Linux should be a part of School Education

>If someone were using Linux to teach I as a student would think their using some crap computers.

Why does the installed OS imply anything at all about the quality of the hardware?

> Like it or not students don't see the potential of Linux ...

Why would they, if they have never been exposed to it?

>and truth is Windows is still more user friendly then Linux when it comes to doing some moderately advanced things.

I've always felt the opposite is true, that most Windows based solutions enable people to do easy things easier than with Linux, but that implementing more complex solutions often quickly becomes harder on the Windows platform than on Linux. That's been my experience, YMMV.

>It would be cool if schools had a mix of windows and Linux computers though that way students can learn that Windows doesn't equal computer there are other OS's as well. And before you ask no, where I'm from Apple was as if it didn't exist.

I agree. I think it makes for better educated graduates, and a better marketplace for computing products.

>I only learned about Linux when i was 14 and to be honest i though it was crap at first since all Linux windowing systems that I tried were awful.

That may have been a fair assessment at the time.

>Education is about teaching children valuable skills they can apply in their daily lives.

Train the proles up so that they can be useful to their future employers? Teaching any specific vendor's products exclusively isn't a proper role for a public institution.

> How many of them would ever see a PC running Linux again?

Practically none, if the educators who choose which company's products are the winners tend strongly to one vendor's products.

> The cost argument doesn't really stand up either,

No, but it bothers me a bit that one dominant market player gets the majority of public money, and another tends to get nothing. I'm not sure how to solve this though.

>books cost money and 'do nothing but line the pockets of the publishers' to paraphrase the author.

There are a lot of fair criticisms of the textbook publishing industry.

> It's not as if computers running Linux cost nothing either.

True. But at my college, Microsoft licensing is a budget item as is maintenance of Windows PC's. If they were Linux PC's the replacement for those expenditures would probably cost less. A more proper solution would probably cost slightly more than standardizing exclusively on Windows.

>If Linux is going to find a place in mainstream education, it's going to have to earn it. This is of course quite possible.

Public institutions ought not to be picking winners here. It isn't appropriate.

>Decisions about which solution best serves the educational needs of children should be in the hands of educators, not technological partisans.

Well, currently it is usually in the hands of institution IT folk, most of which (in my experience) tend to be technological partisans.

I too have many fond memories of Knoppix I discovered it in the 11th grade; I remember being mesmerised by the rows of multi-coloured console text at boot up with that cool rotating carat and all the badass software it came default with- like ettercap and Wireshark.. What a script kiddie I was, lol. People think such superficial details are unimportant but they really do leave an impression on you. Writing this from Ubuntu 13.10..

> Why does the installed OS imply anything at all about the quality of the hardware?

It doesn't for people who understand the technology but a kid learning in school will asses the entire package as a whole with the limited skills he has at using it mind you.

> Why would they, if they have never been exposed to it?

I doubt they would even if they were exposed to it. I takes a lot of dedication to reach the point where you're comfortable with the terminal and see it's potential. I don't think students would reach that point in school.

> I've always felt the opposite is true, that most Windows based solutions enable people to do easy things easier than with Linux, but that implementing more complex solutions often quickly becomes harder on the Windows platform than on Linux. That's been my experience, YMMV.

It is from a technical point of view but for the average person who will never need to do anything more complex it isn't. And even if they do need something more complex they're already invested into windows so it's unlikely they'll switch. Since windows made it easier in the beginning they'll assume that the pattern continues.

Well, do you want kids to understand their computing systems, or would you prefer they just be placid consumers? I think you're asking for the latter just because you have a personal grudge against "Linux" not being some corporate property.

Linux is a commons resource. ABSOLUTELY, children should know how they can use the commons resource they have available to them - anything else, and you set up future generations for even more corporate control.

In case you're an un-educated American who doesn't know what the commons is, and why Linux is such an important resource when viewed from a commons perspective, educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

I know that commons is anathema to American industrial thinking, but alas .. this is precisely why its important to educate our children on what rights, responsibilities, and resources they have available to them. Linux is a very, very powerful tool which belongs to everyone. Microsoft Windows belongs to the shareholders of Microsoft - and nobody else.