A Brief History of The OpenCD / Resisting the Monoculture / The Future / Conclusions / Works Cited
Introduction: A Brief History of The OpenCD
In April of last year, Henrik Nilsen Omma was discouraged. He and
other enthusiasts of freely distributable Open Source Software
(OSS) such as the Linux operating system grew increasingly
frustrated at the lack of widespread appeal of this and similar
software, beyond the so-called "techie" crowd. They knew the
problem was not with the software itself. Free software such as the
excellent Mozilla web browser was feature-rich compared to its
often-patched, yet feature-bereft Windows counterpart. The same
could be said for OpenOffice, a full-featured, free office
productivity suite that included many standard features unavailable
in then-current versions of Microsoft Office. Nilsen Omma voiced
his concerns in an article on Newsforge, one of the premier sites
devoted to Linux and related OSS. In this article, titled An Idea
for a Free Software CD, Nilsen Omma argued that:
"there are many hurdles when persuading people to switch to Free Software. Most people will not change their entire operating system just for fun; it's too unfamiliar, and they will lose the use of all their favorite programs at the same time. ...The key, as I see it, is to encourage people to use the high-quality Free Software now becoming available in the OS they are already using" (Nilsen Omma, 2002)
The article generated a great deal of interest from the open source community. At that point, Nilsen Omma set up a basic site for the project, dubbed The OpenCD. The goal was simple, if complicated: Create an Open Source showcase, where "new users can try out Open Source software in the comfort of their own, familiar operating system, rather than having to take the drastic step of reformatting their hard drive to install Linux". By focusing on showing the benefits of Open Source Software to a broader audience than that which typically uses it, Nilsen Omma hoped to encourage its adoption. (TheOpenCD, 2003)
Numerous volunteers joined and a considerable amount of time was spent debating the focus and scope of the project, coordinating tasks, and writing documentation. The group decided on releasing a CD, rather than just creating a site with download links to the respective programs. This decision was based on the fact that such sites already exist, and that the targeted demographic for the project -- those new to OSS -- might generally prefer not to have to download programs, and might instead prefer simple CD-based installation.
The result was the 1.0 version of The OpenCD, released as a freely downloadable ISO CD image, last December. Nilsen Omma acknowledges that going with an ISO is somewhat of a necessary evil, in that such disk images are typically meant for more technical users. However, the general assumptions is that these users will "download it, make CDs and give them to their less technical friends."
The criteria for determining which applications were included on the CD image were and still are fairly detailed, and involve a nomination process where testers review potential applications for quality, usability, and related factors. These testers then post their findings in forums on The OpenCD site, where further discussion takes place. The only "hard and fast" rule is that the CD image will not include two similar applications, even if bothare good. This is done to help reduce any likely confusion among the target demographic for the CD. Nilsen Omma considers this one of the projects best strengths. He asserts that their job "is to make difficult choices so that the user doesn't have to." (Nilsen Omma, personal communication, September 18, 2003)
While specifically hoping to attract "non-techies" to OSS, secondary and higher education institutions are also a key target group for this project. They have kept this in mind during the development process and have consciously excluded certain programs that schools or parents might object to such as games with violence and peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing software clients.
With the 1.2 version of the CD due out this month and an eventual 2.0 version expected in 2004, work on The OpenCD continues. The goal of using it as a vehicle to showcase OSS remains the same, even though some of the applications will likely change with each version as various OSS projects rise and fall.
Even with this specific attention to paid prospective educational clients, adoption of The OpenCD at the institutional level remains an uphill battle. Most schools are immersed in a Windows monoculture. Despite widespread budgetary woes here in the U.S. and elsewhere, despite widespread virus and worm attacks on Windows-based products, and despite ever-increasing licensing fees from Microsoft, most schools will likely continue with this monoculture. Phil Harper, one of the lead developers of The OpenCD, stated that the reactions he typically receives from institutional IT departments toward free software "have always been a little less than enthusiastic". (Harper, personal communication, September 15 2003)
Yet, some might argue that such a monoculture may essentially be beneficial, regardless of what limitations or restrictions on content use are mandated. That is, if a critical mass of users adopt the software of a certain company, which in turn forms a defacto standardization on emerging technologies, would not such standardization ultimately be in everyones' best interest? Would it not lead to a more efficient, streamlined computing experience for all? I would argue against this notion, as would IT industry analyst Gartner, which recently issued a reoprt claiming "absolute reliance on only Windows computers could result in a major failure." (Lemos, 2003)
Technologist Richard Hoffman perhaps best explains why such a technological monoculture should be avoided. In Resisting the Path of Least Resistance, Hoffman states:
"A monoculture tends to be fragile because of its sameness. Perhaps more importantly, however, a monoculture is by nature slow to adapt, change and innovate--particularly in the case of the computer industry. What incentive is there to really innovate when your only competitor is yourself? All you need to do is make slow, incremental changes just often enough to assure a steady supply of upgrade revenue. The pace of genuine change slows to a crawl, and opportunities for dramatic quantum leaps in technology disappear. ...The chance of anything startling or groundbreaking happening is vanishingly small, and in fact, there's a very strong vested interest in not rocking the slow, comfortable boat." (Hoffman, 2001)
Hoffman is by no means alone in this assertion. In The Ecology of Computer Viruses, Jamais Cascio argues that continued reliance on the Microsoft monoculture is at best risky. He states that "The relentless spread of a single platform, steadily incorporating more and more interrelated 'features,' marginalizes, pushes out and finally kills its ecological competition -- in turn creating the very monocultures that leave the software vulnerable to subversion." (Cascio, 1999) Casio's point is well-taken, particularly considering the incessant wave of computer viruses and worms designed specifically designed to exploit vulnerabilities within Windows and Windows-based staples, such a Word, Outlook, and Internet Explorer.
Internet Explorer is an unfortunate example that illustrates Hoffman's point. During the height of the browser wars, Microsoft made clear strides in innovating its way past Netscape. Features such as auto-fill forms, auto-complete urls, and on-the-fly text resizing made for a better overall browsing experience, and left Netscape Communicator looking like your father's Oldsmobile. However, since Microsoft effectively won the browser war, further development of innovative features in Internet Explorer have all but ceased. Tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, integrated Google searches, and cookie-blocking specific to advertising servers are all features common to modern browsers such as Mozilla, Opera, and Safari yet absent from Internet Explorer. Admittedly, there are several third-party options that would bring many of these features to Internet Explorer. However, with the possible exception of the Google Toolbar, the average web-surfer would be unlikely to take the time to research, evaluate, download, and install these add-ons.
A similar situation exists for Microsoft Office. In OpenOffice 1.1, users can save any file in Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF) or Macromedia's Flash format on-the-fly, without needing to have the full version of Adobe Acrobat or Macromedia Flash installed. To say that such features are convenient would be an understatement. Using OpenOffice, students could create a presentation, save it as a PDF, then put it online or send it to anyone via email, knowing that anyone with at least the freeware Acrobat Reader (recently renamed Adobe Reader) could access the file. The same applies for any file saved Flash format. The only software needed to access the file would be a web browser with the Flash plugin, as opposed to the full version of PowerPoint. While the free PowerPoint Player would also meet this need, there is no equivalent for Word or Excel files. With OpenOffice, this is not a problem. Additionally, Microsoft Office files are compatible with OpenOffice.
Current applications included on the 1.2 version of The OpenCD are as follows:
| Office | Internet | Multimedia | Utilities |
|
|
|
|
| Screenshots and additional information on these applications can be accessed at The Open CD site. | |||
According to Harper, the pending 2.0 edition of TheOpenCD is where preparation becomes more complex. "We have rather a lot to get sorted out before an english version can be released. We have a browser based interface to be served up by a special mini web server ...we have bugs to resolve and documentation to write". Harper and Nielson Omma stress that the 2.0 edition will also have a more informative and intuitive interface, and a host of brand new software releases which are currently in beta and prerelease. Additionally, the 2.0 edition may also include some open content, such as images and photographs, for use with Open Source software such as the GIMP. (Harper, personal communication, September 15 2003)
Given the relatively high percentage of Mac OS-based systems in education, it would seem reasonable to assume that there would be a Mac version of The OpenCD, in additionto the Windows version, or perhaps a hybrid CD. However, this will not happen anytime soon. With recent software releases such as BSD Unix-based Mac OS X, the KHTML-based Safari web browser (or the Gecko-based Camino browser), and related system-level components from Apple, as a platform the Mac is already quite friendly with OSS. Since Apple has already embraced OSS, and since the primary goal of TheOpenCD is to introduce OSS to those currently using proprietary systems, there is little need to increase awareness on the Mac side. However, several of the applications featured on The OpenCD, such as Audacity, Mozilla, and OpenOffice, are available in Mac OS X versions (via downloading and installing from their respective sites).
The current group volunteers involved with The OpenCD is already stretched quite thin. Yet, this apparent shortage in resources might soon be alleviated, or at least supplemented enough to achieve a more widespread awareness and diffusion of the CD itself. Members of the OpenCD project are now working in conjunction with a new center at Oxford University, called OSS Watch, which aims to provide objective information about OSS to academic institutions in the United Kingdom.
While not all of the applications included on The OpenCD are specifically geared toward education, they are still focused on productivity in a more general sense. Privacy tools such as WinPT, file organization utilities such as CDex and FileZilla, and compression software such as 7zip are convenient, relatively easy to learn, and free use and distribute. Audacity, the free audio editor, is ideal for developing multimedia web-ready audio content. It sports quick and simple import / export features somewhat similar to the venerable-yet-discontinued SoundEdit 16.
Will The OpenCD become widely diffused, eventually helping free software make a collective dent in the Microsoft Monoculture? Maybe, maybe not. The situation right now resembles one of gnats swarming around a large, slow-moving beast. Since Internet Explorer has not been substantially updated in years beyond the usual assortment of "critical system updates" and security patches, since neither Windows nor any of the applications in Office support on-the-fly conversion to PDF and other non-Microsoft file formats, and since Outlook has steadily evolved into being the vehicle of choice for virus delivery, I believe Microsoft has been taking their monoculture for granted.
Microsoft has essentially been relying on inertia to keep our students, and ourselves, immersed in Windows. If we are to collectively make our way through this monoculture that has become increasingly pervasive in our institutions, I believe we must look at technological alternatives. The OpenCD represents one small, decisive step toward such alternatives.
Cascio, Jamais. (1999, April 7). The Ecology of Computer Viruses.
Salon.com.
Harper, Phil. (2003, September 15). Personal Communication.
Hoffman, Richard. (2001, April 16). Resisting the Path of Least
Resistance. Network Computing.
Lemos, Robert. (2003, October 8). Gartner echoes concerns on
Microsoft reliance. News.com
Nilsen Omma, Henrik. (2002 April 20). An idea for a Free Software CD.
Newsforge.
Nilsen Omma, Henrik. (2003, September 18). Personal Communication.
The OpenCD. Retrieved October 20, 2003, from http://www.theopencd.org
OpenOffice 1.1 - Product Description. (2003). OpenOffice.org
Retrieved
October 20, 2003, from http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/04/07/melissa/
Retrieved October 22, 2003, from
http://www.networkcomputing.com/shared/printArticle.jhtml?
article=/columnists/1208colhoffman.html&pub=nwc
Retrieved October 14, 2003, from http://news.com.com/2100-7355-5088590.html
Retrieved October 3,
2003, from
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/04/19/2019237&mode=
thread&tid=37
Retrieved October 2, 2003, fromhttp://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html