Thought I'd forward this on to here. -----Original Message----- From: Arthur [mailto:ajsiegel@optonline.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:29 AM To: 'Bert Freudenberg'; 'debian-edu@lists.debian.org' Subject: RE: squeak
There is a lot of collected license information on the Squeak Wiki:
"Squeak-L" http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/159
From that cite:
""" It surprises many that "Open Source" has been given a very specific and stringent definition. There have been efforts to make this apply to "open source" in lower case, too. Apparently, Squeak is not "Open Source", and there is disagreement on whether it is "open source". Squeak Central does consider Squeak to be "open source", however, and pretty much everyone agrees that Squeak-L meets the spirit of the Open Source movement (which it predates by many years). """ Neither am I a lawyer, and neither do I wish to get into the fine print of licensing issues. But I am apparently not "pretty much everyone". Because what I can say without hesitation is that I do not see in Squeak a spirit and a history compatible with the *spirit* of debian. Understanding that Squeak has the perfect right to have its own spirit, its own community, and its own Squeak centric license, sensibilities, whatever. Which I do not argue against. Or make any accusations against. I would have no problem myself being part of that community, if that is where my interests led me. But, bottom line, I think Squeak's view is too Squeak-centric, to be compatible with a true free software and open source view ala debian. Which to me, from a technology point of view, emphasizes the advantages of technologies than can cooperate and leverage from each other. Squeak is a technology unto itself, with no goal or pretense to work cooperatively with any other technology. In that most important sense, it is closed. And incompatible with the *spirit* of free and open source, at least as I happen to understand and experience that spirit. Art
WHEW. Finally head from my school district's IT dept. regarding the possibility of installing Python for kids to learn programming on. They are VERY resistant to this. I am amazed. Their issues now: Python would allow some "smart studnet" to mess with the network (microsoft networking). My response: can't I install a Python that has any networking removed? Any ideas? I'm frustrated beyond belief at my district's rigidity here. Thanks! BJ MacNevin
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:30:44 -0800 "BJ MacNevin" <brian@macnevin.net> wrote:
WHEW. Finally head from my school district's IT dept. regarding the possibility of installing Python for kids to learn programming on. They are VERY resistant to this. I am amazed.
Their issues now: Python would allow some "smart studnet" to mess with the network (microsoft networking).
My response: can't I install a Python that has any networking removed?
Any ideas? I'm frustrated beyond belief at my district's rigidity here.
I'm tempted to say that removing the 'socket' library should be enough to foil the plans of a moderately smart student, but an extremely smart student could also pull a stunt like using dl.open to access the winsock dll directly. That said, I'm not sure 'networking removed' would accomplish anything substantial, the thing you need to 'protect' the network from are a) sniffers and b) modification of networking settings. Having a student able to make arbitary connections on the network isn't nearly as dangerous as the other two. Stephen Thorne.
Their issues now: Python would allow some "smart studnet" to mess with the network (microsoft networking).
A. If the students are that 'smart' they should be encouraged not obstructed in their learning. B. If they are they are that 'smart' I am sure they can kind find all kinds of way to screw up the school's windows machines without Python. C. Call their obtrustive bluff abnd ask the IT department to be much more specific abut what exactly they are afraid of. Then together you can quickly find a suitable solution. D. One such solution might be to install Linux on a cheap old machine asap, and let them use that immediately as a 'safe' stand-alone progamming testbed. E. The safest way to 'remove' networking is to unplug the machine in question. F. If the IT departmetn know their stuff shey shodl be able to handle it by managing permissions. Permission control is another really good reason to install Linux and use that for python programming. good luck - Jason
On Thursday 18 March 2004 09:30 pm, BJ MacNevin wrote:
Any ideas? I'm frustrated beyond belief at my district's rigidity here.
Thanks!
BJ MacNevin
Sounds rigid indeed. My daughter's public school has a computer lab with Python installed on every machine (Windows). But I'm not sure if they're networked, probably not. If they're worried about Python, is there any programming language they're not worried about (e.g. Java?). If so, what's the reasoning? Why pick on Python? Or maybe they just aren't into programming, period, because it's so "dangerous". Kirby
Their issues now: Python would allow some "smart studnet" to mess with the network (microsoft networking).
Btw, you did not mention of any part of the school network is connected to the Internet. I assume it is. If so your IT department should prbably be *much* more worried about the latest virus attacking standard Microsoft tools [IE, Outlook, Media Player] than about any Python installations Here's a quick article on it: http://informationweek.securitypipeline.com/news/18400836 - Jason
participants (5)
-
Arthur -
BJ MacNevin -
Jason Cunliffe -
Kirby Urner -
Stephen Thorne