[iDC] Undermining open source: iTunes U

Thu Mar 9 10:45:37 EST 2006

Similar to Tiffany all our research students have their own computers, one a
desktop PC (to be compliant with the institutional network) and the other a
Mac laptop. All these machines are supplied by the University. Needless to
say most prefer their Mac's. We also install a standard software footprint
on each laptop including Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Office, etc. On the
desktop machine students have access to all institutionally licenced
software.

We have made no attempt to install non-proprietory OS's, such as Linux, nor
to offer free software like Star Office. Individual students do, of course,
install these things as they wish and we do not try to stop them on their
laptops. As for the desktop machines, these are centrally managed by our IT
department and there is no guarantee that anything you save on them, or even
the preferences you setup, will be there from one day to the next. These
machines can be reformatted centrally over the network with little warning.
Thus students and staff tend not to customise these machines.

It would be nice if we were to actively promote and maintain open source
software but our IT department would not allow it. You would need to have a
very good research reason to be able to convince them that you should have a
non-standard desktop machine. Their main concern is network security and
that everything within the University is legal. To be sure of that they
exercise centralised control. I can understand their logic and the forces
that act upon them (the law, money, security, etc). Nevertheless, I do not
have a lot of sympathy.

On the laptops students tend to replicate what is available on the desktop
machines, except where their interest and expertise allows them to maintain
more exotic software and OS setups. A small number of staff, reflecting
their own research interests, are able to work with the students on these
custom setups.

However, the main reason we do not support much open source software is down
to the pedagogical and other support we can offer the student. There is no
point in our giving students software to use that we cannot support. If
staff do not use open source they will not be in the position to support it.
As only a small minority of staff do use open source that is the default
case and so we have the situation we have.

Best

Simon

On 09.03.06 14:34, Tiffany Holmes wrote:

> Here in Chicago at SAIC we have implemented a mandatory laptop
> program for our first year students.  Translation: We have added new
> turf to the Kingdom of Mac.  This program has its positive and
> negative points: the positives have been summed up in an
> extraordinary piece of propaganda/marketing recently featured on
> Apple's website: http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/chicago/.
> The negative are many, but the main issue I see is that the "less-
> than-savvy" computer users that John speaks of get "branded" early on
> and become reliant on proprietary products (think iMovie, iDVD) that
> make input and output tasks comparatively easy as these products are
> pre-loaded on the machines.  Unless discourse is initiated in the
> classroom that critiques the negative aspects of FLOSS/proprietary
> software as well as the positives, most students will simply utilize
> the pre-loaded tools.
> 
> I am in favor, overall of this program mainly because I totally agree
> with John that owning a computer alters your your perception of the
> tool and enhances your ability to explore new options and uses for
> that tool---most lab machines do not permit downloading or loading of
> any trial software tools.  Incidentally, I really put my foot in my
> mouth in a meeting because I was complaining (loudly) that students
> are at a loss for this proprietary software when they graduate (think
> of Andrea Polli's story of graduating with no box and no tools).
> Evidently, the institution has struck a deal so that students can buy
> all the software at graduation for a mere $200----but we all know
> there are still the problems of the endless versions.
> 
> So the enormous problem that I am facing is that there are 400
> students wielding laptops loaded with proprietary software and a
> dearth of faculty who feel comfortable integrating the laptop into
> class activities.  Progress has been made: I offered a 1 week
> workshop to get first year faculty up and running on a few tools and
> this has promoted some confidence to develop small collaborative
> projects using the laptops.  The fear level in the new user
> population (both faculty and student) is relatively high still so we
> are attempting to develop a very compact course to promote digital
> literacy with the laptops.  But what is digital literacy? And how is
> it the same or different from "BIC pen" literacy?  Or paintbrush
> literacy?  And how do you best teach digital literacy to new users in
> a 14 week course in essentially 20 hours? (Each course meeting is 1.5
> hours long).  Certainly, the idea of presenting multiple software
> packages (both proprietary and FLOSS)  is key to teach students that
> there is a logic to how each package works.  How does one evaluate
> what kind of learning has taken place?  Ideally, in 10 years, this
> kind of learning would be integrated into every classroom, however,
> we simply do not have the faculty resources at the moment to swing
> this. So, this proposed curriculum is what I would call a "band-aid"
> solution but it's hopefully an interim solution and I do believe we
> need it.  I've attached the curriculum draft in case anyone is
> interested and feels like offering advice and/or critique; I'm
> working this up for the fall term.
> 
> I am curious if those of you on the list who teach classes that
> involve new computer users have any good solutions to this pervasive
> problem of how to promote integration of software/hardware into an
> art classroom?  Which FLOSS packages (other than Processing--it's
> fabulous) are really user-friendly for the new computer owner?  We
> can't offer an Introduction to Digital Imanging (Photoshop class)
> though many institutions do.  As one of my colleagues recently
> pointed out, there is no class called Introduction to the Pencil.
> 
> Best, Tiff
> 
> ____________________________________
> Tiffany Holmes, Assistant Professor
> Department of Art and Technology
> The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> 112 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago IL 60603
> Phone: 312-345-3760,  Fax: 312-345-3565
> Mobile: 312-493-0302
> http://www.tiffanyholmes.com
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: summarySAICwired.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 35193 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : 
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20060309/73b10fa3/summarySA
> ICwired.pdf
> -------------- next part --------------
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC mailing list
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> _______________________________________________
> Institute for Distributed Creativity (iDC)
> _______________________________________________
> www.distributedcreativity.org
> _______________________________________________
> The research of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (iDC) focuses on collaboration in media art, technology,
> and theory with an emphasis on social contexts.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> End of iDC Digest, Vol 17, Issue 9
> **********************************

Simon Biggs

simon at littlepig.org.uk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/

Professor of Digital Art, Sheffield Hallam University
http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/