Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The author's argument is mainly that Windows as a dominant OS for school computers is more expensive than Linux, and is proprietary.

What the author fails to take into account is that the major cost to schools and school systems is the continuing cost of ownership for these computers. Updates, maintenance, tech support, all cost time and money. I regularly perform alternatives analyses for clients, and while I'd love to more often recommend open source solutions, the risk of finding qualified support or full-time employees, and the often greater costs associated with that service, is usually too high to not go proprietary (all features and needs being otherwise equal).

However, I do agree with the spirit of one of the author's ethos(es?), and perhaps disagree with simonh here -- a flavor of Linux shouldn't be discounted because the students may never see it again. The OS really doesn't matter so long as tools are provided for word processing, performing internet research and exploring information that students may discover. There's a wealth of this in the mainstream Linux distros and I think it'd be a fine alternative.

Except for that whole ongoing-maintenance thing.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: