[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:20:17PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Does Linux belong at the collegiate level? Boy, does this make me grind
my teeth, but ...
Probably not for student use. I say this because I believe (without
data, I'll admit) that utilization of public computers is probably
dropping. I see more and more students coming in with their own
computers. This means that the expenditure on Windows there probably is
almost irrelevant.
Wait...you're not arguing that students/teacher shouldn't use computers in
innovative ways....you're just arguing whether there should be public PCs?
There will always that poor disadvantaged student that needs 'em right?
Maybe. But we may be approaching the point where buying all "poor
disadvantaged students" a brand new computer may be cheaper than
maintaining funding for a public cluster of machines. One annual
administrator salary (roughly 100K), can buy 200-300 *brand new* Windows
machines *every year*.
However, that wasn't my original argument ...
I'm arguing that Windows licenses for computers which are nominally for
collegiate student public academic use is now tiny relative to the usage
of Windows for all internal office purposes since most of the student
body now have their own computers.
Therefore, trying to get a university to switch to Linux for student
computers by arguing "It's cheaper" doesn't hold water since the
colleges really don't have to pay for that many Windows licenses for
"student use" anymore.
If you want to make a cost argument, you need to make it for all of the
office PC's all over campus, nowadays.
Getting back to my comment about 100K buys 200-300 brand new computers
per year, you see the fundamental problem of computer usage nowadays.
To a first approximation, computers are *FREE*. However, the people to
use them are still expensive.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
