| << Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
Sorry, probably haven’t answered this that clearly. Got to go, I’m cooking dinner!
cheers, Richard
mmm — thinking out loud here.
I’m not a programmer and would not be able to hack on the Linux kernel. However, I use free software because the code is open — knowing that I have the freedom to employ a skilled coder to do magic if I need it. I’m not sure that I want Polansi’s future if its locked behind closed formats.
I’d rather say that — hey Polanski has a few cool ideas, lets see how we can develop free and open equivalents in realization of that vision. Sorry — I don’t buy the shades of openness argument.
I’d rather be free
What’s for dinner — going by Wellington traditions its bound to be a treat.
Cheers, Wayne
Just to chip into the discussion of Wayne and Richard, and then I will come back to Christine, the reason being purely pragmatic. I have 3-4 minutes before I have to jump in the shower and head off to the office.
Richard is absolutely right that a plethora of source files does not mean that the professors will be able to use them themselves. But one thing I can guarantee is that if they are in a format for which software is easily available, their STUDENTS will be able to use them, and they will do absolutely awesome things with them. When we think about the limitations of what professors can do, we are thinking with a scarcity, aggregative mindset. How much wheat can you grow in a flower pot?
But even with the aggregative approach (the professor aggregates resources, and feeds them to the students), having the source materials makes it possible to do more with them, even though you might have to use a third party to do so. The same is true of software. Having the source code does not mean that you will have to edit the source code and compile it yourself. Indeed, for most of the software that I have obtained modifications, I got someone else to do it even though I am a passively decent programmer in several languages. I simply would not have the time, never mind the skill.
One should also be careful not to over-complicate things. I might edit a source file in the Gimp and include it in an Open Office presentation. When I make my presentation available as a piece of Free Content, the source of that image should also be available. There are two immediate benefits for that, one being that someone can change it to suit a new purpose, and the second one (perhaps more important) is that someone can study it to see how I did it and improve their Gimp and presentation skills. Learning from access to the source is very powerful.
If we take Second life as an example, its just a bunch of images with some navigation. So, again making the images available could indeed be of benefit even though the end product is quite complex.
Taking the architectural drawings as an example, my wife built our house. She had no experience at all but acquired it from a combination of open (but not free) resources on the Internet, and the fact that builders were willing to share their knowledge openly with her over a cup of tea at their building site. During the building she had to change the plans, so to do so she learned how to do the drawings, and did them manually because the source files were not available to her even though we had software that could have accessed them. She worked with a mixture of builders and semiskilled labour to build the house. Our neighbour is doing the same thing, but has hired people to do everything from plan to product. Just because the option is there doesn’t meant that EVERYONE has to use it. Some will, some won’t, and some will create something really new that can be shared.
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'The impact of open source software on education' conversation and receive update notifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|