Re: Unified Front... [was Re: [seul-edu] M$ Audits (shortened)]

["Stephen C. Daukas" <stephen@daukas.com>]

At 03:42 PM 4/24/2002, Doug wrote:
>"Stephen C. Daukas" wrote:
>
> > At 11:46 AM 4/24/2002, Doug wrote:
> > >"Stephen C. Daukas" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Imagine a School Board meeting considering the motion of "going

[snip]

>That's not what I meant.  The school board meeting you're envisioning 
>would take
>place after the analysis had taken place.  And the analysis wouldn't even be
>started without some interest from the school district in the first place.

Exactly my point - where do you break into the circle, and with 
whom.  Clearly as much a political  manoeuvre as anything else, but by 
extension, replace the School Board with a corresponding group of "gate 
keepers" in a school, or a department...  Same problem, different 
day.  Now, if I had a canned distro that allowed me to demo certain 
capabilities, then I could win over some of those "gate keepers."

[snip]

> > Actually, Red Hat is extremely interested in this. [...] Red Hat is 
> interested
> > working on a K-12 "thing", but they don't know what that "thing" looks like
> > yet.
>
>They have but to ask.  We've tried to engage them on this subject before, with
>little success.  If they want to find out, have them put people on this 
>mailing
>list and schoolforge-discuss.

My guess is they are already here - they were the ones who told me about 
this list...

[snip]

> > They are hoping
> > to be told, as near as I can tell, what they should put together for a
> > given grade (almost like a curriculum framework) from those in the
> > trenches.  So, at least one vendor is hoping the grass roots can define
> > what they need so it can provide a solution.  Could be nice if it worked
> > out that way.
>
>Again, if they commit to putting some resources behind this we can 
>help.  We've
>heard talk from various distros before about their educational 
>committment, with
>little to back it up though.

The message I got during my discussions, loud and clear, was that they do 
not have the resources to commit for the reasons stated in my previous 
post.  They are looking for the ISO you mention, figuratively speaking, 
that would allow them to run in a particular direction.

[snip]
> > I disagree based on an extrapolation from my experiences in corporate
> > America...  No one likes to break ground, nor do they like to stray too far
> > from a path that has already been blazed.  My guess is that among the first
> > few questions asked by someone involved with the process who represents
> > "administration" would be "what have other districts done."  One reason, I
> > suspect, that I have noticed so many districts using the same textbooks, to
> > use your analogy.
>
>If they'd rather not make actual decisions but just follow someone else's 
>lead,
>then we have districts that _have_ already done this and can be used as 
>examples.
>I'd rather not anoint a winner from many very nice packages for each 
>function, but
>if that's what it takes...

Yes, I just learned of one in Florida.  (Not sure why google didn't give 
this to me when I went looking a while back!)  At any rate, I suspect that 
a baseline, or model, that a district can use as a springboard, would make 
it far easier to move.

[snip]
> > The only problem here is that WINE doesn't work well for a lot of
> > applications, and doesn't do well at all with win2k applications.   WINE
> > isn't really an emulator - it is more of a compatibility layer because it
> > only deals with the win32 API and win3.x interfaces.  More than 1000
> > applications are listed in WINE's database, but _many_ of them are listed
> > as only being partially operational.
>
>It's rapidly improving, though.  This is where the initial analysis is 
>important.
>Find out what they're using, then _try_ it in WINE.  You'll know very 
>quickly if it
>will work or not.  But I'll be horribly surprised if you find any 
>educational apps
>that _aren't_ win32 but Win2K.  The vendors aren't writing (I don't think)
>specifically for Win2K because it would just limit their market.

It isn't great for win32 either, but your point is well taken.  Another 
option is to identify those apps that are important and see about getting 
them native to Linux.

[snip]
> > For MAC, ARDI seems to be among the better packages.  They list hundreds of
> > MAC applications, most coded green or yellow (meaning fully useable or
> > largely useable).
> >
> > In the end, it still comes down to a willingness to blaze a trail...
> >
>
>Executor is very nice, but it currently only works with M68K 
>binaries.  They're
>working on SynPPC (a Power PC emulator) but it's not ready yet.

sigh

[snip]
> > >There are no packaged solutions, nor should there be.
> >
> > Seems like you and I should agree to disagree.  I'm not trying to be
> > difficult here, I'm just looking for the following (to paraphrase from the
> > SEUL-EDU purpose):
>
>I guess I'll have to define my terms, since I wrote the SEUL/edu purpose.  By
>"packaged" I assumed you meant something in a shiny box that purports to 
>be a clean
>single install that solves all the problems.  That's not going to happen 
>soon if
>ever.  But an identified list that satisfies the goals you've listed, that's
>something else again.  That we can work towards.  One of the stated goals for
>SEUL/edu is to identify useful educational software, package it (RPMs, 
>DEBs, etc.),
>and make it into an ISO image with a useful installer, so that any distro 
>vendor
>can include it with their standard OS to create an educational bundle.  We 
>haven't
>progressed on that for lack of software reviewers and packagers, but if RedHat
>would commit to doing the packaging I think we could make major strides there.

OK, so we are saying the same thing regarding getting something into the 
hands of people/vendors...  ;-)  But, Red Hat doesn't have the resources 
(there are something like 60 people in the company, and their focus is on 
training & support) to do this.  They would love to have it handed to them, 
I'm sure!  ;-)  Incidentally, my original reason for contacting them was to 
see if they had any training materials that I could leverage...

[snip]
> > > > Once we think we have that solved, and once we think we have a solid
> > > > understanding of the migration issues, we could try to support those
> > > > willing to try to get their schools to move.  We could also approach a
> > > > vendor to see if they are willing to join in...
> > >
> > >As I say, don't depend on a vendor for this.  We've got some good starts
> > >already
> > >with K12LTSP and Blue Linux.
> >
> > Don't count out the vendors.  If they see an opportunity to gain market
> > share, they'll jump.
> > They are already looking at this very issue...  Going back to my definition
> > of a "packaged" solution, if we could define one, I think at least one
> > vendor would be interested.
>
>As I say, we've heard this before and would welcome their participation, 
>but we're
>not holding our breath.

Chicken and egg?

Steve