Re: [seul-edu] Draft Review

[Matt Drew <mdrew@redhat.com>]

Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Thursday 02 May 2002 20:07, Matt Drew wrote:
> 
>>thoughts:
> 
> 
>>2nd paragraph:  Viruses are a mostly Windows problem, but security
>>issues are not.
> 
> 
> Disagree. Windows has far more than its fair share of non-virus security 
> issues. The 9X series is insecure by design, and as much as compatibility 
> with that (e.g. the Registry) is factored into the NT series (2000, XP), by 
> so much does it also become inherently less secure.

The above is completely and totally true -- however, the statement being 
made is (from the current draft):

"Like viruses and security issues, that issue is exclusive to Microsoft 
and its products."

That is misleading at best.  Viruses you can make a case for.  Security 
problems you can't.  While Microsoft does have the lion's share of 
security problems, they are not alone in that arena.  "Exclusive" 
implies that security is a Microsoft-only problem, and I don't think 
you'll find anyone who will agree with that.

OTOH I just read the release again and it does flow well.  Your call.


>>It damages SEUL's/schoolforge's credibility with
>>knowledgeable users and admins.
> 
> 
> Disagree, but if you want to water it down, please propose something softer 
> that *doesn't* omit the point.

Sure:

"Like viruses and security problems, that issue is mostly exclusive to 
Microsoft and its products."

Same effect, slightly watered just enough to be honest and still have 
the desired impact.

> People say `computer virus' and they mean `Microsoft virus' at a ratio of 
> hundreds to one. And security? Go and look at the mirrors of broken sites, 
> and you'll see more Windows sites mirrored there than all others combined, 
> and this from a web server with (until recently) less than 1/4 of the market.
> 
>>2nd paragraph:  I wouldn't try to tie in any other issues - the one at
>>hand is licensing and donated computers, and bringing in viruses
>>confuses people.
> 
> 
> Tighter focus could be good, but tighter focus can also mean `separation from 
> context'. It needs to be clear that this lie is not an isolated misdemeanour 
> by Microsoft, it is habitual and ingrained, but moreso that Open Source is 
> the polar opposite of this mindset. Blaming your security problems on 
> everyone else is an integral piece of the same picture.

Ok, fair enough.

> 
>>I think linking to the site and reproducing the relevant text would be
>>very worthwhile.  That way, if they change it we still have the
>>original, and we can note that they changed it when people noticed it.
>>It would also be helpful to have links to the applicable EULAs (Win2k,
>>WinXP, Win9x).
> 
> 
> Yes. However, I think they should be saved for a detail page, not for the 
> release.
> 
> 
>>It is important to understand that the mindset being presented here
>>assumes that the Microsoft is the only operating system that anyone
>>would consider.
> 
> 
> Very much agree.
> 
> 
>>I think the tone of the release is wrong, because it
>>attacks Microsoft and is negative.
> 
> 
> Sadly, it is necessary - at least in the short term - to attack Microsoft. One 
> must plow before one can plant. However, I would be happier if it could be 
> done positively, yet without blunting the effect.
> 
> 
>>Spin it this way instead:
> 
> 
>>LINUX ALLOWS SCHOOLS TO USE DONATED HARDWARE
> 
> 
>>Microsoft says it is illegal for schools to use donated hardware without
>>an OS license; Linux allows schools to bypass that restriction
> 
> 
> s/says/claims that/

Right -- better.

> 
>>Leon Brooks, a spokesperson for the Simple End User Linux group
>>(seul.org), offered an alternative to schools who need to use donated
>>hardware.
> 
> 
> s/offered/offers/ and perhaps s/an alternative/a better option/

yep and yep.

> 
>>"This legal restriction applies only to Microsoft software,"
> 
> 
> Not quite true, although it is very much along the lines of what I am trying 
> to put across. It also applies to, for examples, AutoDesk's AutoCAD and 
> Sophos' Sweep.

good point, but the page in question deals specifically with OS licensing.

> 
>>Brooks says.  "Open Source Software such as the Linux operating system
>>can legally be run on donated hardware if all the previous software is
>>simply erased.  There are no licenses, no restrictions on use, and there
>>no hassle with Open Source Software."
> 
> 
> Er, starting from `and'... `Open Source software eliminates many other 
> administrative and legal hassles.'
> 
> 
>>Don't spin it negative.  In my experience, people don't like negative,
>>even if they agree with it.  Offer a new path, an easier path, and
>>portray Linux as the better solution without using words like
>>"draconian".  Link in the App list, plug the case studies, and provide
>>links to schoolforge, etc.  Make the case on Linux's (ewwww) merits
>>rather than Microsofts faults.  Don't let your anger and disgust show
>>through, because it puts people off.  The part after the first two
>>paragraphs does this very well, but most people won't read past the
>>first two paragraphs when they see the anti-Microsoft tone and wording.
> 
> 
> Good point. Your text still needs more work, and I think we need explicit 
> positive spin on viruses and security, but even more so on the open, honest 
> approach and the point that, for learning, Open Source software is better 
> than Lego(tm).

Blasphemy!!! :)  I love Lego, and I hate what they're doing to it now, 
with all the custom one-use parts.  Takes the fun out of it.


> Perhaps that could read like this:
> 
>     On top of this, Open Source software is immune to almost all existing
>     viruses, has an excellent security record, is extremely reliable, and
>     in an educational setting often provides a deeper involvement in
>     computers than programs deliberately designed for the classroom.

That is pretty darn good.

> Now if only we could set that to music. (-:
> 
> Keep up your suggestions, and the spokesperson can be Mr Drew - if that isn't 
> seen as RedHat putting their oar in. (-: I'd be more comfotable with at least 
> a shared spoksepersonship, anyway :-)


Honestly, I'd like us to be listed as supporting this press release, but 
I'd like the release to come from schoolforge as was discussed.  We're 
involved in this, but it isn't our game -- we're just a player (and 
schoolforge member, as soon as I get off my butt and register).

However, I don't think I can put our name on it without approval.  I'll 
check into it tomorrow.  and get back to you as soon as possible.

I do really like the release in its current form -- the tone is much 
more positive and I think its a winner.

Anyone else have any more issues?

> Cheers; Leon
> 
> 



-- 
Matt Drew
Red Hat, Inc
Education Pilot Tech Coordinator
(919)880-7736 (cell)
(919)754-3700 x44194
mdrew@redhat.com