4 ms·

> Speaking as a student whose school primarily uses Google's suite (classroom, meet, etc..) but still has a few older solutions, some of which are free software

> Speaking as a student whose school primarily uses Google's suite (classroom, meet, etc..) but still has a few older solutions, some of which are free software, I can say that there's a common argument that schools should focus on pragmatism and working with what they have - the age-old argument that free software still is not accessible or easy to use. I don't beleive that this is still an issue. > Out of my current teachers and teachers I've had in the past, almost all of them were vocal about not liking Classroom or just didn't use it. It is basically a small layer on top of Google Drive & Meet that does not integrate anything nearly well enough. Most of my teachers seem to prefer Canvas, a free software solution to this, because it has more features. My teachers primarily cited the integrated quiz/test system as its biggest draw when I asked. > Classroom is also is very difficult for less-privileged students to use - speaking as someone who used to rely on a 4 GB of RAM netbook with a Pentium and was still using it for part of this quarantine, even with Linux things really get slow. This could primarily be attributed to relying on a lot of Google tabs at once (for Drive, forms for quizzes, etc) while Canvas I've never had to open more than a few maximum. My only other option is to buy a Chromebook and while my school can afford Chromebooks for every student, many students are relying on just using what they have. > With that, I don't think that the proprietary software really has all too much of an advantage in terms of pragmatism (which imo is even more important in schools). I don't think the usual arguments against adoption of free software really seem to hold up, though I assume that cost might be an issue that I'm not aware of seeing my district is rather rich. > I'd love to hear more teachers opinions on this. Hopefully this gave you an idea of how education tech is from a student user's endpoint. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24481117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24481117

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
If the free software solutions are better then by all means, go for it. I never suggested that proprietary was better than free. My point is that arguing that the choice should be made on the free software status is a bad idea. Choose software based on the best tool for the job, not the ideology behind it.
- crazypython 6y ago
  Free software encourages sharing, social responsibility, and independence. It also encourages learning. Furthermore, I doubt Google offers Classroom out of direct profit, but rather to implant dependence in Google Suite, especially Google Drive, Docs, Forms, etc. > Why, after all, do some proprietary software developers offer gratis copies(1) of their nonfree programs to schools? Because they want to use the schools to implant dependence on their products, like tobacco companies distributing gratis cigarettes to school children(2). > With pain in my heart I just installed MS Office on my son's laptop because he needs it for school (free on a license from school fortunately). I thought it was stupid because LibreOffice. He thought it was stupid because Google Docs, which his primary school used. In that case, proprietary software may be "better" because it's been subsidized by tech giants in order to implant dependence later– schools seed society. So we should play the long game and use what benefits society in the long-term. > I can't agree more with stallman. It pisses me off to no end that I was forced to learn autodesk in school, only to graduate and realizing nobody uses it in the real world. So why did my school pay to teach software nobody uses? Might as well used FreeCAD to teach the concepts. > Autodesk is most certainly used by a huge variety of businesses for a multitude of purposes. Is it the only solution? No. But the school also likely got the software at a steep discount or free, exposing you, as a student, to CAD software in general. What tools you use following that are up to you, but the school did its job in teaching you a general skill that can be applied in a variety of other programs at will.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > It also encourages learning. How? It enables a teeny tiny minority of users to modify their applications. These users are stupendously dedicated and have access to all sorts of free software in other environments. I have no doubt that somebody who is capable of modifying and recompiling some FSF-Zoom is capable of scratching this itch with other software.
  - simiones 6y ago
    > Free software encourages sharing, social responsibility, and independence. It also encourages learning. No, it doesn't. For end-users, free software does the exact same things as proprietary software. Users don't have the time and knowledge and interest to look at the source of their tools, and usually don't even have the time and energy to shop around for others' versions of these tools.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

If the free software solutions are better then by all means, go for it. I never suggested that proprietary was better than free. My point is that arguing that the choice should be made on the free software status is a bad idea. Choose software based on the best tool for the job, not the ideology behind it.

crazypython 6y ago
Free software encourages sharing, social responsibility, and independence. It also encourages learning. Furthermore, I doubt Google offers Classroom out of direct profit, but rather to implant dependence in Google Suite, especially Google Drive, Docs, Forms, etc. > Why, after all, do some proprietary software developers offer gratis copies(1) of their nonfree programs to schools? Because they want to use the schools to implant dependence on their products, like tobacco companies distributing gratis cigarettes to school children(2). > With pain in my heart I just installed MS Office on my son's laptop because he needs it for school (free on a license from school fortunately). I thought it was stupid because LibreOffice. He thought it was stupid because Google Docs, which his primary school used. In that case, proprietary software may be "better" because it's been subsidized by tech giants in order to implant dependence later– schools seed society. So we should play the long game and use what benefits society in the long-term. > I can't agree more with stallman. It pisses me off to no end that I was forced to learn autodesk in school, only to graduate and realizing nobody uses it in the real world. So why did my school pay to teach software nobody uses? Might as well used FreeCAD to teach the concepts. > Autodesk is most certainly used by a huge variety of businesses for a multitude of purposes. Is it the only solution? No. But the school also likely got the software at a steep discount or free, exposing you, as a student, to CAD software in general. What tools you use following that are up to you, but the school did its job in teaching you a general skill that can be applied in a variety of other programs at will.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > It also encourages learning. How? It enables a teeny tiny minority of users to modify their applications. These users are stupendously dedicated and have access to all sorts of free software in other environments. I have no doubt that somebody who is capable of modifying and recompiling some FSF-Zoom is capable of scratching this itch with other software.
- simiones 6y ago
  > Free software encourages sharing, social responsibility, and independence. It also encourages learning. No, it doesn't. For end-users, free software does the exact same things as proprietary software. Users don't have the time and knowledge and interest to look at the source of their tools, and usually don't even have the time and energy to shop around for others' versions of these tools.