::fibreculture:: WebCT, Open Source and Beyond

[Tama Leaver]

Hi All,

A few comments and qulifications below...

On 8/11/05, Julian Knowles <julianknowles at mac.com> wrote:
> Chris,

[snip]

> >> 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)
Some qualifications of my Audacity endorsement seem in order, so let
me explain why or the purposes of this particular course I find
Audacity to be the program of choice.

Let me begin, though, by emphasising that I'm not suggesting the
Audacity is better than most commercially available audio editing
software (although it is better than some!).  Nor am I suggesting
Audacity is an ideal tool for large-scale commercial editing; as
Julian's critique aptly demonstrates, it certainly has its flaws.  If
I were running a course that focused on professional digital audio
production and editing, then I'd be using one of the proven commercial
products.

However, this particular course looks at participatory culture and
digital communication, focusing on emerging media forms, media
ecologies, and, more than anything else, on the ease of
production-side participation in comparison to state of things even
five years ago.  We explore a little bit of everything from blogs to
wikis to machinima (although, sadly, machinima production isn't
explored, but it's something to look forward to in the future!).  Now,
in terms of digital audio, the focus is on podcasting and, as many of
you will know, the emerging podosphere emphasises getting new,
interesting, innovative and often "indie" material out there to an
audience (who are often interactive) rather than focusing on the
highest of production values (I'd say about 85% of podcasts really
wouldn't make the quality cutoff for most FM radio).

For our major research/assessment piece in the course, students are
being asked to create a podcast that demonstrates an innovative
approach to syndicated digital audio.  I've got at most two 2hour lab
sessions for teaching students everything they need to record, edit
and upload their audio.  Audacity is relatively streamlined and pretty
straightforward to use, so it's an easy one to teach and an easy one
for students to grasp quickly.  It records, edits, has some basic
effects and filters, and exports to most formats.  From the ideas
students have voiced about their podcasts, these are all the tools
they need!

>From a philosophical perspective, one of the things I wanted students
to explore was the ease of grassroots digital media productive for
non-professionals with non-professional (or, at least, non-commercial)
tools wherever possible.  That's why we use Blogger even though it has
very clear limitations (only ATOM feeds, no categories, no native
tagging, etc.).  If we combine Blogger, the free ATOM to RSS2.0 feed
generator Feedburner, the free hosting at OurMedia.org, a home PC or
Mac with even a crappy $25 mic, Audacity (and possibly a
podcasting-specific open source tool like Pod Producer
<http://radix.com.mx/podproducer/>, then we have all the technology
needed to produce a podcast and the only paid parts are the hardware
(and the OS if you want to get picky).

At the end of this course, if students can create, manipulate and
distribute their own podcasts with software and technology that they
have immediate access to outside of the commercial software laden
university labs (or, at least, know how) as well as critically engage
with the surrounding ideas and mediaforms, then I'll feel like I've
done my job (and, of course, fulfilled the course outcomes!).  The
philosophy and the media go hand in hand, at least for this course, so
that's why Audacity and other FOSS are really important in this
specific case.

Given that context, Audacity is "exceptionally good" at meeting the
production needs of the students in this course as well as being
"exceptionally good" at reflecting the philosophy of FOSS.

> 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.

A fair objection!

> > 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.

Julian I just hope you sent your critique and suggestions to the
Audacity team at Sourceforge
<http://audacity.sourceforge.net/contact/>. :)

Btw, I am also thoroughly enjoying this discussion!

Cheers,
Tama
_______________________
Tama Leaver (Mr)
English, Communication and Cultural Studies (M202)
University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley WA 6009 Australia

Fax: +61 8 6488 1030
email: tama at cyllene.uwa.edu.au
blog: http://ponderance.blogspot.com/

CRICOS PROVIDER No. 00126G