Joey Chan
July 10, 2004.







What Is Open Source?
Administrative Issues
Educational Issues
Research Findings
Conclusions & Recommendations
Major References






In the 80 ’ s, programmers in the “ hacker ” community liked to compete their skills
A programmer distributed his/her own program with its codes on Internet
Interested users read the codes and made improvement (occupies less memory, runs faster, etc.)
They also fixed bugs and added new functions
Everybody in the process could enjoy the result of this cooperation




Proprietary Software

Conventional software with source codes closed as secret
Freeware & Shareware

Can be obtained freely, but not with source codes
Open Source Software

Source codes are freely available

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10.License Must Be Technology-Neutral http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php




Open source is an innovative method for developing reliable software
(Eric Raymond, 2001)
The availability of source codes lets people from all over the globe participate in the process of debugging and improving software
(Richard Stallman, 1998)
Open source represents the recognition of social cooperation in the information age
(Steven Weber, 2003)





Budget Challenge
Flexibility in Control
Opening the Quality of Software
Total Cost of Ownership

Application Proprietary Alternative Cost
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Pro $780
Office Suite
Anti-Virus
Graphics
Microsoft Office XP Pro
Norton Anti-Virus 2004
CorelDraw 11
$1,380
$295
$1,050
Photo Editor
Video Editing
Photoshop 7.0
Adobe Premiere 7.0 Pro
Development Tool Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8
Total
$2,190
$1,780
$900
$8,375

Application OSS Alternative
Operating System Fedora Linux Core 1
Office Suite
Anti-Virus
Graphics
OpenOffice.org 1.1
Clam AntiVirus 0.7
GIMP 2.0
Photo Editor
Video Editing
GIMP 2.0
JahShaka 1.9
Development Tool MySQL 4.0
Total
Cost
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0




OS + Office Suite + Anti-Virus

Primary School

$2,455 x 91 computers
= $223,405
Secondary School
$2,455 x 247 computers
= $606,385
Technology Upgrading
Hardware Lifespan

Schools may develop a thinner version of
Linux, like the K12LTSP , running on the obsolete computers




Adoption and Adaptation

Not an “ all or nothing ” selection


OSS application on proprietary OS
Proprietary client connects OSS server
License Management

Storage of license


Inventory control and audit
Legal trap for administrators
Scalability

No software purchase red tape

No CAL needed




Reliability


Large firms and governments are investing in OSS
Market shares are increasing
Security

Less attacks and fewer viruses


Bugs are transparent
High configurability may cause problem
Usability

Used to focus on power & function, not usability


Introduced by IT Research Agent,
Gartner 15 years ago, TCO is a concept of considering “ all costs associated with computing when making management decisions about computer acquisitions, upgrades, support, and administration ”


“ Taking TCO to the Classroom ”

 helping school leaders in understanding the long-term costs involved in constructing and operating a network of computers
Checklist includes six elements:
1. Retrofitting 2. Connectivity
3. Software 4. Replacement
5. Professional Development
6. Support



Professional Development

Teachers may be gridlocked into old patterns and perceptions
(McKenzie, 1991)

Opportunity to restructure the previous software specific, technique based training course for teachers
Support

Because of the lack of qualified personnel, the cost of technical support can be greater for open source

Open source, open support source


Knowledge Sharing

Dynamics and Innovation

Information Literacy




OSS demonstrates that Internet opens the pool of collaborators to the world
Programmers around the world are building knowledge products with collaboration, and the result is significant
OSS guarantees the freedom for the public to study how software works, to adjust for individual needs, to redistribute copies to others, and to improve it and share the improvement to benefit others
(Stallman, 1996)




Schools must not bind itself with single off-the-shelf proprietary software and let students explore the infinite possibility of
OSS (Moyle, 2003)
The opened source codes have established a user innovation network to counter problems (Drakos, 2002)
OSS demonstrated “ the viability of a massively distributed innovation system that stretches the boundaries of conventional notions ” (Weber, 2003)





Helping to solve digital divide (Dravis, 2003)
OSS facilitates students to question both within and outside the boundaries imposed through the use of closed source code systems (Moyle, 2003)
Application-specific training provides little opportunity for students to apply their IT skills solving the real-life problem (Perez &
Uline, 2003)
OSS has given a significant advantage to educators and students to understand the details (Pfaffenberger, 2000)




Acquire OSS opinions from computer users in school
Observe the utilization of an OSS based staff intranet server in school
Record the experience on the OSS desktop system setup and usage





The majority of computer users has little understanding and has misconceptions on
OSS
They usually believe that the lower cost of
OSS may eventually exchange the quality of the software
Participants also concern that the change in software will affect their efforts on existing files
Most of them prefer not to change from familiar software existing in their work place


Some successful OSS utilization ingredients are identified:

Technology transparent (no bias)




Strong professional IT support team
Soft launch with patience
Availability of training
Deliver new functions with technology
(not just a change of current habit)








Not quite like the used Microsoft language
Need time to find operating procedures
Some common proprietary software has not yet had any OSS alternative
File format conversion has problem
Some desktop peripherals and website support only Microsoft products
The acceptance of pirated software is higher than OSS
OSS tends to yield its users to have better understanding on computer operation











Lower software acquisition / upgrade cost
Keeping latest software in school
Prolonging lifespan of hardware
Greater flexibility and scalability
Easier software inventory control
Can be partially adopted
Solving digital divide among students
Real-life sample of collaborative learning and knowledge sharing
Promoting innovation
Advancing information literacy









Not easy to configure
Lower usability
Requiring extra training for staff
Higher support and maintenance costs
Low acceptance from computer user
Lower software availability, e.g. FrontPage alternative
Lower peripherals / website support
Need patience to adapt and adopt





School must have more than one technical personnel who are familiar with the operation of OSS
The OSS adoption may be started with new file servers, the Internet server, or
Intranet server providing new services to users
Rush or hustle often results reluctance
Partial utilization does no harm, and the school can still benefit from OSS





Utilize donated computers with Linux operating system and other OSS applications as information stations
Building new school intranet server with hands-on OSS like phpBB and
Open WebMail
Sharing software with students
Looking for software with no budget?

 http://sourceforge.net/search/ http://www.schoolforge.net/software.php





Birk, J., Horluck, J., Jorgensen, N. & Pedersen, M. K. (2003).
Open-Source Software in Digital Management in the Public
Sector (Sun Microsystems, Trans.). Retrieved December 27,
2003 from http://wwws.sun.com/software/whitepapers/staroffice/Open_Source_050803_v4
.pdf
(Original work published 2002)
Fink, M. (2003). The Business and Economics of Linux and
Open Source. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Moyle, K. (2003). Open Source Software and Australian
School Education, An Introduction. Australia: @education.au limited. Retrieved December 27, 2003 from http://www.educationau.edu.au/papers/open_source.pdf
Dravis, P. (2003). Open Source Software, Perspectives for
Development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group.
Retrieved December 27, 2003 from http://www.infodev.org/symp2003/publications/OpenSourceSoftware.pdf




Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral & The Bazaar:
Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental
Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O ’ Reilly.
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/
Stallman, R. (1994). Why Software Should Not Have
Owners. Retrieved October 1, 2003 from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Weber, S. (2003b). The Success of Open Source. Retrieved
December 27, 2003 from http://brie.berkeley.edu/~briewww/people/SWChapter%201fi nal.pdf