Fwd: ::fibreculture:: WebCT, Open Source and Beyond

[Julian Knowles]

Chris,

I think we are actually in agreement on many issues and both recognise 
that there are a variety of contexts in which FOSS might work. I think 
the problems I have are more to do with the lack of subtlety or balance 
which is apparent in many of these list discussions on the virtues or 
otherwise of the FOSS path. It seems to very rapidly become an 
ideological discussion with practicalities lost to the wind.

I am however, enjoying this discussion, as I think it is productive to 
have it.


> The moodle site is not 'protected'. It just requires that you go 
> through a simple registration process before seeing some of the site 
> (which is itself implemented as a moodle site). It's not a spam trap 
> (but you might use a service like <http://www.mytrashmail.com/> if 
> you're paranoid).

OK will try this. I am quite interested in e-learning systems as I am 
looking at ways of providing better online support to subjects I teach. 
As wed type, I am in discussions with sevcom.com/SDF over some ideas 
here. Once we have some basic parameters fleshed out, then i can let 
others such as yourself know, as it might make for an excellent 
collaborative opportunity across a number of institutions.


>> It is also not clear whether you are advocating a switch to FOSS for 
>> all tasks... or where you wish to draw lines in relation to this 
>> 'business model'.
>
> I'm not advocating open source for everything, or hiring new armies of 
> programmers for the sake of it. In many cases there are good reasons 
> to use commercial software (I haven't had good experiences with 
> Audacity myself, for example... but it depends on the context of the 
> teaching, and it suits Tama's students well).

Yes I agree with what you are saying here, but when Tama was ndicating 
that Audacity was  'preferred' over commercial software  and that 
choice was being praised, then I think that needs some qualification. 
Again, some context is required. What is Audacity "exceptionally good" 
for? Exceptionally good for a FOSS application? Exceptionally good for 
beginners? Exceptionally good for simple editing tasks where precision 
is not important? What you can't say is that it is 'exceptionally good' 
in a raw feature comparison with its low end commercial competitors. (i 
would confine my comparisons to sub $150 per license commercial and 
shareware, as to not do so would be patently unfair)

My objection, which is probably clear to all and sundry (and i feel 
terrible for appearing so negative!!),  is that when Audacity is 
mentioned, it is often presented as a viable replacement for a 
commercial tool and that this is somehow ideologically superior (see my 
earlier post). Yet this supposed potential to replace a commercial tool 
is very rarely qualified or substantiated. I'm not trying to discount 
anyone else's favourable experiences, but I think it is not even 
suitable for a beginner, as they very quickly become frustrated with 
its limitations and crashes. In making that assessment however, I am 
happy to provide specific examples as to how I have arrived at that 
less-than-favourable assessment\, which others might then challenge if 
they see fit.

> Open source development should be recognised more widely as a 
> legitimate and possibly viable solution to wider software needs of 
> universities and other public institutions. It is strategically 
> important to support it because it can become better through 
> collective will:
>
> 1) Universities should more often investigate whether funds dedicated 
> towards licences, support and customisation for proprietary software 
> might better be diverted towards developing and customising open 
> source alternatives;

I agree with always being open to this possibility (and am myself, as 
is clear from my copied critique of Audacity).  In some cases, FOSS 
does effectively replace a commercial app. I do think however, that a 
more detailed analysis needs to be undertaken than the FOSS = no cost 
vs.  Commercial = Licence Fee comparison, as there are many more 
associated costs with running software within a large organisation than 
just the license fees. Some universities would spend almost as much on 
support and training as they would on license fees. Rarely does this 
level of subtlety enter the discussions on this topic. I see you've 
provided some perspectives on this in your response.

The thing in my view that would (ironically) provide the biggest boost 
to the use of FOSS in universities would be if enterprising people 
developed cost-effective support services for specific applications 
which allowed them to sell good support services to the university. 
This answers the inevitable 'what if the system goes down' ? type of 
question which is asked, particularly in relation to e-learning 
services, financial services, databases and so on. I think open source 
is recognised, but there are issues that need to be resolved before a  
particular application might be adopted. Do I see a business 
opportunity? Ha!! By contracting such support, there is little 
financial risk, as there might be in a raft of new appointments. This 
risk assessment is critical to the decision to jump in the first place. 
There are relatively few staff in universities with programming skills 
- that is,  'relative' to the number of raw lines of code that need to 
be written. Those that do have these skills are more often than not 
involved in one open source project or another, so I guess I am 
questioning what more universities can do to help? Simply adopting an 
application for use might not help, it is more the contribution that is 
made to the development effort (coding) which might make the 
application more functional/viable.


> 2) they should more often try to identify needs that are common across 
> a number of institutions, and collaborate on building appropriate 
> systems (the DSpace example that Katie brings up is an excellent case 
> in point);

yes, see above, re SDF/sevcom.com

> The costs of support may be comparable; but the difference is that 
> this labour can potentially return value to the shared collective 
> knowledge and code base of the open source community. Software 
> developed in this way is likely to be less alienated from its sites of 
> use, and encourages a participatory culture and better skills 
> development in academic and support staff. It won't be upgraded simply 
> because of a presure for returns from upgrades; nor will improvements 
> be delayed or held back for commercial ends.

I agree with all of this in theory, and as i stated in previous posts, 
am in support of the use of FOSS where it can replace a commercial app 
(or supplement them via plugins etc). I could list you 15-20 that I am 
using right now. The issue is that for core production applications, 
this future is a long way off, for the most part.

I also find it difficult to reconcile the fact that academics consider 
themselves part of a market where there is the expectation of financial 
compensation for their labour and skill and some deliberate strategies 
employed to maximise that return (enterprise bargaining etc.), whilst 
also arguing that the commercial exploitation of skills in the form of 
software is somehow unacceptable. There seems to me to be a double 
standard implicit in this. If we wanted to be totally 'open source', we 
should all resign and set up free universities in public spaces, 
offering our skills and services to all at no cost. I know this sounds 
completely ridiculous, but it is where the ideological argument starts 
to fray at the edges.

> The problems with documentation for open source software are changing. 
> Open source software like the Plone CMS now has really good 
> documentation, with several books dedicated to it. The open source 
> development processes are also expanding to incorporate the work of 
> people with wider expertise: such as writing documentation.

I agree that Plone is good (one of the best actually) and the best 
examples of FOSS documentation can be found in network tools (server, 
database, CMS systems etc..), possibly because this is where the most 
serious deployment has taken place. This does lend weight to your 
argument that uptake = improvement.

The other area which is lacking is interface design. Many open source 
people think command lines are fine when they are not for the great 
majority of users.

>
>> Sometimes, the decisions are made according to the very real demands 
>> of running a very large operation with minimal tolerance of system 
>> downtime.
>
> That's where leadership for such initiatives probably needs to come 
> from a higher level. Or a lower level.

Well i think that this is where the 'support services' idea comes 
in.... Its not a whole lot different than selling Linux distributions, 
after all. Knowing university management fairly well, i tend to think 
that the contracted support might appeal more than the savvy, 
hardworking Lecturer A. The other option is to generate some 
substantial funded research projects around it. ARC Linkage/Discovery 
etc....

> There are too many cases where reputable commercial software is just 
> not that great. If some of them were electron microscopes, you 
> wouldn't make out anything smaller than a fist. Applications used in 
> universities such as WebCT, Interwoven web content management, 
> Peoplesoft or Hyperion are expensive to licence, but in many cases 
> have been costly or problematic to implement, and are not well liked 
> by end users. These companies have excellent sales and legal teams, 
> are highly profitable, and offer attractive service agreements, but 
> that doesn't necessarily mean that their software is that great. It 
> can take enormous resources to get such systems running well, and yet 
> all this work in customisation creates no independent or shareable 
> intellectual property.

I couldn't agree with you more. But I think that we need to separate 
out the issue of software selection from the Commercial/FoSS debate. 
The two, in my view are unrelated, as there are bad examples of both 
(the student grading web upload system at UWS - where i used to work - 
was developed in house by an academic and was horribly broken).  The 
problem is that there is insufficient consultation with end users in 
the selection and evaluation of  software. They are often driven by the 
particular tastes of the Head of IT. The issue is similar with computer 
platforms etc.. and whether or not your IT Director is tolerant of the 
Mac platform, or running their servers under unix instead of windows.

> Across the world, Universities (and other public institutions) already 
> have huge labour forces whose efforts might be better capitalised upon 
> if they had the resources and opportunity to help develop, adapt and 
> improve the software infrastructure that they themselves use. It won't 
> happen all at once, but it could provide cheaper and better long term 
> solutions. I agree that this vision can be clouded by open source 
> ideologues.

or Linux user groups!  Hey after six months I have my sound card 
working with the ALSA drivers!!! (sorry couldn't resist the in-joke)

> There are many problems with current open source options. But FOSS 
> needs friends. It is constantly FUDDed by vested interests, and 
> threatened by legal moves such as software ideas patents.

Again, eloquently put... I have enjoyed this exchange and your 
thoughtful responses.


Regards

Julian