Most people, in a professional setting at least, don't really care about that (especially as it's not their money that's paying for it)...

A lot of design does not happen in a "professional setting". It is done by freelancers, and small shops, and before they are that they are students and trying to build up a portfolio. I am discussing their insistence on Adobe products, when in that situation where it is their money, and they don't have a lot of it, the no cost part of free software does matter. The freedom part of free software matters too because there is mutual respect in place.

Yes, if you are working for a big company that can afford it, then software and cost decisions don't matter to the individual employee, it all just magically appears on your desk. But these independents do need to integrate their work with the workflow of these bigger places, and that is how Adobe has everyone convinced other things are not worth their time. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment, it takes time to learn something else, and most people just want their tools to get out of the way. The free alternatives sometimes need to improve their UI to reduce the learning curve for someone coming from the Adobe world. The proof is in the work though, and if good design is created with these tools, and people know it, I think it gives a stronger reason for people to give it a 2nd look. A few cool kids can do a lot to improve the popularity of a group.

The free alternatives are not perfect or right for every project. Not having to sneak around with cracks, etc, or break the bank, I think is a strong plus.

Exactly. Its even worse than that. Most designers are aware of Gimp, and a few know of Inkscape, but when I talk to designers, they just don't want to use them. I explain that these programs are really free as in freedom, respecting you as a person and not calling you a criminal for not paying arbitrarily high prices, and offer most of the functionality you need for most projects, especially web stuff. Still, Gimp and Inkscape won't get you hired.

Design involves workflows, and Adobe through their suites owns the workflow. There used to be a bit more competition in the design world, with Quark (which has withered) and Aldus (which Adobe bought), and Macromedia (which Adobe bought), all bringing something to the workflow. Now Adobe owns it end to end. Designers want to design, and not worry about software. And to design, someone needs to pay you, and for someone to pay you, you need to use the tools everyone else is using. So you pirate Adobe so you can work with others, and when the day comes that you are working for the sort of place that might be mindful of the BSA, or you are making the big money yourself, you finally buy a license. All that time before then was kind of like an extended "trial period" really.

Still, I do think something can be done. There is plenty of design in free and open source software projects and companies. They should whenever possible insist on use of FOSS tools, and they should make a big deal about the fact that they use them, and why they use them. I know its a niche market, but Gimp has already found some success in the rather big money niche of film. There is a huge reserve army of unemployed designers who just might be interested in the whole "free as in freedom" idea as long as it also brought a little "money as in paycheck".

In a free society there will be risk. Freedom brings risk. Freedom is messy.

Apple has gone with the benevolent dictator approach to things. They built up a technology foundation on free and open software, and promoted the fact that they did, but now that that does not suit them because the meaning of freedom changed when it was realized the relationship was becoming exploitive, they decided they wanted out. I was a Mac guy from 92, but switched to Linux in 08 because no matter how benevolent they may seem, dictators by definition impose their interests and ignore mine when they are not the same.

Is it the GLPv3's fault? Just as much it as it is the rest of the world's fault that many web sites are blocked in China. That argument really turns the idea of freedom on its head, as many have indicated. When its my rights vs yours, one person does not have the right to effectively take away an other's rights.

So there's that Franklin quote which has become a cliche, but does sum this up nicely, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I agree completely. I see there is a big difference between those I work with that have computer science educations and those who do not.

I have what lately seems like a rather old and quaint idea of education, that it is there to teach you how to think, its not there to make you a good worker. While good thinkers will usually be good workers, the converse is not always true. I was not particularly great at the math parts of compsci. I found these topics fascinating, but very difficult to understand completely or correctly once I got beyond calculus. These courses did stretch my mind though and give me new approached to problem solving, and in my career I have seem them touch upon a lot of the things that I do in some way.

I am a web developer, so most of my work is about integrating existing libraries to reach some visible output, and do it quickly. I could do this job well without the math, logic, systems design, etc, classes under my belt. There is more to it though that just making code that works. There are considerations of maintainability, efficiency, flexibility, and resilience that come in to play in order to anticipate the client's needs, and so deliver a better product in the end. Often internationally outsourced projects come back home because they don't get attention to those things in that environment. If we give that up in our education system, we loose the ability to innovate and really serve the needs of those we work for that has been a major strength of university graduates.

I do agree that not everyone may want to or be able to work at that level, and there should be a strong trade school system in place for those who fall at that point. I am not disparaging that. We will always need maintenance engineers, code level tech support, etc. Its sort of the difference between a mechanic, the assembly line worker, and the car designer. Not that those in the tech school system should not get any exposure to these concepts, the focus is just different there.

Lets not water down our universities in the endless pursuit of jobs. Like so many things that use jobs as an argument, it ends up being a race to the bottom. Maintaining high standards in the best way to ensure that industries are able to continue to innovate and grow.

Lets assume that what they say is true, that open source can cause a company to spend more on learning to use software and integration. But once you spend money on that, you retain the value of that experience in your employees. You may also gain the ability to better customize a solution to your environment than relying on the priorities of your vendor. If you think in terms of cash, you have spent more money, but if you think in terms of value, that money more likely went to improve your staff instead of help someone else's profits.

I do think using open source and/or free software does demand and make smarter employees, which should be seen as good for business.

Is this just a class on what Linux is and how to use it, a class on system administration, a class on operating system architecture, a little of everything?

I would say to:
- First give students a broad overview of what tools there are, GUI and command line. Let them see it is useful and what the big moving parts are. Wow them a little.
- Explain what Linux is:
      - What is free and open source software and why is that important
      - Some history behind why Linux exists, and how it got there
      - Explain why Linux and the tools on top of it are important, who and what is using it and how
      - Explain terms things like distributions, the choices available, live cds, etc
- Get technical:
      - Introduce the shell and some basic scripting
      - Explain software installation and choices
      - Explain the boot process and system configuration files
      - Do a concrete project, like set up a simple web server, starting from a clean install

I would take a look at what the typical future classes the student's might take and demonstrate how Linux lets them do the things they will be learning in depth later, giving them a broader introduction to the computer science curriculum where you are teaching. In the end, they need to see that Linux is a useful tool that gives them power and choices that Windows and Mac don't always give them, and that is something important to their future education and employment. And have some flexibility to follow the interests the students present in the class.

I understand that. You would still see the item in the web interface, still see the big message on the outside to make you aware of the brand, but you would not get the physical item unless you say you want it. Brands can still get you the big message for cheaper, but not have the spend the extra money on sending out the details unless you actually care.

Why is opt-in and opt-out so sacrosanct when it comes to email and phone calls, but when it comes to regular mail there is so much resistance? We get so much junk, and its an environmental issue too, but opting out of junk mail is just too much effort, and we are opted in so easily with no action of our own much of the time.

Advertising is the insidious glue that greases and pays for so much culture and so many services, so its is a necessary evil of western capitalism. Advertising is something I wish was scaled back a little. Doing that does mean some realignment in what things cost and how some things work, but I do think its worth thinking about, instead of us all just resigning to a fate of constant marketing bombardment. While technology can and has made some things worse in this regard, it also can give us some creative ways to get a better balance back.

In my post I just said the front and back would be scanned, not the contents. The post office already scans and OCRs the addresses on each item, regardless of type. Taking a full front and back scan or photo would not be such a problem. If I want to see the full item and its contents, I just click to have it delivered.

Would the increased revenue minus the costs of the storage and processing work out to a profit? I don't know, but I think it could. Right now I can rent a PO box and it is manually filled by someone, so I don't see this as being so different, but it would be more automatic and centralized.

Mass marketers could be offered a new product, virtual mail. Instead of sending me the real thing, an image of what they want to send me appears in my virtual PO box. If I want it, only then does the marketer actually mail it, so they can save on printing and postage costs, and know they have a good potential customer, and the post office does not have scanning or storage costs for that item.

I do agree that intentionally ambiguous mail is a problem. Credit card companies love to do this, sending me cash advance checks I don't want disguised as something that might actually be important. That has to get dealt with other ways.

The post office has already been doing a lot to decrease its labor force and do odd things to manage part-time vs full-time, etc. If the variables are adjusted correctly, this could produce a smaller more stable post office that now also has a reason to focus on the needs of mail receivers as well as senders.

I have had this idea for a long time for the postal service to both make and save money. I would pay a small monthly fee for the post office to NOT deliver my mail.

Specifically, I want a virtual PO Box. All my mail would go to a processing center where the front and back of each item is scanned, OCRed, and placed on a web site where I can look at it all. I can then direct them to send or shred any individual item. Because the return address, etc, is OCRed, I can also set up filters for mail I want automatically delivered, like bills.

I don't have the deal with the hassle of sorting through and recycling junk mail, the post office makes some extra money, and they save money by having to deliver less mail. Direct marketers might not like it, but maybe they could be notified of send or shred decisions and can use it to help cull their mailing lists.

My high school teachers said that college is not so much about learning how to do something, but learning how to think. In the technology field, the specifics are going to change constantly, but you need to know the theories and principles behind the specifics so you can adapt as the world changes. I got a Bachelors of Science in Computer Science in 98, and while not every class I took is necessarily directly useful to me now, they did expose me to a pretty wide range of different kinds of problems and concepts that give me an additional ability to design and organize well when programming that I don't always see in my peers who didn't go through a computer science program.

I think our education system in US has gotten really out of whack, although in many ways its nothing new. Education is about being a better person, not just a better worker. You should look for that sort of approach in a school, online or not, in order to get your money's worth and have something that will actually better your life, and not just be a piece of paper that shows you jumped through the right hoops.

Why did you even join up with this place that is making you take so many classes you don't need? Didn't you look at the requirements and the sample course lists, etc, before joining? There are tons of choices out there. People take months to pick a real life college usually, with several visits, looking at course catalogs, talking to students, etc. You should place the same care into an online education if it is going to be the same sort of multi-year commitment.

I've seen a ton of bsa ads show up in my slashdot rss feeds, and they are often pretty onerous, looking for people to turn in their employers. So why is there a Slashdot article that tries to be somewhat backhandedly sympathetic to the BSA? I hope its just a coincidence.

I consider them to be a protection racket much like the RIAA is, and one that is much easier to step in. If you never run file-sharing software, you will probably never hear from the RIAA. If you have a disgruntled and misinformed employee, you may hear from the BSA, and they can get you for essentially not keeping records the way they want you to.

I think all members of the BSA should be required to include clear and obvious documentation with all of their products about just exactly what is considered proof of license, how to deal with audits, and how to get replacement proof if needed, and also clearly label their web home-pages and product packaging with the fact they are members. Consumers can then make an informed choice to either opt out and not buy from BSA members, or to take steps to protect themselves from this racket.

Our economy is collapsing around us in a series of bubbles. Advertising, although hit hard, may have further down to go, as companies looking to save money realize what works and what doesn't. Just think of your own usage of the web. What sort of advertising do you respond to, what do you find annoying and useless? There comes a point when the ad industry can no longer hold up under its own self perpetuating hype and is cut back. As revenue from this dries up as a result, how do you replace it?

I do like the idea of news sources independent to potential influence by advertisers, I don't really like the idea of different universes of news being behind different walls. With the huge amount of choice people have lately, most of us cope by sticking to sources we feel align well with and reinforce our own views. Fox News exploits this fact brilliantly on cable. The fact that I won't watch it is just as important as the fact that so many people do. But even though I am not someone interested in paying for News Corporation anything, I can still go over there and take a look at what they are saying when I feel like, and get a different point of view to consider. With these pay walls, I think there needs to be care to not also create walls around discourse and ideas, where self selected fragmentation gets even worse.

Although it does beg the question, if you have to pay with money, instead of time, to be in each "club", how much would people invest to belong? How many would drop out entirely?

If we are going to have to pay for content, I would like to see something like the cable television model, but without the local monopolies. You can pay content providers directly, al la cart, but those same providers can make bulk deals with content aggregators, and I can then pay the aggregator for discounted access to a wide range of content. This is kind of AOL used to be before it imploded, because they didn't get that when people pay, they expect a certain amount of respect and objectivity in return.

In the end, I would like everything to be freely available to everyone. But making news takes money, and if the ad bubble bursts, where will that money come from? I would hope there could be a strong not-for-profit component in whatever happens, like we have in TV with PBS, that can be free for all.

So the whole ad blocker issue may be moot, for precisely the reason why people use them in the first place.