Re: Sorry, I meant...

[Doug Loss <dloss@csrlink.net>]

Marshal Anderson wrote:

>  >
> > > Closed software bad (well, not actually bad, just a rather
> > uninspiring use
> > > of the technology)
> > >
> > We're generally for open source software, but I think we
need
> > to realize
> > that there are quite viable places for commercial, closed
software.
>
> from an educational point of view. Closed software give no
power to the
> learner - drill & kill is closed software - it simply runs a
series of
> events. Open software - maybe a word processor or Logo - puts
the learner in
> full control of what's going on. There are, of course, an
infinite number of
> shades of grey in between.

We are talking about two different meanings of "closed" and
"open," I think.  You are using "closed" to mean unexpandable
software, and "open" to mean software that enables the user to
create new things; enabling software.  I meant "closed" as in
proprietary, unmodifiable softawre, and "open" as
in freely modifiable by anyone.  These meanings aren't entirely
orthogonal, but I think it's a good idea that we're clear on the
differences.  Perhaps we should use "open source" and
"proprietary" to capture my meanings, and "rote" and "enabling"
to capture yours.  Or suggest something else.  I
don't mind.

My office is being torn apart in preparation for new furniture,
so I'm posting this from a different machine out in the
Operations Center.  Please excuse any formatting problems this
may cause.   Thanks.

Doug Loss