3 ms·
Isn't it more misleading to claim that this is just due to environmental reasons? The first link you provide actually says the first reason is due to security
by tallanvor 3y ago
Isn't it more misleading to claim that this is just due to environmental reasons? The first link you provide actually says the first reason is due to security (you wouldn't believe how often student accounts are compromised and/or used for sharing pirated content). The second reason is the environment, and the 3rd, reason, even though they don't say it outright, is cost, and I'm guessing that's the real reason.
But giving institutions 100TB of base storage with more for paid licenses isn't exactly stingy.
- michaelt 3y ago> The first link you provide actually says the first reason is due to security To me personally the security claims don't make much sense either. When I face disk space limitations I don't delete my spreadsheet of survey results that's full of private information. I just delete the original video of that public lecture that I've put onto youtube already anyway. Now, for professors there might be a case for shunting the files they haven't touched in a few years into secure offline storage in case it contains forgotten private information. But it sounds like this applies to student accounts, and there's already a process to eliminate forgotten years-old data: Graduation. IMHO it's far more likely this is a cost-saving measure.
- aragilar 3y agoSorry, what? 100TB is stingy as! At my institution, there's approximately 50000 students and staff, if 100TB is all they get, that's only 2GB each (and that's not just for email, that's for all storage)!
- tallanvor 3y agoWithout knowing how much they're paying, how can we say if that's stingy or not? If a school gets 100TB storage for free, I'd hardly call that stingy.
- iinnPP 3y agoIt's not free. It requires students to sign a bunch of ToS "agreements" that are terrible. It locks students in to learning on their software or using their overpriced cloud offerings.