OpenSource

OS Software & Content

Analysis not required for traditional media

by

Having just discovered Michel Dumais, the author of the article comparing open source vs proprietary software costs in Le Devoir, I now find out that he is leaving the newspaper. After working there for six years, Dumais decided to leave when he was told to return to traditional technology reporting and basically “dumb-down” his articles on open source software and the impact of technology on society. He mentions being asked to focus on the hard facts of technology, and to minimize his analysis. This editorial request followed directly on Dumais’ piece about the GRICS learning portal software that I mentioned this week.

However, Dumais (also a blogger), sees all of this in a positive light, and gives his readers these parting words:

Soyez zen et gardez plutot vos énergies – continuer d’encourager l’appropriation du libre dans tous les domaines de la socièté civile, lorsqu’il est le meilleur outil disponible. Et à  surveiller de près le nid de frelons.

my translation: Be Zen-like and keep your energy to continue to support the use of open source in all sectors of civil society, wherever it is the best tool available. And keep a close eye on the hornets nest.

Merci Jacques.

A real comparison of costs – OS vs Proprietary

by

I had recently referred to an article on a cost comparison of portals for education, specifically open source versus proprietary, but could not find the entire report. Yesterday, Jacques Cool told me about this article in Le Devoir (in French only), which summarizes the report. I will point out the highlights in English, but if you understand French then please read the entire article.

The cost comparison was of the free, open source MILLE system and a proprietary system, based on a Microsoft platform, called Edu-Groupe from GRICS. The evaluation was conducted by a reputable university scholar, Michael Wybo, and focused on the specific needs of the Québec public school system. The report evaluated similar costs for similar types of installations. Each system was put on its own server, as well as separate servers for e-mail, databases and user authentification. Consultant and staff costs were deemed to be the same for each installation, and the starting point was from a Microsoft IT infrastructure. This last point meant that the move to the Linux-based MILLE system required a system transition as well.

Prof Wybo concluded that the use of MILLE over Edu-Groupe GRICS resulted in savings of between 59% and 75% over a five year period. According to Wybo, these are the total savings when ALL costs are examined. Michel Dumais, in Le Devoir, goes on to tell us of Microsoft’s strategy to address this issue. Microsoft is presenting at the annual conference for the Quebec association of school superintendents in May, and will be giving its own version of “Microsoft and the MILLE project”. Dumais notes that the people in charge of the MILLE project are not getting equal billing or time to present their version to these public servants.

It seems that even when the case is exceptionally clear, vested corporate interests will win out over best practices, saving tax dollars and just building a better mousetrap. Dumais concludes:


D’un côté, nous avons une solution en libre, financée à  même les fonds publics, et qui répond entièrement aux besoins du monde de l’éducation. De l’autre, nous avons des solutions propriètaires, celles de la GRICS, financées elles aussi avec des fonds publics, mais qui reviennent beaucoup plus cher à   l’état québécois.

Et on repose la question : À  terme, comment la socièté GRICS peut-elle justifier le développement de ses offres de service en logiciel propriètaire, financées à  même les fonds publics, devant les conclusions du rapport Wybo ?

my translation:

On one side we have an open source solution financed with public funds, that responds to all of our educational needs. On the other side, we have proprietary solutions, those of GRICS, also financed by public funds, but these will be much more expensive to Québec.

And we resubmit the question: in the end, how can GRICS justify the development of its proprietary system, financed with public funds, in light of the conclusions of the Wybo Report?

Open source: The sensible learning platform

by

In my mind there is little doubt that open source software really makes the most sense for learning. Learning is messy and one size does not fit everyone. Whether you approach it from a socio-constructivist perspective, as a behaviourist or only focus on the anticipated return on investment, there is no one correct way to support learning.

This means that whatever path you take, it will not be the best for everyone at all times. I suggest that you hedge your bets and invest in people instead of technology. Open source software lets you do this. Whether the case be for training or education, your major investment should NOT be in your technology. You would be better served if you cobbled together some free, open source learning applications and then invested in people to deal with the core performance issues. This "how to" support would be worth more than any fancy graphical user interface within a corporate learning portal.

For instance, I recently came across some figures for the cost of portals. Costs for proprietary systems ranged from $10,000 per processor to $125,000 per server. Using free, open source software, you could easily hire two full-time workers people for the cost of the more expensive system. Perhaps one person to handle the technical issues and the other to focus on the learning processes. In this way you would have money to spare as well as a more flexible operating model. There may be cases where you will need to purchase software but this only should be in order to meet a particular requirement that is critical for your organisation. It could be a specific online conferencing utility or perhaps a scheduling system suited to your industry. Just remember to check out the open source options first.

In the learning business, if an application meets 80% of your "wish list" requirements, then it will probably do the job in the long run. In most cases there is a suitable open source application that can address your needs. Therefore, don’t waste the bulk of your budget on your technology platform but invest it in good tools, instructors, processes, peer support groups or anything else that will benefit the learners every day. There is too much shelfware [applications that sit on the shelf and gather dust] out there to really believe that any technology will address all of your learning needs. It’s about the people …

Open Source Content in Health

by

Last week I was discussing the challenges of using open source methods for the development of courses at the community college level. Here is an example of open content made available through Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:

A Wealth of Knowledge Free to the World: JHSPH OpenCourseWare
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s OpenCourseWare (OCW) project, provides access to the School’s most popular courses.
The Bloomberg School’s OCW:

  • does not require that participants register;
  • does not grant degrees or certificates;
  • does not provide access to JHSPH faculty

This can be the end result of open source content, but I’m still wondering if anyone out there has used open source development methods inside an organisation?

Learning through Blogging

by

When you write a blog, your thoughts and comments, right or wrong, stay online for a long time. In reviewing what I have been jabbing about for the past year, I’ve pieced together some of my previous conclusions – warts & all:

Starting with learning in general:

It seems pretty clear; the basic unit of learning is the person. This person is indivisible. All learning activities, products and strategies must be centered around the person. We can then go on to develop environments for many people, but the individual is the building block – not the learning object, the course, the programme, or the institution. All of these are temporary organisations that the individual may use, or be part of.

And moving on to learning at work:

My conclusion for a while has been that knowledge cannot be managed, and neither can knowledge workers. It will take a new social contract between workers and organisations in order to create an optimally functioning enterprise. Adding management and technology won’t help either. This is the crux of everything in the new "right-sized, lean, innovative, creative" economy – getting the right balance between the organisational structure and the knowledge workers.

However:

Training without clear performance objectives, that are relevant to each learner, is useless.

And on the positive side:

What’s exciting about workflow learning is that the technology has caught up to some of the theory, and the globalized economy is making workflow learning (or something resembling it) a necessity.

Not only possible, but cheap:

An organisation’s entire KM effort could start with simple technologies. It could provide a blog to everyone, letting workers blog as they wanted. RSS aggregators could keep an eye on blogs of interest, and maybe even a blog rating system could be included in the performance management system. Yes, the better writers would get better rankings, but so would those who solve problems. A bottom-up approach to KM, at a minimal cost, makes a lot more sense than betting that some centralized system, with a huge training bill, will solve all of our problems.

Because:

What I like best about open source is that the development process is a real meritocracy, much like being an entrepreneur. In small business, if you don’t deliver, you can’t make an honest living.

And finally:

Informal learning, facilitated by the likes of blogs & wikis, works well for general education, and for continued learning outside of the "classroom". Informal learning (education in the broadest sense) is messy by its very nature. Training, such as how to drive a car, can use a more scientific method to
optimize training time, achieve the desired performance and reduce the risk of accidents. Training and education can even use the same tools, like simulations, but not the same approach. Education and training are complementary, but distinct.

Still a work in progress ;-)

Conference on Engaging in Open Source

by

The ACM Chapter at Dalhousie University in Halifax is hosting the Conference on Engaging in OS on 12/13 May. Invited speakers include folks from Sun and the Department of National Defence. Exploring the Business of Open Source by Brian Barry looks interesting. The organisers are still calling for papers, but I cannot find any information on how to register or the cost of admission. Anyone else know more about this?

I’d be willing to carpool if any New Brunswickers or PE Islanders want to head down for one or both days. Also would be interested if anyone knows the presenters, or has heard them before. For those outside of the area, you might want to attend this conference in Halifax on the Thursday/Friday and then head to Fredericton for the Monday/Tuesday Learning Innovations Symposium – a double header! Any comments from the Moncton LUG members or other groups?

Update: Registration info is now available, with fees listed as $75 + HST (On or Before April 28, 2005) or $100 + HST after the 28th.

Giving it away

by

In the April edition of Business 2.0 (requires paid subscription) there is an interesting article, "The Great Giveaway", about Amazon, Google and eBay, as they open up their data for others to create innovative web applications and services. The basic realization is that one company alone cannot follow all of the innovation possibilities, so let’s open it up for other developers to expand the potential of our platform. Though not for all kinds of business, opening up some of the data is a growing phenomenon:

Eric von Hippel, a business professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, explains those old rules: "We come from a culture where if you invested in it, you kept it. That was your competitive advantage." The rise of open-source software certainly challenged that notion. The rise of open data and Web services goes even further, holding out the promise of automating the links between online businesses. In geek-speak, such links are known as application programming interfaces, or APIs, through which more and more companies are revealing their vital data. As Vermeulen says, "Those that succeed have to think about removing walls instead of putting them up."

Opening up the data has spawned new companies, such as ScoutPal, which lets you check the price of Amazon’s merchandise, via your cellphone, as you shop for bargains off the Net. The service is particularly aimed at used book buyers who need to know the current market value of the books they wish to buy.

Update: If you would like to dig deeper into API’s and how they are the HTML of Web 2.0 (lots of acronyms there), then go to Seth Goldstein’s post:

As of 2005, the Internet has replaced the desktop PC as the primary platform for APIs. Unlike Microsoft and the desktop, however, nobody controls the web as a platform; although certain companies do oversee enormous pools of user data and have the opportunity to direct such traffic as they see fit. The talk of Google and Yahoo! (and now IAC) as web platforms center around their ability to recycle users through complex interconnecting networks of search, email, dating, travel, shopping, local services and more. This is the web version of the gated AOL community circa 1996. Ironically, AOL is now desperately racing to open their proprietary (Rainman) environment to a public web site (AOL.com) before Yahoo! fully eclipses its relevancy.

OS Portals in Education

by

I came across this reference from Linux du-Québec to a study (in French) on the comparitive costs of proprietary and open source portals in education. The study was conducted by Michael Wybo, a visiting professor at the Montreal business school, HEC, who specialises in open source. According to Wybo:

Les coûts d’acquisition de la solution logicielle libre sont approximativement la moitié des coûts d’acquisition de la solution propriétaire le moins chère, et cela en tenant compte des coûts de migration d’une technologie à un autre.
[My translation: Acquisition costs for open source are about half the costs of the cheapest proprietary solution, even when taking into account any system migration costs]

The OS system in question is based on the MILLE project (an open source framework for education). According to the comments on the extract, the complete report is available from CRIM, but is not readily available to the public, even though it appears that public money was used to fund this study.

Does anyone have any more information on this study?