Recently, I wrote to my MP. I got a reasonably positive reply asking for more information before he would consider signing the Early Day Motion I was encouraging him to. His reply was much faster than mine to him, embarrassingly, but I’ve finally got around to responding. Here is the content of my letter:
Dear Evan Harris,
Re: EDM179: Software in Schools
Thank you for replying to my email asking you to consider signing EDM179. As you suggested, I’m writing to clarify my position and to explain the matter in more detail.
My interest in seeing free and open source software (hereafter abbreviated as F/OSS) utilised more widely, especially in schools, is two-fold. Firstly, I believe that F/OSS can result in a much more flexible, secure and cost-effective approach for schools; secondly, the use of F/OSS in the school environment will provide an educational benefit too since its use directly encourages a better understanding of the way software works in practice.
The issues surrounding the use of software are incredibly complex and this is not the right place to go into great detail; as a result, my letter to you only really scratches the surface. I’ve tried to at least touch on all the relevant issues, however.
You may already be familiar with the names of some F/OSS endeavours: the operating system Linux (provided as an alternative to Microsoft Windows), the web browser Mozilla Firefox and the web server Apache. Almost two-thirds of the world’s web sites are run via Apache, and I believe this includes the Liberal Democrats own site! However, you may not be familiar with the very different approach that F/OSS uses to actually build and distribute the software.
Typically, traditional software models like those used by companies such as Microsoft are very simple: many direct employees write the software and it is sold for a profit. This is usually called proprietary software or commercial software. The source code, the underlying computer instructions written by the programmers in human-readable form, is not made available outside the company and is regarded as a closely-guarded secret. Free and open source software, however, take a very different approach: often the software itself is written by highly technically-competent enthusiasts, academics and volunteers from around the world. The software is available to everyone at no cost. Importantly, the source code is made available to the public too. This has a number of interesting and important consequences: since the source code is public, it can be scrutinized by third-parties to ensure that the software does what it claims to and does not contain any security “back-doors” for example. Also, having the source code allows one to modify and rebuild the software oneself: this can be useful for a variety of reasons, such as to fix problems or just to make it work in a way that was not originally envisaged by the developers. You can do none of these things with proprietary software.
The different approaches used by software companies and by F/OSS developers are quite stark:
Commercial software:
- Can be expensive to purchase, even when heavily discounted for certain groups, such as schools; typically costs are “per seat”, meaning it costs more with each additional licence required;
- Support and modifications can ultimately only be provided by the those who wrote the software (e.g. Microsoft);
- Encourages a closed attitude to computing issues;
- Contracts with suppliers often result in “lock-in” for a period of time, which does little to benefit the purchaser;
- The developer’s goal is to make a profit for the company, not to make good software.
F/OSS:
- The developer’s goal is to write good software and see it used as widely as possible. There are no shareholders to keep happy;
- Typically available at no cost and for an unlimited number of users;
- Support, modification and customisation can be provided by any suitably competent individual or group;
- Encourages community use and community support; will also encourage understanding and openness about computing/software issues.
Reading the above, it might seem surprising that more schools and businesses are not making more use of F/OSS. Partly this is due to marketing: companies supplying proprietary software have marketing departments, whereas F/OSS projects with developers distributed around the world do not. Another reason is probably a slight fear of the unknown: therefore those who understand the benefits that F/OSS can provide need to make themselves heard!
The use of free software encourages a greater understanding of software: with the source code available, you can inspect the code to learn how it works, you can change the code to learn how to program, thus changing and improving the software. This is a very helpful learning experience and something that should be encouraged in schools. All of this is sadly impossible if all that pupils have available to them are PCs running proprietary systems. Also, much of the computing syllabus is aimed at training children to use proprietary applications.
As I understand them, the current BECTA guidelines for schools purchasing software make it necessary to purchase from suppliers which have applied for approval and been formally approved: this is not a straightforward process and indirectly excludes many small businesses and organisations (those who would typically make use of F/OSS). Somewhat ironically, BECTA’s own report stated that F/OSS was a good thing and that its use should be encouraged. Its current framework makes this very difficult to do in practice: schools have little option (even if they are aware of the F/OSS alternatives) other than to purchase from the proprietary software vendors.
I am aware of a number of F/OSS enthusiasts who have made attempts to get involved with their local schools, for example by running clubs after school about computing and F/OSS in particular. Many of these have been successful but can only make a small impact given that the schools as a whole are using and relying only on proprietary software.
I think that signing EDM179 shows a statement of feeling that schools should be providing a broader range of software experience to pupils, in addition to having the potential to provide more cost-effective software solutions.
Yours sincerely,
etc.
It’s not perfect, but hopefully it’ll get the message across. I’m slightly concerned that it’s a bit long. I tried to do the “main points at the point” and “summarise at the end” thing, so hopefully it’ll have the desired effect.
1. White type on blue background is not the easiest to read.
Permalink2. There is a large but not obvious population of people who make some, not often much, money from helping learners with Windows and who are quietly vocal in all sorts of unexpected places. Singularly they mean nothing but the total is having a constant discouraging effect against open office &c.
3. Despite their protests, many open source advisors do not lower their sights enough when advising – they seem to have no comprehension of the real world.
Hello Robin: sorry you don’t like the colour scheme.
Can you explain what you mean in a bit more detail? I don’t quite follow some of your remarks.
In (2) are you saying that ther are enough Windows-based people bad-mouthing open source to make the general population not want to try open source?
In (3) are you claiming that open source advisors often push open source solutions even when they’re well aware it’s a poor solution?
PermalinkEvan’s a pretty clever guy. I’m trying to get some kind of Free Software activism going within the Liberal Democrat party itself, which I need to sort out soon. I’m hoping to speak to my two Liberal Democrat MEPs about software patents at Harrogate Spring Conference too.
I volunteered to do office IT admin stuff for the Oxford Liberal Democrats down at the Jam Factory, but they never called on my services until after I’d left!
PermalinkDavee
PermalinkRe para 3, yes
re para 4, what I mean is that most beginners interested in open
source know less and understand less than the people trying to help
them think. And many of them just get put off. Alright, I know that
really beginners ought to try harder but from their own point of view
thery are just looking for an easy tool to use, and if it\’s too
difficult, in their terms, they are not ging to bother. Fopr example
many of them don\’t want full exposure to Open Office when starting,
although later on they will welcome it. I hope this is clearer.
Robin
This is taken off the web today:-
Permalink\”The learning curve for open source software may be greater,
especially for end users who are not \”power users\”. Depending on the
particular distribution and the graphical interface, an open-source
operating system may require more technical skill to master.
Administrative overhead may also be greater, as IT professionals are
expected to master a command-line interface and be proficient in
scripting, writing their own device drivers, and so forth.
Technical support may not be provided by the vendor, or may cost
extra. Of course, there are also commercial distributions of
open-source products that do include tech support, but their cost is
not zero and may even approach or exceed that of proprietary
software.\”
Much of this is merely inuendo but it still makes people hesitate to
go for open-source.
Robin
That comment from the web is good old-fashioned FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) which is either written by someone who truly believes it, or more likely by someone with an axe to grind against open source: you’ve correctly identified it as ‘innuendo’, Robin! In particular “writing their own device drivers”?
Your point is a good one: there is a lot of bad-mouthing of F/OSS around.
Permalinkheh – like certain commercial vendors have reasonable support options…
Permalink