Argument for the Adoption of Linux in American Public Schools
Saturday, 14. June 2008, 10:41:13
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument for the Adoption of Linux in American Public Schools
I wrote this with some pretty specific qualifications for a class. I would write it differently for my own purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2008 coldstatue (@ g m x d o t c o m)
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. Modifications must be designated, annotated and, where
appropriate, include citations. A copy of the license is available at:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html#SEC1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every computer user in the world is aware of Microsoft's Windows product line. The Operating System has become so ubiquitous that many associate computing and the Internet exclusively with Bill Gates' brainchild and its bundled applications. This is unfortunate, as alternative computing solutions, which stand at the cutting edge of economic and energy efficiency, hardware longevity, technical innovation and ethical movement, and which are readily available, remain largely ignored by the American public. These solutions, namely Linux, if deployed in the American public school system, would solve a myriad of problems.
Apple's computers have traditionally been thought of as the alternative to Windows machines, but the current product line has prohibitive price points – especially when considering enterprise environments and lab situations, as are found in public schools. Most of us are somewhat aware that Apple products are extremely proprietary - in that primary hardware is only available from the software vendor. This is not much of an alternative. What this false dichotomy comes down to, for the average user, is overpaying for hardware, or, overpaying for software. In either case, security costs are a foregone conclusion.
Public schools are particularly disadvantaged when locked into proprietary computing systems because of the standard shortage of funds. Cost is the primary detractor for Microsoft and Apple products, but ecological issues, technical prowess, as well as our children's competency in the computing environment of tomorrow are at stake as well.
While the above-mentioned problems are widely known and experienced, Open Source Software (OSS) solutions are only just beginning to be seriously considered by many of the American institutions which could so greatly benefit from their advantages. In many cases, the true nature of the problems themselves is not fully understood because many are unaware of any alternative; school administrators and teachers know only that requirements are not being met. In order to explore the efficacy of Linux as a solution to these problems, the differences between Open Source and Closed Source Software must be established.
Windows and Macintosh Operating Systems are Closed Source software systems. Practically, this simply means that the computer code of which the OS consists is not open to the public. It cannot be changed, appended, or modified by anyone without explicit permission from the trademark and patent holder(s). Proprietary software also designates limitations on how many computer systems it may be installed on per purchased license. Often, many of the software applications designed to run on closed source OS's are also proprietary and restricted by licensing agreements. These applications, as well as the Operating Systems that host them, limit themselves to proprietary file formats, which restrict interoperability between different systems. This ensures that a user, and usually, a group of users, is/are locked into a particular product once a choice has been made.
This culture also creates a niche market for support. Because companies can keep their source code secret, they often have the only solution to problems that arise with their products. So, in addition to expensive OS licensing fees, application costs and any support plan purchased, a per-incident fee can be assessed should technical difficulties arise. There is also the problem of forced upgrades when a particular product's support window expires. These nearly mandatory software upgrades invariably impose higher hardware requirements than the previous software did, and thus, an endless cycle of planned obsolescence and waste ensues.
Linux, on the other hand, is open source software. It is free; both as in beer and speech, as the OSS community is fond of saying. It can be freely distributed, modified, copied, repackaged and changed in any other way you can think of, as long as proper credit is given. The result is a software that is technically superior, due to the sheer number of brilliant minds perusing the code, and improving it for the greater good. This community of developers is not concerned with monetary profit. They are concerned with creating the most efficient, effective, and error-free code they possibly can. They are not restricted by the bottom lines and politics of monolithic corporations. This glaringly different approach to programming leads to an equally polarized relationship between Open and Closed Source support options, upgrade structure, and security requirements – all of which turn traditional public school IT budgeting concerns on their head.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
(As a preface to this section, and in the interest of objectivity, I would like to present the following disclaimer: I vigorously sought a story about Linux adoption causing financial damage to any organization, and could not find one. In fact, the only finance-based objections I was able to dig up were attributed to the gut feelings of paid actors featured in Microsoft advertisements. This alone could indicate that the switch to OSS is a savvy fiscal decision.)
American public schools are almost always short on funding. While teachers' salaries have finally increased to an average of over $48,000 annually, schools still struggle with cutting programs due to insufficient funding. ("Teachers..." 1) A Google search of “public schools budget cuts” will bring an astounding amount of relevant results, and, as we all know, programs and projects deemed less necessary by school administrators and the government are the first to go; music programs, some sports, the more exotic languages, and of course, the computer upgrades that so many schools are badly in need of. However, the current computing solutions found in most American schools are not, by any means, as cost effective or efficient as they could be.
Before taking a look at school systems that have migrated to Linux for varied reasons, I'd like to examine organizations that made the switch for purely financial reasons, as well as studies that resulted in numbers favoring Linux adoption. This also serves as a preemptive attack to any arguments that may arise from friends of industry who think abandoning proprietary systems is somehow an anti-American attack on capitalism. In a free-market economy, Linux is emerging victorious on a variety of fronts, due to its economical nature.
The French gendarmerie is in the process of transitioning 70,000 computers to Linux, with finances a the top of their list for the change. ("French Police Armed with Ubuntu" 10) A 2005 study by the British government concluded that primary schools could cut computing costs nearly in half with OSS. ("Ditching Microsoft can save millions") Also, An EU Comission Study recently extolled the financial benefits of OSS migration.("EU Commission Study...")
Such stories are not rare, though usually published only in industry magazines and websites run by Linux enthusiasts. What may have more mainstream appeal, and what may be more convincing to those who advocate a Darwinian economy and a laissez faire approach to product placement in our schools, is a brief examination of two successful companies in the private sector who switched to Linux for what were, primarily, if not exclusively, financial purposes.
Verizon saved $6 million in hardware costs just in the initial switch to Linux of its programmers in 2002. Amazon.com, which made the switch way back in 2001, saved $17 million in the first quarter after taking the plunge – all because of their transition to Linux. (Kane, Lemos, and Shankland) Figures for savings over the years up to now have not been published, but even casual extrapolation can give a general idea of the kind of savings possible. While school systems are certainly on a different scale, the percentages alone are mind-blowing, especially when transposed within the context of public schools.
One example of a school district that saved large sums of money by switching from Windows to Linux is Windsor Unified in California. Last year the district was looking at a $100,000 price tag for Microsoft for licensing and support, and another $200,000 for security software, which would not be required running under Linux. The district only had a $200,000 IT budget, and was forced to search elsewhere for a solution. After having time to adapt, they have found that Linux not only eliminated all the above costs, but can be so easily administered remotely that it has actually saved money on top of the proposed costs that went unspent on Microsoft and security software. (Asay 1) Windsor is not alone. In fact, many American schools have seen dramatic benefits – far greater than they had suspected – upon taking the OSS plunge.
There are also a great number of foreign school districts blazing a path in this area, and the results are nothing to sneeze at. The Geneva Public School district switched 9,000 computers over to Ubuntu in 2006, and the annual savings attributed only to the replacement of Microsoft Office with Open Office is 300,000 SFr (about 186,000 euro.) Please note that this does not take into account saved licensing and support fees that the Microsoft Operating System itself would have required, nor obligatory security software. ("CH: Geneva schools...")
Add to these examples the PCs for Public Schools program, which has placed 13,000 Fedora boxes in Filipino schools, and will add 10,000 more Ubuntu PCs. ("News from Melbourne" 12) Vancouver B.C.'s District #73 is migrating all of its student-accessed stations to Linux diskless systems and thin clients. (Hendry) Also consider the 9,000 computers in Swiss Public Schools that have been dual-booting betwixt Windows and Ubuntu that will lose the Microsoft option at boot-time come this September. Swiss Public Schools made the choice based on the academic merit of Linux, but cite financial benefits as well.(Dawson)
The list goes on and on, and the reasons are varied. Though finances are often the deciding factor, and the aspect of IT management which prompts consideration of OSS alternatives, many schools are making the switch out of a commitment to the environment.
When Westall Secondary School, in Melbourne, Australia gave Kubuntu a test-spin on their newly replaced library systems, they found that in ran on the old hardware just as well as it did on the new boxes. This freed up the higher-spec machines to be used in the classrooms. With a new lease on life, the old boxes found a purpose other than producing toxic waste in a local landfill. (Hendry)
IT IS EASY BEIN' GREEN
The computer hardware market grows because new software's requirements exceed the limits of old hardware's capabilities, requiring upgrades. When hardware and software companies work together in concert (or collusion, depending on how you approach the issue) the hardware we purchase today cannot be expected to be relevant for more than a few years. This, in part, justifies the “bloated” nature of the Windows OS. Linux, on the other hand, by being designed to function on older hardware, breaks this cycle.
Abandoning hardware before its usability is exhausted is extremely wasteful and harmful to our environment. Considering the environmental impact of manufacturing, overproduction should be a serious concern. The big, heavy CRT monitors of yesterday are disappearing fast. They are being replaced by flat-screen LCD monitors. These successors are more energy efficient, and are definitely more convenient for the end-user. Does this mean that the CRT monitors already produced should be abandoned, when so many could be donated to our local schools?
Production of a desktop PC with CRT monitor requires 528 pounds of fossil fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and almost 400 gallons of water – making the product more environmentally harmful (in terms of production) than an automobile. (Bonnin and McKay, p. 27) Clearly, once one has been produced, the damage is done. Shouldn't we use such a product for as long as possible, so that the effects of production aren't initiated in vain?
The environmental impact of throwing away computers is equally disturbing. Three-quarters of the 65 million computers sold each year will end up in landfills or assigned other methods of disposal, and are responsible for a large quantity of hazardous waste, including 70 percent of the lead, cadmium, and mercury in landfills. (Bonnin and McKay, p. 89) It should seem only right, even to those with little concern for the environment, that such a product should be utilized to the full extent of its potential, until it absolutely no longer serves a purpose.
Many CRT monitors are Energy Star compliant. Energy Star Compliance entails efficiently utilizing energy, usually, in the case of CRT monitors, by means of software-controlled “sleep modes.” (Bonnin and McKay, p. 100) Linux handles this tried-and-true technology, and also goes many steps further.
Not only does the latest Linux kernel have the infrastructure in place for more advanced power management, but many are in line to build upon that base. (Kotadia) A consortium within The Linux Foundation are currently working on a project that would bring “sleep” functionality to computer processors, make applications power-aware, and manage power sent to USB devices. Together, these advancements will extend portable battery life considerably. (“About the Green Linux Workgroup”) Due to the ridiculously simple (and free) upgrade system built into Ubuntu, these features will automatically be included in a future version.
A suitable exploration into the energy consumption of computers, as well as the damage caused by their waste could (and has) easily fill(ed) numerous text books. Let it be said that Linux is at the forefront of energy management, and that it's backwards-compatible nature ensures a healthy retirement period for older machines. I would also like to mention that should any of the eco-conscious claims made by the three contenders of the Presidency amount to more than rhetoric, there is a strong possibility of future incentives for schools that actively seek green solutions. (Adler 43)
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PREPAREDNESS FOR FUTURE ENVIRONS
Schools are traditionally slow to upgrade their computer systems because of financial roadblocks. Far too often, this leaves kids fighting with outdated, irrelevant software. Linux not only addresses this problem by making new software that works on old machines, but through pre-packaged educational bundles, designed specifically for school deployment. ("edubuntu")
These systems also happen to protect children from incidents such as the “teacher's porn pop-up” case that garnered so much attention a few months ago. (Barwaldt) Diskless thin clients also limit a students ability to cause harm to a lab computer.
Early familiarity with Linux prepares children for the computing culture of tomorrow. It's not just the future programmers that need to feel comfortable with OSS. Not only is it turning up in hand-held devices, low-end laptops, public kiosks and consumer desktops, but Linux is making major headway in offices and colleges around the world. It is the OS of tomorrow. ("Linux on the Desktop" 6)
TECHNICAL FIREPOWER
The technical superiority of Linux is almost too endless a topic to even address, but I would like to touch on it, albeit in an extremely brief and cursory fashion.
Viruses can be written for Linux, but while hundreds of thousands exist for windows, only 40 are known for Linux (Oriaga) While the number of viruses targeted at OSS is sure to increase as Linux becomes more popular, the communal nature of OSS projects ensures quick fixes, and turnaround time for repairs concerning bugs and vulnerabilities is astonishingly shorter than those for Apple and Microsoft. Also a factor is that viruses are written not only to exploit the greatest number of users possible, but to expose flawed software. Fewer flaws means fewer exploits.
Speaking of exploits, one cannot underestimate the risk encountered when dabbling software applications that originate from countless sources. The proprietary culture created by Windows and Mac OS's makes it necessary that a user wade through oceans of software in order to find a solution. This puts consumers at risk for downloading spyware, malware, and other harmful software. Linux distributions however, utilize repositories for the distribution of software programs. These applications are checked for authenticity and safety before being offered to the end user. For instance, in Ubuntu, the flavor of Linux for which I am admittedly a user, supporter and promoter, one is presented with a library of available software with a few clicks of the mouse, from the desktop.
There is still variety – if you don't like the first 3D rendering program you download, simply un-check the box next to it in the above-mentioned application package manager, and try another. Now, the vastness and diversity of choices available in Linux repositories will not compare with that of the endless universe of Windows and Mac compatible products, and there is good reason for this. The OSS world, like a free market economy, experiences some survival-of-the-fittest evolution. However, instead of being driven by money, influence, and business world ruthlessness, this evolution is propagated by the quality, ingenuity, and usefulness of software. Projects will merge, others may die out, but you can be sure that what remains is the best that exists, if only because it retains elements of a previous incarnation of the software, which was abandoned by a proprietary organization that had no idea what to do with it after a purchase!
Another benefit of utilizing the repository system offered by so many Linux distributions is the simplicity and regularity of upgrades. With three mouse clicks, I can upgrade every piece of software installed on my computer for which an upgrade exists. Because I only install software from my distribution's repository, I can be sure said upgrade has been evaluated for quality and security before being made available to me. It is the most painless and simple method of upgrade I have ever encountered. Upgrades to the Ubuntu OS itself occur every six months, and in the last two years have imposed a RAM increase of 256 MB to a meager 384. ("Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Release Notes") ("Ubuntu (operating system)")
In addition to simple, voluntary upgrades, Linux users, especially those who use Cannonical products, like Ubuntu, find a vast support community, online, available 24 hours a day, for free. Hardware and software support is also available via local specialists, amongst a truly competitive and free business environment.
Lastly in terms of technical benefits, I would like to discuss security in regards to hacking. on Friday, march 28th, 2008, the CanSecWest Conference hosted a hacking contest. Presented for compromise were a Macbook Air, a Fujitsu running Vista, and a Linux-powered Sony Vaio. Offered for the winner(s) were the three notebooks, as well as $20,000, in cash. The Macbook fell after two minutes, Vista after two days, but Linux never crumbled. While programmers were able to find some bugs in the system, “many of them didn't want to put the work into developing the exploit code that would be required to win the contest.” (Kalambakal) one can easily understand why Governments around the world are quickly adopting Linux as their OS of choice... or of necessity.
So with all these technical benefits, why hasn't Linux taken over among public institutions, as well as individual users in America? There really aren't too many arguments against the adoption of Linux in the media, but I will address the few that I have heard.
The strongest argument against the adoption of Linux is that it is too difficult to learn, and that users will not be able to adapt. However, nearly all Americans have learned to use Windows and/or Macintosh OS's, without any foundation of computing experience upon which to build that knowledge. Except for a select few, we had no frame of reference for a graphical user interface computing environment before these operating systems, and yet most of us are capable of executing the tasks within them necessary in our daily lives. For a child growing up in a world of electronic devices – many of which use Linux already (mobile devices, PDAs, etc.,) the adaptation to Linux environments can be easier than their parents' experience with their OS of choice. (Brew, ed 36) Adults may find the transition more difficult, but this amounts mostly to fear of change and the unknown.
Some believe that the array of software available to Windows and Macintosh adherents isn't available to Linux users. This simply is not true. Not only is there an astonishing Universe of software equivalents available, but every Windows/Mac replacement I have ever searched for in my Linux distribution's repositories has been free. Amongst a wealth of sites offering equivalence tables is [url]http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html ("The table of equivalents...")
While some concerns regarding OSS adoption are valid (yet addressed,) the greatest obstacle to the success of Linux is the ignorance of it's existence. Exemplifying general public knowledge of OSS, was a recent clip on techtv, which I viewed online. It featured hosts of “The ScreenSavers” chuckling and guffawing as one read off a viewer email, in which the author expressed concern that his son may be a hacker. He became suspicious when he realized the child had downloaded “illegal hacking software called Lunix.” (" How to Know if Your Child is a Hacker?" 1) (While this may at first appear to be a Straw Man fallacy on my part, I encourage you to ask three people of diverse backgrounds, careers, age groups and education what Linux is, and what the benefits of using it are, and I believe my point will be made.)
A QUESTION OF VALUES
Ethical reasons for the adoption of Linux are oftentimes those for which apologetics most fervently debate. In many cases, it is primarily (though, not exclusively) for ethical purpose that OSS adherents became devout supporters of Linux.
Certainly capitalism is an American value. Market Darwinism has proven an effectual recipe for International success, but what of other important American values? What of innovation, exploration, triumph of the ingenious and hard-working little guy, the bold investigation of new frontiers? Have the schoolyard bullies of our capitalist economy gobbled up opportunities for competition, which could result in promising new technologies and business models? Examination of socio-political impact upon our computing environment is far beyond the scope of this paper, but I want to raise the questions; is the establishment of de facto computing environments in our public schools evidence of a free market economy? Does it prepare our children to be the innovators of tomorrow?
I do not desire to punish organizations for their success, but to hand our schools over to one so widely associated with monopolistic techniques, is this not akin to the employment of Joe Camel paraphernalia, placed at eye-level to a five-year old, or allowing Coke machines to sit in the cafeteria at our local middle school? Such marketing techniques are equally dangerous, in my estimation, when they are intended to mold our children's minds for a purpose beyond sales - to limit creative options and exploration. Should we train children to believe that a blue, lower-case “e” is the Internet, or that all computing begins with a “Start” button? Doing so may result in efficient office drones of yesteryear, but it is most certainly not a step in nourishing tomorrow's computer engineers, digital artists, or college students. Also keep in mind that fluency in OSS in no way precludes a student's future aptitude in a Microsoft Office cubicle.
The greatest promise of computers and the Internet is the voice they offer to each and every individual. Within this environment, there need not be age, race, sex, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or even language barriers. Allowing corporate monoliths to control the use and application of such powerful tools is risky, as anyone who has followed the debate over Net Neutrality knows. ("Save the Internet...") Allowing such organizations to mold how we view modern technologies is on par with sin in my mind, as it seals the fate of a beautiful monster of limitless potential, relegating it to the status of an apparatus for propaganda and advertising, and designates for it the dark fate of television and radio.
Change is never easy. Growth can be painful. Exploration requires leaving an often comfortable, cozy position. Who should choose what Operating Systems our public schools use in training the nation's youth on computers? Those who pay the bills, or the corporate giants who are taking our tax dollars to the bank?
~ c o l d s t a t u e @ g m x d o t c o m
If you are personally interested in further researching this topic, please see [url]http://www.lugod.org/microsoft/?filter=edu or any of the resources cited on the next page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Works Cited
"About the Green Linux Workgroup." The Linux Foundation. 01 May 2008. The Green Linux Workgroup. 01 May 2008 <http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Green_Linux>.
Adler, Jerry. "Just the Tree of Us." Newsweek 14 Apr. 2008: 43+.
Asay, Matt. "One School District Answers Microsoft's Pricing with Open Source." C|Net. 24 Sept.-Oct. 2007. 02 May 2008 <http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9783321-16.html>.
Barwaldt, Erik. "Childproof." Linux Pro Magazine: 83-85.
Brew, Simon, ed. "The Generation Game." Linux User & Developer Feb. 2008: 36.
"CH: Geneva Schools Completely Switch to Open Source." IDABC. 24 Apr. 2008. Interoperable Delivery of European EGovernment Services to Public Administrations, Business and Citizens. 25 Apr. 2008 <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7576/6008>.
Dawson, Christopher. "9000 PCs in Swiss Schools Going Linux Only." ZDNet. 06 Apr. 2008. 02 May 2008 <http://education.zdnet.com/?p=1615>.
"Ditching Microsoft Can Save Millions." TES. 06 May 2005. 02 May 2008 <http://www.tes.co.uk/2094985>.
"Edubuntu." Edubuntu. 24 Apr. 2008. Cannonical. 02 May 2008 <http://edubuntu.com/>.
"EU Commission Study Finds You'Ll Save Money Switching to FOSS." Groklaw. 12 Jan. 2007. 28 Apr. 2008 <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070112025016466>.
"French Police Armed with Ubuntu." Linux Pro Magazine Apr. 2008: 10.
Hendry, Andrew. "Canadian School District Serves Up Lessons on the Power of Linux." It Business.Ca. 07 Apr. 2008. 13 Apr. 2008 <http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=47852&cid=12>.
Hendry, Andrew. "Ubuntu Breathes New Life Into School's Abandoned Hardware." Computerworld. 08 Apr. 2008. 10 Apr. 2008 <http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;609377314>.
"How to Know If Your Child is a Hacker?" 5min. Techtv. 27 Apr. 2008 <http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-Know-if-Your-Child-is-a-Hacker-18175731>.
Kalambakal, Jupiter. "Linux Declared 'Hacker Proof'" All Headline News. 30 Mar. 2008. 01 Apr. 2008 <http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010483023>.
Kotadia, Munir. "Torvalds: Linux Ready to Go Green." C|Net. 31 Jan. 2008. 28 Apr. 2008 <http://www.news.com/Torvalds-Linux-ready-to-go-green/2100-7344_3-6228517.html?tag=nw.3>.
"Linux on the Desktop." Linux Pro Magazine Apr. 2008: 6.
McKay, Kim, and Jenny Bonnin. True Green 100 Everyday Ways You Can Contribute to a Healthier Planet. Washington, D.C: National Geographic Society, 2006. 27-100.
"News From Melbourne." Linux Pro Magazine Apr. 2008: 12.
Oiaga, Marius. "McAfee – 200.000 Virus Definitions." McAffee. 05 Apr. 2006. 02 May 2008 <http://news.softpedia.com/news/McAfee-200-000-virus-definitions-28896.shtml>.
"Save the Internet: Fighting for Internet Freedom." Savetheinternet.Com. 03 Apr. 2008. 28 Apr. 2008 <http://www.savetheinternet.com/>.
Shankland, Stephen, Margaret Kane, and Robert Lemos. "Amazon Saves Millions with Linux Switch." ZDNet Australia. 31 Oct. 2001. 17 Apr. 2008 <http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Amazon-saves-millions-with-Linux-switch/0,130061733,120261576,00.htm>.
Shankland, Stephen. "Verizon Switches Programmers to Linux." C|Net NEWS. 15 Aug. 2002. 02 May 2008 <http://builder-news.com.com/2100-1001-949913.html>.
"Teachers--Preschool, Kindergarten, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary." U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 01 May 2008 <http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm>.
"The Table of Equivalents / Replacements / Analogs of Windows Software in Linux." Linux RSP. 25 Nov. 2007. 2 May 2008 <http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html>.
"Ubuntu (Operating System)." Wikipedia. 01 May 2008. 02 May 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution)#System_requirements>.
"Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Release Notes." Ubuntu.Com. 01 June 2006. Cannonical. 02 May 2008 <http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/releasenotes/606>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument for the Adoption of Linux in American Public Schools
I wrote this with some pretty specific qualifications for a class. I would write it differently for my own purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2008 coldstatue (@ g m x d o t c o m)
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. Modifications must be designated, annotated and, where
appropriate, include citations. A copy of the license is available at:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html#SEC1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every computer user in the world is aware of Microsoft's Windows product line. The Operating System has become so ubiquitous that many associate computing and the Internet exclusively with Bill Gates' brainchild and its bundled applications. This is unfortunate, as alternative computing solutions, which stand at the cutting edge of economic and energy efficiency, hardware longevity, technical innovation and ethical movement, and which are readily available, remain largely ignored by the American public. These solutions, namely Linux, if deployed in the American public school system, would solve a myriad of problems.
Apple's computers have traditionally been thought of as the alternative to Windows machines, but the current product line has prohibitive price points – especially when considering enterprise environments and lab situations, as are found in public schools. Most of us are somewhat aware that Apple products are extremely proprietary - in that primary hardware is only available from the software vendor. This is not much of an alternative. What this false dichotomy comes down to, for the average user, is overpaying for hardware, or, overpaying for software. In either case, security costs are a foregone conclusion.
Public schools are particularly disadvantaged when locked into proprietary computing systems because of the standard shortage of funds. Cost is the primary detractor for Microsoft and Apple products, but ecological issues, technical prowess, as well as our children's competency in the computing environment of tomorrow are at stake as well.
While the above-mentioned problems are widely known and experienced, Open Source Software (OSS) solutions are only just beginning to be seriously considered by many of the American institutions which could so greatly benefit from their advantages. In many cases, the true nature of the problems themselves is not fully understood because many are unaware of any alternative; school administrators and teachers know only that requirements are not being met. In order to explore the efficacy of Linux as a solution to these problems, the differences between Open Source and Closed Source Software must be established.
Windows and Macintosh Operating Systems are Closed Source software systems. Practically, this simply means that the computer code of which the OS consists is not open to the public. It cannot be changed, appended, or modified by anyone without explicit permission from the trademark and patent holder(s). Proprietary software also designates limitations on how many computer systems it may be installed on per purchased license. Often, many of the software applications designed to run on closed source OS's are also proprietary and restricted by licensing agreements. These applications, as well as the Operating Systems that host them, limit themselves to proprietary file formats, which restrict interoperability between different systems. This ensures that a user, and usually, a group of users, is/are locked into a particular product once a choice has been made.
This culture also creates a niche market for support. Because companies can keep their source code secret, they often have the only solution to problems that arise with their products. So, in addition to expensive OS licensing fees, application costs and any support plan purchased, a per-incident fee can be assessed should technical difficulties arise. There is also the problem of forced upgrades when a particular product's support window expires. These nearly mandatory software upgrades invariably impose higher hardware requirements than the previous software did, and thus, an endless cycle of planned obsolescence and waste ensues.
Linux, on the other hand, is open source software. It is free; both as in beer and speech, as the OSS community is fond of saying. It can be freely distributed, modified, copied, repackaged and changed in any other way you can think of, as long as proper credit is given. The result is a software that is technically superior, due to the sheer number of brilliant minds perusing the code, and improving it for the greater good. This community of developers is not concerned with monetary profit. They are concerned with creating the most efficient, effective, and error-free code they possibly can. They are not restricted by the bottom lines and politics of monolithic corporations. This glaringly different approach to programming leads to an equally polarized relationship between Open and Closed Source support options, upgrade structure, and security requirements – all of which turn traditional public school IT budgeting concerns on their head.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
(As a preface to this section, and in the interest of objectivity, I would like to present the following disclaimer: I vigorously sought a story about Linux adoption causing financial damage to any organization, and could not find one. In fact, the only finance-based objections I was able to dig up were attributed to the gut feelings of paid actors featured in Microsoft advertisements. This alone could indicate that the switch to OSS is a savvy fiscal decision.)
American public schools are almost always short on funding. While teachers' salaries have finally increased to an average of over $48,000 annually, schools still struggle with cutting programs due to insufficient funding. ("Teachers..." 1) A Google search of “public schools budget cuts” will bring an astounding amount of relevant results, and, as we all know, programs and projects deemed less necessary by school administrators and the government are the first to go; music programs, some sports, the more exotic languages, and of course, the computer upgrades that so many schools are badly in need of. However, the current computing solutions found in most American schools are not, by any means, as cost effective or efficient as they could be.
Before taking a look at school systems that have migrated to Linux for varied reasons, I'd like to examine organizations that made the switch for purely financial reasons, as well as studies that resulted in numbers favoring Linux adoption. This also serves as a preemptive attack to any arguments that may arise from friends of industry who think abandoning proprietary systems is somehow an anti-American attack on capitalism. In a free-market economy, Linux is emerging victorious on a variety of fronts, due to its economical nature.
The French gendarmerie is in the process of transitioning 70,000 computers to Linux, with finances a the top of their list for the change. ("French Police Armed with Ubuntu" 10) A 2005 study by the British government concluded that primary schools could cut computing costs nearly in half with OSS. ("Ditching Microsoft can save millions") Also, An EU Comission Study recently extolled the financial benefits of OSS migration.("EU Commission Study...")
Such stories are not rare, though usually published only in industry magazines and websites run by Linux enthusiasts. What may have more mainstream appeal, and what may be more convincing to those who advocate a Darwinian economy and a laissez faire approach to product placement in our schools, is a brief examination of two successful companies in the private sector who switched to Linux for what were, primarily, if not exclusively, financial purposes.
Verizon saved $6 million in hardware costs just in the initial switch to Linux of its programmers in 2002. Amazon.com, which made the switch way back in 2001, saved $17 million in the first quarter after taking the plunge – all because of their transition to Linux. (Kane, Lemos, and Shankland) Figures for savings over the years up to now have not been published, but even casual extrapolation can give a general idea of the kind of savings possible. While school systems are certainly on a different scale, the percentages alone are mind-blowing, especially when transposed within the context of public schools.
One example of a school district that saved large sums of money by switching from Windows to Linux is Windsor Unified in California. Last year the district was looking at a $100,000 price tag for Microsoft for licensing and support, and another $200,000 for security software, which would not be required running under Linux. The district only had a $200,000 IT budget, and was forced to search elsewhere for a solution. After having time to adapt, they have found that Linux not only eliminated all the above costs, but can be so easily administered remotely that it has actually saved money on top of the proposed costs that went unspent on Microsoft and security software. (Asay 1) Windsor is not alone. In fact, many American schools have seen dramatic benefits – far greater than they had suspected – upon taking the OSS plunge.
There are also a great number of foreign school districts blazing a path in this area, and the results are nothing to sneeze at. The Geneva Public School district switched 9,000 computers over to Ubuntu in 2006, and the annual savings attributed only to the replacement of Microsoft Office with Open Office is 300,000 SFr (about 186,000 euro.) Please note that this does not take into account saved licensing and support fees that the Microsoft Operating System itself would have required, nor obligatory security software. ("CH: Geneva schools...")
Add to these examples the PCs for Public Schools program, which has placed 13,000 Fedora boxes in Filipino schools, and will add 10,000 more Ubuntu PCs. ("News from Melbourne" 12) Vancouver B.C.'s District #73 is migrating all of its student-accessed stations to Linux diskless systems and thin clients. (Hendry) Also consider the 9,000 computers in Swiss Public Schools that have been dual-booting betwixt Windows and Ubuntu that will lose the Microsoft option at boot-time come this September. Swiss Public Schools made the choice based on the academic merit of Linux, but cite financial benefits as well.(Dawson)
The list goes on and on, and the reasons are varied. Though finances are often the deciding factor, and the aspect of IT management which prompts consideration of OSS alternatives, many schools are making the switch out of a commitment to the environment.
When Westall Secondary School, in Melbourne, Australia gave Kubuntu a test-spin on their newly replaced library systems, they found that in ran on the old hardware just as well as it did on the new boxes. This freed up the higher-spec machines to be used in the classrooms. With a new lease on life, the old boxes found a purpose other than producing toxic waste in a local landfill. (Hendry)
IT IS EASY BEIN' GREEN
The computer hardware market grows because new software's requirements exceed the limits of old hardware's capabilities, requiring upgrades. When hardware and software companies work together in concert (or collusion, depending on how you approach the issue) the hardware we purchase today cannot be expected to be relevant for more than a few years. This, in part, justifies the “bloated” nature of the Windows OS. Linux, on the other hand, by being designed to function on older hardware, breaks this cycle.
Abandoning hardware before its usability is exhausted is extremely wasteful and harmful to our environment. Considering the environmental impact of manufacturing, overproduction should be a serious concern. The big, heavy CRT monitors of yesterday are disappearing fast. They are being replaced by flat-screen LCD monitors. These successors are more energy efficient, and are definitely more convenient for the end-user. Does this mean that the CRT monitors already produced should be abandoned, when so many could be donated to our local schools?
Production of a desktop PC with CRT monitor requires 528 pounds of fossil fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and almost 400 gallons of water – making the product more environmentally harmful (in terms of production) than an automobile. (Bonnin and McKay, p. 27) Clearly, once one has been produced, the damage is done. Shouldn't we use such a product for as long as possible, so that the effects of production aren't initiated in vain?
The environmental impact of throwing away computers is equally disturbing. Three-quarters of the 65 million computers sold each year will end up in landfills or assigned other methods of disposal, and are responsible for a large quantity of hazardous waste, including 70 percent of the lead, cadmium, and mercury in landfills. (Bonnin and McKay, p. 89) It should seem only right, even to those with little concern for the environment, that such a product should be utilized to the full extent of its potential, until it absolutely no longer serves a purpose.
Many CRT monitors are Energy Star compliant. Energy Star Compliance entails efficiently utilizing energy, usually, in the case of CRT monitors, by means of software-controlled “sleep modes.” (Bonnin and McKay, p. 100) Linux handles this tried-and-true technology, and also goes many steps further.
Not only does the latest Linux kernel have the infrastructure in place for more advanced power management, but many are in line to build upon that base. (Kotadia) A consortium within The Linux Foundation are currently working on a project that would bring “sleep” functionality to computer processors, make applications power-aware, and manage power sent to USB devices. Together, these advancements will extend portable battery life considerably. (“About the Green Linux Workgroup”) Due to the ridiculously simple (and free) upgrade system built into Ubuntu, these features will automatically be included in a future version.
A suitable exploration into the energy consumption of computers, as well as the damage caused by their waste could (and has) easily fill(ed) numerous text books. Let it be said that Linux is at the forefront of energy management, and that it's backwards-compatible nature ensures a healthy retirement period for older machines. I would also like to mention that should any of the eco-conscious claims made by the three contenders of the Presidency amount to more than rhetoric, there is a strong possibility of future incentives for schools that actively seek green solutions. (Adler 43)
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PREPAREDNESS FOR FUTURE ENVIRONS
Schools are traditionally slow to upgrade their computer systems because of financial roadblocks. Far too often, this leaves kids fighting with outdated, irrelevant software. Linux not only addresses this problem by making new software that works on old machines, but through pre-packaged educational bundles, designed specifically for school deployment. ("edubuntu")
These systems also happen to protect children from incidents such as the “teacher's porn pop-up” case that garnered so much attention a few months ago. (Barwaldt) Diskless thin clients also limit a students ability to cause harm to a lab computer.
Early familiarity with Linux prepares children for the computing culture of tomorrow. It's not just the future programmers that need to feel comfortable with OSS. Not only is it turning up in hand-held devices, low-end laptops, public kiosks and consumer desktops, but Linux is making major headway in offices and colleges around the world. It is the OS of tomorrow. ("Linux on the Desktop" 6)
TECHNICAL FIREPOWER
The technical superiority of Linux is almost too endless a topic to even address, but I would like to touch on it, albeit in an extremely brief and cursory fashion.
Viruses can be written for Linux, but while hundreds of thousands exist for windows, only 40 are known for Linux (Oriaga) While the number of viruses targeted at OSS is sure to increase as Linux becomes more popular, the communal nature of OSS projects ensures quick fixes, and turnaround time for repairs concerning bugs and vulnerabilities is astonishingly shorter than those for Apple and Microsoft. Also a factor is that viruses are written not only to exploit the greatest number of users possible, but to expose flawed software. Fewer flaws means fewer exploits.
Speaking of exploits, one cannot underestimate the risk encountered when dabbling software applications that originate from countless sources. The proprietary culture created by Windows and Mac OS's makes it necessary that a user wade through oceans of software in order to find a solution. This puts consumers at risk for downloading spyware, malware, and other harmful software. Linux distributions however, utilize repositories for the distribution of software programs. These applications are checked for authenticity and safety before being offered to the end user. For instance, in Ubuntu, the flavor of Linux for which I am admittedly a user, supporter and promoter, one is presented with a library of available software with a few clicks of the mouse, from the desktop.
There is still variety – if you don't like the first 3D rendering program you download, simply un-check the box next to it in the above-mentioned application package manager, and try another. Now, the vastness and diversity of choices available in Linux repositories will not compare with that of the endless universe of Windows and Mac compatible products, and there is good reason for this. The OSS world, like a free market economy, experiences some survival-of-the-fittest evolution. However, instead of being driven by money, influence, and business world ruthlessness, this evolution is propagated by the quality, ingenuity, and usefulness of software. Projects will merge, others may die out, but you can be sure that what remains is the best that exists, if only because it retains elements of a previous incarnation of the software, which was abandoned by a proprietary organization that had no idea what to do with it after a purchase!
Another benefit of utilizing the repository system offered by so many Linux distributions is the simplicity and regularity of upgrades. With three mouse clicks, I can upgrade every piece of software installed on my computer for which an upgrade exists. Because I only install software from my distribution's repository, I can be sure said upgrade has been evaluated for quality and security before being made available to me. It is the most painless and simple method of upgrade I have ever encountered. Upgrades to the Ubuntu OS itself occur every six months, and in the last two years have imposed a RAM increase of 256 MB to a meager 384. ("Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Release Notes") ("Ubuntu (operating system)")
In addition to simple, voluntary upgrades, Linux users, especially those who use Cannonical products, like Ubuntu, find a vast support community, online, available 24 hours a day, for free. Hardware and software support is also available via local specialists, amongst a truly competitive and free business environment.
Lastly in terms of technical benefits, I would like to discuss security in regards to hacking. on Friday, march 28th, 2008, the CanSecWest Conference hosted a hacking contest. Presented for compromise were a Macbook Air, a Fujitsu running Vista, and a Linux-powered Sony Vaio. Offered for the winner(s) were the three notebooks, as well as $20,000, in cash. The Macbook fell after two minutes, Vista after two days, but Linux never crumbled. While programmers were able to find some bugs in the system, “many of them didn't want to put the work into developing the exploit code that would be required to win the contest.” (Kalambakal) one can easily understand why Governments around the world are quickly adopting Linux as their OS of choice... or of necessity.
So with all these technical benefits, why hasn't Linux taken over among public institutions, as well as individual users in America? There really aren't too many arguments against the adoption of Linux in the media, but I will address the few that I have heard.
The strongest argument against the adoption of Linux is that it is too difficult to learn, and that users will not be able to adapt. However, nearly all Americans have learned to use Windows and/or Macintosh OS's, without any foundation of computing experience upon which to build that knowledge. Except for a select few, we had no frame of reference for a graphical user interface computing environment before these operating systems, and yet most of us are capable of executing the tasks within them necessary in our daily lives. For a child growing up in a world of electronic devices – many of which use Linux already (mobile devices, PDAs, etc.,) the adaptation to Linux environments can be easier than their parents' experience with their OS of choice. (Brew, ed 36) Adults may find the transition more difficult, but this amounts mostly to fear of change and the unknown.
Some believe that the array of software available to Windows and Macintosh adherents isn't available to Linux users. This simply is not true. Not only is there an astonishing Universe of software equivalents available, but every Windows/Mac replacement I have ever searched for in my Linux distribution's repositories has been free. Amongst a wealth of sites offering equivalence tables is [url]http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html ("The table of equivalents...")
While some concerns regarding OSS adoption are valid (yet addressed,) the greatest obstacle to the success of Linux is the ignorance of it's existence. Exemplifying general public knowledge of OSS, was a recent clip on techtv, which I viewed online. It featured hosts of “The ScreenSavers” chuckling and guffawing as one read off a viewer email, in which the author expressed concern that his son may be a hacker. He became suspicious when he realized the child had downloaded “illegal hacking software called Lunix.” (" How to Know if Your Child is a Hacker?" 1) (While this may at first appear to be a Straw Man fallacy on my part, I encourage you to ask three people of diverse backgrounds, careers, age groups and education what Linux is, and what the benefits of using it are, and I believe my point will be made.)
A QUESTION OF VALUES
Ethical reasons for the adoption of Linux are oftentimes those for which apologetics most fervently debate. In many cases, it is primarily (though, not exclusively) for ethical purpose that OSS adherents became devout supporters of Linux.
Certainly capitalism is an American value. Market Darwinism has proven an effectual recipe for International success, but what of other important American values? What of innovation, exploration, triumph of the ingenious and hard-working little guy, the bold investigation of new frontiers? Have the schoolyard bullies of our capitalist economy gobbled up opportunities for competition, which could result in promising new technologies and business models? Examination of socio-political impact upon our computing environment is far beyond the scope of this paper, but I want to raise the questions; is the establishment of de facto computing environments in our public schools evidence of a free market economy? Does it prepare our children to be the innovators of tomorrow?
I do not desire to punish organizations for their success, but to hand our schools over to one so widely associated with monopolistic techniques, is this not akin to the employment of Joe Camel paraphernalia, placed at eye-level to a five-year old, or allowing Coke machines to sit in the cafeteria at our local middle school? Such marketing techniques are equally dangerous, in my estimation, when they are intended to mold our children's minds for a purpose beyond sales - to limit creative options and exploration. Should we train children to believe that a blue, lower-case “e” is the Internet, or that all computing begins with a “Start” button? Doing so may result in efficient office drones of yesteryear, but it is most certainly not a step in nourishing tomorrow's computer engineers, digital artists, or college students. Also keep in mind that fluency in OSS in no way precludes a student's future aptitude in a Microsoft Office cubicle.
The greatest promise of computers and the Internet is the voice they offer to each and every individual. Within this environment, there need not be age, race, sex, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or even language barriers. Allowing corporate monoliths to control the use and application of such powerful tools is risky, as anyone who has followed the debate over Net Neutrality knows. ("Save the Internet...") Allowing such organizations to mold how we view modern technologies is on par with sin in my mind, as it seals the fate of a beautiful monster of limitless potential, relegating it to the status of an apparatus for propaganda and advertising, and designates for it the dark fate of television and radio.
Change is never easy. Growth can be painful. Exploration requires leaving an often comfortable, cozy position. Who should choose what Operating Systems our public schools use in training the nation's youth on computers? Those who pay the bills, or the corporate giants who are taking our tax dollars to the bank?
~ c o l d s t a t u e @ g m x d o t c o m
If you are personally interested in further researching this topic, please see [url]http://www.lugod.org/microsoft/?filter=edu or any of the resources cited on the next page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Works Cited
"About the Green Linux Workgroup." The Linux Foundation. 01 May 2008. The Green Linux Workgroup. 01 May 2008 <http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Green_Linux>.
Adler, Jerry. "Just the Tree of Us." Newsweek 14 Apr. 2008: 43+.
Asay, Matt. "One School District Answers Microsoft's Pricing with Open Source." C|Net. 24 Sept.-Oct. 2007. 02 May 2008 <http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9783321-16.html>.
Barwaldt, Erik. "Childproof." Linux Pro Magazine: 83-85.
Brew, Simon, ed. "The Generation Game." Linux User & Developer Feb. 2008: 36.
"CH: Geneva Schools Completely Switch to Open Source." IDABC. 24 Apr. 2008. Interoperable Delivery of European EGovernment Services to Public Administrations, Business and Citizens. 25 Apr. 2008 <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7576/6008>.
Dawson, Christopher. "9000 PCs in Swiss Schools Going Linux Only." ZDNet. 06 Apr. 2008. 02 May 2008 <http://education.zdnet.com/?p=1615>.
"Ditching Microsoft Can Save Millions." TES. 06 May 2005. 02 May 2008 <http://www.tes.co.uk/2094985>.
"Edubuntu." Edubuntu. 24 Apr. 2008. Cannonical. 02 May 2008 <http://edubuntu.com/>.
"EU Commission Study Finds You'Ll Save Money Switching to FOSS." Groklaw. 12 Jan. 2007. 28 Apr. 2008 <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070112025016466>.
"French Police Armed with Ubuntu." Linux Pro Magazine Apr. 2008: 10.
Hendry, Andrew. "Canadian School District Serves Up Lessons on the Power of Linux." It Business.Ca. 07 Apr. 2008. 13 Apr. 2008 <http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=47852&cid=12>.
Hendry, Andrew. "Ubuntu Breathes New Life Into School's Abandoned Hardware." Computerworld. 08 Apr. 2008. 10 Apr. 2008 <http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;609377314>.
"How to Know If Your Child is a Hacker?" 5min. Techtv. 27 Apr. 2008 <http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-Know-if-Your-Child-is-a-Hacker-18175731>.
Kalambakal, Jupiter. "Linux Declared 'Hacker Proof'" All Headline News. 30 Mar. 2008. 01 Apr. 2008 <http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010483023>.
Kotadia, Munir. "Torvalds: Linux Ready to Go Green." C|Net. 31 Jan. 2008. 28 Apr. 2008 <http://www.news.com/Torvalds-Linux-ready-to-go-green/2100-7344_3-6228517.html?tag=nw.3>.
"Linux on the Desktop." Linux Pro Magazine Apr. 2008: 6.
McKay, Kim, and Jenny Bonnin. True Green 100 Everyday Ways You Can Contribute to a Healthier Planet. Washington, D.C: National Geographic Society, 2006. 27-100.
"News From Melbourne." Linux Pro Magazine Apr. 2008: 12.
Oiaga, Marius. "McAfee – 200.000 Virus Definitions." McAffee. 05 Apr. 2006. 02 May 2008 <http://news.softpedia.com/news/McAfee-200-000-virus-definitions-28896.shtml>.
"Save the Internet: Fighting for Internet Freedom." Savetheinternet.Com. 03 Apr. 2008. 28 Apr. 2008 <http://www.savetheinternet.com/>.
Shankland, Stephen, Margaret Kane, and Robert Lemos. "Amazon Saves Millions with Linux Switch." ZDNet Australia. 31 Oct. 2001. 17 Apr. 2008 <http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Amazon-saves-millions-with-Linux-switch/0,130061733,120261576,00.htm>.
Shankland, Stephen. "Verizon Switches Programmers to Linux." C|Net NEWS. 15 Aug. 2002. 02 May 2008 <http://builder-news.com.com/2100-1001-949913.html>.
"Teachers--Preschool, Kindergarten, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary." U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 01 May 2008 <http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm>.
"The Table of Equivalents / Replacements / Analogs of Windows Software in Linux." Linux RSP. 25 Nov. 2007. 2 May 2008 <http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html>.
"Ubuntu (Operating System)." Wikipedia. 01 May 2008. 02 May 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution)#System_requirements>.
"Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Release Notes." Ubuntu.Com. 01 June 2006. Cannonical. 02 May 2008 <http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/releasenotes/606>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(43%)
WIDGETIZE