Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] BECTa's spec on laptops for teachers
At 16:45 26/12/03 +0000, Mark Evans wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:47:58PM +0000, David Bowles wrote:
As far as I can recall the way the spec is worded the reference to e-mail omits the term 'freeware' as an exclusion. Hence Outlook Express is a valid e-mail client.
The spec states "Email: Facility for offline email reading and composition. Freeware or shareware is not acceptable"
What exactly is the meaning of the term "freeware" in this context? Is bundled stuff (e.g. Outlook Express) "freeware"? Is OSS "freeware"? Sure, neither is obtained "in return for a consideration" (as I think the law of contract phrases it), but that still leaves lots of ambiguity. For instance, is a package written (compiled?) in-house really excluded? And if in-house compilation is acceptable, can use of an identical binary be excluded either? OSS is difficult to categorise quite so simply as "freeware" or not, since one usually pays for a distro... Again, what about "ad-ware" like Eudora in "sponsored" mode? "offline" is also ambiguous - is a LAN on- or off-line? If a mail-server on the LAN handles the Internet traffic, then serves the individual mail accounts locally via a LAN, which case is that? Thus, for only an instance, a Linux mail-server, plus Eudora or Pine (and perhaps, however much one may regret it, Outlook Express) might well bypass the relevant definitions entirely... Just a thought. Good networking, Roger Beaumont
For a specification upon which some £63 million per annum of school / teacher laptop spending is based, I'd say BECTa is being down right irresponsible and even negligent in its lax use of terminology. This is wholly unacceptable regarding how a very considerable sum of public money is being be spent. I wonder if there's a longer more precise spec or contract that BECTa requires 'authorised suppliers' are obliged to sign? David Bowles
What exactly is the meaning of the term "freeware" in this context? Is bundled stuff (e.g. Outlook Express) "freeware"? Is OSS "freeware"? Sure, neither is obtained "in return for a consideration" (as I think the law of contract phrases it), but that still leaves lots of ambiguity. For instance, is a package written (compiled?) in-house really excluded? And if in-house compilation is acceptable, can use of an identical binary be excluded either?
OSS is difficult to categorise quite so simply as "freeware" or not, since one usually pays for a distro...
Perhaps we should recognise that Becta is staffed by folk who learnt about computers through the same limited view of IT that was discussed earlier. Some of them will have gone on to gain degrees in Computer Science, only to discover on graduating that the real world expects them to start learning all over again. The few people I've met from Becta who had any real experience, were as critical of the organisation as any. I've also sent a letter to Own Lynch, maybe we can get him along to the FLOSSIE Conference as well as his boss. John Ingleby ************ On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 04:26, David Bowles wrote:
For a specification upon which some £63 million per annum of school / teacher laptop spending is based, I'd say BECTa is being down right irresponsible and even negligent in its lax use of terminology.
This is wholly unacceptable regarding how a very considerable sum of public money is being be spent.
I wonder if there's a longer more precise spec or contract that BECTa requires 'authorised suppliers' are obliged to sign?
David Bowles
What exactly is the meaning of the term "freeware" in this context? Is bundled stuff (e.g. Outlook Express) "freeware"? Is OSS "freeware"? Sure, neither is obtained "in return for a consideration" (as I think the law of contract phrases it), but that still leaves lots of ambiguity. For instance, is a package written (compiled?) in-house really excluded? And if in-house compilation is acceptable, can use of an identical binary be excluded either?
OSS is difficult to categorise quite so simply as "freeware" or not, since one usually pays for a distro...
I've often noticed many of those who work within 'fortress education' like to believe they are the only ones who know anything about IT. Far too often I've seen educators completely ignore the norms of Netiquette, and try to put enforce their own way of doing things based on a 'theoretical' rather than a 'pragmatic user-tried-and-tested' perspective. Often the solutions they come up with are painfully difficult to work with, and it can take a long time for them to wake up to the fact there's a far more user-friendly way of communicating that takes place beyond the boundaries of their cloistered world! David Bowles
Perhaps we should recognise that Becta is staffed by folk who learnt about computers through the same limited view of IT that was discussed earlier. Some of them will have gone on to gain degrees in Computer Science, only to discover on graduating that the real world expects them to start learning all over again. The few people I've met from Becta who had any real experience, were as critical of the organisation as any.
I've also sent a letter to Own Lynch, maybe we can get him along to the FLOSSIE Conference as well as his boss.
John Ingleby
ok, i missed this thread for a while, but it does have personal relevance as I was the Head of Technology R&D at Becta from 1996-2000. The limitation of the laptop spec to 2000 Pro (has EOL been announced on this recently btw?) XP and MacOS is definetly a retrograde step, as no real restrictions were placed on the OS supplied during earlier procurements, (it wasn't legal for instance) As part of my work we ran the technical evaluation for the procurement of 100-150 million quids worth of desktop and laptop machines. Becta do have limited knowledge of the market, have a continuing adversity to risk taking and basically open-source is still seen subversive and unsuitable for schools. However other education bodies (including the UfI do have a broader view) AFAIK Becta continues to change, but it is out of step with the policies decisions from OEE and the EU. But that makes it no difference from other Govt Agencies in the UK. The OGC is attempting to Memorandum's of Understanding in place for the OSS suppliers, but the will only raise the profile not necessarily the market penetration. Personally, I now have a wider Govt view, beyond schools and feel that areas such as high-performance workstations; grid computing; enterprise level servers are areas which will have more impact in the coming year for open source in Govt. Institutions like the Met Office, Inland Revenue and universities continue to lead the way in implementing OSS policy for Govt, but it is still the private sector leading the way. The recent acquisition of Suse, Red Hat's profits and continued IBM, HP and Dell investment all mean that Becta and others will change. Like dinosaurs they will only look up at the inbound meteorite when its too late.... Malc On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 12:06, John Ingleby wrote:
Perhaps we should recognise that Becta is staffed by folk who learnt about computers through the same limited view of IT that was discussed earlier. Some of them will have gone on to gain degrees in Computer Science, only to discover on graduating that the real world expects them to start learning all over again. The few people I've met from Becta who had any real experience, were as critical of the organisation as any.
I've also sent a letter to Own Lynch, maybe we can get him along to the FLOSSIE Conference as well as his boss.
John Ingleby ************
On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 04:26, David Bowles wrote:
For a specification upon which some £63 million per annum of school / teacher laptop spending is based, I'd say BECTa is being down right irresponsible and even negligent in its lax use of terminology.
This is wholly unacceptable regarding how a very considerable sum of public money is being be spent.
I wonder if there's a longer more precise spec or contract that BECTa requires 'authorised suppliers' are obliged to sign?
David Bowles
What exactly is the meaning of the term "freeware" in this context? Is bundled stuff (e.g. Outlook Express) "freeware"? Is OSS "freeware"? Sure, neither is obtained "in return for a consideration" (as I think the law of contract phrases it), but that still leaves lots of ambiguity. For instance, is a package written (compiled?) in-house really excluded? And if in-house compilation is acceptable, can use of an identical binary be excluded either?
OSS is difficult to categorise quite so simply as "freeware" or not, since one usually pays for a distro...
--
Dr Malcolm Herbert Principal Consultant GPS, Red Hat Europe m: +44 7720 079845 <mherbert@redhat.com> w: http://people.redhat.com/mherbert ------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 11:45, Malcolm Herbert wrote:
Personally, I now have a wider Govt view, beyond schools and feel that areas such as high-performance workstations; grid computing; enterprise level servers are areas which will have more impact in the coming year for open source in Govt. Institutions like the Met Office, Inland Revenue and universities continue to lead the way in implementing OSS policy for Govt, but it is still the private sector leading the way. The recent acquisition of Suse, Red Hat's profits and continued IBM, HP and Dell investment all mean that Becta and others will change. Like dinosaurs they will only look up at the inbound meteorite when its too late....
I agree, BECTA will be forced to change, the issue is really timescales. Also why pay £12m a year for an organisation that really provides no leadership? Schools can follow what happens elsewhere and there are far less expensive ways of disseminating information. You might well be right about enterprise level servers etc, but in this forum we are interested in schools and there is continued progress in developing the use of FLOSS in schools. This includes more desktop use of GNU/Linux, more use on servers and most notably increasing take up of OpenOffice.org despite anti-competitive practises by MS. We have to keep plugging away at all fronts, from the local primary school to BECTA and the DfES. Any individual might not be decisive in making things switch, but every individual will have influence on speeding up that switch. PS. Will Redhat be represented at the FLOSSIE conference? We do have the Chairman of BECTA as the keynote speaker so we need representation of Suse and Redhat there to show that they take education seriously. We will definitely have Mandrake representation ;-) Regards, -- ian <ian.lynch2@ntlworld.com>
participants (5)
-
David Bowles -
ian -
John Ingleby -
Malcolm Herbert -
roger