[wallinbl]

Microsoft will give the software to schools, so the argument of MS vs Linux is generally irrelevant. They would rather give it away for free than have Linux get any usage. Set up the Windows network correctly, and Linux's security advantage is negligible. If you're going to go Linux, you need a good admin, so get a good admin for Windows, and you're on the same footing. Part of the problem with Windows is that there are hordes of lousy admins that don't know how to secure it and lock it down.

The problem for Mac in schools is the sheer abundance of PC hardware that is either dirt cheap or donated. I could furnish and support a school full of PCs for far less than I could a school full of Macs. There just isn't any arguing this. For a poorly funded organization, the benefits of Mac don't outweigh the costs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Microsoft will give the software to schools, so the argument of MS vs Linux is generally irrelevant. They would rather give it away for free than have Linux get any usage. Set up the Windows network correctly, and Linux's security advantage is negligible. If you're going to go Linux, you need a good admin, so get a good admin for Windows, and you're on the same footing. Part of the problem with Windows is that there are hordes of lousy admins that don't know how to secure it and lock it down.

The problem for Mac in schools is the sheer abundance of PC hardware that is either dirt cheap or donated. I could furnish and support a school full of PCs for far less than I could a school full of Macs. There just isn't any arguing this. For a poorly funded organization, the benefits of Mac don't outweigh the costs.

Agreed on your second paragraph.

Does Microsoft actually do this? I know they do here at the University, but I figured it was only because of the massive scale and exposure they'd gain here (this University is one of the Big 10). Will they extend these offers even if the school system doesn't use Linux as a point of leverage? Are there any conditions?

I agree that if you take economics out of the picture (i.e. give away Windows and Office for free or next to nothing), it becomes immensely more difficult to build a case. Hopefully the day will come where Microsoft can no longer afford to give away their product for free to any group with a pulse.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Please explain how getting a better deal on computers for a school system is being "anti-Mac." I just dont' understand.

Because it's not a better deal. They'll be paying more money for that setup by the year's end becuase of Microsoft licensing and software subscriptions. Someone on the school board (like someone did at my work) is using the outdated reason of "Students need to be learning the tools they'll be using in the real world." What they really mean was, "Macs are for kids, they can't run any software, and aren't compatible with anything."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Because it's not a better deal. They'll be paying more money for that setup by the year's end becuase of Microsoft licensing and software subscriptions. Someone on the school board (like someone did at my work) is using the outdated reason of "Students need to be learning the tools they'll be using in the real world." What they really mean was, "Macs are for kids, they can't run any software, and aren't compatible with anything."

Maybe, but another poster mentioned that Microsoft practically gives away their software in some instances. This is definitely the case here where I work. I'm curious to know what circumstances warrant this sort of treatment, or whether Microsoft is generous to all schools.

The educational discounts on Apple hardware and software are nice, but I'm sure they are a drop in the bucket compared with some of the ridiculous deals Microsoft offers customers just because they can.

By saying this, I'm not saying I particularly like these sort of anti-competitive practices, but I do know that administrators will naturally gravitate towards the better deal.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Microsoft will give the software to schools, so the argument of MS vs Linux is generally irrelevant. They would rather give it away for free than have Linux get any usage.

Sure they'll give you the software for "free," but they're still going to charge CALs per device. They always charge licensing fees whether you're a school, a non-profit, or a volunteer organization trying to get internet access to remote areas in countries in Africa.

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Set up the Windows network correctly, and Linux's security advantage is negligible.

Script kiddies know Windows, not Linux. There have already been 2 "in the wild" 0-day exploits for Microsoft Excel. They're being exploited already. Some bank was already hit with it. I bet that script is on websites already and in the hands of various 14-year-olds.

Originally Posted by wallinbl

If you're going to go Linux, you need a good admin, so get a good admin for Windows, and you're on the same footing. Part of the problem with Windows is that there are hordes of lousy admins that don't know how to secure it and lock it down.

On an administrative side, you're right. But from a practical side, you're wrong. No matter how secure you attempt to make Windows, it is used more often and it does get the majority of viruses, spyware, and exploits. Kids who know just enough to be dangerous will know Windows, not Linux.

Originally Posted by wallinbl

The problem for Mac in schools is the sheer abundance of PC hardware that is either dirt cheap or donated. I could furnish and support a school full of PCs for far less than I could a school full of Macs. There just isn't any arguing this. For a poorly funded organization, the benefits of Mac don't outweigh the costs.

Yes, but this is a school district. As I've mentioned before, once you get to the enterprise level of things (100+ computers), the cost of support and maintenance surpass Macintosh by a huge margin. The problem is that when you have 200, 300, or even 1000 computers that have been donated or bought over different periods of time, the amount of effort to support each and every different computer is tremendous.

You can have 1000 different Macs, and support all of them with a single OS and a single image. It takes one person to push that image out to all those computers. If you have 1000 PCs, 200 of which are different in some way, you need 200 different images. That means you have to set up 200 different computers to create those images. That would probably take 9 months to a year if that's all you did. At my work it takes us 3 months during the summer to get the district ready. We have nearly 2000 computers, and over 30 images.

I also work at a college supporting 4 different computer labs that are all Macs, with a dual G5 XServe pushing the images. It takes us a single afternoon to do at the college what takes us 3 months at the high schools, start to finish.

I'm telling you from personal experience, it is not the same supporting hundreds of PCs over hundreds of Macs. Not even close.

There's an article that was at Apple (if I can find it) about a new Math/Science computer lab that was installed at a university. They got rid of all their PCs and put in Macs. Then to much of the dismay of the IT staff, they fired 1/3 of their workforce because they didn't need them after switching to Macs. Support and maintenance on Macintosh systems pales in comparison to Windows PCs.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Maybe, but another poster mentioned that Microsoft practically gives away their software in some instances. This is definitely the case here where I work. I'm curious to know what circumstances warrant this sort of treatment, or whether Microsoft is generous to all schools.

But they always charge for licensing. At $50/device per year (and that's the educational price) that free software isn't so free anymore. Mind you, Microsoft charges licenses for Windows PCs, Macintoshes, Palms, cell phones; anything that utilizes Microsoft services on a network.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

But they always charge for licensing. At $50/device per year (and that's the educational price) that free software isn't so free anymore. Mind you, Microsoft charges licenses for Windows PCs, Macintoshes, Palms, cell phones; anything that utilizes Microsoft services on a network.

So they waive the cost of the software itself, and just charge a license? What makes you say "always"?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c

So they waive the cost of the software itself, and just charge a license? What makes you say "always"?

Because I've never read or heard about any organization not paying license fees. There's an article somewhere (I'll see if I can find it) where a non-profit group was trying to set up satelite internet access in remote areas in countries in Africa. Microsoft offered the software and hardware to get them going for "free," in exchange for using the story as a publicity stunt. They accepted. At the end of the year they got a bill for something like $15,000 in licensing and support costs. They moved to Linux.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Sure they'll give you the software for "free," but they're still going to charge CALs per device. They always charge licensing fees whether you're a school, a non-profit, or a volunteer organization trying to get internet access to remote areas in countries in Africa.

Not true. If you go out and get a bunch of used, corporate donated computers, Microsoft will happily let you make use of the copy of Windows and Office that was on the PC, which is likely the OEM version and was tied to the PC to begin with.

Remember the antitrust lawsuit? What was their punishment? Donate $2 billion in MS software to schools.

Script kiddies know Windows, not Linux. There have already been 2 "in the wild" 0-day exploits for Microsoft Excel. They're being exploited already. Some bank was already hit with it. I bet that script is on websites already and in the hands of various 14-year-olds.

The majority of these exploits rely on the user running Excel or Outlook or whatever to have some kind of privileges. Don't get yourself into that situation. Corporations sometimes get stuck with some vendor supplied app that is poorly written and requires local administrator priveleges for the user running them. Schools can avoid this.

Regardless, if you get into the situation that you leave yourself open and someone gets infected, you simply mark that machine to be reimaged at the next reboot and reboot the sucker. You don't even have to get out of your chair.

On an administrative side, you're right. But from a practical side, you're wrong. No matter how secure you attempt to make Windows, it is used more often and it does get the majority of viruses, spyware, and exploits. Kids who know just enough to be dangerous will know Windows, not Linux.

You're only open to exploits that can elevate privileges, and most can't.

Yes, but this is a school district. As I've mentioned before, once you get to the enterprise level of things (100+ computers), the cost of support and maintenance surpass Macintosh by a huge margin. The problem is that when you have 200, 300, or even 1000 computers that have been donated or bought over different periods of time, the amount of effort to support each and every different computer is tremendous.

Why? There are a few options. First, have a single image that has all necessary drivers for all platforms preinstalled. After imaging, the computer will boot, detect the hardware and be fine.

Alternately, have an image per hardware config. Requires disk space, but really not that hard. Don't deliver your apps via the images if you take this route, as you'll have to update all images when you have new apps. Deliver your apps via push.

If you have 1000 PCs, 200 of which are different in some way, you need 200 different images. That means you have to set up 200 different computers to create those images. That would probably take 9 months to a year if that's all you did. At my work it takes us 3 months during the summer to get the district ready. We have nearly 2000 computers, and over 30 images.

Wrong. We have 600 computers, 30 different computer models and it's managed by a single person. Don't have 30 images, either. The computers are at 113 different locations.

I've consulted for organizations with 2000+ machines and only one or two images that were centrally managed and could be pushed on demand. With WoL and multicast, there would have been no issue with reimaging all 2000 in an hour.

I also work at a college supporting 4 different computer labs that are all Macs, with a dual G5 XServe pushing the images. It takes us a single afternoon to do at the college what takes us 3 months at the high schools, start to finish.

I'm telling you from personal experience, it is not the same supporting hundreds of PCs over hundreds of Macs. Not even close.

So, you're good at Macs and not so good at PCs. That doesn't mean PCs can't be managed simply and efficiently.

There's an article that was at Apple (if I can find it) about a new Math/Science computer lab that was installed at a university. They got rid of all their PCs and put in Macs. Then to much of the dismay of the IT staff, they fired 1/3 of their workforce because they didn't need them after switching to Macs. Support and maintenance on Macintosh systems pales in comparison to Windows PCs.

Their IT staff should have been fired in the first place if they were so inefficient.



Look, I'm not arguing whether Macs are easier or harder. My point was that Windows can be managed securely and effectively. Windows has its problems, I'm not arguing that. However, the many, many bad Windows admins out there make the situation much worse. Microsoft makes it too easy to think you know what you're doing. Perhaps they should pick one side or the other - be confusing like Linux or simple like Mac instead of the middle ground they're in, where people think it's simple but the reality is that they don't know what they're doing.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Think about it:

Mac Mini: $500 (or is it $600 now?)
Monitor: ? Probably at least another three digit price.. if a Mini will work with an old CRT, disregard this
Office: ?

Old Dell w. monitor: $200? $300?

Originally Posted by besson3c

Because if all you can get is 800 x 600 out of an old 15" CRT, that would suck.

You sure are using some circular reasoning there. I'd love to see a school purchase order for a "Old Dell w. monitor".

And seriously, you didn't know Minis can drive CRTs?!? Are you really this ignorant? You expect to hold a debate about the costs of computer purchasing and you don't even know what hardware runs what? You lose.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I'm a qualified designer... I use Windows XP and Microsoft Publisher... hello? hello?

BURN HIM!!!



but seriously, just as disturbing as the mac/pc swap, is in the article it mentions that in addition to new hardware, over the summer the teachers would be trained on different software (that presumably the mac doesn't have, or doesn't get bundled free with macs) so yeah, we're talking Publisher here folks. There's some real world experience there!

My high school didn't have a graphics program, but if my college hadn't have had macs...

[Chuckit]

While I dislike Windows quite a bit, I'd have to agree that's a bigger problem — any school that uses Publisher doesn't deserve to exist. That program just sucks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Why? There are a few options. First, have a single image that has all necessary drivers for all platforms preinstalled. After imaging, the computer will boot, detect the hardware and be fine.

Alternately, have an image per hardware config. Requires disk space, but really not that hard. Don't deliver your apps via the images if you take this route, as you'll have to update all images when you have new apps. Deliver your apps via push.

I don't have personal experience managing a lab of Linux desktops (I do have server experience though, but in a different context), but I fail to see how this would not be relatively easy in Linux too. I didn't want to state this as absolute fact, because I don't have personal experience in which to draw from.

Look, I'm not arguing whether Macs are easier or harder. My point was that Windows can be managed securely and effectively. Windows has its problems, I'm not arguing that. However, the many, many bad Windows admins out there make the situation much worse. Microsoft makes it too easy to think you know what you're doing. Perhaps they should pick one side or the other - be confusing like Linux or simple like Mac instead of the middle ground they're in, where people think it's simple but the reality is that they don't know what they're doing.

While we're issuing disclaimers: I'm a Mac head. For years, I was a complete Mac zealot. My background has been on the Mac. I decided to learn FreeBSD so that I could provide an end-to-end solution for my business, and my interest in Linux/Unix continues to this day. Primarily, my interest is in running Linux/Unix as a server. I'm quite happy with using my Mac as a client OS, and am only moderately interested in Linux GUI development in hoping for the best possible future, but not being actively using Linux GUIs. I'm no longer a Mac zealot though, just because my new job has me spending more time within Unix, but I advocate the Mac where appropriate. I think that the Mac and Linux/Unix complement each other very well: Mac on the desktop, and Linux for high performance computing, servers, research computing, etc. More than anything, I just want people to move away from Windows.

However, I also recognize that Linux has come a long way. I don't grimace when I have to use Gnome any more than I grimace when I have to use Windows. Even looking at the basic gist of operating applications objectively, I really have a hard time believing that learning Gnome would be terribly difficult for general computer use (i.e. what most people use computers for), providing the machine was setup and ready to go. My own experiences working with admins of a Linux based lab in our local high school suggests that there is truth to my beliefs.

Every time I hear about brain dead administrators doing something stupid, complaining about being on a tight budget, being unable to afford software, etc. I get a little worked up. In many schools, a distribution like Edubuntu would work out just fine and solve (or alleviate) these problems. I'd rather my tax dollars support idiotic purchases of computers that will run Linux than idiotic purchases of Windows machines so that students can use Publisher, practice making star wipes in Powerpoint, and rock on with Excel spreadsheets.

I know I'm pretty opinionated on this matter, so I'll try to restrain myself in going on any further

[ghporter]

There is some pretty sharp competition between Dell and Apple in the educational arena, particularly when it comes to outfitting a whole school and more in outfitting a whole school system. This one won't wind up spending a lot more money because Dell rolls everything into its bid-kind of like the way Apple does.

And in spite of the fact that it sounds ludicrous, there is truth in the statement about everyone sharing information being made simpler because of the single platform. It's because a single administrator can manage the entire fleet of computers and control what each one can and can't do before they're fielded. That means that the school's domain can be a free-exchange zone but outside that the computers have to go through a firewall. Managing that on a mixed group of platforms can be a headache, but on a single platform, with a small number of hardware models to deal with, is much easier to do.

Security can be a lot tighter in this situation, because with a limited suite of software, the network admin has a limited number of ports to deal with and thus fewer holes in his firewall. A well designed roll-out can wind up producing a very tight, very well integrated and thus very safe system for everyone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There is some pretty sharp competition between Dell and Apple in the educational arena, particularly when it comes to outfitting a whole school and more in outfitting a whole school system. This one won't wind up spending a lot more money because Dell rolls everything into its bid-kind of like the way Apple does.

And in spite of the fact that it sounds ludicrous, there is truth in the statement about everyone sharing information being made simpler because of the single platform. It's because a single administrator can manage the entire fleet of computers and control what each one can and can't do before they're fielded. That means that the school's domain can be a free-exchange zone but outside that the computers have to go through a firewall. Managing that on a mixed group of platforms can be a headache, but on a single platform, with a small number of hardware models to deal with, is much easier to do.

Security can be a lot tighter in this situation, because with a limited suite of software, the network admin has a limited number of ports to deal with and thus fewer holes in his firewall. A well designed roll-out can wind up producing a very tight, very well integrated and thus very safe system for everyone.

I'm not sure I buy your argument. I came from a job where we had a mixed environment of Macs and PCs (far more Macs than PCs). There are a few problems with things like a directory server (Windows will only play nicely with its own Active Directory AFAIK), authentication schemes (I don't think Windows supports Kerberos server authentication), but really most of it is just allocating the time and resources to make the mixed environment work. There is little that is flat-out impossible.

There are security advantages to a mixed environment too.

I'm not sure what you mean by your statements about firewalls. Network traffic is network traffic, what platform it is coming from is irrelevant.

[ghporter]

Some programs on different platforms allow users to use different ports-depending on which platform they're on. An example is the old AIM program; when it first came out for Mac, a Windows user could select about any port for it to use, but Mac users were limited to its default or 80.

But the big issue is how much time and money a school is going to have to spend getting a multi-platform admin staff up to speed. Money is a huge issue in public schools, so if they don't have to pay for anything more than someone who would rate as an "assistant admin" because their integrator produces well behaved and easy to administer disk images for the few hardware models that will be fielded, then that's an extra savings. And frankly from what I've seen, it's something that will be good for both the students and the staff.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Some programs on different platforms allow users to use different ports-depending on which platform they're on. An example is the old AIM program; when it first came out for Mac, a Windows user could select about any port for it to use, but Mac users were limited to its default or 80.

Most institutions are behind firewalls anyway, so what is the big deal to set to default to deny packets, and add ports which should be accepted?

But the big issue is how much time and money a school is going to have to spend getting a multi-platform admin staff up to speed. Money is a huge issue in public schools, so if they don't have to pay for anything more than someone who would rate as an "assistant admin" because their integrator produces well behaved and easy to administer disk images for the few hardware models that will be fielded, then that's an extra savings. And frankly from what I've seen, it's something that will be good for both the students and the staff.

This is true, and there are costs associated with retraining staff too. My preferences is to start phasing out Windows machines and replacing them with Linux machines for general purpose workstations, but I suppose this solution does have some gaps in institutions that require creative/content creation apps that aren't available on Linux.

However, if part of that content creation includes video, chances are the school board will be interested in Macs anyway, which would introduce the same dilemma of having to deal with multi-platform environments. Is there a decent linear video editor for Windows that costs about as much as Final Cut Express?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Most institutions are behind firewalls anyway, so what is the big deal to set to default to deny packets, and add ports which should be accepted?

I know a major university that doesn't have a clue what a firewall is, yet they have a high level computer science school AND a serious computer security program, along with some seriously easy to access wireless-all over campus. They even host a nationally known security lab. If a university (not a community college, a UNIVERSITY) can manage not to have a firewall, how can you expect "Boondocs Schools" to be guaranteed to have one?

Originally Posted by besson3c

This is true, and there are costs associated with retraining staff too. My preferences is to start phasing out Windows machines and replacing them with Linux machines for general purpose workstations, but I suppose this solution does have some gaps in institutions that require creative/content creation apps that aren't available on Linux.

However, if part of that content creation includes video, chances are the school board will be interested in Macs anyway, which would introduce the same dilemma of having to deal with multi-platform environments. Is there a decent linear video editor for Windows that costs about as much as Final Cut Express?

The problem is that public schools are small governmental entities, so they have to justify everything to the voters. And voters are in general completely clueless about the pros and cons of computers in general, let alone different operating systems. On the other hand, companies like Dell and Apple have reputations that the public knows and believes in, so knowing that one of these companies stands behind a new technology program makes it easier to sell to the voters. The voters want their kids to be taught useful stuff, but they generally don't know whether any particular item is or is not useful, and that's even more true when it comes to anything computer related. They have to take the school's word for it, but they hold the school accountable for teaching little Johnny something like Lynx when the world uses Firefox...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I know a major university that doesn't have a clue what a firewall is, yet they have a high level computer science school AND a serious computer security program, along with some seriously easy to access wireless-all over campus. They even host a nationally known security lab. If a university (not a community college, a UNIVERSITY) can manage not to have a firewall, how can you expect "Boondocs Schools" to be guaranteed to have one?

Considering firewalls are one of the basics of security, I find this hard to believe. Is the security lab nationally known for being terrible?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I know a major university that doesn't have a clue what a firewall is, yet they have a high level computer science school AND a serious computer security program, along with some seriously easy to access wireless-all over campus. They even host a nationally known security lab. If a university (not a community college, a UNIVERSITY) can manage not to have a firewall, how can you expect "Boondocs Schools" to be guaranteed to have one?

Our university does not have one either - too expensive, but our servers do. I was just saying that if some sort of institution *wanted* to block traffic, they could do so via an appliance or rules on client workstations. Network traffic is network traffic, so I'm not sure I understand your original argument.

The problem is that public schools are small governmental entities, so they have to justify everything to the voters. And voters are in general completely clueless about the pros and cons of computers in general, let alone different operating systems. On the other hand, companies like Dell and Apple have reputations that the public knows and believes in, so knowing that one of these companies stands behind a new technology program makes it easier to sell to the voters. The voters want their kids to be taught useful stuff, but they generally don't know whether any particular item is or is not useful, and that's even more true when it comes to anything computer related. They have to take the school's word for it, but they hold the school accountable for teaching little Johnny something like Lynx when the world uses Firefox...

That's part of the problem - having the clueless parents push the school system into teaching what they want, particularly when it comes to "teaching what is used in the real world" or pushing a political agenda (e.g. Intelligent Design) and such.

I do see what you're saying though, the parents were a variable I perhaps didn't consider carefully enough. Still, much of the innovative and cool stuff happening in computing right now (esp. within higher education) is happening within open source. While Joe-average-parent may be clueless about Firefox, when pressured it shouldn't be too hard for a school board to justify certain decisions with factual information, although perhaps some of them would be difficult. As to who would win out: the gut feelings of parents or the factual information, I'm not sure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Considering firewalls are one of the basics of security, I find this hard to believe. Is the security lab nationally known for being terrible?

Our campus has something like 30,000 students on it, and we manage computing resources for several satellite campuses. The email servers I help run serve around 125,000 users.

We have some very expensive and high-end firewalls which protect our mail servers and mail relays (and provide SSL acceleration, load balancing, and other functionality), but they work very hard to keep up with the load. Protecting this many individual workstations would be quite costly, and because the needs of the campus are so diverse, it would be a political mess to decide what ports to open.

My point is, I suspect that providing a hardware firewall for a group probably works better within smaller environments, unless the resources are there to provide hardware firewalls for individual groups within the larger organization.

Moreover, it is pretty easy to setup a software firewall on individual workstations, it's just a matter of getting users to do so.

[KeyLimePi]

Amazing the amount of anti-Mac rhetoric this item is generating on the Baltimore Sun computer forum:

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/sh...ad.php?t=64934

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's part of the problem - having the clueless parents push the school system into teaching what they want, particularly when it comes to "teaching what is used in the real world" or pushing a political agenda (e.g. Intelligent Design) and such.

This isn't a matter of the schools caving in. It's a matter of listening (like they had a choice) to the people who pay the bills. I pay huge taxes for the local schools, and my only child is no longer in them-I certainly want them to listen to me! But it is also about the schools not doing the smart thing and educating parents about what's really needed in the real world. Which is partly because they don't know because they cannot do the research-it doesn't support teaching the material on those standardized exit tests, so there's no money for it. Catch 22 again and again and again.

[tboparis]

In my school the computers are PC's. We learn stuff like excel, dreamweaver and powerpoint. But in some classes we use iBook G4's (hurray!!!!) but this is for a class were you are free to do what you want in order to make a presentation at the end of the year (usually using powerpoint).