Terry, I think you're missing the point. Because free software costs next to nothing, and is available from many sources, there is no marketing budget to spend on promoting the case. On the other hand, vendors of proprietary software spend vast amounts on pervasive and effective advertising, so we find that decisions are made on the basis of commonly-held beliefs, rather than on value for money, technical capabilities, and educational requirements. It's only by individuals hammering on about the way these decisions are taken, and making use of the fair trading laws, that there is any hope of freeing up some of the money being spent on unnecessary "upgrades", and putting it to better educational use. John Ingleby ************ On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 23:54, Terry Taylor wrote:
Are you telling us, therefore, that the exam boards are collaborating with Microsoft to shut out the competition? Furthermore, are you telling us that they are all doing this together? That would be a first!
I go back to my original point - schools/colleges are not forced to offer those courses. You are saying that it is the effect of the action which is important and obviously one cannot disagree with that, but you add that 'fault doesn't come into it'. If this is the case then there is nobody to target for action. On the other hand, if we take the usual stance that the effect has to be caused by something, then that something is a result of Boards offering the syllabi, the government agencies passing them, and schools and colleges using them, so they are the groups 'at fault' (meaning they are producing an effect which you say is wrong). Where does Microsoft come into this equation? -- John Ingleby