[MACEP] crossing the platform divide

[Mike Ely]

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:42 -0800, Quentin Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 10:03 -0800, Tim Chase wrote:
> <snip>
<snip>
> If I only had one platform, I could be hiring
> relatively green techs who only know one platform or the other, and not
> need to duplicate skill sets. So the cost increase in this area can be
> anywhere from nothing (if you are very lucky) to 200%.
I'll need to take issue with that assertion, as I can say it's pretty
much contraindicated by experience.  For example, when I hired at my
last job, I was "relatively green" and in particular had only very
limited experience with the Mac.  I was hired at a wage well below the
industry standard, and was happy to have the job, which can be correctly
described as "entry level."

What matters is that you find people with the aptitude and enthusiasm it
takes to pick something up quickly and run with it.  Even if you hire an
experienced tech, there will be an extensive learning curve in any
organization as he or she learns the landscape of equipment, software,
and personalities that are unique to that place.  It really doesn't
matter if your tech has experience in only one platform, so long as he
or she is willing to learn.  A true geek will be excited about the
possibility.

> Another example would be widely needed applications, like office suites
> or gradebook programs. Perhaps there is one that works on all of your
> platforms and this isn't applicable. But even there is often a
> compromise there, where you settle on something that has 80% of the
> features of something else in order to get that cross-platform
> capability. 
Hmm.  I regularly use Microsoft Office on Windows, OS X, and Linux.  So
far as I can see, there's no compromise in features in any of the above
environments.  With regard to gradebooks, the trend there is going to
managed, server-side apps, and the smart administrator is going to look
for something that's web-enabled to take the load of the techs. (Note: I
do not consider something that depends upon ActiveX or IE/Win as
"web-enabled."  Standards need to be followed, and will pay off in
increased flexibility)

> I also lose most if not all volume licensing discounts I
> might have otherwise enjoyed because rather than buying 1000 copies of
> one thing, I'm buying 250 of one, 100 of another, 350 of another, and
> 300 of the fourth.
A valid point, although less so when OETC is taken into consideration.
Generally if you're buying something in that kind of volume, it's going
to be listed there, or could become listed there.

> I really think that a managed IT infrastructure is important in any
> sizable organization, and schools are no exception. The best way to have
> an efficient managed IT infrastructure, is to standardize on one
> platform. It doesn't matter a whole lot which one, they each have their
> strengths and weaknesses, but having just one really makes things much
> simpler and cost effective. By my estimates, my IT infrastructure is
> costing on average 80% more than it would if it were centered around a
> single platform. And again, I'm also considering somewhat more
> intangible costs, like ease of management, training, scalability, etc,
> not just columns in a ledger.
Where standardization is important and useful, you have to keep in mind
that education is a special case.  Whereas in a corporate environment
the set of requirements is often pretty straightforward, education will
by the very nature of what it is need to see a much wider variety of
needs being met.  Even as we argue against "cookie-cutter kids" being
tested to death and learning nothing, many of us will argue that meeting
diverse technological needs for education can be done in a uniform
fashion.  Logically, this is improbable at best.  Yes, it is good to
standardize on a given set of document formats, and yes, it is good to
have some sort of coherent view of the systems running within an
organization, but there will always be too many special cases in
education to be able to rely upon One Image on One Platform.  Saying
that lack of money restricts platform diversity just suggests a lack of
imagination - as an example that I'm sure is close to your heart, look
at LTSP.  It's a specific solution to having to pay extortionate rates
for CALs, software license fees, and forced hardware upgrades.  And yet
it plays very well in a diverse environment.

Suffice to say that while I think some standardization is appropriate,
taking it too far results in diminishing returns.

Cheers,
Mike