Writing as I do, about the effectiveness and sustainability of ICTs in open education in Namibia, I am occasionally asked whether my resultant "bad hair day” tails :-) about Microsoft and other corporate misanthropies aren’t simply sour grapes. Given the fact that my prefered tipple is whisky, I say clachan a' choin to this myopic view, and instead call them grapes of wrath strewn along a path of civil righteousness (some call it disobedience), determined as I am to see each and every school in Namibia ICT-empowered in an effective and sustainable manner.
Read on some of my memorable tails...
31 August, 2005
Challenging myopic authority
The Principal
St *********'s College
Tate **********,
Your regretful award of TWO detentions to my son Daniel for VANDALISM OF SCHOOL PROPERTY refers.
I was already having a bad hair day when I received written notice of these detentions. I shall therefore only briefly put aside my real-world dealings with more pertinent educational polemic in Namibia, to address the matter of Daniel's schooling by yourself and your peers.
To wit, and succinctly so, the act of VANDALISM refers to the WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. This, therefore, is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS allegation against Daniel.
As I understand, in the absence of any supporting evidence to the contrary from yourself or your peers, Daniel stands accused of loosening the door knob of a classroom, resulting in the classroom being inaccessible to grade nine german language scholars for some short period of time. According to my sources, the original screws were replaced to restore the door knob's functionality, suggesting there was NO DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. There was, likely, a short-lived state of discomfort on the part of your german language teacher, thus affronted by this prank.
If you and your peers do have cause to call this age-worn juvenile prank an act of VANDALISM, then I applaud your retribution (two detentions) for the vaudeville in schooling it enacts, given the judgment and punishment meted Daniel by your vehmgericht. Particularly so, given the fact that he was recently punished with one detention for having had his shirt partially un-tucked in class at the end of a (hopefully) scholastic day.
I am, however, considerably disturbed by the protracted circumstance of this drama. In particular, and at obvious risk of repeating hearsay, which I trust you will take considered and careful effort to explain, I have the following questions:
1. Why was it necessary for you to use expletives such as "bullshit" and "causing shit" in berating Daniel for the prank in question?
2. Why was it necessary for your vehmgericht to take nearly a week to deliberate the judgment and punishment for this prank, given the fact that you had already insinuated the prank to be an act of vandalism in your preliminary, and apparently heated, discourse with Daniel ?
While I, too, use expletives in the heat of the moment, I find the intimidation inherent in your preliminary insinuation of vandalism noisome. This intimidation, with dire implication of severe punishment, caused undue trauma in Daniel's already tumultuous stage of teenage-dom.
Speaking of sensibilities, I shall expect you to revise the verdict of the offence for which Daniel stands accused. It appears that you are oft somewhat hasty in charging your scholars with heinous crimes against property and propriety. From my academic standpoint, a previous allegation of "plagiarism" against Daniel, for a well-written and well-researched history essay describing the well-documented events leading up to the first world war, comes to mind.
I entrust you and your scholastic peers with the education of my children. However, I have only tolerated your schooling efforts up to now. While I recognise your cordelieran obligation to school my children into becoming good, god-fearing, clean-shaven and neatly dressed citizens, your current schooling effort with Daniel suggests that you are likely distracted by more pressing educational obligations to consider the highly opportunistic educational value of creative punishment.
Does Daniel deserve to be punished for a juvenile prank? Yes, he does.
While detention may well be fardel befitting an ass, I shall expect you to creatively revise the punishment you have deemed appropriate for the offence (now) in question. For good reason.
Daniel is not an ass; he is a well-socialised, intelligent, brave and caring teenager, who, by virtue of his upbringing, will hopefully remain outspoken and individualistic in his actions. I trust that through positive engagement with his peers, mentors and teachers, Daniel will hopefully avoid translating his challenges of authority into any further juvenile pranks.
May I therefore suggest, given the presently limited bouquet of punishment at your disposal, that you get him to write an essay on some appropriately relevant topic during his own free time over weekends? Essays on the pros and cons of civil disobedience, or the impact of dress code and hairstyle on social norms, or how social activism swung political polarities in France, the Philippines or former states of the Russian Federation, all spring to mind.
I believe that my present remarks address the requirement of personal validity entrenched in your old as the hill detention form letter. I shall not sign acknowledgment of this particular detention form letter, given the highly questionable allegation therein, nor shall I sign any others in future, unless they are radically modified to accommodate creative forms of schooling. I shall avail myself to consider your creative suggestions when these should have cause to arise.
Yours faithfully
Joris Komen
St *********'s College
Tate **********,
Your regretful award of TWO detentions to my son Daniel for VANDALISM OF SCHOOL PROPERTY refers.
I was already having a bad hair day when I received written notice of these detentions. I shall therefore only briefly put aside my real-world dealings with more pertinent educational polemic in Namibia, to address the matter of Daniel's schooling by yourself and your peers.
To wit, and succinctly so, the act of VANDALISM refers to the WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. This, therefore, is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS allegation against Daniel.
As I understand, in the absence of any supporting evidence to the contrary from yourself or your peers, Daniel stands accused of loosening the door knob of a classroom, resulting in the classroom being inaccessible to grade nine german language scholars for some short period of time. According to my sources, the original screws were replaced to restore the door knob's functionality, suggesting there was NO DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. There was, likely, a short-lived state of discomfort on the part of your german language teacher, thus affronted by this prank.
If you and your peers do have cause to call this age-worn juvenile prank an act of VANDALISM, then I applaud your retribution (two detentions) for the vaudeville in schooling it enacts, given the judgment and punishment meted Daniel by your vehmgericht. Particularly so, given the fact that he was recently punished with one detention for having had his shirt partially un-tucked in class at the end of a (hopefully) scholastic day.
I am, however, considerably disturbed by the protracted circumstance of this drama. In particular, and at obvious risk of repeating hearsay, which I trust you will take considered and careful effort to explain, I have the following questions:
1. Why was it necessary for you to use expletives such as "bullshit" and "causing shit" in berating Daniel for the prank in question?
2. Why was it necessary for your vehmgericht to take nearly a week to deliberate the judgment and punishment for this prank, given the fact that you had already insinuated the prank to be an act of vandalism in your preliminary, and apparently heated, discourse with Daniel ?
While I, too, use expletives in the heat of the moment, I find the intimidation inherent in your preliminary insinuation of vandalism noisome. This intimidation, with dire implication of severe punishment, caused undue trauma in Daniel's already tumultuous stage of teenage-dom.
Speaking of sensibilities, I shall expect you to revise the verdict of the offence for which Daniel stands accused. It appears that you are oft somewhat hasty in charging your scholars with heinous crimes against property and propriety. From my academic standpoint, a previous allegation of "plagiarism" against Daniel, for a well-written and well-researched history essay describing the well-documented events leading up to the first world war, comes to mind.
I entrust you and your scholastic peers with the education of my children. However, I have only tolerated your schooling efforts up to now. While I recognise your cordelieran obligation to school my children into becoming good, god-fearing, clean-shaven and neatly dressed citizens, your current schooling effort with Daniel suggests that you are likely distracted by more pressing educational obligations to consider the highly opportunistic educational value of creative punishment.
Does Daniel deserve to be punished for a juvenile prank? Yes, he does.
While detention may well be fardel befitting an ass, I shall expect you to creatively revise the punishment you have deemed appropriate for the offence (now) in question. For good reason.
Daniel is not an ass; he is a well-socialised, intelligent, brave and caring teenager, who, by virtue of his upbringing, will hopefully remain outspoken and individualistic in his actions. I trust that through positive engagement with his peers, mentors and teachers, Daniel will hopefully avoid translating his challenges of authority into any further juvenile pranks.
May I therefore suggest, given the presently limited bouquet of punishment at your disposal, that you get him to write an essay on some appropriately relevant topic during his own free time over weekends? Essays on the pros and cons of civil disobedience, or the impact of dress code and hairstyle on social norms, or how social activism swung political polarities in France, the Philippines or former states of the Russian Federation, all spring to mind.
I believe that my present remarks address the requirement of personal validity entrenched in your old as the hill detention form letter. I shall not sign acknowledgment of this particular detention form letter, given the highly questionable allegation therein, nor shall I sign any others in future, unless they are radically modified to accommodate creative forms of schooling. I shall avail myself to consider your creative suggestions when these should have cause to arise.
Yours faithfully
Joris Komen
My now famous "Dear George..." mail
An Open Letter To:
George Ferreira,
Regional Manager,
Microsoft South and East Africa
Dear George, my whilom philanthrope;
On the wild notion of Microsoft being a partner in educational development with SchoolNet Namibia for a measly US$ 2,000 - passably, a succès de scandale, given the present climate...
Microsoft weather forecast:
"We at Microsoft are committed to working with institutions while harnessing technology to better fulfil their missions of preparing intellectually and technically competent citizens for success in the Information Age"
And further:
"At Microsoft, we foresee a world where all children will be using mobile, digital devices to enhance the learning process both at home and school...in a Microsoft Anytime Anywhere Learning (AAL) world, every student will have their own laptop computer."
Tony Roberts' [Computer Aid International] weather forecast:
"In the UK alone over one million computers are buried in landfill sites every year - bespoiling the countryside and damaging the environment ... worldwide, 56 million computers are thrown away every year."
Joris Komen's [SchoolNet Namibia] weather forecast:
"Professor Steve Molyneux, the Microsoft Chair of Advanced Learning Technologies at the University of Wolverhampton in the UK, has secured some 7 million pounds for a short-term Microsoft-oriented research project; in contrast, Namibia's economy has enormous difficulty raising 7 million pounds required to provide self- sustaining ICT access and infrastructure to every single school, nation-wide. This is the calamitous comedy of development."
David A. Wheeler's weather forecast:
"... according to Robert Kramer of CompTIA (Computer Technology Industry Association), political leaders everywhere from California to Zambia are considering legislating a preference for Open Source software use; he counted at least 70 active proposals for software procurement policies that prefer OSS/FS in 24 countries as of October 2002 ... clearly this demonstrates significant positive interest in OSS/FS from various governments."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these contrasting contexts, dare I hazard to guess that the international perspective as described by David A. Wheeler's excellent report on Open Source software may help you rationalise the *current* dilemma facing Microsoft in its purportedly philanthropic efforts in Namibia? I argue that your recent efforts are simply ill-conceived ploys to arrest the increasingly common view that such philanthropy does little to obscure Microsoft's solipsism.SchoolNet's view is that software licensing is a gadfly all consumers and developers can brush aside with a little co-operation and a common adherence to the punk rockier part of IT: Do It Yourself.
Critically, one fundamental, oft overlooked, issue, is the fact that while "free" Microsoft software offers may well be seen as generous, they are effectively limited to lower quality PC technologies which are NOT bound by "global PRELOAD OEM Agreements" enforced with Tier 1 computer manufacturers such as Compaq, Acer, and Dell, to name but a few. Without exemption from such Preload OEM agreements, Microsoft donations (and Open Source solutions) must either be installed on older or lower quality machines, or must first be paid for - since these costs are embedded in the Microsoft-Manufacturer OEM Agreement - and then overwritten with 'free' or open source wares, as we inevitably do, on the high quality computers. Such entrenched OEM deals sap Microsoft's offer of any genuine, or even effective, generosity !!
SchoolNet Namibia has recently been through just such a dilemma with Microsoft. To illustrate:
George Ferreira wrote:
Subject: RE: Microsoft Schools and cost of laptop preloads
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:51:56 +0200
Message-ID:
28E2969FC8666944ACE963D31413975D023EE7BF@job-msg-01.africa.corp.microsoft.com
We would like to set up a meeting with you to finalize the implementation of the Terminal Servicee solution at thee sschools you have metioned below. From our side we are ready to deploy together with your nominated technical candidate so that he maylearn the implementation of technology.
Regarding the Aceer Notebooks, Acer has a global OEM agreement with Microsoft Corp, in which they have to report all desktops or notebooks being sold. Due to the series of the Notebook which you are taking it comes standard with an O/S being primarily Windows XP Pro.
Please Accept that I cannot go and interfere in Comparex way of business...
Microsoft undertook to provide gratis licensed operating system and Office Pro application software for up to 100 laptop computers in the SchoolNet - AED BESII (USAID funded) programme in Namibia. Originally, Microsoft offered old MS Millenium stock to serve this purpose, but following our request to upgrade to an XP Pro or MS 2000 equivalent, and given the insistence of our development partners, Microsoft agreed to this change. Following a move to provide laptops with Intel, rather than inferior ISI630 processors, we were fortunate to secure a really good deal on (tier 1) Acer laptops (US$600 below normal retail), but with the dilemma of not being able to avoid Preloaded OEM (XP PRO), as Acer dealers such as Comparex are contractually bound by Microsoft.
Microsoft is now, post facto, unwilling to cover the cost of this preloaded MS operating system, which will set NetDay/SchoolNet back some US$ 9,000, but will still provide 50 gratis licenses for Office Pro, locally valued at some US$ 2,000. Unfortunately, this license package requires us to load Office Pro on each of the 50 laptops, without any documentation being made available to the recipients of such application software.
From the outset of our consultative meetings with Microsoft, it was made abundantly clear that SchoolNet and NetDay would be happy to provide Microsoft with an opportunity to develop a potential alternative to our viable Open Source LTSP refurbished LAN and stand-alone Linux-PC solutions for schools and teachers in Namibia and further afield in Africa. The original understanding was that each of five pilot schools would be furnished with a 20 refurbished diskless thin-client computer + contemporary server laboratory, at Microsoft's cost, to show and tell Microsoft's extraordinary commitment to affordable LAN computer technologies for education in Namibia.
At our consultative meeting at Microsoft offices on Thursday 17 October, it became imminently clear that the development of a potential Microsoft alternative to our viable Open Source LTSP refurbished LAN solution at five pilot schools in Katutura would incur considerable cost for SchoolNet, given the revised understanding that Microsoft would not be paying for the refurbished hardware, but would only provide the software platform at some unknown Research & Development (!!) cost resulting from co-opting expertise from other third-party Microsoft partners.
Such a change of direction would result in SchoolNet having to pay out in the order of US$ 4,500 per school to provide Microsoft with a significant educational branding opportunity in Namibia, coupled with free technical support service obligated by SchoolNet to all its school clients, in an extraordinary deviation from SchoolNet's commitment to provide skills development, technical support and helpdesk services to its Open Source LTSP LAN school clients and Linux-PC teacher clients.
Based on your earlier blatant assertions, Microsoft is very keen on harnessing major publicity along the lines of "Microsoft replaces Linux at SchoolNet Namibia". I'm afraid that is simply not going to happen. I have, from the very beginning made it VERY clear that SchoolNet has NO desire to REPLACE Linux with Microsoft, but would be happy to accommodate an AFFORDABLE Microsoft diskless refurbished thin-client LAN alternative for potential use in areas where Microsoft distributors would be able to provide technical support to such proprietary Microsoft LAN alternatives.
I should, however, stress that SchoolNet has no desire to FUND Microsoft in such an endeavour, to the tune of US$22,500 for pilot [Microsoft-driven] school hardware + US$ 9,300 for laptop MS OS, in exchange for a paltry US$2,000 worth of proprietary OFFICE PRO application software!
I would like to express my sentiments regarding the way SchoolNet, and through it, 1545 schools in Namibia might, remotely, have been duped for a paltry US$ 2,000. I do so, since you likely still see SchoolNet Namibia as a velitation of some negligible nuisance value.
Given recent developments in Peru (see Dr EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ's breath-taking correspondence), I'm actually afraid to say that SchoolNet has the tenacity of a DDT-resistant Formica Ant.
SchoolNet provides strategies, technologies and network implementations that solidify Namibia's nascent knowledge economy. Our products bespeak a great opportunity for replication, and promise to narrow the digital divide in the majority of developing countries in Africa. A bit big to swallow? Chew it -- DDT is another flavour of global corporate partnership in development.
Earlier this year, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki announced in his state-of-the-nation speech to Parliament that Microsoft would provide free software for all of South Africa's 32,000 government schools. Subsequently, in apparent Zeitgeist, Microsoft Africa pledged to try to do the same for Namibian schools, through SchoolNet, in exchange for direct branding opportunities with some of SchoolNet's educational projects.
A big multi-national company trying to shrink the digital divide by giving the kinds of things that are purportedly easy for it to give amounts to a philanthropy properly called perverse. While corporate generosity should ordinarily be worthy of praise, recipients must approach it with utmost suspicion nevertheless. At the risk of solecism, I suggest that offerings in the vein of Microsoft's philanthropy belie good corporate citizenship to the advantage of key business in most developing African countries - lucrative Government enterprise licenses! Viva WSSD, viva WSSD Global Partnership Outcomes as seen through the eyes of the Vandana Shivas of the world!
As rightly pointed out by www.bridges.org earlier this year, the real issue for schools is not the cost of proprietary software licensing, but the challenges and costs of deployment, maintenance and skilled human resources of sustainable ICT infrastructure at often very remote schools. Conventional Microsoft products have rapid product cycles and quick obsolescence, along with expensive long-term maintenance and support implications. In the few urban settings in Namibia, there are probably enough MCSE paper tigers to get some affordable, albeit dubious, maintenance and support. However, such probability declines as one travels into remote areas of Namibia.
It is highly unlikely that Microsoft will ever respond to this missive, unless of course it perceives SchoolNet to be a pest as swatable as the Peruvian government. Given these circumstances, and SchoolNet's own special brand of Open Source Zeitgeist, I see no further reason for SchoolNet to pursue Microsoft philanthropy in Namibia.
Our well-developed relationships with those international development, government, parastatal and local corporate participants which support the roll-out of ICTs in education in Namibia will see us through delivering a tried, tested and well-supported open-source LTSP LAN solution to some 600 odd (mostly secondary) Namibian schools in next 2 years (as well as countless schools elsewhere in Africa), coupled with various value-adds such as gratis internet access, reduced telecom costs, wireless technologies, solar technologies and open source educational content and administrative tools - a truly miraculous gem of an educational ISP cost-benefit model for replication throughout Africa - with an absolutely clear conscience!
Shafted for a paltry US$ 2000? Not in your wildest linga-longer dreams!
Yours faithfully
Joris Komen
Founding Executive Director, SchoolNet Namibia and NetDay Namibia.
George Ferreira,
Regional Manager,
Microsoft South and East Africa
Dear George, my whilom philanthrope;
On the wild notion of Microsoft being a partner in educational development with SchoolNet Namibia for a measly US$ 2,000 - passably, a succès de scandale, given the present climate...
Microsoft weather forecast:
"We at Microsoft are committed to working with institutions while harnessing technology to better fulfil their missions of preparing intellectually and technically competent citizens for success in the Information Age"
And further:
"At Microsoft, we foresee a world where all children will be using mobile, digital devices to enhance the learning process both at home and school...in a Microsoft Anytime Anywhere Learning (AAL) world, every student will have their own laptop computer."
Tony Roberts' [Computer Aid International] weather forecast:
"In the UK alone over one million computers are buried in landfill sites every year - bespoiling the countryside and damaging the environment ... worldwide, 56 million computers are thrown away every year."
Joris Komen's [SchoolNet Namibia] weather forecast:
"Professor Steve Molyneux, the Microsoft Chair of Advanced Learning Technologies at the University of Wolverhampton in the UK, has secured some 7 million pounds for a short-term Microsoft-oriented research project; in contrast, Namibia's economy has enormous difficulty raising 7 million pounds required to provide self- sustaining ICT access and infrastructure to every single school, nation-wide. This is the calamitous comedy of development."
David A. Wheeler's weather forecast:
"... according to Robert Kramer of CompTIA (Computer Technology Industry Association), political leaders everywhere from California to Zambia are considering legislating a preference for Open Source software use; he counted at least 70 active proposals for software procurement policies that prefer OSS/FS in 24 countries as of October 2002 ... clearly this demonstrates significant positive interest in OSS/FS from various governments."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these contrasting contexts, dare I hazard to guess that the international perspective as described by David A. Wheeler's excellent report on Open Source software may help you rationalise the *current* dilemma facing Microsoft in its purportedly philanthropic efforts in Namibia? I argue that your recent efforts are simply ill-conceived ploys to arrest the increasingly common view that such philanthropy does little to obscure Microsoft's solipsism.SchoolNet's view is that software licensing is a gadfly all consumers and developers can brush aside with a little co-operation and a common adherence to the punk rockier
Critically, one fundamental, oft overlooked, issue, is the fact that while "free" Microsoft software offers may well be seen as generous, they are effectively limited to lower quality PC technologies which are NOT bound by "global PRELOAD OEM Agreements" enforced with Tier 1 computer manufacturers such as Compaq, Acer, and Dell, to name but a few. Without exemption from such Preload OEM agreements, Microsoft donations (and Open Source solutions) must either be installed on older or lower quality machines, or must first be paid for - since these costs are embedded in the Microsoft-Manufacturer OEM Agreement - and then overwritten with 'free' or open source wares, as we inevitably do, on the high quality computers. Such entrenched OEM deals sap Microsoft's offer of any genuine, or even effective, generosity !!
SchoolNet Namibia has recently been through just such a dilemma with Microsoft. To illustrate:
George Ferreira wrote:
Subject: RE: Microsoft Schools and cost of laptop preloads
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:51:56 +0200
Message-ID:
28E2969FC8666944ACE963D31413975D023EE7BF@job-msg-01.africa.corp.microsoft.com
We would like to set up a meeting with you to finalize the implementation of the Terminal Servicee solution at thee sschools you have metioned below. From our side we are ready to deploy together with your nominated technical candidate so that he maylearn the implementation of technology.
Regarding the Aceer Notebooks, Acer has a global OEM agreement with Microsoft Corp, in which they have to report all desktops or notebooks being sold. Due to the series of the Notebook which you are taking it comes standard with an O/S being primarily Windows XP Pro.
Please Accept that I cannot go and interfere in Comparex way of business...
Microsoft undertook to provide gratis licensed operating system and Office Pro application software for up to 100 laptop computers in the SchoolNet - AED BESII (USAID funded) programme in Namibia. Originally, Microsoft offered old MS Millenium stock to serve this purpose, but following our request to upgrade to an XP Pro or MS 2000 equivalent, and given the insistence of our development partners, Microsoft agreed to this change. Following a move to provide laptops with Intel, rather than inferior ISI630 processors, we were fortunate to secure a really good deal on (tier 1) Acer laptops (US$600 below normal retail), but with the dilemma of not being able to avoid Preloaded OEM (XP PRO), as Acer dealers such as Comparex are contractually bound by Microsoft.
Microsoft is now, post facto, unwilling to cover the cost of this preloaded MS operating system, which will set NetDay/SchoolNet back some US$ 9,000, but will still provide 50 gratis licenses for Office Pro, locally valued at some US$ 2,000. Unfortunately, this license package requires us to load Office Pro on each of the 50 laptops, without any documentation being made available to the recipients of such application software.
From the outset of our consultative meetings with Microsoft, it was made abundantly clear that SchoolNet and NetDay would be happy to provide Microsoft with an opportunity to develop a potential alternative to our viable Open Source LTSP refurbished LAN and stand-alone Linux-PC solutions for schools and teachers in Namibia and further afield in Africa. The original understanding was that each of five pilot schools would be furnished with a 20 refurbished diskless thin-client computer + contemporary server laboratory, at Microsoft's cost, to show and tell Microsoft's extraordinary commitment to affordable LAN computer technologies for education in Namibia.
At our consultative meeting at Microsoft offices on Thursday 17 October, it became imminently clear that the development of a potential Microsoft alternative to our viable Open Source LTSP refurbished LAN solution at five pilot schools in Katutura would incur considerable cost for SchoolNet, given the revised understanding that Microsoft would not be paying for the refurbished hardware, but would only provide the software platform at some unknown Research & Development (!!) cost resulting from co-opting expertise from other third-party Microsoft partners.
Such a change of direction would result in SchoolNet having to pay out in the order of US$ 4,500 per school to provide Microsoft with a significant educational branding opportunity in Namibia, coupled with free technical support service obligated by SchoolNet to all its school clients, in an extraordinary deviation from SchoolNet's commitment to provide skills development, technical support and helpdesk services to its Open Source LTSP LAN school clients and Linux-PC teacher clients.
Based on your earlier blatant assertions, Microsoft is very keen on harnessing major publicity along the lines of "Microsoft replaces Linux at SchoolNet Namibia". I'm afraid that is simply not going to happen. I have, from the very beginning made it VERY clear that SchoolNet has NO desire to REPLACE Linux with Microsoft, but would be happy to accommodate an AFFORDABLE Microsoft diskless refurbished thin-client LAN alternative for potential use in areas where Microsoft distributors would be able to provide technical support to such proprietary Microsoft LAN alternatives.
I should, however, stress that SchoolNet has no desire to FUND Microsoft in such an endeavour, to the tune of US$22,500 for pilot [Microsoft-driven] school hardware + US$ 9,300 for laptop MS OS, in exchange for a paltry US$2,000 worth of proprietary OFFICE PRO application software!
I would like to express my sentiments regarding the way SchoolNet, and through it, 1545 schools in Namibia might, remotely, have been duped for a paltry US$ 2,000. I do so, since you likely still see SchoolNet Namibia as a velitation of some negligible nuisance value.
Given recent developments in Peru (see Dr EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ's breath-taking correspondence), I'm actually afraid to say that SchoolNet has the tenacity of a DDT-resistant Formica Ant.
SchoolNet provides strategies, technologies and network implementations that solidify Namibia's nascent knowledge economy. Our products bespeak a great opportunity for replication, and promise to narrow the digital divide in the majority of developing countries in Africa. A bit big to swallow? Chew it -- DDT is another flavour of global corporate partnership in development
Earlier this year, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki announced in his state-of-the-nation speech to Parliament that Microsoft would provide free software for all of South Africa's 32,000 government schools. Subsequently, in apparent Zeitgeist, Microsoft Africa pledged to try to do the same for Namibian schools, through SchoolNet, in exchange for direct branding opportunities with some of SchoolNet's educational projects.
A big multi-national company trying to shrink the digital divide by giving the kinds of things that are purportedly easy for it to give amounts to a philanthropy properly called perverse. While corporate generosity should ordinarily be worthy of praise, recipients must approach it with utmost suspicion nevertheless. At the risk of solecism, I suggest that offerings in the vein of Microsoft's philanthropy belie good corporate citizenship to the advantage of key business in most developing African countries - lucrative Government enterprise licenses! Viva WSSD, viva WSSD Global Partnership Outcomes as seen through the eyes of the Vandana Shivas of the world!
As rightly pointed out by www.bridges.org earlier this year, the real issue for schools is not the cost of proprietary software licensing, but the challenges and costs of deployment, maintenance and skilled human resources of sustainable ICT infrastructure at often very remote schools. Conventional Microsoft products have rapid product cycles and quick obsolescence, along with expensive long-term maintenance and support implications. In the few urban settings in Namibia, there are probably enough MCSE paper tigers to get some affordable, albeit dubious, maintenance and support. However, such probability declines as one travels into remote areas of Namibia.
It is highly unlikely that Microsoft will ever respond to this missive, unless of course it perceives SchoolNet to be a pest as swatable as the Peruvian government. Given these circumstances, and SchoolNet's own special brand of Open Source Zeitgeist, I see no further reason for SchoolNet to pursue Microsoft philanthropy in Namibia.
Our well-developed relationships with those international development, government, parastatal and local corporate participants which support the roll-out of ICTs in education in Namibia will see us through delivering a tried, tested and well-supported open-source LTSP LAN solution to some 600 odd (mostly secondary) Namibian schools in next 2 years (as well as countless schools elsewhere in Africa), coupled with various value-adds such as gratis internet access, reduced telecom costs, wireless technologies, solar technologies and open source educational content and administrative tools - a truly miraculous gem of an educational ISP cost-benefit model for replication throughout Africa - with an absolutely clear conscience!
Shafted for a paltry US$ 2000? Not in your wildest linga-longer dreams!
Yours faithfully
Joris Komen
Founding Executive Director, SchoolNet Namibia and NetDay Namibia.
A bad hair day in 2004
A bad hair day tail from late-2004 - to help set the tone :-)
Hi,
I am having a particularly bad hair day today...
As per usual I appear to be the only gobemouche of the American Federation of Teachers' (AFT) global development alliance, representing a cost-share MOU between local ICT in education development stakeholders, USAID and
AFT -- the appointed contractors serving this alliance. I have taken some moments to digest the content of the latest of AFT's chronicles of gloom, and intend to leave flies in this festering unguent, prior to my proposal that we withdraw SchoolNet's engagement from this sad little AFT GDA project altogether...
I am informed that AFT has been given an opportunity to extend their project (a no-cost extention?) in Namibia on the basis of a report which attempts to veil their numerous blunders in blame. In particular, blame on SchoolNet. I will not allow SchoolNet's reputation to endure any more of such surculose sycophancy any longer.
The focus of my dissent is a feasibility study report dated April 2004, purportedly prepared by BOTH AFT and the National Institute for Educational Development (NIED), a copy of which I received electronically on 15 October 2004.
Therein the authors write
"The period for conducting the Feasibility Study was extended from the initial plan of 6 months to 15 months. This delay was due to several unanticipated developments that would have a fundamental impact on the future course of the project, making it impossible to accurately forecast the project's trajectory and to estimate future project expenses. Among the most important of these are:
1. an 18-month delay in selecting pilot schools due to: the inability of SchoolNet Namibia to provide an accurate listing of schools that had fully functioning ICT platforms and trained teachers; the decision to replace six SchoolNet schools with schools participating in the Microsoft/Parliament ICT program; and delays in getting ministry authorization to install DireqLearn software in pilot schools;
2. a decision by Alliance partners to source curriculum content software locally rather than having it developed in the U.S. by LessonLab, an educational software organization recommended by the AFT;
3. a decision by the Alliance to accept an offer by Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. to include in the pilot study six schools that were being equipped with Microsoft platforms, under an agreement with the Parliament of Namibia;
4. related to 3 and 4 above, was the difficulty and delay in identifying locally sourced curriculum content compatible with the Namibian syllabus and the technical requirements of SchoolNet's Gnu/Linux and Microsoft's Windows operating systems;
5. dissension by SchoolNet Namibia to include Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. as a full partner in the Alliance;
6. resistance by SchoolNet Namibia to testing and resolving technical issues related to making LearnOnLine (LOL) content curriculum (selected by a NIED review panel and approved by the Alliance) available to pilot schools equipped with SchoolNet's Gnu/Linux platform; and
7. turnover of key AFT project personnel."
While I am gob-smacked by the authors' temerity in transfering blame to SchoolNet for innumerable unilateral blunders during the first " 6 months of feasibility study", followed by collusion with M$FT thereafter, my more direct points of dissent read as follows:
1. After an 12-month joyride by David Roth at the considerable expense of the American people, and the considerable chagrin of SOME of us in Namibia, during which time the AFT goal posts were moved to accommodate various unilateral Roth-driven changes, the "feasibility" component was extended for an extra 12 months to seemingly cover up the brouhaha surrounding budget allocations for AFT's choice of LessonLab and subsequent M$FT californication. While the bureaucratic delays of USAID/AED/EDC to expedite the SchoolNet GDA came as a fitting distraction, SchoolNet was also denied access to USAID funding under AFT GDA contract to deliver technology and content services meeting AFT's then latest cross-platform technology, OS and content requirements. This then also resulted in the SchoolNet GDA being manipulated to select NEW schools to meet NEW AFT school selection and OS and content criteria.
2, 3 & 4. A decision by SOME Alliance partners to source curriculum software different to that offered by SchoolNet followed Roth's collusion with M$FT, neatly accomodating a concerted take-over bid by M$FT in their national "anti-Linux" campaign (quoting Gary Hodgson, formerly employed by M$FT, who spearheaded this campaign in Namibia - a more detailed articulation exposing this campaign is in preparation - i am mightily pleased Schoolnet has a call centre in Windhoek, not Cairo!).
5. Correction -- dissent not dissension, resulting from Roth and M$FT pushing the limits of the laws of disseisin. We remain firm on this position, as reiterated and minuted in the SchoolNet Board of Trustees' most recent board meeting.
6. Utter codswallop - SchoolNet DID NOT resist testing - it DID test LOL and laughed out loud!!! AND provided its frank opinions and made recommendations to AFT and LOL. To add insult to injury, AFT is misrepresenting our denial of a resource intensive M$FT EMULATION on our open source platform as a denial of their choice M$FT content package to SchoolNet schools. I have made it plain and simple to both AFT and LOL - provide a LOCAL LOL web service, and SchoolNet will ENSURE THAT SUCH LOL RESOURCES ARE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE!!! Please phone LOL and Eric Kouskalis (WorldTeach) to confirm such dialogue took place!
7. Herein lies the core of the problem - costly and myopic AFT project personnel short on transparency.
To date I am STILL waiting for a response from AFT concerning outstanding issues raised on numerous occasions. The present feasibility study report does little to ease my mind that they take my queries seriously, or, for that matter, ever read any of my mails.
Since it appears that SchoolNet is the only AFT GDA Alliance member who continues to protest AFT's position on awarding M$FT FULL MEMBERSHIP of the AFT GDA Alliance, and that it intends to pursue this on the grounds of M$FT cost-share (this is a complete joke!), I respectfully request that USAID accepts SchoolNet's withdrawal from the AFT GDA.
To cater to AFT's needs for functional schoolnet services at the schoolnet schools earmarked for the continuation of the AFT project, I have discussed this matter with my staff -
1. Training needs at AFT project schools can be honoured by the CECS project - Theo Whittaker can be contacted directly.
2. Technical service and support needs - schools continue to use our toll-free number, and get problem solving escalated as we do for all our educational clients.
3. LOL - when we hear that LOL would like their educational content hosted on a local web server, we will either facilitate this on our own ISP server, conditional on allowing ALL our educational clients access to this resource, or provide a URL link to whichever local server is opted for.
4. Learnthings - the online version will be available to the M$FT pilot schools, conditional on these schools acquiring internet access from SchoolNet/XNet ISP.
I have reached saturation point with AFT antics; any further direct engagement with AFT would be noisome at this stage. As I have indicated before, I would be happy to meet with you to work out appropriate face-saving escape routes. I have taken considerable time this weekend to read through all the fine print concerning our partnership in the AFT GDA and the subsequent AFT contract. Since the GDA is NOT a legally binding contract, and we have NO contractual agreement with AFT directly, there is no reason why we cannot gracefully withdraw from this GDA.
Yours faithfully
Joris Komen
Hi,
I am having a particularly bad hair day today...
As per usual I appear to be the only gobemouche of the American Federation of Teachers' (AFT) global development alliance, representing a cost-share MOU between local ICT in education development stakeholders, USAID and
AFT -- the appointed contractors serving this alliance. I have taken some moments to digest the content of the latest of AFT's chronicles of gloom, and intend to leave flies in this festering unguent, prior to my proposal that we withdraw SchoolNet's engagement from this sad little AFT GDA project altogether...
I am informed that AFT has been given an opportunity to extend their project (a no-cost extention?) in Namibia on the basis of a report which attempts to veil their numerous blunders in blame. In particular, blame on SchoolNet. I will not allow SchoolNet's reputation to endure any more of such surculose sycophancy any longer.
The focus of my dissent is a feasibility study report dated April 2004, purportedly prepared by BOTH AFT and the National Institute for Educational Development (NIED), a copy of which I received electronically on 15 October 2004.
Therein the authors write
"The period for conducting the Feasibility Study was extended from the initial plan of 6 months to 15 months. This delay was due to several unanticipated developments that would have a fundamental impact on the future course of the project, making it impossible to accurately forecast the project's trajectory and to estimate future project expenses. Among the most important of these are:
1. an 18-month delay in selecting pilot schools due to: the inability of SchoolNet Namibia to provide an accurate listing of schools that had fully functioning ICT platforms and trained teachers; the decision to replace six SchoolNet schools with schools participating in the Microsoft/Parliament ICT program; and delays in getting ministry authorization to install DireqLearn software in pilot schools;
2. a decision by Alliance partners to source curriculum content software locally rather than having it developed in the U.S. by LessonLab, an educational software organization recommended by the AFT;
3. a decision by the Alliance to accept an offer by Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. to include in the pilot study six schools that were being equipped with Microsoft platforms, under an agreement with the Parliament of Namibia;
4. related to 3 and 4 above, was the difficulty and delay in identifying locally sourced curriculum content compatible with the Namibian syllabus and the technical requirements of SchoolNet's Gnu/Linux and Microsoft's Windows operating systems;
5. dissension by SchoolNet Namibia to include Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. as a full partner in the Alliance;
6. resistance by SchoolNet Namibia to testing and resolving technical issues related to making LearnOnLine (LOL) content curriculum (selected by a NIED review panel and approved by the Alliance) available to pilot schools equipped with SchoolNet's Gnu/Linux platform; and
7. turnover of key AFT project personnel."
While I am gob-smacked by the authors' temerity in transfering blame to SchoolNet for innumerable unilateral blunders during the first " 6 months of feasibility study", followed by collusion with M$FT thereafter, my more direct points of dissent read as follows:
1. After an 12-month joyride by David Roth at the considerable expense of the American people, and the considerable chagrin of SOME of us in Namibia, during which time the AFT goal posts were moved to accommodate various unilateral Roth-driven changes, the "feasibility" component was extended for an extra 12 months to seemingly cover up the brouhaha surrounding budget allocations for AFT's choice of LessonLab and subsequent M$FT californication. While the bureaucratic delays of USAID/AED/EDC to expedite the SchoolNet GDA came as a fitting distraction, SchoolNet was also denied access to USAID funding under AFT GDA contract to deliver technology and content services meeting AFT's then latest cross-platform technology, OS and content requirements. This then also resulted in the SchoolNet GDA being manipulated to select NEW schools to meet NEW AFT school selection and OS and content criteria.
2, 3 & 4. A decision by SOME Alliance partners to source curriculum software different to that offered by SchoolNet followed Roth's collusion with M$FT, neatly accomodating a concerted take-over bid by M$FT in their national "anti-Linux" campaign (quoting Gary Hodgson, formerly employed by M$FT, who spearheaded this campaign in Namibia - a more detailed articulation exposing this campaign is in preparation - i am mightily pleased Schoolnet has a call centre in Windhoek, not Cairo!).
5. Correction -- dissent not dissension, resulting from Roth and M$FT pushing the limits of the laws of disseisin. We remain firm on this position, as reiterated and minuted in the SchoolNet Board of Trustees' most recent board meeting.
6. Utter codswallop - SchoolNet DID NOT resist testing - it DID test LOL and laughed out loud!!! AND provided its frank opinions and made recommendations to AFT and LOL. To add insult to injury, AFT is misrepresenting our denial of a resource intensive M$FT EMULATION on our open source platform as a denial of their choice M$FT content package to SchoolNet schools. I have made it plain and simple to both AFT and LOL - provide a LOCAL LOL web service, and SchoolNet will ENSURE THAT SUCH LOL RESOURCES ARE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE!!! Please phone LOL and Eric Kouskalis (WorldTeach) to confirm such dialogue took place!
7. Herein lies the core of the problem - costly and myopic AFT project personnel short on transparency.
To date I am STILL waiting for a response from AFT concerning outstanding issues raised on numerous occasions. The present feasibility study report does little to ease my mind that they take my queries seriously, or, for that matter, ever read any of my mails.
Since it appears that SchoolNet is the only AFT GDA Alliance member who continues to protest AFT's position on awarding M$FT FULL MEMBERSHIP of the AFT GDA Alliance, and that it intends to pursue this on the grounds of M$FT cost-share (this is a complete joke!), I respectfully request that USAID accepts SchoolNet's withdrawal from the AFT GDA.
To cater to AFT's needs for functional schoolnet services at the schoolnet schools earmarked for the continuation of the AFT project, I have discussed this matter with my staff -
1. Training needs at AFT project schools can be honoured by the CECS project - Theo Whittaker can be contacted directly.
2. Technical service and support needs - schools continue to use our toll-free number, and get problem solving escalated as we do for all our educational clients.
3. LOL - when we hear that LOL would like their educational content hosted on a local web server, we will either facilitate this on our own ISP server, conditional on allowing ALL our educational clients access to this resource, or provide a URL link to whichever local server is opted for.
4. Learnthings - the online version will be available to the M$FT pilot schools, conditional on these schools acquiring internet access from SchoolNet/XNet ISP.
I have reached saturation point with AFT antics; any further direct engagement with AFT would be noisome at this stage. As I have indicated before, I would be happy to meet with you to work out appropriate face-saving escape routes. I have taken considerable time this weekend to read through all the fine print concerning our partnership in the AFT GDA and the subsequent AFT contract. Since the GDA is NOT a legally binding contract, and we have NO contractual agreement with AFT directly, there is no reason why we cannot gracefully withdraw from this GDA.
Yours faithfully
Joris Komen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)