Wrest assured. We know we do
|
|
|
University challenged to ditch Microsoft
THE OPEN UNIVERSITY has breached its founding principles by supporting Microsoft software and should make amends by helping its students switch to free software, said the UK's Open Source Consortium in a letter last month. Last week, the OU replied: yeah but, no but, no.
The debate between them offers a text book example of the difficulties Open Source advocates face in their attempts to break open Microsoft's $60 billion software empire. On one side there is the Open Source community, the revolutionary source of free software founded on the principle that technology could be combined with an open ethos to starve starve the tributaries of privilege and inequality. On the other side is the Open University, the revolutionary seat of education that was founded on the principle that that technology could be combined with an open ethos to starve starve the tributaries of privilege and inequality.
You would have thought that these two grand movements of noble words and deeds would get on like a house on fire. Not at all.
The OU's student services show a distinct bias not to Open Source software, but to Microsoft, the convicted monopolist whose influence in education has been so restrictive that Becta, the UK's education technology quango, this year complained to the European Commission and advised schools not to upgrade to Microsoft's latest Vista operating system and Office 2007 application software.
Gerry Gavigan, chairman of the UK's Open Source Consortium, wrote a letter to OU vice chancellor Brenda Gourley almost exactly a month ago, suggesting that the OU would honour its founding principles if it encouraged its 220,000 students to adopt Open Source alternatives to Microsoft software. The switch would do more than that, it would save them money.
Last week, OU vice chancellor Professor Brenda Gourley wrote back with the s ame argument that is used to defend vested interests everywhere: as most students use Microsoft, so the OU couldn't do any more to encourage them to use Open Source instead. And anyway, said Gourley, the OU has already "made a significant contribution to the open source movement".
The OU's most significant support for Open Source was its 2005 investment of nearly £5 million in the development of a virtual learning environment (VLE), or online school library, using Moodle, the world-renowned free educational software, as its foundation. On the launch of the library, called OpenLearn, in November 2006, Gourley gushed praise for Open Source software and how sweetly it sat on the OU's founding principles.
"The philosophy of open access is a perfect fit with our founding principles; the marvellous resonance of the whole open source, open innovation, open educational resources movement with our very name makes it feel like our destiny!" she said in the Independent newspaper.
She matched "open access" to education with "open source" software as though the one depended on the other. "Closed systems are dead," she said, "open is the new standard."
Microsoft bias
The OU provides students with
technical
support, but only if they use Microsoft software. It advises students that
if they don't use a Windows PC they "may have problems accessing the software
and data files supplied with course materials". It has produced a 31-page guide
to using Microsoft software and
extensive
demonstrations. It has produced upgrade advice for Microsoft's Vista operating
system and even gone as far as promoting a Microsoft discount offer to its
students.
The OU does distribute copies of the Open Source Star Office to all students, but that endorsement pales in comparison to its backing of Microsoft. It has given no such advice, support or endorsement of Ubuntu, the free operating system lauded as the Open Source movement's viable alternative to Windows.
And yet Gourley said in her response to Gavigan: "The Open University is not in the business of promoting either proprietary or open source solutions per se, and adopting a programme of encouragement of only one or the other sort would be a distraction from our educational objectives."
Gourley failed to address the main point of Gavigan's argument, however, which was that the OU's founding principles obliged it to encourage students to use Open Source software, and to introduce free alternatives to proprietary software wherever it was viable.
The idea is that Microsoft software is expensive and proprietary, that it's heavy use on computer resources require people to buy more expensive computers to run it, that the free alternatives to Microsoft software are not in widespread use because Microsoft's business practices lock them out of the market, and that Microsoft's grip on the software market sustains its own lucrative position at the expense of innovation and competition in the software sector.
This argument should be a red rag to the OU, which by its own reckoning "was the first institution to break the insidious link between exclusivity and excellence".
Principles? Clothes shop, innit?
The OU emerged from an initiative of Harold Wilson's 1964 Labour government to
make university education accessible to all, regardless of their income or
gender. The idea attracted such "hostility and criticism" that Jennie Lee, the
Labour minister who implemented the plan, vowed the OU must make "no concessions
" to entrenched power.
"I knew the conservatism and vested interests of the academic world. I didn't believe we could get it through if we lowered our standards," she said. The OU now reckons Lee's tenacity "gradually wore down the mountains of hostility and indifference that she faced".
Something like hostility and indifference is what Gavigan has got in return for his suggestion that the OU would open their access to students further by officially adopting cheap alternatives to Microsoft software.
Professor Martin Weller, the OU's Professor of educational technology, who was forwarded by the university as its resident expert on the topic, claimed in a blog post last week that Gavigan wanted the OU to " force" students to use Open Source software and that this sounded "Stalinist".
He mocked the free software mindset: "We are more open than you, and we will out anyone who is not open. Comrades, report anyone who does not fully embrace openness to the central committee for openness! Weller has been overheard praising proprietary software - send him to the SourceForge Gulag!"
He did also make some helpful additions to the debate, such as the idea that students might not want to reconfigure their family PCs, that Open Source software isn't always the most viable option, and that some courses require specialist software. But he also failed to address the simple proposition forwarded by Gavigan: that the OU would be true to its founding principles if it more roundly endorsed Open Source software in the name of those students on lower incomes. There is still a digital divide in Britain. The cost of Microsoft software does nothing to break it down. What would someone on a lower income who bought a cheap Open Source computer do when they joined the Open University? Be forced to reconfigure their family PC?
And how closely has the OU stuck to its founding principles? Gavigan told the INQ that it's use of Moodle, the free software running its online learning materials, was nothing but "internal plumbing". The OU made a meal of Moodle, an arrangement that suited its own financial interests. But what of the financial interests of its students?
"More than three decades on," says the OU's promotional blurb, "the Open University has managed to convince sceptics that academic excellence need not be compromised by openness". Has it indeed. µ
Tags: Microsoft
Share this:
Share
Its it ironic how the "open university" won't use "open source".

thank god open university degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on, otherwise I would be deeply disappointed.

As it is I am just mildly amused at their lack of foresight.
One very simple thing that the OU could do is accept documents in Open Office's native format. Since Open/Star Office is given out to students anyway (presumably to stop people having to buy an expensive copy of MS Office), why force students to use it to produce .doc format files? (rtf files are also acceptable on my course but I need features that can't cover). Surely its not too much to ask to give tutors as well as students a copy of Open/Star Office and allow students to send work in as .odt files?
There is bias, but I think it's coming from the open source folk; not the OU.

The fact remains that even now Microsoft still has just over 90% of the desktop marketshare. Supporting the platform the majority of your users actually use sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

Forcing people to use an alternative OS which has less than 1% of the mass market (Linux) seems a little silly. Particularly when that 1% is probably divided between a few million different distros ;)
University of Helsinki is almost completely open sourced. Figures ^^
Obviously not, I would say!
The point is not that they would force people to use a free software operating system, but that currently they are effectively force people to use an operating system, and software, sold by one US company.

You can drive the the University in any car, but only Fords are allowed in the car park. If a real University tried that there would be outrage - but a virtual university does it and no one notices.
I think the real point here is not that the OU should *force* anyone to use open source software, but just that if it adopted *open standards* wherever possible, it would automatically include users of all OS platforms, rather than exclude them.

e.g. if OU accepted OpenDocument for assignments then users of *all* major word processing suites would be able to submit articles with equal ease. Rather than the current situation where we have to use a reverse engineered version of a proprietary format which can cause problems with anything but a very simply laid out document.

another example: there is OU provided Java software for the course M263. So as a Linux user I should have no problem using it right? Wrong, the installer comes as a windows only program. Now this really shows an unnecessary bias towards MS Windows. One of Java's main raison d'etres was to avoid exactly this problem.

OU need to embrace and support 'open standards', these may be implemented by open source or closed source software, it doesn't matter. The important point is that an open standard can be implemented by anyone. By choosing and supporting only Microsoft 'standards' they are leaving the average student very few choices.
"Forcing people to use an alternative OS"

Who's talking about forcing, aside from you? Offering support for other OS such as Mac and linux would match their "open" rhetoric, as would accepting documents in .odf where appropriate.
I'd be the first one to petition their asses off, but on the other hand, computers are so fricken cheap nowadays it's like arguing about which brand of lawnmower the school board uses to cut the grass with. It's like, what normal person gives a crap about anything so inconsequential?
: The fact remains that even now Microsoft still has
: just over 90% of the desktop marketshare.
: Supporting the platform the majority of your users
: actually use sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

Rereading the above comment ... "The fact that Microsoft has a functionally monopolistic grip on the market, we should finish off the competition by refusing to support anything else."

Of course they'll support MS stuff, the comment is about support other stuff *as *well !

: Forcing people to use an alternative OS which
: has less than 1% of the mass market (Linux)
: seems a little silly. Particularly when that 1%
: is probably divided between a few million
: different distros ;)
: posted by : Anonymous Coward, 11 November 2008 

So, not going to stand up for your comments then, fairly typical. The article wasn't advocating forcing anyone to do anything. It was suggesting that the students be *allowed* to use something else. Currently there are real roadblocks to using Linux as an OS and OpenOffice to produce documents for the OU. No one mentioned forcing people to change if they don't want to. Oh and you might like to rerun those comments in your own mind with Apple Mac in mind as it is now the 3rd most used desktop OS, *behind* Linux.

Linus overtook Mac a couple of years ago.

Now there's something that MS & Apple haven't been too keen for people to know.
Not much of this Open Source "arguement" based on fact is there?

Your comments suggest that OU students should not be forced use expensive MS operating software (supplied free with almost all PCs?) and should not have to take up the MS Ultimate Office 2007 offer for £35 is because ITS TOO EXPENSIVE? 

Oh wait - you don't mean its expensive now you mean one day it will be expensive when all the other competitors have been driven from the market. Its because these cheap offers will drive out all competition. 

Right. So how long has MS Office been around? And when roughly will all the alternative products be wiped from the face of the world?

Maybe instead of writing drivel like this you need to take a few business subjects on competition and market forces.

I look forward to your next article complaining that the OU supports the monopolistic use of English and complaining of the lack of support for Esperanto for all its courses. 

OU degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on??!?! On the contrary, I think it says a lot about an OU student when they've taken 8 YEARS whilst juggling work and/or kids to achieve a qualification that is JUST as good as any other degree!! A lot of OU students are being given a shot at something they wouldn't be able to do via ordinary universities... 

Shouldn't we be looking more at the end result of the work of the OU... at how many people are able to access education because of the type of learning offered? 

This organisation should NOT be judged badly because they are using a software package the majority of their students use!
I have been an OU student since 2004, started courses without a hitch using Microsoft products. But I decided not to take the vista jump and switch to a mac last year, and installed Mepis (open source) on my previously windos run pc.... 
A bad move on my part, whilst Neo Office (open source) can produce the adequate .doc files I need to send back for assignments, I cannot retrieve my marks without Microsoft software.
I could emulate windows on the mac, but what would be the point of having a mac?? 
Whilst I understand that supporting all open source OS might be a nightmare for the OU, I really think, they should offer support for the main Open Source OS such as Ubuntu or Suze and perhaps Mac as well ( I am byest here). 
From my point of view, sitting in a student chair, the OU should do more to support the Open Source movement.
I didn't even know OU even existed until I read this article. I have to admit at first when I read the word open I thought of open source however after reading some of its history on wikipedia it became clear that this is not an open source school. It's open as in open to anyone and devoted to distance learning. since Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop market it makes sense for them to support that desktop.
honestly, I've never finished my degree, OU is looking like a very interesting option!
A simple approach to ensure a level playing field, would be firstly to ensure that all software required by courses is cross platform and will work on all the main operating systems. Typically it would mean it would be Java, Python or QT based. Examples of such software in my own speciality of chemistry are BKchem the chemistry drawing software a Python application, Jmol a Java based molecular viewer or the new molecular viewer and editor Avogadro which uses QT4. All these applications will run on Windows, Linux and Macs. 

Secondly ensuring that all internet based communication between the university and its students is web based, requiring no special Windows clients and works in Firefox as well as in Internet Explorer.

Thirdly the adoption of ODF (Open Document Format) as its document format would demonstrate its commitment to open standards. Not too much to ask is it.
I'm in the states but our schools are in the same place. I don't expect schools to push open source. I want a fair balanced approach just support things everyone can use. It isn't even hard avoid the new 2007 formats and pick things that run on the big three operating systems when possible.
M Porter, you compare closed software to open speaking languages? Who owns Microsoft software? Who owns Linux software? Who owns English? Who owns Esperanto? How are these licensed? The analogy breaks down very quickly or were you implying that Microsoft should provide source code access to their software under an open license? This way, MSware can become open as are English, Esperanto, and Linux.

So were you inferring that the school should avoid software, like Windows, that is not open like are English and Esperanto, at least until such time as such software is provided in open fashion like English, Esperanto, and Linux?

You should join the author in those business courses you mentioned, in particular, in the ones about monopolies and anticompetitive practices and their effects to distort free markets. Microsoft's past speaks for itself. Unfortunately, one has to try a "little" harder than normal to break away from lock-in of the nature involved with Microsoft's interconnected software and file formats. It does take effort.. unfortunately. The classes will teach you that.

When one supports open, everyone can have a piece. Not only can Microsoft go open if pressured (eg, by having customers exert significant market pressures of the type you mentioned), but the open protocols can be implemented by anyone, including by Microsoft.

When the school exclusively supports a single proprietary family of software, they exclude everyone that doesn't subscribe to it. The school is biasing against those who, for financial, privacy, security, tastes, or simply need reasons, choose not use MSware but uses something open like Linux.

They'd really help their students if they made sure the students all had the option to use a full open platform like Linux. It's tough though. Everyone understands its tough to break Microsoft's lock-in (well, some of us understand that).

Finally, what's this about ignoring future costs? Strong lock-in (and we know it's very hard to break strong Microsoft lock-in) implies significant future costs not too unlike how getting addicted to free crack implies significant future costs. The net effect in each of these cases (though for different reasons) is that the free stuff cannot easily be dumped later even as the price rises and rises.
Much heat but not enough light in this discussion. 
As Director of OpenLearn at the OU (and it is not just a library) I am an insider and one very much in favour of FLOSS where it works (but was not involved at all in the response provided by the VC). However, it is important to distinguish between principles and practice. 
On the principles of openness I would side with the OSC and say that the OU should be working towards greater use of and acceptance of FLOSS in all its operations (not just teaching). 
On the practice side, and in relation to the effectiveness of the OU at supporting open learning, open access and closing the digital divide for and amongst its students, then FLOSS, in my view, will not currently make much difference to such outcomes. True, it may save costs in the long run for both the OU and its students, but the investment and time needed to change is not inconsiderable. I posit that it this disjuncture between relevance to student achievements and wider principles of openness is a major reason that we have not looked at a wider FLOSS policy beyond using it where thought appropriate e.g. Moodle (and that does have direct consequences for staff and students). 
As with all technologies there will be some who are irritated and annoyed about the lack of flexibility and the OU supporting the needs of the majority where new technology is concerned and we may often err on the cautious side before switching over from to naother as say VHS cassettes to CDs to DVDs. I personally welcome the OSC approach but not necessarily all it says and how it says it. I will lobby internally for change but don't be fooled that this is critical to current OU operations nor that it is cheap and easy for the OU to do, especially at a time when its funding has been hit by Government diktats.
It doesn't take a lot to support Linux use over the web modestly. Honestly, what is Linux user to do if they can't do lessons or use some crucial items? There are plenty of fairly cross-platform tools.

Students actually get motivated and help out more when they deal with a flexible platform for which they have input (Linux, not Windows). I would not be surprised to find student(s) stepping up to contribute if the opportunity was offered.

I think staff might be overestimating the learning curve (depends on staff willingness and overall skills obviously).
Unless there was some press release within the past 12 hours, I have always known StarOffice to be the proprietary counterpart of OpenOffice. I think you might want to check your facts again.
A statement Microsoft's shareholders would dispute

"MS operating software (supplied free with almost all PCs?"


The pricing is complex, and the price is hidden in the combined purchase price of hardware and software, but the one thing it definitely is not is free.