Most Useful OS For High-School Science Education? 434
Clayperion writes "I teach at a high school program for gifted students which emphasizes math, science, and technology. Currently we have two computer labs for the students: A new programming lab (all Dell PCs running XP, MS Visual C++, Eclipse, and SolidWorks for programming and CAD) and an old general-purpose lab (all Macs running OS X 10.3, with software ranging from some legacy OS 9 science applications to MathCad). Most of our students eventually pursue graduate degrees in science and engineering, and we would like them to have experience with the tools they will find out in industry. As we look to replace the old machines, there has been a push to switch to PCs with XP so that there is only a single platform to support. There are over 5000 machines on the district's network and the IT department is very small (fewer than 10 people), so the fewer hardware and software differences between the machines, the better. Without opening a flame war as to which one is 'better,' I'd like to know what those of you in the science and engineering fields actually use more in your labs (hardware, OS, software), so that we can decide which platform to support. It will most likely have to be either XP or OS 10.6, with very restricted permissions to students and teachers, as that is the comfort level of IT and administration, but I'll push for whatever would benefit the students the most."
Windows XP? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I'm following the logic... Windows XP is getting close to EOL. Why wouldn't you use Windows 7? Certainly it and Windows Server 2008 has more features to make admin'ing easier.
Science or Engineering, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Free OS, free software (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, nothing but free software should be used in science and science education. Any research relying on results produced by close-sourced software is voodoo.
Re:Science or Engineering, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's me, but 5,000 Dell computers all running XP suggests Microsoft Certified Systems Engineering.
Habababdub (Score:4, Insightful)
So science, religion and porn have three things in common with your network. Neither of them are really going to play a huge role in the decision of the topology or specifics regarding your hosts.
What is important to consider are what are your requirements for the specific applications that apply to your curriculum today and in the near term. These things dictate what is necessary to support your environment. If you don't know what you should be using I would consult a similar audience rather then the general populace. In practice, I've generally found most educational institutes are staffed with at least some individuals who do thrive in the industry. (Hint, industry experience is a good thing).
In any event, this is a very long winded ask slashdot, but offers very few details. Even if someone said to change all of your systems to XYZ using ABC it wouldn't really matter. You can't base a purchasing decision on a few paragraphs. I certainly don't want to draw up a diagram of how your architecture should work and toss out a handful of applications.
The bottom line is that you should know at least some of these details. What are the pain points with whatever and certainly not detailed plans on the horizon.
Here is my two cents....
Come up with a consistent approach to your operating system selection and configuration. Ensure you have the capabilities to deliver a clean and automated of said services. With only 10 individuals it will really will become a painful support paradigm if you continue with some haphazard configuration.
As far as software selection.... because I know virtually nothing about what you currently use or specific fields this is in regards to... I want you to find the most expensive application that does a single 10th of what you want it to do. Buy lots of this software and pray they release the features you need in the next release.
Science || Eng != Education (Score:1, Insightful)
> I'd like to know what those of you in the science and engineering
> fields actually use more in your labs (hardware, OS, software), so
> that we can decide which platform to support.
But research or engineering is quite different from education, you know... I don't think a high school program should narrow its scopes in 'preparing the students for the industry', especially when most of your students are going to pursue graduate degrees eventually, as you said. It's not like you're teaching in a vocational school, isn't it?
It's gotta be one of the many UNIX variants (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
High School seniors are between 4 and 8 years away from working in an engineering field. That's enough time for things to change considerably, and even if it weren't, the operating system really doesn't make that much difference. If you could give them some experience using the apps that will be relevant to them, that might be a little more useful, but that space is so broad that there's no way you could know what will be needed.
I'd make sure you pick a platform that runs the software the teachers want to use for classes. If that software is available on multiple platforms, then pick the one that is most cost-effective, considering acquisition and maintenance both.
Re:Science or Engineering, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Donuts are topologists' coffee mugs.
Re:Windows XP? (Score:5, Insightful)
XP may be close to EOL, but it has massive support behind it still. There are numerous applications that extend its features, make it very easy to customize, etc. Not to mention most of the bugs and such that are left are well documented and easy to fix or work around.
Choose it based upon Applications. (Score:4, Insightful)
In our district Freshmen take Earth Science, Sophomores take Bio, Juniors Chemistry and Seniors take Physics. There's also some techy electives such as Intro to Programming, Computer Animation/CAD and an Intro to Computers (teaches the basics of how to use a computer, browsers, word processing, etc...)
Check out the applications that your those that set the curriculum want to use. Some software suites are available for one platform and not another. You can't just say, "We're using OS/2 and that's the way it will be!" As you'll have 10 department heads yelling at you that there aren't any XYZ applications available to it.
Also, who says you have to have 5k PCs each with it's own disk, OS load etc.. Why not look at Virtual Desktops (vmware view [vmware.com] with dumb terminals/thin clients in the classrooms? The Unix folks have been doing this for years, but this solution is pretty slick. We've deployed it for all the staff as they only use a dozen or so standardized applications.
Btw, I'm an ex-mainframer and managing 1 mainframe and 5000 dumb 3270 terminals is much easier than 5000 desktops; and speaking from experience managing a couple of large X86 servers and a 100 thin clients is very similar.
Re:Free OS, free software (Score:5, Insightful)
Any research relying on results produced by close-sourced software is voodoo.
Well, then 98% of published chemical research is voodoo. Companies aren't going to write open software to control the $750K spectrometer they just sold you, and to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd use software off of Sourceforge to control an investment of that type, anyway. Nd-YAG lasers don't grow on trees, unfortunately.
Re:No brainer: Windows (Score:1, Insightful)
macs are good for all kinds of tasks, not just art, electronic design, filmography, or music p
Thing is, the writer of this question is wanting a real world idea. And not to knock the Mac, but in most businesses Windows rules and so I'd say Windows would be the best bet. Sure Mac could be done, but it's not done. There are also other signs that Apple has no interest in real world business options. [infoworld.com]
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Companies aren't going to write open software to control the $750K spectrometer they just sold you, and to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd use software off of Sourceforge to control an investment of that type, anyway.
I'm not a chemist, but I think your investigation is not about controlling the spectrometer, but the resulting spectra. So I think it would very interesting and potentially productive if you have the source code of the software that transforms/filters/enhance/displays the output data.
BTW, I don't believe the people at CERN will rely on some close software for tracing their particle collisions.
Re:Free OS, free software (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the shortage of manpower the OP mentions, I think he could use the administration tools that come with Windows, and therefore should buy licenses for it. I'll even go as far as to say that to base such an important business decision on some idealistic views of how a computer science lab should be ran would be irresponsible, and worthy of being fired.
Any research relying on results produced by close-sourced software is voodoo.
The validity of any research is confirmed by the ability to independently reproduce its results, not because you can check the code which is used to generate the research data.
Re:WetWare 1.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, teaching programming without a computer is like trying to teach math without using numbers. I mean the arabic numbering system is basically a shorthand way of writing down polynomials where 'x' is always 10. The numbers have a reality quite apart from their representation and getting that is one of the most fundamental and important ideas in math.
But really, starting there is a bad idea.
People get excited and enthused by results. Nobody is going to be excited and enthused by a set of principles that don't have any connection to anything else they know. Getting people excited about learning is the biggest part of the battle.
Absolutely disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
I taught myself programming (and how to wire together an 8080) a good two years before I was able to use a real computer, from those things made out of dead trees. I can still find problems in assembly, C, Verilog, whatever, by reading the code much faster than many of my co-workers can by running simulators and debuggers.
A rigorous understanding of logic requires no hardware.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science or Engineering, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
It didn't happen in Russia, but these days Biologists are God [bbc.co.uk]
Don't go overboard (Score:3, Insightful)
I went to a private prestigious school in the 90s. We had a lab full of computers, but they were never fancy. Some were still DOS when I was a Freshman, but they all were Windows 95 by the time I graduated.
What was important, however, was that we were able to learn the core concepts that needed to be taught. We didn't need $3000 computers to learn data structures. We also brought in a FAST internet connection before anyone knew what broadband was.
It's my opinion that a reliable network is much more important then having the latest and greatest computers. A computer that's 2 years old can still get on the web, but a slow network will hold your students back. I would stay away from obscure things like any Unix, and even any Linux, unless you're planning on keeping some Windows computers around for "getting things done." If you are going Windows, make sure to go with Windows 7. It's been out long enough that it doesn't make sense to keep 15 year olds working with technology that's half their age.
Re:Absolutely disagree (Score:1, Insightful)
No, your analogy is horrible.
Calculators are no more than a tool to do certain kinds of math, wereas computers are the reason for programming.
You can do perfectly useful math without a calculator, but programming without a computer doesn't even make much sense.
Re:Windows XP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Use a cybercafe style setup where each system gets reimaged on boot, and then extend that system so that it gives you a choice of several images...
If you have windows 7 you usually get downgrade rights too, so you could add xp as one of the options for when it might be needed, it also benefits the students because they get to use multiple different systems rather than erroneously learning that everything is the same (and then getting a nasty shock when they leave school).
Re:Absolutely disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
However, you mix that up with demonstrations of a HelloWorld program, a simple GUI that does something pretty or whatever, and they stay interested.
Re:Science or Engineering, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Teach the kids to learn... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no platform that will satisfy all objectives; arguments can be made for Win, OSX and Linux.
Of course, my vote would be for Linux. Let's remember that this is for a high school. Octave is more than capable of serving as a matlab replacement.
R has now supplanted S-Plus as an industry-standard (at least academia-wise) statistical programming language, one I also use frequently.
Between octave and R, and the other general purpose programming languages that are a breeze to develop with in a Linux environment, there is a great deal of important scientific work you can do with free software.
Linux is also the only platform that makes sense when you start needing to crunch lots of data on many servers, especially with a small budget. Linux is standard on all academic clusters I have seen. Give these students the skills to manage data crunching on a small cluster of linux machines and you will do them a tremendous favour.
If you have some tools which are proprietary and specialised, you can easily set up a couple of windows/osx machines for their use specifically. But it's hard to beat the value of Linux as a general purpose scientific platform.
Re:Windows XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, XP is the wrong way to go. Get rid of the super expensive Windows environment and move to GNU/Linux. Free yourself from the Microsoft lock-in and save a boatload of money.
Re:Science or Engineering, huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
But sureley their nostrils make them multiperforated discs ?
What's wrong with IDEs? (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Unix/Linux command line stuff all the time for installations, deployment, management and so on, but I develop using a visual IDE because it is more productive for me. Since I began doing assembler on PDP-11 and 9900 processors, moved on to C, and am still actively involved in development, I think I'm in a position to say that command line snobbery is simply counterproductive. If some kind person has already configured Ant for me to run in an IDE, I accept what I am given and am grateful. Why do I want a programmer to spend all day on a script to automate something that the IDE can do in 9 seconds? The object program is exactly the same size and runs identically.
It's like stupid people who boast about using stick shifts as if this made them virtuous. I've used them for over 40 years alongside automatics. Current autos have computer controlled manual gearboxes that use less fuel and change more appropriately than human drivers, and I'm glad I bought one.
I want programmers who understand exception handling, corner cases, graceful recovery from external failures, automated database backups, data prevalidation, efficient algorithms and data structures, bloat avoidance, profiling, and debug. I really don't care if they drive an auto or a manual when it comes to compiling, so long as they don't thereby waste time getting from A to B.
Re:Teach the kids to learn... (Score:4, Insightful)
The other thing to think about it security. I used to support a medium sized school district years ago running Novell Netware and IBM's AN/ICLASS software. It was the most challenging environment because Murphy LOVES high school computer systems! Things will break if they can, and students will break them if it's possible. Viruses were rampant, and more often than not, the students knew more than the teachers. Now, I know that the last one has gotten somewhat better, but it still is a problem.
Just from the virus problem alone, I would recommend that people use Linux because it takes a lot more to crack a well secured Linux system(s) than a Windows or Mac...as various security competitions have shown. Another good one to consider is that you don't have to worry about people stealing licensed software, or the licensing information to run the softwares at home, there by eliminating a possible legal liability.
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Technically real world use.... OSX (Score:3, Insightful)
While you're right that NASA use of Mac OS X is much higher, it's not true industry wide. The *only* people with Macs are the NASA employees. Everyone else, working at conventional companies like Boeing and Northrop Grumman use PCs.
This is not good or bad, it just is. NASA gives their technical people significant freedom in choosing their computer and software. But it's atypical. Everyone else buys Wintel systems.
(I'm a Ph.D. working on a NASA project through a major subcontractor. I just spent the week at a joint meeting with NASA, ESA, and industry reps for a NASA project.)
Macs, no contest, and here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
In education, Macs dominate. Apple will give all kinds of discounts to you to get you to go Mac. Also, Mac is the only solution that permits ANY platform, virtually. On a Mac you can now virtualize OS X 10.6, any flavor/version of linux, BSD, or Windows. Legally, you can't virtualize OS X on linux or Windows. I realize it's a weak point, but the stronger point is that Macs allow more variety, even if all you have is Macs. Initially, the investment in Mac is slightly higher, but the hardware is also designed better, and it has been shown to last last longer (up until 2 weeks ago, my 2003 powerbook was my main machine, now it's my secondary), and remain useful longer, with less OS maintenance. You will likely never get a virus using OS X or linux (or, hell, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD). You will very likely get lots of infiltrations if you use Windows. Windows is a fine OS, and has many strong suits, but the cost of maintaining an OS that is the biggest target for malware, viruses, and security infiltrations, vandalism and theft, far outweighs any benefit that might be gained from using it as opposed to another OS. Windows 7 is no better, as it will soon become the major target. It's an accident of fate, I think, and not entirely Microsoft's fault, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you choose Windows you will be wasting a considerable portion of all the proc cycles that hardware will ever put out on protecting yourself instead of doing science. Linux or Mac will likely not even have a hiccup in this regard.
So with Windows, you can effectively use Windows and Linux (virtually), but you will have many tasks associated with covering your ass, in regards to security. i.e. PITA that never goes away.
With linux, you can run linux and Windows (virtually), and probably mitigate any security issues with WIndows by using virtualization and intelligent practices.
And with Mac OS X you can use OS X, linux, and Windows, and your students will have the opportunity for a far more rounded computer education, and can say they learned UNIX, and all the other OS's, with the Macs at school.
Fucking Unix, brother (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're standardizing on a single platform, make it Unix, like the rest of the world. That means you run anything but Microsoft software. That will also increase your security, and decrease your maintenance costs dramatically.
Unix is also dominant in science. Genentech is an all-Apple shop.
If you want to teach the kids something useful for the future, iPhone/iPad programming is probably a billion times more relevant than any kind of XP programming. The Apple tools are free and include simulators for both devices.
You have to be about 40 to think Windows is relevant today. I can't imagine a worse thing to do to high school kids than saddle them with Windows. Might as well get them a Selectric and an abacus.