Re: Your Mission (should you choose to accept it)

["Ian Bicking" <bickiia@earlham.edu>]

> I think that the basic premise that there can be some identifiable
> educational purpose (from a pedagogical pov) to using Linux rather than W98,
> RISC OS, System 8 orwhatever is flawed. 

I think there are two ways in which Linux is fundamentally different 
from these other systems.  (I'm kind of guessing about RiscOS, 
since I only know a little about it)

First, Linux is multiuser.  This isn't a difficult or novel feature, but it 
is completely missing from educational computing.  I can't fathom 
why.  The number of things that would be eased and troubles that 
would be avoided are tremendous.  The little problems bog people 
down so that they don't have the time or the will to take computer 
use just a little bit further, even though I think that little extra 
distance is the point when computers have the chance to really 
pay off.

Second, Linux is built (mostly) on Free Software (free speach, but I 
think free beer is important too).  This gives schools the ability to 
share what they create or fund, knowing that their effort is 
cumulative with others'.  Free Software doesn't go backwards 
because someone else can always carry the torch if necessary.  In 
my fantasy world, this leads to a situation where schools are in 
charge of the computers and software, not software companies 
(this sounds like it's already more true in the UK than the US, but 
still).  Marketing falls away in the wake of fluid exchanges of this 
software and a culture of doing things the Right Way.  Okay, 
maybe it won't happen, but it's something to work towards.  Even a 
spiffy (proprietary) platform doesn't offer me a good dream, just 
something that is a little better.  This is just a dream at this point, 
and a far-fetched one at that, but so was GNU in the beginning.


Of course, the second aspect is much less compelling to someone 
looking to port proprietary software, but I think even the Open 
Source effort to make all infrastructure free applies as well, while 
leaving space for proprietary software.


> What we're talking about is the use
> of ICT as a means to (hopefully) enhance the learning experience of students
> in the broadest sense; the os such systems run in, or the language they are
> written in is /largely/ irrelevant. Some points that are relevant will be
> the stability of the system, compactness of code, ability to access many
> forms of media easily etc. However, from the student's point of view these
> are invisible. 50% or so of children in the UK use Acorns in school but have
> PCs at home. Their attitudes towards these machines is not overtly based on
> the OS, but on the software available.

I think, in part, this is due to a flaw in educational software.  I'm not 
sure of the entire reasoning behind it, but many educational 
programs use their own novel interfaces with controlled 
environments that only interface with the rest of the computer in 
limited fashion.  This offers an easier interface and directs the 
student, but it also leads to many a confusing, buggy interface and 
a stifling environment.

Just as people will probably notice more differences when using 
different web browsers on the same OS than the same browser on 
different OSes, so too do educational programs seem independant 
of the operating system.  Some people think this is a great 
direction (ala Java), but I think it misses something very 
fundamental -- if the OS is incidental to the application, the 
application will have taken on many of the roles of the OS.  But the 
OS does not do trivial operations, nor is there one obvious or 
compelling way to do these operations.  There is real room for 
differentiation between operating systems because they do real 
work.  Applications that subsume the operating system overstretch 
themselves, do not answer the questions posed as thoughtfully, 
and do not tie into the overall advancement of CS.


So, those are my thoughts.



--
Ian Bicking <bickiia@earlham.edu>