[Wylug-discuss] "Microsoft Office 'not the only way for schools' "

[John Hodrien]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Roger wrote:

> I agree about school (and national) management, but the difference between
> furniture and IT is that teachers don't take furniture home and expect it to
> fit that environment too.  That comparison can be stretched to show what I
> think is the problem...  Imagine that you've never realised that there was
> an alternative to paying more for your house, so you have a spare room in
> which to put the school furniture that you bring home every night, when, if
> the school bought its furniture from somewhere else, you could use the
> furniture you choose to have anyway (and you could get your furniture free).

I'm not saying it's not something that affects teachers, but I still don't
think it's something that's anything a teacher can reasonably bother
themselves with, when they're not qualified to understand fully the issues
involved.

>> I wouldn't expect teachers to care particularly.  If the software they are
>> given doesn't suck, they don't care.  Give them stuff that crashes all the
>> time and they'll quickly care.
>
> Ah but they do care about what systems they have.  Specifically, I've heard
> three different teachers turn on interactive whiteboards with a muttered
> comment, "If the thing will work."

Absolutely.  But I still don't think that it being proprietary and it sucking
are the same thing.  Many of the times my sister swore about their crappy IT
setup it had nothing to do with the software setup, and everything to do with
their IT hardware externally managed by monkeys.

I think at the moment the problem is pretending that getting external
companies to produce software for use in schools is an efficient use of
taxpayers' money.  If we really want to be a leading world government perhaps
we should be funding the production of FOSS software for education with the
hope (and intent) of it being used in other countries.  We could even use
foreign aid money to help that to happen.  That'd be a legacy to be proud of.

> The big issue is, as Becta point out, interoperability - being able to use
> create stuff with one piece of software, then use it with another. And again
> Becta got it right: two different versions of Microsoft software are just as
> unlikely to be compatible as, say, Word and OpenOffice Writer.

But for Becta considering what's best for the future as far as IT goes is part
of their remit.  I still think these decisions should be made by Becta and
then enforced.

Having Microsoft lobbyists talking about Office 2003 being worked hard by
schools would be great if schools were all using Office 2003, but they're not
due to issues of cost.  Also from a student's point of view Office 2003 has
waaay more than you want to use which I don't think is particularly helpful.

>> If they understood that they could simply hand out CDs to kids with all the
>> software they'd need for the year with no licensing problems, then perhaps
>> that'd appeal
>
> I think that being able to update their own software free of charge would 
> also appeal - if they knew about it, and if it were not the case that some 
> suppliers produce material that won't work with the free software!

Absolutely.  Simplifying software inventory management would also be nice, as
I know from my sister's experience teaching where you have 5 licenses for
software you want to use in 10 places.  Technicians endlessly install and
uninstall software to comply.  That's not sensible in anyone's book.

jh

-- 
"I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no
  power on earth that will protect him from being bombed.  Whatever people may
  tell him, the bomber will always get through.  The only defence is in offence
  which means you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the
  enemy if you want to save yourselves."              -- Stanley Baldwin