[iDC] Re: Undermining open source: iTunes U

[Trebor Scholz]

>Requiring the use of open source tools by not providing access to the 
>industry standard software applications in a digital art/media program 
>seems like an extreme position that would require total restructuring.  
>It seems a program would have to:

We discussed this in our department. Now we use both.
I wrote a bit about this:
<http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue3/issue3_scholz.html>

In short, I do not think that we can withdraw proprietary software
packages from the classroom. A hybrid approach is the most realistic
solution right now. Why? It¹s not fair to students to leave out the
tools that will be required of them in the commercial sector (what some
in Australia call the ³creative industries²). It¹d cause a medium sized
student-riot if we¹d say ³it¹s either the Gimp-way or the highway. ³ But
to offer all the useful Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS)
next to the proprietary packages makes a lot of sense. 

>-replace software budgets with full time technical and research staff 
>to work with the often buggy and undocumented open source tools

Right, the growth of commercial help-desk-type services surrounding open
source software complicates the case. The water is free but you pay for
the bottle.
   
I had the experience of being exposed to all imaginable proprietary
software packages during my Media Arts M.F.A. at the Slade School in
London. Once I left there I could not even afford to buy a word
processing program. It would have helped me a great deal to know about
FLOSS packages. In defense of the Slade crew-- the tools were not quite
ready for prime time back then. Now they surely are. This aspect, even
in the era of p2p file sharing, should not be overlooked. Many of these
tools are *free* (and legal). And just like free beer these tools will
allow students a much smoother transition after they leave the
educational setting.

I collected some references to Floss tools:

http://del.icio.us/Trebor/Floss_tools

>-abandon the idea that students will be gaining entry level design 
>industry skills for the idea that in the long term their highly 
>developed design ability will over-ride their lack of industry standard 
>tool experience.  

The search for ³industry standard tool experience² is wrong. It fosters
*just-in-time knowledge* a la Nintendo University. All they want is a
specific skill set that is needed for a particular project. Once that is
done the young workers (often hired before they have finished their
degree program) are let go (fired) as they don¹t have a broad enough
skill set. They lack the creative, critical ability to stay on for the
next project.   

Which new media industry are we talking about anyway? There is no one
stable industry to talk off. In-demand-competencies change rapidly. You
enroll with Photoshop with 5, graduate with version 7, and are out of
the game two years later? The software world changes constantly.

However, the principles of programming must be taught. This insight will
help students to speak to collaborators who have these
³industry-strength skills.² Cultural producers do not have to be
programmers.  They need to be able to talk to programmers. In addition,
they need to have an understanding of computing. 

General intellect is more failsafe. Students can fall back onto more
humanities-oriented fundamentals when the first job does not come
through.

Trebor