3 ms·

Story time. I teach high school math and science at a small school, where we have roughly 30 computers. About four years ago, our district had not funded any ne

by japhyr 13y ago

Story time. I teach high school math and science at a small school, where we have roughly 30 computers. About four years ago, our district had not funded any new hardware in 8 years. So when we started that school year, only 3 computers actually worked. I had just started using linux that year, so I ran a class introducing students to linux. I taught students to install and maintain ubuntu systems, and suddenly all 30 computers were working again. Students maintained those 30 computers for the next year and a half. It was a bittersweet time when the district funded hardware again, and we had 30 new machines running Windows 7. I am fortunate to work in a district where I was supported in teaching students to dual-boot half of those machines. It has been an overwhelmingly positive experience to bring linux into a school system. Many students are now running linux on their own machines. I still teach an intro to programming class that uses linux exclusively, and on any given day a small number of students are choosing linux for their everyday school work. I also saw the politics of trying to make open source more mainstream in the district. When the district was deciding what machines and what software to purchase, we almost went with openoffice. I didn't take a side in the conversation, I just kept reiterating that both MSOffice and LibreOffice work as long as everyone in the district is using the same software. The real friction comes when people are trying to share formatted documents between systems. The district was just about to go with openoffice, but for no clear reason at the last minute the superintendent made a unilateral decision to go with MSOffice. I think it was easier to appease the few loud MSOffice supporters, knowing everyone else would move on, than go with something new and risk having made the "wrong" decision. I've been getting more into programming, including trips to PyCon last year and this year. The more involved I get in the professional programming community, the more I see how much the open source world has to offer the education world. The obvious benefit is open software. There is a tremendous need for high-quality open software to make educational work more efficient. My favorite example is that most teachers still write their lesson plans in Word, which is like programmers working in an old version of Notepad. Programmers have had vim and emacs for 40 years, but teachers still don't have a dedicated curriculum planning tool. I love to talk about this stuff, so feel free to get in touch through my profile.

b0rsuk 13y ago
Sounds a lot like committee stuffing. Have you read the "Evangelism is War" internal Microsoft document ? http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351... Juicy quote below: """Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage. I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate. A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands. Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are: -- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with. -- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?"""

by japhyr 13y ago

b0rsuk 13y ago

Sounds a lot like committee stuffing. Have you read the "Evangelism is War" internal Microsoft document ? http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351... Juicy quote below: """Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage. I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate. A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands. Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are: -- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with. -- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?"""