user's POV, becoming almost identical to Windows (and
Mac for that matter) as time goes by. The differences are immaterial.
amicus_curious 2 February, 2011 22:50
Report offensive content Reply
That would lead somewhat inevitably (I think) that it'd be better to go Linux
then, as it's free (and it's the "same" as Windows). Which I guess
is part of the premise of the blog.
ego.sum.stig 3 February, 2011 03:29
Report offensive content Reply
amicus_curious
We really need to shake off this mistaken belief that MS will be around forever.
AndyPagin 3 February, 2011 11:27
Report offensive content Reply
"Free" and "same as Windows" is MOL true about Windows, too. For the hundreds of millions of buyers of new computers each year, it simply comes with the computer. I know that is artificial, but the people buying a computer see it that way as do the people selling the computer. If the sellers were to change, they would have to pay a lot for retraining of their support staff as well as make many changes to the way they put a computer together. That is not "free" at all and they would not gain any sales since a Linux computer sale gained is just a Windows computer sale lost by that supplier. There is no way to recover the investment, particularly if the supplier has to lower the price to entice the customer to change his attitude.
As to the permanence of Microsoft, it has been around for 30 years now and
is running at an 80 billion dollar clip. It is as permanent as anything can
be said to be permanent. Certainly it will be around for decades if not longer.
amicus_curious 3 February, 2011 17:37
Report offensive content Reply
@amicus_curious, I too was once a Microsoft shill, in 1990, when I bought my
first PC, after 10 years on Commodores. But, I got smart in 2001 when I started
using Linux. The thing I hated, and still do, is being forced to pay for windows,
on a store bought system. That's why I build my own now. My money, my choice.
But, as devices get smaller, and appliances get smarter, they need a small,
fast, secure OS, and MS is being pushed out of the game. Unless they do a complete
rewrite of their OS to apply on theses smaller devices, they will be left behind.
The desktop may always be around, but the numbers are dwindling.
ator1940 4 February, 2011 12:06
Report offensive content Reply
@ator1940
> @amicus_curious, I too was once a Microsoft shill, in 1990,
I hope you're not seeking to imply that @amicus_curious is a Microsoft shill, because his comments to this post have been intelligent, perceptive and accurate. My apologies if I am jumping to unwarranted conclusions, but I am often disgusted by the nasty and dishonourable tendency of some "special system advocates" to resort to insults and smears rather than address the facts and arguments. I know that sort of stupidity is common in the comments at some sites but ZD Net aspires to higher standards.
> The thing I hated, and still do, is being forced to pay for windows, on a store bought system.
Plenty of companies have tried offering Linux machines over the past decade, including Wal-Mart, which is as mass-market as you can get. Most of those companies have gone bust, but you are still not *forced* to buy Windows. The fact is, most people prefer to buy PCs running Windows. You're welcome to your opinion (as is everybody else) but it's not one the market shares.
> they need a small, fast, secure OS, and MS is being pushed out of the
game.
> Unless they do a complete rewrite of their OS to apply on theses smaller
devices,
> they will be left behind.
Microsoft recognised this in the early 1990s and wrote a new operating system to run on smaller devices, Windows CE. (It didn't sell too well; I'm just pointing out something you appear to have missed.)
Today, however, small devices are starting to get processors that are actually
capable of running Windows 7 and 8, which is one reason why at the latest CES,
Microsoft showed Windows and Office running well on ARM chips. It doesn't mean
that Windows will win on ARM, or even sell any at all, but it does mean Microsoft
now has less incentive to write a new OS than it did 15-20 years ago.
Jack Schofield 4 February, 2011 13:25
Report offensive content Reply
@Jack Schofield: "The fact is, most people prefer to buy PCs running Windows"
To be honest, most people *don't know* about Linux. They buy a computer, not
the OS. There's no choice without knowledge.
Jake Rayson 4 February, 2011 14:02
Report offensive content Reply
Jack Schofield,
Let me state for the record that I am not now nor have I ever been a Microsoft employee. I have been, for the past 20 years, a product manager and even senior developer for MS-DOS and Windows compatible software for companies that were sometimes partners and sometimes competitors of Microsoft. As a sort of mitigating condition, that software was also, at one time, available for OS/2 and Unix environments.
I am used to being labeled a shill or troll or liar or similar whenever opposing some FOSS or Linux platitude, so I am encouraged by your reasonable understanding.
An OEM developing a product has always had an option of making that product as proprietary as desired and in the early days of computing, just about every company did so, including the Commodores so beloved by ator1940. Radio Shack had TRS-DOS, Apple had theirs, Atari theirs, and so on. Ironically, Microsoft's move to create an environment where multiple manufacturers could offer the compatible machines are competitive prices was the first really effective instance of "open" computing. That is, of course, ignoring the S-100 bus stuff that, while "open" was unbranded and not very prolific. Microsoft made it fashionable (and possible) for companies to participate in IBM's popularity with a variety of software add-ons that didn't really exist prior to the establishement of some "critical mass" of users who could be addressed efficiently.
Of course Microsoft today is not the Microsoft of 1980 and they must approach markets quite differently. They have fiscal responsibility to their stockholders and must follow the laws and practices for such.
Smart phones and tablets are not the well-defined environments that IBM PCs were decades ago. Rather, while they are sort of the same as one another, there is no dictated appearance or interface that would result in a Windows-like platform software market for these devices. I think that the existence of Android, as an essentially zero cost, adequate solution for platform needs would block any such product market from forming. Microsoft may choose to pursue Windows Phone 7 and persuade OEMs to supply it, but I don't think that they could ever charge much. if anything, for a licenses for it.
I think that they will be more likely to give it away and make it necessary
for accessing their cloud level services. That seems to be the new way to monetize
apps and platforms today.
amicus_curious 4 February, 2011 14:29
Report offensive content Reply
Jake Rayson,
I agree that they do not buy the OS and so do not "choose" Windows, although many will pay for an "upgrade" to Windows 7 Professional or else Ultimate as part of a selection process. Rather, what people do is "expect" Windows to be part of any new computer purchase and also expect that their past experience will be applicable to the new purchase.
That expectation is met by simply supplying Windows, as virtually all OEMs
save Apple are doing. To offer Linux in the same channel demands an effective
(and consequently expensive) educational effort on the part of manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers to change the buyer's expectations and, so, acceptance.
There do not seem to be enough economic advantages present to offset the cost
of doing this.
amicus_curious 4 February, 2011 14:39
Report offensive content Reply
@Jack, I'm not sure Microsoft would agree CE didn't sell too well - they don't
give figures for Embedded but I know by 2010 they'd sold a million Fiats with
Blue & Me in, which is CE, as is Ford's Sync. It's in sewing machines and
industrial machinery (the Germans get so excited about the CE-based pig slicers
that slice pigs twice as fast) and set-top boxes and a lot of things that aren't
PCs.... It's a question of what you need a small, fast OS *for* and it's actually
more than tablets ;-) The comparison is more QNX than Android or any of the
mainstream Linuces; Android may partly power Google TV (badly) as well as phones
and phone-like tablets, but QNX is behind Cisco routers as well as the PlayBook.
In short, it's a lot more complex than desktop Windows vs desktop Linux (after
all, Mac OS X is far and away the most successful desktop Unix - and the iOS
variant is the most successful mobile Unix, which is itself bigger than desktop
Linux, which says something about the importance of interface and fitness for
purpose).
M
Simon Bisson and Mary Branscombe 4 February, 2011 14:50
Report offensive content Reply
@Jake Rayson
> To be honest, most people *don't know* about Linux. They buy a
> computer, not the OS. There's no choice without knowledge.
Most consumers nowadays have used a variety of operating systems, usually not including Linux, but they quite definitely have a preference for Windows. Market research shows they also have a high opinion of Microsoft.
The mistake geeks often make is to think people should choose an operating system (or anything else) on its technical merits, which are frequently a small and not very important factor in the final decision. Other factors include hardware choice, price, ease of use, software availability, peripheral and other industry support, easthetics, product image, continuity (belief in the future availability of improved versions), what their friends use, what they already use (familiarity, current investment in software and experience), and many other things I can't be bothered to think about now.
The argument from technical merit lacks knowledge and perception, and people
who take that view are almost always going to be frustrated by reality. I think
this accounts for some of the childish spite I see from quite a few Linux users.
Jack Schofield 4 February, 2011 16:11
Report offensive content Reply
@Mary
Indeed, I've used exactly the same argument myself. However, CE currently isn't
as successful as a mobile phone OS or as a Windows replacement than either iOS
or Android, and I'm sure Microsoft has noticed that too ;-)
Jack Schofield 4 February, 2011 16:15
Report offensive content Reply
@amicus_curious
I take your points but with a small quibble ;-)
> Ironically, Microsoft's move to create an environment where multiple
> manufacturers could offer the compatible machines are competitive
> prices was the first really effective instance of "open" computing.
I think that was actually evident from the 8-bit CP/M market (where S100 was
standard), and IBM was specifically trying to create the same sort of environemnt
in 16-bit computing. Indeed, the IBM PC would have launched with CP/M-86 and
not MS DOS if DR had been willing to do the deal. But for that quirk of fate,
MS DOS as we know it might not even have existed...
Jack Schofield 4 February, 2011 16:25
Report offensive content Reply
> Most consumers nowadays have used a variety of operating systems, usually
not including
> Linux, but they quite definitely have a preference for Windows.
Not in my experience! I consider my sister to be a typical computer user, and she *still* claimed never to have even heard of Linux, despite the fact that I've been running it exclusively on both my *and our parents'* machines for about 10 years!
Not that this stops her expecting me to maintain her own PC whenever I visit, mind.
But the bottom line seems to be that typical computer users only see the PC
as a whole, and are oblivious to the OS that it uses, so long as they can do
whatever they need to do. Like "surf the web", "send email",
"write letters", etc.
Chris Rankin 5 February, 2011 02:37
Report offensive content Reply