Re: [seul-edu] Donated Computers announcement, Take III

[Leon Brooks <leon@brooks.fdns.net>]

On Sunday 05 May 2002 14:00, Harry McGregor wrote:
>> LINUX ENABLES SAFE COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS

> I would suggest:

> LINUX ENABLES SAFE, EFFECTIVE, COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS

It adds cumbersome, and for me doesn't add attraction.

>> The Internet, Tuesday, 07 May 2002: In an official announcement from the
>> SchoolForge[0] group today, spokesman Leon Brooks refuted statements on
>> Microsoft's website which have been widely interpreted as a roadblock to
>> the acceptance of donated computers by schools and other needy
>> organisations.

> I would like a better "location" than "The Internet", though with the way
> this group is organised that might not be possible.

Yah, `Everywhere', `Planet Earth' or a list of 70 locations are about all you 
get for alternatives.

>> "Using Linux, OpenOffice.org and other Open Source software, a school or
>> charity can safely accept almost any donated computer," he said. "Simply
>> wipe it and replace the software with Linux[1] and Open Source
>> applications[2], then use the computer as a powerful workstation or
>> server. It's an excellent idea to erase the existing operating system
>> anyway - this also erases viruses and trojan horses, protects the donor's
>> privacy, and complies with the typical EULA[3] - so why not install
>> something better while you're there?"

> Instead of "install something better" how does "so why not upgrade to
> something better while you're there"

Yes, I think queezing `upgrade' in there is a winner.

>> Mr Brooks also noted that Linux removed many of the burdens, costs and
>> legal risks of licence management and software asset auditing faced by
>> all businesses, organisations and individuals.

> I think it should read "Linux removes", and I would remove the word all,
> it is assumed, and not necessarily true.

s/all/many/ or s/all/most/ or is there a better alternative?

>> The price tag is also attractive. "School decisions are often dominated
>> by cost; much Open Source software is available at little or no cost, and
>> runs well on donated computers," Mr Brooks explained, "Linux is easy to
>> set up as a fast diskless workstation or `thin client', so many schools
>> are rolling out networks using this technology with both donated and new
>> equipment.

> If possible, it might be wise to change this quote to a similar quote
> coming from one of the guys involved in K12LTSP.

Please! It's a one-man band so far.

>> "On top of this, Open Source software is immune to almost all existing
>> viruses, has an excellent security record, is extremely reliable, and in
>> an educational setting often provides a deeper involvement in computers
>> than programs deliberately designed for the classroom."

> These two thoughts don't really go well together.  The educations aspects
> should be handled aside from the security aspects, unless you are refering
> to securing the systems from the students themselves (which is another,
> very important issue).

All part of the package. Perhaps `robust' would be better than `reliable' 
since the robustness aspect of the reliability is a key enabler for `getting 
into' the system.

>> Brooks said, "I see this kind of problem often with
>> Microsoft's software, as with viruses and security issues. The approach
>> that many schools, charities and public bodies have taken is simply to
>> use other software without this handicap. This happened[6] when Oregon
>> and Washington schools recently found themselves being pushed into a
>> software audit."

> Again, you might want to see if you get get the people who were at that
> meeting to put in a quote here, having quotes from several sources will
> help.  I can rewrite one in my own voice, if you wish.

Please! Something along the lines of "Harry McGregor, High Poohbar of the 
Blahdiblah Institute, said after attending the ACRONYM meeting of schools 
that `this is how many schools from Oregon and Washington reacted when they 
found themselves being pushed into a software audit. These are honest, 
upright people who can't afford an audit, and can't afford mistakes.'"

> Also, I think that what MS meant by that statement, and what it really
> means are two differant items.  I think MS was thinking from the point of
> view of the person giving the computer, and that the license can not be
> transfered to another computer at the site, nor can it be retained by
> person giving the computer, still very hard to deal with, but perfect for
> a Linux replacement.

Yes. That's why the indirection about how people actually read it. We 
completely avoid examining their motives, leaving it in *our* audience's 
hands.

Cheers; Leon