Inline comments. > Last I checked, this thread was "AICTE signing agreement to make students > slaves > of Auto Desk, Microsoft". Not about comparison between proprietary software > and > software. Or whether some FLOSS alternative for a particular software exists.
Finally a reasonable post (thanks Triveni). "but don't > expect the educational institutes to make a software choice based on your > prejudice for a piece of proprietary software." I think that is a very important point that has been said. > According to ET: Autodesk and Microsoft have become partner to deliver free > access to development software and design software for institutions, students > and faculty in the country. > > The issues being discussed here are: > > In my opinion, answer to these questions are: > a. Are students going to learn about software development/design software? > => No. We cannot say that yet because we don't know what is in the package. If one of them make available a software development platform (which is likely) then my answer would change to yes. For those who don't know this yet, Microsoft is not Windows. Now, the "programming practices" that are inculcated may or may not be to my liking but that doesn't mean the answer in such a case would be no. > Are students going to learn about only the proprietary packages of > the companies? > => Yes. Of course yes! But I think this question does not serve much purpose. For example, if somebody is taught a FOSS application/package, is the person going to learn about only the FOSS application/package? I think the answer to that will be yes too. Mind you, the emphasis here was on "package" and not practice/idea/ideology. > b. Do the students have any freedom to make changes to these packages if they > wish they want a better program to use? > => No. I agree the answer would most likely be no. But that is not the intended purpose. I guess this may be reason enough to show dissent. > c. Are the students going to be dependent on these proprietary packages and > become handicapped in their future career by only learning about these > packages and no idea of any alternatives possible? > => Yes. Let me again pose an alternate question. If students are made to use FOSS packages, will they be handicapped in their future career by only learning about those packages and no idea of any proprietary alternates? IMHO, the answer is yes again. > d. Do these companies gain unfair advantage in the market by these practices? > => Yes. Yes! > e. Whether Autodesk and MS are being forced down the throat of the students > (or future market)? > => Yes. I don't think this is true. The deal is to make available these tools for free. That means that most students don't have to worry about buying expensive softwares. It depends on the policies and school/college/university curriculum on whether they require certain software for learning or they wish to impart "ideas" in education. IMHO, FOSS can not be made popular by forcing it down the throats of students. What this thread has mostly reflected except probably a couple of rational posts is idle bashing instead of constructive criticism. I invite and encourage thoughts on the discussion at hand. SB -- l...@iitd - http://tinyurl.com/ycueutm
