4 ms·

Yes, this is why societies must take care about which hardware and software they use in schools. In Germany, some schools opted for Apple hardware and software,

by madez 7y ago

Yes, this is why societies must take care about which hardware and software they use in schools. In Germany, some schools opted for Apple hardware and software, which is equally bad.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
What would be better? How would one measure "betterness" anyway? If it's the probability of having to use classroom computers later in life, your choices are Windows or Apple.
- madez 7y ago
  Schools are not to teach children to operate specific commercial products. The school teaches the basics so the people are able to continue to learn on their own and judge products and technologies. Schools should teach on one side simple hardware architectures, encoding of data, computer representation of perceivable things, and some programming. On the other side, it should put the digital revolution into a historic context and show the dangers that arise from it and how to act as an individual and as a state in it. This way the children can grow into informed citizens.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    None of that is restricted because you buy a Mac or a Windows machine. Those things subjects you have mentioned are all ideas that are totally independent to the OS. Why does it matter if they learn them on a Mac or a Windows machine? The OS for the most part these days are irrelevant.
    - madez 7y ago
      Because it creates a dependence on the OS they use in school, and a OS is not necessary to teach the things I mentioned. The teaching can be done abstractly on a board and paper, or with interactive games. The practice can be done with microprocessors on educational board with plenty of easily accessible I/O. And when there is a need for an operating system, which I don't see in basic and mid-level teaching in school, schools should use libre software, because it relates to public infrastructure.
      - davesmith1983 7y ago
        > Because it creates a dependence on the OS they use in school, and it is not necessary to teach the things I mentioned. How? Moving a mouse around is the same in KDE, Gnome, Windows and MacOS. A keyboard is the same. The terminals aren't even that different (many Linux and DOS / Powershell commands have equivalents). Almost all modern programming languages are cross platform. You aren't explaining how it creates this dependence, because I don't see it. > The teaching can be done abstractly on a board and paper, or with interactive games. You can't learn how to program or really know what the computer is doing unless you are using and trying to create something on there. > The practice can be done with microprocessors on educational board with plenty of easily accessible I/O. This sounds more like electronics class than anything else.
        madez 7y ago
        A mouse is not necessary to understand computers nor to interact with them. I don't want schools to prepare the next generation of Web users that can create an account with Google, but barely anything more; that way the democratic oversight of technological changes and powerful companies fails, because the citizens aren't informed and competent. Humans are strongly bound to habits. I have seen that personally, and in reports about institutions doing the change. Some people were strongly opposed to change away from Windows because the alternative doesn't look and feel the same, so they don't like it. And that even if the alternative offers the same capabilities. Building a habit around Windows is part of Microsoft strategy to bind people to its platform. That is why academics and schools get discounts. Public infrastructure like schools must not fall for this fixation. Children learn how a combustion engine works, and how it can be controlled. Why don't they learn how a CPU works, and how to program it? > You can't learn how to program or really know what the computer is doing unless you are using and trying to create something on there. This is incorrect. The principles of a computer can be explained and understood with pen and paper. Even the execution of a simplistic computer can be worked out with pen and paper, just as algorithms can be thought and reasoned about that way.
        davesmith1983 7y ago

by madez 7y ago

Yes, this is why societies must take care about which hardware and software they use in schools. In Germany, some schools opted for Apple hardware and software, which is equally bad.

EForEndeavour 7y ago

What would be better? How would one measure "betterness" anyway? If it's the probability of having to use classroom computers later in life, your choices are Windows or Apple.

madez 7y ago
Schools are not to teach children to operate specific commercial products. The school teaches the basics so the people are able to continue to learn on their own and judge products and technologies. Schools should teach on one side simple hardware architectures, encoding of data, computer representation of perceivable things, and some programming. On the other side, it should put the digital revolution into a historic context and show the dangers that arise from it and how to act as an individual and as a state in it. This way the children can grow into informed citizens.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  None of that is restricted because you buy a Mac or a Windows machine. Those things subjects you have mentioned are all ideas that are totally independent to the OS. Why does it matter if they learn them on a Mac or a Windows machine? The OS for the most part these days are irrelevant.
  - madez 7y ago
    Because it creates a dependence on the OS they use in school, and a OS is not necessary to teach the things I mentioned. The teaching can be done abstractly on a board and paper, or with interactive games. The practice can be done with microprocessors on educational board with plenty of easily accessible I/O. And when there is a need for an operating system, which I don't see in basic and mid-level teaching in school, schools should use libre software, because it relates to public infrastructure.
    - davesmith1983 7y ago
      > Because it creates a dependence on the OS they use in school, and it is not necessary to teach the things I mentioned. How? Moving a mouse around is the same in KDE, Gnome, Windows and MacOS. A keyboard is the same. The terminals aren't even that different (many Linux and DOS / Powershell commands have equivalents). Almost all modern programming languages are cross platform. You aren't explaining how it creates this dependence, because I don't see it. > The teaching can be done abstractly on a board and paper, or with interactive games. You can't learn how to program or really know what the computer is doing unless you are using and trying to create something on there. > The practice can be done with microprocessors on educational board with plenty of easily accessible I/O. This sounds more like electronics class than anything else.
      - madez 7y ago
        A mouse is not necessary to understand computers nor to interact with them. I don't want schools to prepare the next generation of Web users that can create an account with Google, but barely anything more; that way the democratic oversight of technological changes and powerful companies fails, because the citizens aren't informed and competent. Humans are strongly bound to habits. I have seen that personally, and in reports about institutions doing the change. Some people were strongly opposed to change away from Windows because the alternative doesn't look and feel the same, so they don't like it. And that even if the alternative offers the same capabilities. Building a habit around Windows is part of Microsoft strategy to bind people to its platform. That is why academics and schools get discounts. Public infrastructure like schools must not fall for this fixation. Children learn how a combustion engine works, and how it can be controlled. Why don't they learn how a CPU works, and how to program it? > You can't learn how to program or really know what the computer is doing unless you are using and trying to create something on there. This is incorrect. The principles of a computer can be explained and understood with pen and paper. Even the execution of a simplistic computer can be worked out with pen and paper, just as algorithms can be thought and reasoned about that way.
        davesmith1983 7y ago