Lots of teachers are trained to use Debian. Now why this change???

...

you mean GNU + Linux.

Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.

Read the link http://www.debian.org/ properly!!! :)

Cheers,

Sujith Haridasan

Ramakrishna Reddy wrote:

On 6/7/07, sujith h sujith.h@gmail.com wrote:

...

Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.

doh!!! I never knew that, after using debian for like 6 years. I never knew that an OS is pure coz it comes with 18733 packages.

The parent said Debian PROVIDES MORE THAN a pure OS because of the existence of all those packages.

It did not say Debian IS A PURE OS because of the existence of all those packages.

On 6/7/07, Harish Narayanan harish@gamebox.net wrote:

Ramakrishna Reddy wrote:

...

On 6/7/07, sujith h sujith.h@gmail.com wrote:

...

Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.

doh!!! I never knew that, after using debian for like 6 years. I never knew that an OS is pure coz it comes with 18733 packages.

The parent said Debian PROVIDES MORE THAN a pure OS because of the existence of all those packages.

BTW, The theme behind the *real* parent never had a distro comparison, it was about the Kerala Govt and Red Hat MoU.

...

Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.

In that case why were the above statements made, deviating from the main topic , were these just promotional statements ?! to spice up the issue. :P

It did not say Debian IS A PURE OS because of the existence of all those packages.

+1

-- Ramakrishna Reddy GPG Key ID:31FF0090 Fingerprint = 18D7 3FC1 784B B57F C08F 32B9 4496 B2A1 31FF 0090

2007/6/7, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com:

How good is the support provided by the project ?

Can you elaborate a bit on what do you mean by support here? We don't have any "products", we work closely with the upstream (debian, gnome, kde ...) and we develop applications for local needs (text to speech, voice recognition, input methods ...).

Usability studies suggest that sticking to lesser number of usability models is a bad idea.

So you are suggesting to change things randomly, just like that without consulting the people involved, or without giving any reason? There is lot of work done to build such a vast network. We want to know what is wrong with it, why such a change now...

...

This is really a shocking news!!!

Nothing shocking ... the diversity is very important.

... such a move from a government with stated policy of supporting Free Software and knowledge society. The essensial factors for such a society is the participation from everyone involved, transparency of actions ... When actions are not fully in line with the policy it is shocking (it might cease to be shocking when it becomes so common)... first smart city and then now ...

Cheers Praveen

Praveen A wrote:

...

...

This is really a shocking news!!!

Nothing shocking ... the diversity is very important.

... such a move from a government with stated policy of supporting Free Software and knowledge society. The essensial factors for such a society is the participation from everyone involved, transparency of actions ... When actions are not fully in line with the policy it is shocking (it might cease to be shocking when it becomes so common)... first smart city and then now ...

1. Who do you think a government department should contact if they have any IT need? A local LUG? fsf-india? Or would it be normal to give out a public tender?

2. Who do you think should be on the lookout for government tenders, and pay the tender fees, put forward their solution and promise support? A local LUG? FSF-India? I think FSF-India has better things to do than that.

3. Who do you think a government department should contact when their brand new printer needs to be installed on the Linux desktops? A Local lug? FSF-India? If you look at how Linux newbies are treated in any LUG (in India, or anywhere else), I think not(try saying RTFM to a government department?).

If we are interested in seeing Free software being used widely in government adhering to Free software principles, we should be setting up a completely commercial entity to do so, whose primary work would be to do 1,2,3.

There is no point being shocked, otherwise.

- Sandip

2007/6/8, Mahesh M maheshmukundan@gmail.com:

I agreee with Sandeeps' view... Unless anything like a commercial institution come up locally, we wont be noticed. Govt works are completly strict. Its not a user group tat they would try to contact but an organisation tat is wel established.

We don't have anything against it -- How many times we have to repeat it?

Is anything tat we do ever consulted with them? We never do any communication of this sort with them, then how can we expect them to communicate?

It has been like this before. You wake up from your dream and look back -- catch up with the two years that passed and see what changes have happened. There was no commercial entity behind the success of IT@SCHOOL project, it was the teachers and Free Software community that made it work. And there was communication and consultation. Now you want some commercial entity to walk in and get all the fruits of labor without even consulting those who toiled in the ground?

Why is there a problem with the distro at all? If we cant provide sevices as an organisation (like RH, services that are well defined), then atleast we must not critisise them. We have to just make sure that they dont become a monopoly as such. Let it not be that their word is the final as far as desicions are concerned. Thats all.

What is the problem with Debian? It is working for 3 years -- and there is a lot of hard work that went into it. Free Software is also about giving credit to the work. We made IT@School a success without the support of a commercial organisation like Red Hat and you are telling us we can't? We aren't talking theory here, it is proof of concept plus running code. Go and see the schools which run Free Software and talk to the students who understand what is Software Freedom. We have a right to be concerned to know what is wrong with the IT@School setup, why is such a change brought after a secretive deal.

I'm giving up here, there is no point in repeating things over if people continue claiming my rabbit has 3 ears.

If people don't want to jump out from the wells they have digged we can't help.

The following quote from a live experience might help you get a feel of how Free Software aware are the students. You might even wonder how can it be possible without "a commercial player like Red Hat" and people to call when printer doesn't work.

"Hiran asked them to explain the difference between Windows and GNU/Linux and pat came the reply - GNU/Linux is free software! But then, Windows too is "free software", isn't it, I intervened. The kids were quick to point out that with Windows, you don't have certain `freedoms', like the freedom to copy! Another kid jumped up and asked Hiran to explain the meaning of a `kernel'. Hiran did his best to clarify things. We realized that we were *not* talking to clueless `software engineers' from Bangalore but to a bunch of really smart kids!"

http://pramode-ce.livejournal.com/60542.html

Also the MoU must be made public. I agree with Praveen in that part.

Thanks for the support.

Cheers Praveen

V. Sasi Kumar wrote:

Actually, it is the prevailing wisdom that is the culprit. The prevailing wisdom says that unless there is a commercial entity, things won't work properly. This is a result of another piece of prevaiing wisdom that people will not do anything without a profit motive. We have demolished the idea that creativity will not flourish without monetary incentive -- worse, that creativity will not flourish whithout exclusionary rights, without monopoly. Prof. Patnaik theoretically showed this to be false in his speech at the seminar in Thiruvananthapuram on 6th and Prof. Eben Moglen showed how this is false in real life. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who believe this to be true, including some people who themselves may not act accordingly. The adoption of Free Software in IT@School could have happened much earlier but for the belief that a commercial entity is needed for support.

The article mentioned the MoU covering not just "e-education" but also "e-governance"(I hate using e- in front of any word, but here I am simply copying what was there in the article).

Strictly speaking, support is not about creativity. Yes, sometimes it might involve a bit of creativity in solving certain problems, but mostly the problems are common and repetitive. So, while I am not disputing that "creativity can flourish without commercial incentive", I feel that is somewhat of an irrelevant point in this discussion, and any further discussion on that lines would only take us away from my question here i.e. How can we ensure non-commercial, timely and reliable support to organizations moving to FOSS solutions?

My experience with users groups however points to the fact that LUGs are not always suitable for providing a support environment to organizations - * LUGs hate repetitive questions * LUGs do not guarantee that a problem would be solved in a certain amount of time * LUGS do not guarantee that someone would actually go ahead and do the required amount of research to solve a previously un-encountered problem, * many LUGs are filled with people who have a certain way of interactions with newcomers in a way that is quite different from similar interactions in a professional environment.

All of these are important for organisations moving to FOSS. And yes, they hold for government institutions too.

Please do not misunderstand me when I say this, but I personally do not think that requirement for FOSS support in the education field is not as demanding (in terms of the "time" factor) as in other organisations. So while a certain level of community support might seem adequate for the education field, it might not be good enough for other institutions.

I admit that I have not followed the contributions of FSF towards IT@School at all, and so I am interested in knowing that model further. From what I have learned that there is a training mechanism in place for teachers here. But, since training is almost completely different from day-to-day support, what is the mechanism in place to support teachers when they need it. What is the level of support promised to them by this project?

- Sandip

"V. Sasi Kumar" sasi.fsf@gmail.com writes:

There could be problems. But commercial support is also not of very high quality. Our experience is that we don't get support when we need it, the support personnel think that we are idiots, but these people often know little. I remember a guy who came to add a CD writer to a computer we had. The user had little clue about how to do it, and I think the guy

Can you name the entity?

V. Sasi Kumar said on Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 06:21:43PM +0530,:

meet him. Right now, one of our Divisions has purchased what is called a NAS from Wipro. Over the last few months, people have been coming and trying to install it properly. This has Open BSD embedded, I think. The people who come have no clue about Unixes and know to work only on M$ Windose.

All the more reason to BUY support from a specialised GNU/Linux / *nix provider?

On 6/11/07, Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org wrote:

Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:

...

Please do not misunderstand me when I say this, but I personally do not

think

...

that requirement for FOSS support in the education field is not as

demanding

Err .. that "not as" in the last line above, should be "as".

OK enough nit-picking and leg-pulling... We need to close this thread now.

Regards,

ah

**Comments Inline**

On 6/11/07, Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org wrote:

Amol Hatwar wrote:

...

OK enough nit-picking and leg-pulling... We need to close this thread

now.

...

Why? Do you think this discussion is all about "nit-picking and leg-pulling"?

I didn't think... I felt it. Someone posts a news entry and gets shocked. Someone else wants to know why the person is shocked... and the thread goes searching its own soul.

Anyway, you've changed the subject, and brought a "real issue" under the scanner.

I was asking a question here which you could have found out if you had read

my last complete mail - " How can we ensure non-commercial, timely and reliable support to organizations moving to FOSS solutions?".

Supporting FOSS is a difficult affair. If I am a company that makes a widget, it is easy for me to support it, because I made it. On the other hand, FOSS has often to be supported by people who might not have been instrumental in making it. On the field, they rely on their experience in tinkering and playing with it. A person who can support FOSS software, thus needs to be "more skilled" unlike software support people on other proprietary solutions. The later also enjoys luxuries of training and running back to the company if a given recipe doesn't work out.

Secondly, support is a qualitative thing. Some organizations might just need general guidance, some other organization might need to know why a mail server crashed and also want it fixed within 30 minutes at three in the morning.

Now speaking of non-commercial support, I don't know if it can be done. Pardon my skepticism here, but I don't know of a way where support can be "copied" just like the software in question itself. For every incident or request, somebody's time and effort will be required. How would you compensate this person?

While I must agree that non-commercial support would a great thing to have, but I also know that I have neither the brains nor the motivations to throw myself at this problem. Commerce, specialization and division of labour are a fact of life. I trust someone with my coffee, while someone else trusts me for my programming. We keep score on the "worth" of the time spent in rendering service using money.

Is that too much of an irrelevant question to discuss here? If so, why? I am

only trying to find out how much this subject figures in FSF's goals.

What FSF and FSFI should be doing or shouldn't be doing has been discussed a plethora of times before. For the goals that it has, and what it has done, it is already a well-oiled efficient machine. If you are still interested in providing non-commercial support, it will best to have a separate outfit with its own goal and vision.

But then the real question would be: How would you be different from the Redhats and Canonicals?

Cheers,

ah

Pramode C.E. wrote:

...

I was asking a question here which you could have found out if you had read my last complete mail - " How can we ensure non-commercial, timely and reliable support to organizations moving to FOSS solutions?".

It should be possible to build two kinds of support structures - (a) the local engineering colleges (at least a few of them) have students who are technically much more competent than so-called `support staff' of most big companies. Maybe, we might try forming some kind of `foss development cells' in these colleges and put them to work actively solving problems. Yes, there are lots of practical difficulties (students can't work full time, you won't get them during exam time, ...), but at least, what is wrong in trying this out?

I think the "FOSS Development Cell" is definitely a good idea. As many of you who were involved in the Summer Workshop in Angadipuram know, that a similar idea regarding Technical support teams had come up during the discussion there and the 'FOSS Development Cell' (FDC) would be taking that idea to a much wider region and scope. Currently one of the main issues is the proficiency of the local hardware vendors in GNU/Linux support. So, we need to introduce the local hardware vendors to the scene. They already have a small, still efficient support staff their own (Most of them are not well trained in GNU/Linux). In order to leverage this current setup we need a three tiered structure. At the very top level, we professional will given necessary technical and guidance support to the students of the "FOSS Dev Cells" in various engineering colleges. At the next level, these trained students can then impart this knowledge to the technicians of the local hardware vendors. If this is in place, then just as we do it now, these local hardware vendors can now provide assured service to all the technical problems that may be faced by the schools. This structure would be faster and efficient than any support that Red Hat staff can deliver in Kerala. In addition, this framework helps build community-level interaction, wherein people at the local level try to solve their own problems.

(b) Even when you look at the commercial support angle, what is more sensible is developing enough expertise locally - kerala has an abundant supply of unemployed graduates - and most of them are not dumb. Why not think of training these people so that they can be gainfully self-employed as `FOSS technical consultants'.

When we think `commercial', let's not think of big companies. Lets think of small, local enterprises.

Professionals------>FDC--------->Local HW vendors--------->Schools

In the hierarchy, there already exist a financial link between the vendors and the schools. FDC can also expect some funding from the vendors as well mainly to support local community activities in respective colleges.

Regards, Pramode

---

  Looking for people who are YOUR TYPE? Find them at in.groups.yahoo.com

---

Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends

Regards, Sreejith

2007/6/8, Sandip Bhattacharya sandip@lug-delhi.org:

You will get a clearer background if you check Anivar's mail which I forwarded here.

1. Who do you think a government department should contact if they have any IT need? A local LUG? fsf-india? Or would it be normal to give out a public tender?

It is nothing new. It was the way all this time - and the shock came because they -- claiming to setup a knowledge society -- didn't consulted us -- where as the previous government did it in every step from deciding on syllabus, forming support groups, deciding to dump proprietary infrastructure ...

You know who decided to dump the proprietary stuff from the IT@ School syllabus? The decision was taken by the teachers (85% of teachers supported an all Free Software environment). It was not an undemocratic and/or secret decision/process. We have fought for the establishment of Free Software based curriculum and it isn't quite heartening to see such a change in the direction of government (we hoped to get more support and it is turning out to be the opposite). We are asking for public consultation and transparency (at least to the extend of the previous government). We have nothing against Red Hat. The problem is the way government is acted.

2. Who do you think should be on the lookout for government tenders, and pay the tender fees, put forward their solution and promise support? A local LUG? FSF-India? I think FSF-India has better things to do than that.

The earlier government have consulted the community (teachers, Free Software enthusiasts) before making decisions (some times we had to take tough stand - like threaten to boycott the exams if the exam software can't be run on Free Software platform).

3. Who do you think a government department should contact when their brand new printer needs to be installed on the Linux desktops? A Local lug? FSF-India? If you look at how Linux newbies are treated in any LUG (in India, or anywhere else), I think not(try saying RTFM to a government department?).

There are government agencies - like CDAC, CDIT... working in this field and have the skills and ability to do it. And we have no problem if it is Red Hat either - what we raise is the concern about IT@School undergoing a change. It has been our hard work that made this possible. We have a working system and good support from the teachers. We have no issues with this part of the deal -- Red Hat giving support for government agencies.

If we are interested in seeing Free software being used widely in government adhering to Free software principles, we should be setting up a completely commercial entity to do so, whose primary work would be to do 1,2,3.

We made it work without such a commercial entity -- IT@SCHOOL, it is proof of concept plus running code. We have every right to be concerned.

There is no point being shocked, otherwise.

I think you didn't get the point.

Cheers Praveen