Khaotic Musings
Random musings on Linux and Free and Open Source Software.
Thursday 28 May 2009, 6:54 AM
Radical Idea: Charge Vendors for Software Deployed in Schools
What I meant by my question was this.
Rather than our public-sector education organisations paying for software, they should in fact not only get the software for free, they should actually be billing the software vendors for the right to place their wares and branding in front of millions of school students. Much like television and radio stations offer up a bidding system to advertisers who want to capture the eyes and ears of the 'audience', schools could operate a bidding process where vendors bid for accessing student's attention for their software.
I couldn't get one single cogent answer from my audience as to why this wasn't a viable idea. The idea would not only reduce the software costs to our schools by hundreds of millions, but perhaps, with the right kind of negotiation, wipe out the costs to schools for much of their IT needs, as the vendors' payments might just cover the costs involved for hardware acquisitions, networking and support.
Why aren't education departments worldwide pursuing this?
Why indeed.
You might ask: "Why would Microsoft et al pay to have their software placed in front of school-kids?"
And chances are, you'll already know the answer.
Imagine what would happen if a generation of school kids was raised, from an early age, to be Linux, OpenOffice.org and Gimp users?
What's that I hear you say? Kids can't use that software? Rubbish. I know of many experiments which had school classes split into two; one group learning something like the Gimp for image editing, the other Photoshop. At the end of training, the groups were swapped. And while yes, the Photoshop-trained kids complained that the Gimp wasn't intuitive, the Gimp-trained students said the same thing about Photoshop!
Now, imagine once more, if a whole generation of school kids was raised on Linux and open source software. Imagine what that would do to the current proprietary vendors who enjoy a strangle-hold in certain platform and application market segments. Imagine what that would do to their markets. Imagine again how much said vendors would pay to ensure that that never happens. And now you can begin to understand the incredible leverage that national school boards and departments of education have.
And yet, they do nothing with that power.
Why is it so?
PreviousComments on this post
I totally agree. I work for the local education department and manage/install applications for schools. The price of some of these applications are ridiculously high, especially for multi-user licences. I know they get a 'discount' but like you, I agree, if they want the schools to use their software, why do the schools have to pay such high prices and restrictions on using the software? And because we're on microsoft networks, held by licence restrictions in the school, open source software is a 'no no'.
This a ridiculous idea. It would selling our children's mindsets and future to the highest bidder... and we all know which bidder has the most money versus GNU\Linux. This would simply create a monopoly because LUGS and enthusiasts wouldnt be able to compete on bids.
Imagine having fast food companies provide our children with meals... Would you want your kids raised on junk food? Then why on Junkware?
You are what you eat...
tsuedesu said "This a ridiculous idea. It would selling our children's mindsets and future to the highest bidder... and we all know which bidder has the most money versus GNU\Linux. This would simply create a monopoly because LUGS and enthusiasts wouldnt be able to compete on bids."
tsuedesu, let me make one thing crystal clear - for a number of important technical, societal and educational reasons, my preference would be for schools to use Linux and free and open source software. I have been advocating the use of such software since 1997.
However, none of the education organisations I have worked with, to help move towards Linux and Free software, have done so. Instead, they pay, in my country alone, perhaps AU$150 million per refresh cycle to Microsoft et al, in non-compete, no-bid deals. I imagine the UK figure probably approaches half-a-billion dollars.
This is real money which can be saved by our struggling schools. As a taxpayer, and parent to schoolkids, I want this to stop.
If Microsoft (et al) are going to be given the student desktop anyway, which they have been, for over 15 years, then I want them to pay for that privilege.
Of course, there is every reason to suspect that Microsoft (et al) will baulk at paying hundreds of millions of dollars to education departments to guarantee that their wares are the ones that students are indoctrinated on; as such, the education departments will turn to Linux and Free software to fulfil their educational requirements.
Do you have an argument against this line of thinking? If so, what is it?
Oh, in case tsuedesu needed a background on my work in getting Linux and free and open source software into education, here are some references to demonstrate my bona fides.
Free Software for Schools is a catalogue of open source computer programs for teaching and learning:
http://cc.com.au/osv/education_FOSS_catalog.pdf
The real roadblocks to Linux in education:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/The-real-roadblocks-to-Linux-in-education/0,130061733,139191668,00.htm?feed=pt_open_source
Open source USB key to $2bn school laptop plan:
http://www.itnews.com.au/Tools/Print.aspx?CIID=130697
Reducing Computer Technology Costs in Australian Education:
http://www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/reducing_computer_technology_costs_in_australian_state_education.pdf
[Abstract: This whitepaper discusses two methods by which Australia's state Departments of Education can save (collectively) approximately $100 million per year in reduced computer technology costs. The two methods are: better negotiation with proprietary software vendors; and the adoption of open source software in lieu of existing proprietary software solutions.]
[Looks like my previous ancillary comment triggered a spam block on the comment forums here, so I'll re-post it, in parts here, to avoid the spam block]
Oh, in case tsuedesu needed a background on my work in getting Linux and free and open source software into education, here are some references to demonstrate my bona fides.
Free Software for Schools is a catalogue of open source computer programs for teaching and learning
The real roadblocks to Linux in education
Radical idea = high implementation cost.
To move from Local Education Authority (LEA) sponsored and supported propitiatory School Management Software in a small to medium sized school would be cost-prohibitive. The change would have to be done at cluster level (small group of local schools) or LEA level with financial and technical support.
As far as Open Source for curriculum software, the training and ongoing support for Open Office would be around the same and if not more than an annual payment for a Microsoft Schools Agreement, which includes MS Office.
I use OSS where appropriate at the schools I work in, but I consider the adoption of OSS wholesale as a too large learning curve for most teaching staff, as they do have high workloads and spare time is scarce, the continual support effort and costs outweigh using more familiar software.
I am however a day-to-day Linux user myself, but I do refrain from evangelizing about OSS in my professional capacity as there are just not the resources to implement the changes and provide the support required for the changeover.
BECTA can suggest going over to open source and its cost savings, but they haven't persuaded our LEA yet, nor do they push it above other agendas they have. Being a worker at the coal face, I know that tens of millions of pounds certainly would not be saved in the schools I work in, the savings from OSS adoption really would be negligible, if there were any at all.
blachholesun said:
"Radical idea = high implementation cost."
"To move from Local Education Authority (LEA) sponsored and supported propitiatory School Management Software in a small to medium sized school would be cost-prohibitive. The change would have to be done at cluster level (small group of local schools) or LEA level with financial and technical support.?"
...
"As far as Open Source for curriculum software, the training and ongoing support for Open Office would be around the same and if not more than an annual payment for a Microsoft Schools Agreement, which includes MS Office."
- - -
Firstly, I assume you're looking at the option of dropping Microsoft products and moving to Linux and open source equivalents. My proposal is to use the leverage of moving to Linux and open source as a mechanism to get Microsoft to wipe out software licencing costs for schools and to actually pay the schools for them to indoctrinate students on Microsoft products, rather than these schools doing Microsoft this favour for free.
My preference, however, is for schools to use Linux and open source software.
To respond to your question - I haven't seen data which suggests that a move away from Microsoft products would be in any way prohibitive.
In fact, the only data I have seen are for studies like this one, conducted by the French Gendarmerie, which show that a move away from Microsoft products is not only feasible and does not attract a "high implementation cost", but has saved that organisation tens of millions of euros.
Do you have studies which show that a move by schools to Linux and open source would in fact cost more than the software licence costs charged by Microsoft?
Can I also ask, when your school pays the fee for the "Microsoft Schools Agreement", exactly how much technical support do you get with that payment?
I haven't really used Microsoft products heavily for many years. The last time I looked, any real technical support from Microsoft cost upwards of AU$250 per incident, above any licence costs. Do your schools get such support for free?
Ok, without getting into a large debate today. I will say this:
Each case should be judged on its own merits, a solid business case / benefit to education should be developed for the adoption of OSS. This itself would have to be done at a strategic level of management, especially in the case of the schools I work in.
The resources and skill levels on the ground are not sufficient for creating and driving through a program of OSS technology adoption.
It was interesting however in the French Gendarmerie example there was a need for making a HR SAP application web accessible. This would also have to be the case in our School Management System, these options are available but at extra cost, restricted functionality and not officially support by the LEA, export reports etc still rely on Word 2003 Macros.
Still, maybe I am projecting my own concerns and restrictions I have faced with moving over to OSS in the environment I work. For the moment I just have to implement OSS where possible in conjunction with Microsoft's Windows platform.
Linux and OSS will still remain my choice for personal use and University studies and I certainly do debate with fellow student Microsoft users regarding that subject. Its just everybody in the last six months keeps turning up with Macs!
This comment has been deleted at the users request
blackholesun said "Each case should be judged on its own merits, a solid business case / benefit to education should be developed for the adoption of OSS. This itself would have to be done at a strategic level of management, especially in the case of the schools I work in."
100% agree.
My main gripe is that this isn't really occurring in English-speaking countries. And if there had been any such effort, the results weren't made public or even revealed to a select group of potential stakeholders, particularly to those who could help to resolve any issues which did arise in planning for a migration to Linux/FOSS.
blackholesun also said "The resources and skill levels on the ground are not sufficient for creating and driving through a program of OSS technology adoption."
To this I have to say that the fault largely vests with those in strategic levels of management at our education bodies and departments. Unless these people take the initiative to arrange and 'pipeline' the resources towards a potential Linux/FOSS migration, it will never happen in such large constituencies as government schools.
It is possible for most organisations to shift many/most of their staff to Linux/FOSS, but the decision and management of this process has to come from the top. And as has been shown by many of the respondents to the recent Freeform Dynamics Linux on the Desktop report, the cost savings are the driver and are very, very real.
In the UK, we have e-petitions, an online petition system for Government in which a carefully worded statement can be put online on the Downing Street Website for people to vote on. Now would be a good time to create an one which pertitioned against the product refresh cycle (and the expense linked to this) that will be Windows 7 / Office 2010, instead spending the money on developing Open Source Web Applications presented through Linux. Collaboration is the name of the game in the next 10 years, not individual desktop refreshes with people studying MS Office and Windows 7 Desktop.
Looks like the UK Government is making the right noises,
UK government backs open source (Feburary 2009) wonder if we will ever know where and when it was implemented and at what costs savings remains to be seen. More research needed.
This comment has been deleted at the users request
@blackholesun - this isn't the first time the UK government has had a go at being inclusive towards procurement of open source software. You'll note that the e-Government Unit of the Cabinet Office prepared the Open Source Software: Use within UK Government report in October 2004.
As someone who has been involved in preparing procurement guidelines for governments, i can tell you that getting to this stage is only a fraction of the uphill battle.
Unless there is concerted effort to ensure that the key strategic planners and chief information executives within various government ministries, departments and agencies are aware of the key benefits, and yes the real (rather than imagined) detractions of open source software, and how to go about applying any formal procurement policy and guidelines to their own organisation, progress is, at best, very slow.
But yes, let's hope this more recent move by the UK.gov gets more traction this time around. You guys are certainly moving with more purpose than our lot here in Australia.
Well by what is happening in UK Politics at the moment, politicians are looking less than honest in their financial dealings with tax payers money. Can we trust them to implement the big words they spout regarding OSS, or is it just political maneuvering? I dont see any major news of a large OSS deployment within a Government department, I may however be wrong.
Just as a side note, here are some stats regarding Linux market share as a platform, recorded by browser string website visits. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&sample=35
Linux weighs in at nearly 1%!! This represents that silver lining running through the cloud of OSes!
blackholesun said "Linux weighs in at nearly 1%!! This represents that silver lining running through the cloud of OSes!
Indeed, it appears to be a small number.
But I should relate a story that I witnessed first hand, around 20 years ago.
Back then, a few of us working at the university had started using this technology called 'Internet"; we thought it was truly amazing, an epoch making technology, surely on par in terms of importance, with the Gutenberg printing press.
We tried, very very hard, to impress the importance of this 'new' technology upon various government and corporate organisations, with no success.
Their response went along the lines of "It's something developed by a bunch of long-hair, sandal-wearing geeks in universities, there's no way any of this will fly in business or government. Business will only use proprietary network technology which comes from serious industry players, like IBM, DEC, Novell and (in time) Microsoft. Governments will use networking-for-grown-ups, aka GOSIP. Anyway, all the numbers are with these other networks, not the Internet, which has only a tiny fraction of the market by comparison - why should we pay attention to the Internet?"
You know, they kept arguing along these lines until 1995, when suddenly, the market for pretty much anything which wasn't 'Internet' started a rapid decline into oblivion. Suddenly, as if by magic, anything which wasn't the fully open, inter-operable, unencumbered 'Internet', died.
In time, a similar thing will happen with computing platforms.
So don't pay any attention to Linux's 1%, 2% or 5% market share. When the market shifts, and it will eventually shift, the move will be a dramatic and rapid one, much like any other critical point phase shift.
