No more Windows at Swiss schools - it's all Ubuntu now

Author's note by foobar, on 10-APR-2008 11:58

@allstarnz: I don't think it has anything to do with any 'open source utopia'. Did you read the original article? It was specifically mentioned that the use of open source software saves them a lot of money and it helps students that cannot afford Microsoft software. Besides those points, for me it's mostly three factors, which make me think that open source should be the logical choice for shools.

1. Proprietary software in schools is entirely unnecessary. Why pay for proprietary software when you don't need it? What do schools have students do with their computers? Research stuff on the Internet? Write some documents or make presentations? Learn how to program? All of these things are perfectly possible with open source software. So... what again is the reason to pay for proprietary software in schools?

2. Not every student has to become a programmer, or course. But if you DO want to teach students more than just how to use a product, but rather teach them to explore and dive into a system to learn more, then open source again is the logical choice.

3. I don't believe it is the job of the schools to train students in the usage of a particular vendor's products. For example, just because OpenOffice is a little bit different than Word doesn't mean that schools can only use Word. In fact, exposing students to an alternative can actually only broaden their horizon and make them realise that things this particular vendor's products are not a synonym for 'computers' or 'word processing'. Once they enter the workforce, they will be exposed to Microsoft products soon enough. Having seen an alternative before that will definitely further their understanding.

Author's note by foobar, on 10-APR-2008 12:16

@BobW: I think the problem is that schools (or larger organisations in general) like to standardise on one platform if they can. This means for support contracts they only need to deal with one vendor, and they only need to hire IT staff with one set of qualifications.

While I appreciate your point about Windows being the most widely used platform, and what you said about the job-market related skills, I also have to say (see my previous comment) that it shouldn't be the job of schools to teach product specific knowledge. Instead, they should teach principles. If you have used OpenOffice for a while, and know the principles of word processing, what it takes to make a good presentation (which is completely product independent), and what to do with a spread sheet (also product independent), do you really think that a student will have much difficulty picking up how to do that with MS Office at a later time?

Also, don't forget that even Microsoft changes the interfaces of their software. If someone trained on Word 97 (or whatever it is) and they now are exposed to Word 2007, do you think they will not be greatly surprised? These students that we are talking about here haven't even gone to university or college yet. Before they enter the workforce, Microsoft will have changed their interface many times over. I don't think at all that any one of these students will experience any disadvantage at all because of this.

And finally: Seeing diversity in action is probably the best outcome. But what we normally see is Microsoft-only in schools, so there is no exposure to diversity either. But then, if I run Linux, I can run OpenOffice, then KWord and then AbiWord and show students quickly how different user interfaces feel like.