[PLUG] RE: Steve Duin's column of 5/21/02

[Eric Harrison]

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Sorry for the flamage Ted, but you're making a few assumptions that
are incorrect that should be clarified...

[ please note that although I've been a central figure in all of this, I
  don't claim to be authoritative on the subject. My opinions are my own and
  do not necessary represent those of my employer nor those I quote below,
  IANAL, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, etc, and so on. ]

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Greg Long [mailto:greg at maneuveringspeed.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 6:23 PM
>>To: PLUG; KLUG; pdx-freebsd at toybox.placo.com
>>Subject: Steve Duin's column of 5/21/02
>>
>>
>>I don't recall seeing anyone post this follow-up article by Steve Duin
>>in PLUG, if they did, please forgive the duplicate.
>>
>>
> Robinson said,
>>"... I find it ironic that Microsoft doesn't
>>seem to be interested in working flexibly with schools to make sure
>>their operating system is the first one those kids experience..."
>>
>
>Spoken like the typical educator with an overly puffed up view of
>the importance of what he's doing.  This quote speaks volumes.

As a general rule, one should avoid extrapolating a single quote in a
news article into a whole theory.

First, Scott's new on the job, he comes from the corporate world.
I know he has a very clear view of "the importance of what he's doing".
At the very minimum, the label "typical educator" is way off mark.

>Why the heck do people like Scott Robinson give a crap about what
>Microsoft thinks?  If they are so fired up about Linux, rather than
>spouting sour grapes like they are doing, they would have nothing
>whatsover to say about Microsoft and would spend their quoting time
>talking up how great Linux is.
>
>The fact is that people like Scott aren't moving to Linux and other
>open source software because of it's superior technical merits.  They are
>moving to it because:

PPS had made *MAJOR* investments into Linux long before this whole audit
fiasco. They can use Linux as a serious hammer because they KNOW that
it is a serious hammer. 

Linux is the *ONLY* rational option in many cases right now. Only one choice
is often bad news, even if it is Linux. As the saying goes, all software
stinks (some stinks less than others). No single piece of software fits all
needs nor teaches all concepts.

>1) They are mad Microsoft has stopped giving away software to them for free
>and they feel that going to what Microsoft hates is a revenge tactic.

MS never gave schools software for free. MS has historically, and currently
still does, give big discounts to schools. They seem to trying hard to change
that, but that is not the primary issue.

>2) They still think the world (including Microsoft) thinks that schools
>are a perfect advertising venue for products and will do anything to
>get them placed, and that when they roar about what they are doing, the
>world trembles.

Nope, the "advertising" piece is a secondary issue at best. Apple made huge
inroads by giving away software/hardware to schools. Red Hat is kicking 
around doing the same right now. It makes long-term sense.

The primary issues are that 1) current MS software will not run on 90% of
the computers in schools, 2) it is not currently possible to buy new 
computers, and 3) the licensing requirements change over time and are never
clearly defined, making it almost impossible for most schools to PROVE that
they are 100% compliant no matter how hard they try.

There is simply a huge disconnect between what MS demands and what the
schools are capable of dealing with. This is driving MS out of the school
market, which is the jist of the whole thing, for better or worse.

>3) They think that "getting serious" about Linux is going to give them
>some sort of club they can use to beat pricing lower with Microsoft.

Nope, even if MS "gave" us all the software we wanted, it still wouldn't
fix the problems. The driving force behind the Linux in Schools projects
has never been licensing costs. That is a big benefit, but it is not the
driving force. The problems I see are:

1) As noted earlier, most school's PCs are ancient. They won't run the latest-
   n-greatest MS software. There is NO HOPE of replacing these machines in 
   the near future. We have to live with what we have. What we have to live
   with is no longer supported by MS.

2) Schools are almost always cross-platform, and MS software STINKS at
   cross-platform compatibility. This causes a huge amount of headaches for
   the schools, just dealing with different versions of Word documents can be
   a nightmare

3) Windows desktops take a lot more manpower to keep running than anything
   else. Walk into any lab and 9 times out of 10 a machine with a "out of 
   order" sign on it will be a windows machine - even in predominatly Mac
   schools. The folks responsible for maintaining the labs are SICK of 
   dealing with windows problems and are often quite excited to use ANYTHING
   ELSE.

4) Every major disruption we've seen in the last two or three years has
   been due to MS bugs/security flaws.

5) Everytime we come up with a way to mitigate one of the above problems,
   MS comes up with a new way to license their software to make the "fix"
   financially impractical. Wanting TWO licenses for machines with imaged
   (such as Ghost) drives, for example. MS's licensing for their Terminal
   Services is the #1 reason I hear for failed and/or aborted deployment
   attempts.

With the exception of the last one, licensing is not a factor. Licensing is
just the straw that broke the camel's back. The fundemental problems run
much deeper.

>In short, the quote above is a perfect example of someone still clinging
>to that Microsoft pacifier.  He may not be sucking on it every day of
>his life anymore but he's very unhappy as all get out that he can't.

I don't quite get this one, it seems like grasping at straws to me,
so I'll just skip it.

>Just look at the wording in the article:
>
>"...We don't know what to believe...."

As I noted above, "we don't know what to believe". The licensing terms are
variable and murky. How does one PROVE that an ancient version of MS Works
on a donated Mac is legit? Schools are generally "open" networks, kids 
sometimes use their own laptops... how is a school to account for that?
We never get the same answer twice, assuming we ever do get an answer.
"we don't know what to believe". I've asked Microsoft executives to provide
us with PRECISE instructions on how to conduct these audits and prove 100%
whether or not compliency has been acheived. I give it a near 0% chance they
will actually provide this to us. MS uses licensing as a hammer, it's probably
in their best interest to keep it as variable and murky as possible.

>Um, why do they care?  Just embrace Open Source and you don't have to pay
>attention to Microsoft or worry about figuring them out.

We care because we have to. My whole goal in life, and the K12Linux project
in specific, is to not care. Note that the "mascot" of K12LTSP is a toaster:
http://www.riverdale.k12.or.us/linux/toaster/ ... do you really care what
brand of toaster you have? Do you have to worry about what type of plug your
toaster has or what brand of bread it is compatible with? 

Software should be a commodity. Currently it is not, but we're working like
mad to make it so. As it is today, we all have to care about Windows. In 
schools in particular, we have to care about the Mac as well. I'd much rather
not have to care about any particular product, I just want the software to
do its job at the lowest possible cost. Linux is currently the best bet to
reach this goal.

>"...suggested that Microsoft's licensing tactics were pushing them toward
>Linux..."
>
>So Linux is something that you have to be pushed towards?!?!

Push from one side, pull from the other. One could summarize this as "we
have been implementing Linux because it solves big problems for us. Now
MS has made a couple really stupid moves which have pushed us to accelerate
our Linux efforts". Is that bad?

>"...we have to look at open-source software..."
>
>So, Open Source is something that you _have_ to look at rather than _want_ to
>look at?  Sounds like an unwelcome homework assignment to me.

Only welcome homework is worth doing? I remember most homework assignments
as being unwelcomed...

>Hell, the title of the article is in this same vein.  Why wasn't it
>titled:  "Schools finding Linux is better and cheaper than Windows"

Is Linux better and cheaper than Windows? I and a large number of the
schools here in Portland and around the world are working hard on making
this true. 


-Eric