www.public-software.in
Public Software for the Public Sector
The pedagogical argument for free software
“Constructivist approach to learning” The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, produced by NCERT emphasises that learning happens when the learner actively participates in the process of learning and not when the learner is a passive recipient of knowledge as a finished product. This is applicable to computer related learning as well. Software can be really learnt only when the learner actually is able to modify the code, write software, and develop applications.
To reflect the spirit of the NCF, our schools should provide learners with the opportunity to create and modify software. Expecting students to write software without having access to free software is like expecting students to write books without allowing them to read books. This is possible only through the use of free software and not through proprietary software. Secondly if our students learn only proprietary software, they will become dependant on it and also purchase proprietary software for their own individual or household use – this is largely the situation in India, where most households use proprietary software, since they have not even heard of free software. Private software vendors offer their software at extremely low prices to schools, because they want to make students dependant on their software and not explore alternatives. A senior official in Brazil called Microsoft a 'drug pusher' for this reason, offering the initial samples at little or no cost and then benefiting from having made the user dependant on their product. Thirdly, digital learning material created by the teachers and students (which the NCF regards as an important part of the learning process), created using proprietary software, will get locked into the proprietary formats of these applications and will require one to continue paying money even to open them and read them. Open standards and software exist precisely so that this is prevented. One needs to point out that proprietary locking, while free alternatives exist, is a ploy to continue milking the user for profits far into the future. We already have this unfortunate situation where teachers have made hundreds of presentations using proprietary software, to read which, each user needs to procure a copy of the software, thus making user pay for learning material created by the public school system.
To reflect the spirit of the NCF, our schools should provide learners with the opportunity to create and modify software. Expecting students to write software without having access to free software is like expecting students to write books without allowing them to read books. This is possible only through the use of free software and not through proprietary software. Secondly if our students learn only proprietary software, they will become dependant on it and also purchase proprietary software for their own individual or household use – this is largely the situation in India, where most households use proprietary software, since they have not even heard of free software. Private software vendors offer their software at extremely low prices to schools, because they want to make students dependant on their software and not explore alternatives. A senior official in Brazil called Microsoft a 'drug pusher' for this reason, offering the initial samples at little or no cost and then benefiting from having made the user dependant on their product. Thirdly, digital learning material created by the teachers and students (which the NCF regards as an important part of the learning process), created using proprietary software, will get locked into the proprietary formats of these applications and will require one to continue paying money even to open them and read them. Open standards and software exist precisely so that this is prevented. One needs to point out that proprietary locking, while free alternatives exist, is a ploy to continue milking the user for profits far into the future. We already have this unfortunate situation where teachers have made hundreds of presentations using proprietary software, to read which, each user needs to procure a copy of the software, thus making user pay for learning material created by the public school system.
Another problem with binary
Another problem with binary drivers is that they often don't work with current versions of Open Source software, and almost never support development mcsa 2008 snapshots of Open Source software - e.g. it is usually not directly possible for a developer to use NVIDIA's or ATI's proprietary drivers with a development snapshot of an X server or a mcpd development snapshot of the Linux kernel.In the Linux kernel development community, Linus Torvalds has made strong statements on the issue of binary-only modules, asserting: "I refuse cissp to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module", and continuing: "I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem"Another kernel scjp dumps developer, Greg Kroah-Hartman, has commented that a binary-only kernel module does not comply with the kernel's license—the GNU General Public License—it "just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff.