if a professor incorporates a software to be used as homework, should they have some kind of obligation to inform the students about an open source version of it? (assuming they know one exists)
~my stats class uses JMP (provided by the skool), which costs 1.5*10^4 dollars. There is an open source version available, but its GUI is weak and it doesnt have all the cool stuff.
~should schools feel obligated to tell students about libre office and other open source alternatives that can replace 95% of the functionality of micro$lop office?
i feel like its a predicament cuz if you dont have experience with the real deal, you might be missing out on valuable software training/ experience compatibility issues across platforms.
id say that there should be an obligation to inform students about opensource alternatives. I know that in many of my classes there is an obligation to use windows office services, but that's because we're receiving specific training in using that software. When it comes to courses that are using the software merely as a means to an end, I don't see why other software should be snubbed if it has comparative functionality.
Don't learn tools, learn trades.
Just because interviewers _want_ you to be a mindless wageslave monkey, doesn't mean you should.
20 years from now, whatever proprietary software you're using will likely be outdated and obsolete.
@ It feels like the Office suite will never die; corporate softwares will always, unfortunately, latch on to some company bureaucracies and never let go.
@ I know a guy that still beats it to WordPerfect
@ Probably because it's perfect.
Anyway, there's a lot of ancient software that people and businesses get attached to, either through licensing agreements or otherwise.
For the record, WordStar was always better than WordPerfect
speaking of glorious open source software, VLC 3.0 will have chromecast support so you can watch the mystery of chess boxing with ease! (im looking at you, bakesta)