Check out some of my 3D stuff HERE

and my Documenary films HERE

Enjoy!

Posted by drpoo as General, Linux / Open Source, Photo Album at 7:51 PM PST

No Comments »

Nightmare Of A Closed Source World

You wake up. You re sweating. You don t remember having a bad dream and it surly is not warm in the room. In fact, when you breath, crystals sparkle in the air. Whatever, you say. Time to live another day.

After a good stretch, scratch, and quick look in the mirror, you slowly make your way to the kitchen. You crack open the fridge, take out a couple of overly-large, clean white eggs and pop`em in the skillet. Crackle-pop-pop-Crackle. The sounds of good cooking give you an idea!

Quickly before the eggs cook through you hurry to the fridge and grab some cheese, some onions and on the way back to the skillet you pick-up a dash of some special spice. Perfect, you say. Now this is some good ole home-style cookin .

With the echo of your words still ringing in the air – there is knock at your front door. You walk towards the door and notice that there is a dark crowd of figures huddled outside – then without warning the door comes flying at you and you fall to the ground with a thump. Blackness.

Uhh…uhhh…you mumble as the light from the rising sun filters through your swollen eyelids. You open them slowly to adjust to the change. You figure that there are half a dozen men or more standing around you. Then you smell the odor of your eggs in the air – all burnt to a crisp and ruined for sure.

Your stomach gurgles and pains from hunger. Your head spins from the confusion and from being hit with some blunt object upon the entrance of the shadowy figures.

They all wear masks, so you can not see who they are. Although after effort to focus, you manage to make out some letters on their cloths. RIAA, does it say. Or maybe DRM, or DMCA? It s hard to tell for sure because your eyes have gone blurry, but your almost positive it also says something like Sponsored by Microsoft, Apple and the Association of Closed Source developers, but before you know for sure, you lose your focus and you hear a mans voice from behind.

“Do you know why we are here?” the man said as he jabbs you in the back with something that you swear feels like a spatula, or maybe even a keyboard – though you just assume it is a gun.

You shake your head to say no and before you finish your second shake, WHAM! The object that was stuck in your backside was removed and you were wacked hard in the back of the head.

“Yes! You do know why we are here! You have broken the law – and we are here as your second conscious to warn you of the consequences!”

You can but sputter out a mumble of sounds.

“We know you have used our Intellectual Property without paying the appropriate licensing fees, not did you even request permission from the proper authorities. We have all – yes ALL Rights Reserved for that good ole home-style cooking recipe that you stole and copied from us a few moments ago, which you then modified and redistributed without authorization. This is strictly prohibited by law and is clearly noted in the licence agreement of our product. We specifically deny you all other rights and freedoms and highly restrict the use of our product. Although I bet you clicked right on through all that licensing information rather than reading it anyway – we expect that much. In fact it is exactly what we hope for!” The man laughs and the rest of his crew follows along. “And one last thing son. We ll be coming back soon to pay you another visit if we find you ve made any illegal copies of our good ole home-style cookin to share with your friends, you understand? So don t even try because we re watching you. Really, we are.”

Bam! Darkness returns before you open your eyes to find yourself laying in bed again – soaked with sweat and permeated with the odorous smell of burnt fried eggs. Oh and how good they could have been you think, if only the recipe had not been protected by Closed Source Recipe Patents.

——-

Be aware. Someday this might become a reality. Don t let it! Use GNU/Linux and other Free and Open Source Software that is protected by the GNU GPL CopyLeft license, which guarantees your rights and everyone elses to the freedoms we all deserve. Use, Modify, Share, Educate. For more information check FSF.org, UBUNTU.ORG, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOSS (Written By: Chris Ward – drpoo@drpooville.org).

Posted by drpoo as Linux / Open Source, Personal Endeveavors at 12:46 PM PST

2 Comments »

Ahhh, so i´m hanging out in Mexico, and i realize that, shit, after this term i only have one year left. And it left me thinking about a whole bunch of stuff.

Truthfully, i´ve been thinking about the fact that i have a senior project i need to do soon a lot. And well, i have a ton of ideas, but the tuff part is choosing which one and sticking with it. Please, READERS of this blog (mom, dad, … hehe… ryan.) Help me decide.

Okay. So here go a few. The latest first.

In short, draw up a business plan and understand all that it would take to start a small business here in Merida making selling dad´s already famous Jerky. *Tironito* Is my prelimanry name for it. *Small Jerk* o *Small Tug*. hehe. Lame! Why? well, because the damn stuff is perfect for Yucatan! I´m seriously saying that it would be a success, without a doubt. It would only be a matter of short time before everyone knew what it was and fell in love it. Put it this way, my host mother hear, who never eats red meat, could keep her hands out of the bag i gave the family! hehe. The fact that it is spicy, plus the fact that it´s meat (dried on top of that..meaning it won´t go bad in the heat for a long time) and the fact that everyone here loves to eat botanas (snacks) everywhere they go, give it´s high scores on the lovable factor. (i´m already having visions of the stuff being sold at all the local events, where there are always a ton of people selling little snack items out of the bag on their shoulder…and there are SO many events here you would not believe. Everyday there is something happening, it´s incredible. Then there is also the open air markets, and the parks, and the street venders…that are just always continuously walking around selling food products and other things…) Really, to say the least, Yucatecans are serious meat eaters! In fact, I hardly ever see green here. It´s a surprise when i do, my eyes are nearly blinded by the bright colors of letuce and fresh tomatoe.

The challenges i would be facing to implement this project are many. Well, that is if i wanted to do it legally and successfully (even then…it wouldn´t be exactly easy…but nor would it be extremely difficult since i´m focusing down to only one thing). Legally starting a small business in Mexico, Production, marketing, vending, etc. etc.

I know (well, i assume) i´m going to be starting my own business eventually and this is an excellent opportunity i believe. Especially because i have a lot of support here already, and i know the language, the area and the people rather well.

Let that one sink in for a few minutes. I know you might laugh…but with your support (i´m talking mostly moral here) it is definately possible. The most that would happen is i fail, have a good time doing it, and put it away in my bag of ´tried that already´s.

Now, the next idea is that i create … hmm…. should i give away my secrets online? Where someone like Microsoft…or hell, google for that matter…could take them before i get a chance to do it myself?? hmmm….i mean i´ll be releasing any software i do under GNU open source terms and anyone will be able to use them how they wish…but i´d like to get the chance to produce them and protect them with GNU liscence first. Let´s say i have an idea to put together a sophisticated online Peer Created Radio station. Think Wikipedia, but rather than text intries, it´s radio program entries. Where you as a user get to post your own home-brewed radio programs, and you as a user get to design your own custom streaming radio station using casts from your fellow users (perhaps some of those users could even be commercial). Yeah, big project, but i could break it down in some way so i could build the first basic prototype / beta system for my sr project and seek support from the open source development community to advance the software to production quality.

Now, another idea. I have many ideas for inventions…i could make a SR project out of one of them. The design, prototyping, production, marketing, and vending…etc. would all be a part of it. AKA. Plus i would look into patenting law..etc. I would start of with the most simple product idea that i have, then if i was successful in reaching my goals for the project, i could then move on to more advanced invention ideas that i have…

Finnally, i still have the idea to come down to Merida again and work on some sort of research project regarding Technology Development initiatives here. Which by the way, i´m working (volunteering) right now for a government organization that works in exactly this department…they are rolling out all sorts of cool stuff and i´m working with them to do it (well, it´s more like i´m observing at the moment, but we´ll see how things develop). And on top of that, i´m likely going to start working with the director of the Yucatan sector of the Nacional E-Mexico project, teaching some computer classes (or helping) and also going out to small villages around Merida organizing for more community computer centers to be setup in the local libraries. … so … if something develops while i´m here into what could be a good SR project, i´ll jump on it. Otherwise i might just end up coming down here to work in the future…perhaps…as a side job while i´m getting my Tironito (jerky) business up and running. :-)

Okay. There are others, but what do you guys think about those? I think these are pretty much the selection i´m going to choose from.

Though there is one more recent idea that i thought of…providing telephone services cheap through voIP Voice over IP (internet telephones…such as the one i´ve been using to call all you guys…) With this i could definately give customers a much better price rate than the people here that are using phone cards, cell phones or the Mexico Tel Mex telephony service. I´d likely be one of the first to the market here too…the people here are a little behind in the times still (though…i´m working on catching them up! hehe)

Also, Mom, Dad specifically, i have a question since i´m here….You guys know that i´m off sync for at COA for graduation. What do you think about me taking the spring term (the next term) off to resync myself with everyone else? I think it would make things easier for me, well at least less confusing in regards to deadlines and the like. I´m seriously thinking about it, staying in Bar Harbor probably, working working working, and planning for the Sr. Project, and the likes. Or perhaps for some of the spring term i would come and live in Merida again, to start researching for SR project.

Let me know what you´all´s think.

Peace…and happy new year!

-Chris

Posted by drpoo as Linux / Open Source, College Of The Atlantic, Live Mp3 Streams, Peace Works!, Personal Endeveavors at 2:57 PM PST

3 Comments »

North Lake College in Irving, TX is offering the first Open Source Technology certificate in the U.S. beginning Spring of 2006. The certificate program was made possible through a grant by the Texas Skills Standards Board. As a TSSB-recognized program, open source will finally get the corporate and industrial exposure it deserves. We believe the program is the only one of its kind in the nation at the community college level. Our goal is to promote Open Source as a business philosophy and as a way of life rather than limiting the program to a few token OSS offerings. Among the courses to be offered: The Philosophy of Open Source, a series of LAMP courses, and a capstone course which will focus on OSS development practices. Courses will be offered both on-line and on-campus.

The Open Source Technology Certificate project, directed by Brian Koontz, Coordinator and Instructor of Computer Science, proposes to integrate the Web Development and Administration Skill Standards into the program’s curriculum. The development of the Open Source technology certificate program will address the expected employer demand and continued occupational growth for open source trained information technology experts in Dallas County and the State. “I believe this program will help North Lake College become the focal point for Open Source throughout the metroplex,” said Koontz. “TSSB Program Recognition will lend the program the exposure and credibility needed to ensure success.”

Read more Here

Posted by drpoo as Linux / Open Source, News at 2:46 PM PDT

No Comments »

How to approach a difficult question:
The Digital Divide

At first glance, the solution to the ‘Digital Divide’ (DD) seems obvious: Developing countries do not have access to enough technology, therefore, the developed countries ought to send aid to them to provide the “have not’s” with the technology they are lacking. The problem in theory then, according to the actions many have taken, should ultimately solve itself.1,2 But is that really the the case?

There is no doubt that developing countries3 in fact do lack equal access to technology. Compared to the developed world4, developing countries spend nearly 85% less on technological research and development (R&D) each year. Even if one only considers that disproportionality of expenditures on R&D between the two groups alone, the unbalanced nature of the situation is easily seen. However, if one ventures a little deeper, they will undoubtedly find the disparity to be even more staggering.
In the 1996/975, developing countries had an estimated population of 4.25 billion people. In total, they held nearly 75% of all the people in the world. On the other hand, that only managed to create a third of the worlds Gross Domestic Product (GDP), at 13.4 trillion $US PPP6. More over, they specifically spent only 0.6% of the total GDP on technological R&D, which accounted for approximately 85 billion $US PPP, or around 16% of the worlds total GDP expenditure on R&D (GERD).

Developed countries, in contrast, hold a completely opposite position in nearly every way possible. First, they make up only a quarter of the worlds population, some 1.25 billion people. Yet they produce well over three quarters of the worlds total GDP, which weighs in at nearly 21 trillion $US PPP a year. Out of that amount, close to 461 billion $US PPP is spent on R&D (GERD), or approximately 2.2% of their total GDP. That is a staggering 400% more than was spent in the same time by developing nations, but by only a fourth of the populous per capita.

Another way to think of it is by looking at statistics of how the most basic, and essential types of ICT are distributed amongst the developed and developing countries in the world. For example, in his book “High Noon, 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to solve them,” J.F. Rischard discusses how he has come to realize the DD “is of great concern” because the developed countries have invested in an “unbelievable overcapacity” of the worlds communications system. He says, “If the world’s 6 billion people people were to talk nonstop on the phone for the next year, their words could be transmitted in a few hours through the currently available bandwidth.” “Yet, some 2 billion people have never made a phone call.” “The telephone density (phone lines per 100 inhabitants is fifty to sixty in rich countries but less than two in the poorest developing countries.” He also goes on to talk about how “Information Technology is even more unevenly distributed” in that a large majority of the Internet traffic existing today is made up of transactions between the US and Europe. Even though only “about 10% of the worlds population understands English, [it is] the language of 75 percent of all web sites.” In other words, he recognizes that the content available for the rest of the world online is dismal and that this makes the Internet practically useless to those who do not understand English even if they had ‘access’.10

Although I doubt these statistics are completely accurate,7 I believe the explicit underlying economic and implied technological inequalities make the huge disparity readily obvious, even if there is a significant margin of error. The data tells us clearly that developed countries hold a highly concentrated amount of the worlds wealth and also that they spend a larger percentage of it on R&D. Therefore, the amount of technology they create is grossly larger than that of developing nations, and so, the benefits that come from exploiting technology skews world inequalities even further. Reading the data practically leaves no room for argument to whether or not a ‘digital divide’ problem of some sort is present in the world today. It proves, with near certainty, that there really is a DD to worry about.

What is not so clear though is whether the problem is truly as ‘black and white’ as the term ‘digital divide’ implies; does the problem really lay between a binary division of the “’haves and the have not’s?” Can we really deduce the cause of such a complex problem to one factor alone? More specifically, can providing ‘access’ to enable the ‘have not’s’ to ‘have’ alone really get to the heart of what developing countries need to break the chains of inequality? It would be nice if it was, but I really do not think it is that easy.

Unfortunately though there have already been hundreds, probably thousands of people that were convinced it was that easy and have already spent millions, possibly billions implementing projects that generally address only that one concern2. Because of this, it does not surprise me that many found their projects ending with little success and that today we have yet to come close to bridging the arguably widening DD. It’s frustrating because I can only imagine that most of the people who have addressed the DD are people who have great intentions, people who really want to make a difference in the world, and people who want, just like me, to see the problems of inequity vanish from this world at once. But for what ever reason, may it be tight budgets, corporate agendas, oversights, patience, lack of insight, lack if feedback, or just simply not thinking and haste for ‘results’, many attempts to bridge the gaps of the DD fail to achieve their goals because the organizers are too focused on the ‘quick fix’.

Instead of focusing all their resources on providing ‘access’ to technologies through the provision of equipment (and perhaps even training) alone, they should be working to implement sustainable, long term, multidimensional, politically, culturally and industry supported, community driven projects that are aimed at the absorption, or inclusion of technology into society rather than the ‘access’ to technology by its’ members alone.

Rather than looking at ‘access’ alone, I believe the four general categories one should—at bare minimum—assess before embarking on any socio-economic aid project are as follows: Analysis of physical resources available to the region. This one should sound familiar; for example, access to computers and other appropriate Internet and Communications Technologies , and the need for more or less of them all. Next, one should assess the availability of and need for relevant digital resources, such as content provided in local languages and content that is suited to local needs. The third consideration that should be made is the availability and the need for human resources, such as training facilities, support infrastructure, and increased literacy rates. The last is to address the social resources in a region that might hinder or prop-up efforts to bring about positive socio-economic change. For example, in order to have successful absorption of new technologies into society, and therefore, to maximize the potential gain technology can bring to a developing region, the social, cultural, and governmental structures of a society or region must all fully support and commit to the adaption of the changing environment.8

( More detailed sources that list the interconnected issues and disciplines one should address before taking on a project in a developing country can be found elsewhere. 9, 10, 11, 12 )

With such limited knowledge of the underlying issues involved in creating the DD, I can still only begin attempting to learn more about how best to address the looming issues facing the world regarding the unequal distribution of technology and wealth and the DD. I will continue to learn about what I actions I can take by taking ideas, observations and facts provided by sets of interdisciplinary sources and attempt to reconcile them into a question raising, thought provoking papers and projects such as I have hopefully done starting here with this prose.

I would like to conclude by mentioning that it is my hope to get a chance to turn my words into actions in the near future; I do not want to be just another one of those who has “a lot of talk, but not enough action.”12 as it seems many in the world are. I intend to take my own advice and work on a problem using this approach very soon while I am studying in Merida, Yucatan in Mexico, during the winter of 2004/05.

So before I go jumping into trying to work on the big problems facing us and the DD, or any socio-economic problem for that matter, I will make sure that I am considering as many parts connected to the problem as possible because I recognize that the issues facing the DD are all dynamic combinations of interconnected parts, made up of many different feedback loops and other complex multi-causal relationships that each have different influences on the resulting systems as a whole.

Wish me luck!

References and Footnotes:

1.0) Technological Determinism: A reductionist theory that postulates all social change is pushed
singlehandedly by technology. It “seeks to explain social and historical phenomena in terms of
one principal or determining factor” (1.1).

1.1) Technological or Media Determinism, Daniel Chandler,
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet01.html,
Accessed November 14, 2004.
2.0) USAID provides millions of dollars annually to ICT development based initiatives.
Their first priority is to “ICT Access” (2.1).

2.1) USAID’s Approach to ICT Programs,
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_growth_and_trade/info_technology/usaids_approach.html, Accessed November 16, 2004.

3.0) Developing Countries: World EXCLUDING Developing Countries. Approximately 150 countries.

4.0) Developed Countries:
Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.

5.0) UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2001, “The state of science and Technology in the world 1997/97,”
http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=4980_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC, Accessed November 13,
2004.

6.0) $US PPP: A ”theoretical exchange rate derived from the perceived “parity” of “purchasing power” of
a currency in relation to another currency.” “The PPP exchage rate is calculated from the relative
value of a currency based on the amount of “a basket” of goods the currency will buy in their
nation of usage.” “The most common PPP exchange rate comes from comparing goods in a GDP
reporting area with with the same or “equivalent” goods in the United States and through that
come up with a PPP US dollar exchange rate” (5.1).

6.1) Purchasing Power Parity, Wiki-pedia, The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity, Accessed November 15, 2004.

7.0) Note on accuracy of statistics: “Despite the fragility of some of the data used in this analysis, we hope
that it will provide a usefull picture of the status of science and technology across the world. Of
especial note is the striking imbalance between the distribution of resources between the developed
and developing regions and countries” (see source 5.0: Preface).

8.0) Warschauer, Mark, “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide,” First Monday,
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/, Accessed November 14, 2004.

9.0) World Conference on Science 1999, “Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge,”
http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm, Accessed November 12, 2004.

10.0) Rischard, J.F., “High Noon—20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them: Section on the Digital
Divide,” Basic Books, 2002: 107-110.

11.0) Ed. Ana Maria Cetto, “II.2 Science for Development,” World Conference on Science: Science for
the 21st century, UNESCO 2000, http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/, Accessed November 13,
2004.

12.0) Peters, Teresa, “Bridging the Digital Divide,” The Evolving Internet: Global Issues,
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1103/ijge/gj08.htm, Accessed November 13, 2004

Posted by drpooville_Admin as Linux / Open Source, College Of The Atlantic, Personal Endeveavors at 4:22 PM PST

Comments Off

Okay, so, i figured out what i am going to be doing my research on in Mexico. And also, i am looking into the problem right now to write a paper (this one…) on the issue for my Human Ecology class.

The problem I am working on is one of the top 20 global problems that is glaring at the face of the world’s people everywhere. It is mostly known these days to be effecting the ‘have nots’ in the developing world such as in all of Africa, much of Asia and many other third world countries. However, it was originally recognized right here in the US. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration released a study and analysis in 1995 of what the called the Digital Divide, Americans in the Information Age Falling through the Net. Their initial findings and conclusions were that the most disadvantaged populous in the US, whom were most generally of minority status and poor (in both the rural areas and within cities, though in the case of the rural people, the situation is even worse), have the least access to the technology that was benefiting the rest of the people. Yet they are singlehandedly the group of people who could benefit the most from the new technologies. So this population of people not only is the most economically and socially disadvantaged in the nation, they are also the most informationaly disadvantaged. What they do not speak of is that in addition to having the least access, they also have the least amount of useful content available to them, least education to most effectively use the technologies, and gain the least economic benefits from its existence in the first place. Nor does anyone mention the fact that this is not anything new to the world. Anytime in the past that a new form of technology (or what some are now considering as being only a new form of literacy, or the “processes by mean of which culturally significant information is coded” [cited in Recon. DD, Warschauer] ) appears, it is the poor who are left out of the loop in taking advantage of what the innovation has to offer. (i.e. Introduction of written language)

This, the Digital Divide, is obviously a problem, and reasonably so it has since received a lot of attention after those first papers were published in1995. After people started to realize that there was a problem at hand, and after the US government took notice, the world began to notice that it is not only a local problem, but a global problem.

To most people who think about this growing gap of technology ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, it is considered in the context of the global problem, which in the big picture, is truely the bigger problem. However, it is no less important to solve the problem globally as it is locally because without solving it locally we will not be able to solve it globally and vice-versa (think scale, like looking at atoms and the universe. You can’t understand either completely without understand both completely, they are interconnected and inseparable), but, for now since i am supposed to talk about the issue on a global scale, i will do just that. So the questions are, what are the global issues that are involved with the Digital Divide. How does J. F. Rischard, the author of “High Noon, 20 global problem, 20 years to solve them” see the problem, and what do i think of the issue? For now, this is going to be a mix of my first attempt to attack them all, and it will be done in a rather unorganized manner. Sorry.

The general definition of the Digital Divide (in a global context) is that certain countries or regions do not have access to technology and its’ benefits because the technology can not be afforded nor has it naturally diffused, or trickled into all parts of the world evenly and suffer because they are disadvantaged and are divided from those who can afford the new technologies and who benefit greatly from it.

A few of the ideas for why the digital divide exists are as follows.

Some say the digital divide is inevitable because of the underlying economic inequalities that exist between regions of the world. Furthermore, consciously or unconsciously, those preexisting inequalities are in being increased these days by both sides of the equation and can not be blamed on either.

The rich regions like the United States, European Union and the rest of the 28 regions within the OECD (www.oecd.org) have relatively stable economies, governments, and education facilities, positive trade balances, high GDPs and are fully engaged in technological innovation and scientific research and development. For instance, the developed countries in the world, which had only 22.3% of the worlds population, had a GDP around 21 trillion US dollars, and spent an estimated 461 billion US dollars during 1996 and 1997, or 84.4% of all the worlds expenditure on Research and Development (based on GDP, this is known as GERD).

On the other hand the poor countries are struggling to keep their citizens alive from disease and hunger, corruption and violence; the developing countries generally have low literacy rates regionally due to lacking education systems, poor economies which results in low wage work, bad working conditions and low GDPs; plus because the underlying struggles that exist, many of these regions can not sufficiently invest in technologically innovative industries. This means that they rely on agriculture and on production of petty goods and services. While conversely, they depend heavily on the importation of high-technology products and knowledge from the developed nations so they can even keep the pace they have thus far. In the mean time, the gap widens further between the two and the poor regions not only get poorer, they also get more ignorant too. The developing regions in the world held nearly 77.7% of the entire population in 1996 and 1997, or approximately 4.25 billion people and had a GDP of approximately 13 trillion US dollars. Though they spent only around 85.5 billion on Research and Development all told, all together. Without question, there is a huge gap between what the developed countries are spending on developing new technology and extending the old compared to the developing. (stats from UNESCO Conference on The State of Science and Technology, 1996/1997)

Access to education and the literacy of the regions inhabitants is provided by many people debating the issue as being one of the greatest underlying issues involved in keeping the digital divide from closing. Without an educated public, no amount of access to technology alone could be of any significant positive use value or economical value to the recipients. If the people do not understand the purpose for the technology, how to use it in general, what problems it can be used to solve, how it can be used to solve local and communal needs, how to create effective, productive and minimally invasive uses for it, how to create new technology from it and how to diffuse the technology into society without further exclusion of more people, than the technology has only negative value attached to it and is better off never to have been installed into the region.

As one can see, there is a lot to think about when implementing solutions to bridging the digital divide. And as has been more often the case since the effort to close the gab began 10 or so years ago, more people have attempted to simplify the problem and cut corners, and so, have found themselves at times doing more harm than good.

For example, a very common solution many people try to implement to solve the digital divide problem around the world is to simply drop off as many computers and as much computer equipment as possible and expect the gap to close automatically. This mentality is described by the term Technological Determinism. The idea is that all one needs to do is just provide the needy with what they are missing and everything else will fall in line by itself. However, this has time and time again proved incorrect. The mere fact that technology is present in an area does not mean it will lead to the normal use and application of that technology. Take one of the cases that J.F. Rischard erroneously uses to exemplify this idea. On Page 108 in High Noon, he says “kids learn elementary computer skills by trial and error through ‘computers-in-the-wall’ in Indian slums.” What he is referring to (but fails to reference) is a case study done by Mark Warschauer in the late 1990’s in India where is researched a project organized and supported by a local Telecoms Industry and the Indian government that was designed to prove this point exactly, but failed.

The project, in short was one where five computers were set up in the middle of one of the poorest slums in New Delhi, India. The idea was to let kids have 24 hour, unsupervised and un-mentored access to the computer that was set up in a five-station computer kiosk where a specially designed mouse and monitor were present; there was no keyboard, but there was on occasion access to the Internet through a very unstable dial-modem and some gaming software was installed; and everything was in english, though the children only spoke Hindu. The project was appropriately named the “Hole-in-the-Wall” experiment, and was abandoned after on a short time of operation.

The idea behind the program was to let the children have “unfettered” access to the computers and to “learn at their own pace and speed, rather than tie them to the directives of adult organizers or instructors” (Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide: Case study in India, Mark Warschauer). But the project had minimal positive results, except that they learned that the kids were able to teach themselves how to operate the computer at a
basic level. Relatively quickly, for example, they were able to “click and drag objects; select different menus; cut, copy, and paste; launch and use programs such as Microsoft Word and Paint; get on the Internet and change the background ‘wallpaper’”(Recon. DD, Warschauer). However, the other thing happened was that the “parents in the neighbor hood … expressed concern that the lack of organized instruction took away from its value.” One parent said “My son used to be doing very well in school, he used to concentrate on his homework, but now he spends all his free time playing computer games at the kiosk and his schoolwork is suffereing.” In other words, they realized that technological determinism does not work standalone.

J.F. Rischard made two mistakes here by erroneously using this failed attempt at diffusing technology into a needy part of world as an example to show the success in how “new technologies enable teacher training and networking that raise the quality of basic education” (High Noon, Rischaud, 108). Not to say that I do not believe he is correct in saying that technology can in fact be used as a tool to empower teachers and students both to increase their knowledge and understanding of the world, but his example here was misleading. He has also oversimplified a very complex issue and overlooked other issues that face anyone who is trying find solutions to bridging the digital divide.

J. F. Rischard also talks about how the Digital Divide can be seen by pointing in the fact that only 1 out of every 50 people have access to a telephone in developing countries and how they have 100 times less access to the Internet than those in the US and Europe. And then goes on to ask, “Why should we worry about this?” (High Noon, 108) and describes how those things related to ‘reducing isolation’, ‘improving education’, ‘empowering through e-governments’, ‘medical innovation’, ‘environmental management and ecologically balanced agriculture’, and enterprise connectivity’, and generalizes some more about how ‘new technologies have become one of the most potent ways to accelerate development and reduce poverty” but neglects to mention that even in countries like the US, where nearly everyone has access to a telephone line and the Internet (through public libraries and other locations), there are still millions who are struggling to access those benefits he mentions. Furthermore, he concludes he piece by prescribing his ideas on how we can find a global solution to this global problem. Where, in short he claims that networking and collaboration between people, governments and organizations will have the greatest effect. Which I agree will be very important too, but it is that is then he goes on to say again that financing “aid programs far more towards basic connectivity–including financing … higher computer density and literacy levels” is one of the things which will be a major part of closing the technological gap too. In my opinion, his generalizations correctly recognize the existence of the Digital Divide and that the regions being left behind in fact do need physical access to computers, but he incorrectly portrays the importance of many other factors involved outside of global aid.

I believe we need to take an interdisciplinary look at how the problems came to exist, how is the problem being perpetuated, why we should solve it, the difficulties in solving it, how we should solve it on a local and domestic level with local and domestic solutions, and how we should solve it through creation of global policy and global networks with global solutions.

Pretty much, to end my argument, it’s not the access to the equipment that is important right now, it is all about the education and socio-economic changes that must occur in the region that will make room for the new technologies and give them a chance to be accepted and made use of effectively.

Quickly, some of the other problems are that technology is very limited to white, middle-class to wealthly, english speaking male businessmen. How…atypical? No, not at all.

The biggest problem i see is that because poor regions lack good education systems, and thus, have a science illiterate population, there can be no significant base of locally owned and operated technology centered industry. This means that there is a lack of available markets which can produce sufficient amounts of money for the country to raise it’s GDP and living conditions through exports. So the cycle continues, and they are not able to ever get off the bottom.

Where once, humans had slaves, now the almighty, all powerful, corporation-men own us all as their slaves. The gap lies now in that some of us just have a little more or less access to certain things more or less quickly than others do. :-)~ Corporation-MAN!

Did you know that if you counted the total sales of wal-mart in 2003 alone, and considered them as GDP, it would be the 18th largest economy in the world. Bigger than Saudi Arabia and Sweden, right below Switzerland and Russia!

Yeah, for now, that is all.

Next time, i will have a better, more organized paper ready for post. Draft 1, complete.

-Chris

Posted by drpooville_Admin as Linux / Open Source, College Of The Atlantic, Personal Endeveavors at 7:59 PM PST

2 Comments »

Chris Ward 05-26-04

‘Opening’ a World of Possibilities

Billions of people around the world have never seen a computer in their entire lives, and might not ever see one. Nonetheless, computers are likely to have major effects on everyone’s lives directly or indirectly. As the world turns day by day, humans become increasingly more dependent on the interconnected global network of computers and the software the drives them. In turn, we become dependent on the creators who provide us with the computer technology, and those creators have the power to control those who cannot afford the resources required for investing in technological research and development.

Developing nations such as Ghana in West Africa are struggling to maintain government order, to achieve greater economic development, and, most vitally, to develop functional, literate, and self-reliant citizens. The Ghanaian government lacks the financial capital; a proper organizational framework; and the human capital it takes to meet basic sustenance needs, in addition to not having the resources available to invest in research and development to maintain balance in global economic power. Until these needs are meet, Ghanaians will be forced to yield to the proprietors’ ‘invisible hand’ unless, however, they recognize the benefits of using Free Software/Open Source Software/and Open Standards (FOSS) as a complementary tool in their pursuit of progress.

In this research paper, I present my findings on the potential of FOSS to alleviate many hardships in establishing a modern government structure, stimulating the local economy, and developing literacy in developing countries such as Ghana. I do not suppose FOSS will be the developing world’s ‘savior’ by any means, but if the environment is right, it can provide more benefits than any proprietary technology such as Microsoft could ever hope to offer.

Free Software/Open Source Software/Open Standards (FOSS): What it means to be FOSS.
The Open Source Definition says that all software programs distributed under an FOSS license must meet at least the following criteria:

* Free Distribution: The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software…The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
* Source Code: The program must include source code [instructions that tell the computer how to operate]…without charge via the Internet [at least].
* Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
…
* No Discrimination Against Persons Or Groups:
* No Discrimination Against Fields Of Endeavor: The license must not restrict from making use in…for example, …in business, or from being used for genetic research.
* Distributing Of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
* License Must Not Contaminate other Software: The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium [EG. CD, zip file, et cetera] must be open source software.
* Examples Licenses: The GNU GPL [http://www.gnu.org], BSD [http://www.bsd.org], X Consortium [http://www.x.org] [and others]. (Open Sources, Appendix B)

Free Software, Open Source Software and Open Standards (FOSS): Recipe Analogy

FOSS can best be understood with an analogy of a cooking recipe and computer source code (adptd. from ‘The Code’).

When you cook something, you follow a recipe of some sort; you always follow a logical set of steps. Similarly, when a computer runs a program, it follows instructions provided by a human. Those instructions are also known as computer ‘source code.’ A software program’s source code can be thought of as being an elegant and logical mix of poetry and algebra that gives instructions to the computer to create what ultimately results in the output of an interactive computer program.

While cooking, if at some point you ever want to make a certain recipe differently than what the original calls for, no one can stop you from adjusting any aspect of the recipe. Modifying recipes is even encouraged. Say for example, you cook a recipe for friends, and they really enjoy it. If they ask you for a copy of the recipe instructions, no one can stop you from making an exact duplicate of the original recipe, or of the modified recipe if it has been changed, and no one can stop you from then distributing it freely to your friend or anyone else. Once you have distributed it, the receiver can also modify, duplicate and distribute the recipe however they choose.

This exchange process is very widely accepted and is why we have so many amazing recipes to choose from in the world. We have been developing an archive of recipes that do not expire and do not become obsolete when the original developer passes on or decides they no longer like to cook by the original recipe and so throws it out. Recipes are, in a sense, released into the public domain indefinitely, similarly to FOSS programs’ source codes.

Imagine for a minute, if you will, what the world would be like if everyone who develops a recipe made the instructions unreadable and placed the recipe under strict copyright protection laws. The proprietor could charge everyone for every copy of the recipe that is used. They could also require you to purchase an additional set of special tools that are needed to read the unreadable, copy-written recipe so that you are able to cook from the recipe. If you ever want to make any changes to the recipe, you would have to pay the developer again for them to implement any changes to the instructions because they own the original readable recipe copies and are the only ones who have access to them, and thus are also the only ones who can modify them. Again, let suppose your friend comes for dinner and wants to know the recipe for the meal. You must say no this time, or otherwise risk getting sued for copying and redistributing it illegally. If handling recipes happened like this in all cases, our lives would be subject to many risks and frustrating constraints.

For example, we would likely become dependent on food monopolies. We could be sued for developing any recipes that looks, smells or tastes like the proprietors. We would never be able to know exactly what ingredients and processes were used in the recipe. The proprietors could harass all ‘hackers’ who broke the copyright laws to distribute illegal copies of the recipes. Those who could not afford to pay for the recipe and could not develop their own original, unique recipe from scratch would unfortunately and needlessly starve. And our selection of recipes would diminish and food culture would disappear.

I now welcome you to the analogous world of proprietary software, closed source software, and intellectual property rights.

Many millions of people believe that the freedom to share recipes is a fundamental human right. Many millions of software developers, community and institution leaders, activists, software consumers and technology advocates in general think that software should preserve the same freedoms that recipes have indefinitely. This, in essence, is exactly what FOSS has provided for us.

FOSS: The benefits for Use in Developing Countries (e.g. Ghana)

Here are a few of the major benefits that result when a developing country such as Ghana chooses to use FOSS.
Using FOSS can save money because the total cost to use can be much less than that of proprietary software. Most often, FOSS software is provided for free and the others expenses that arise come from maintaining the software, which is necessary for both OSS and proprietary.

The Open Society Institute (OSI) say that FOSS “relies on common standards, a belief in the value of transparency, and the idea that creating software is based on continuous progress and change, rather than centrally-administered control.” (Tuszynski) Universal “encouragement of open standards and protocols, and software freedom [,]” (ibid.) and anti-discrimination, as well the promotion of diffusion of knowledge, trust, and creativity are side-effects that occur when FOSS gathers a ‘critical mass’ of local consumers and developers.

OSI goes on to give an example of how FOSS enables infinite localization of software in areas such as language and accessibility. For example, Mozilla, Netscape’s open source Web browser “has now been translated into more than 180 languages [,]” (ibid.) and that number is increasing steadily. This enables non-native English speakers to now consume and develop software in their own native languages, which was before hindered by the overwhelming dependency on the English language.

Finally, national security can be greatly improved by using FOSS, because the government and other agencies have access to the original source code that they use to run programs where using proprietary software could otherwise pose as a great risk to national security it could potentially contain critical bugs or ‘spy-ware’ (software that unknowingly to the user, is monitoring their activities) without the agency ever having the change to
reliably correct the problems or even for them to know that the problem even exists until it is too late.

Ghana: The major problems, generalized

In the US Governments most recent edition of Ghana: A Country Study, it is said that since 1972 alone, three democracies and three military-run governments in Ghana have failed. Each democratic government diminished for its own particular, and rather complex reasons, but nonetheless, they can be generalized by addressing only a few major issues. What will follow is a very brief history of the problems facing the Ghanaian government over the past thirty years or so and the problems the current democratic government still faces today.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is that the ruling parties of the previous governments had way too much power. For example, the dominating parties repeatedly abused their powers and contradicted the fundamental democratic principles by using force, terror, and imprisonment to eradicate all their political opponents. They also used their position to modify the constitution to fit their agendas. The democratic process was thus undermined, and the people’s security, freedom, and voice were repeatedly taken from them.

The next major issue is that of government overspending, which has wrought horrendous debt upon the Ghanaian people and to this day they are still struggling to pay it off. While the ruling parties managed to overspend millions and millions of dollars, they spent little on developing the vital functions of the nation like internal government efficiency and accountability, education, and small business and agricultural sustainability.

Finally, the government simply needs to be more efficient. For example, simple court cases, such as when one gets caught stealing–but could not bribe the officer into oversight–take upward of a year or more to proceed through the court legal systems because everything is done by hand, many redundancies exist, and information is not easily accessible. The major cause of this is that the Information Communication Technologies (ICT) systems are less the adequate. (LaVerle)

Ghana and FOSS: Bridging the ‘digital divide’

Now, the question is: How can Ghana’s present democratic government use FOSS to bring relief of its ills? By itself, it cannot. In doing research on how FOSS could be used in developing countries like Ghana to bring economic freedom to the impoverished people of the world, I realized that the problem does not lie in the widening gap of technological development and consumption. It lies more so in the hands of the government itself and in the strength and good will of its citizens. Unfortunately, such as has repeatedly happened in Ghana, without effective checks and balances in place, the government has had the power to silence the voice of the people. If the government does not begin to hold itself accountable to the people, the likelihood of history repeating itself seems very high, no matter what technologies are being used. However, as is evidenced by the enormous amount of empirical data from success in other developing countries like Brazil, Peru, South Africa and China, when FOSS is implemented into the constructs of government institutions along side progressive reform, an enormous number of positive effects flow out to the people with improved government accountability, efficiency, security, capital savings, new jobs, and all sorts of iterative potentials begin to take shape such as the ability to make amazing low cost, high quality improvements to education and health systems. All of these are essential issues developing countries must address if they want to counter disruptive over-centralization and ultimately tackle serious problems like poverty, illness, and starvation.

Interestingly enough, the current democratic government established in Ghana has already begun the process of evaluating the pros and cons of using FOSS. In studying their research results, it is easy to see that they have a great interest in the benefits that FOSS can bring to Ghana if implemented properly. They see it as having great effects on needed government efficiency and accountability, economic development, and education reform and improvements. They also realize, and emphasize throughout their studies, that these three components are interlinked and are all equally important issues that need to be addressed concurrently in their pursuit of sustainable development. Ghana recognizes the importance of looking at the big picture, and realizes the importance that integrating ICT’s into society has on making progress sustainable. I take the following quote from the words of Ghana’s Ministry of Communications at the World Summit on Information Society. “As part of developing its information society and economy Ghana is committed to the process of development, deployment and exploitation of ICTs within its society and economy to achieve the nation’s broad based development goals and within this context will be exploiting the developmental potential of ICTs as a Social-Enabler in the areas of Education, Health, Poverty-Reduction, Income-Distribution [.]” (qtd. In GMC)

If a nation chooses to implement FOSS, a demand for Information Communication Technology (ICT) development will be created, and valuable entrepreneurial opportunities will arise from this that could be exploited by locals. Thus more jobs and capital will be made available within Ghana, of which a large portion will stay within the local economy. If FOSS is used effectively in any institution, (government, education, business, etc.) it will maximize collaboration as well as open exchange of information. Open Standards makes universal information exchange possible and broadens accessibility to the important information made available. The growing amount of interest in ICT will spark investors’ interest in education reform and in upgrading and expanding existing facilities to meet the growing demand for specialized ICT experts. Without a local source of experts who can train and support FOSS, its’ benefits will otherwise quickly wither away. A change of focus in education curricula to cover science and technology in-depth is being adopted in Ghana, but only as a supplement to an emphasis that will be made to meet all the fundamental needs of education such as basic literacy and math skills. Once the education and FOSS seed’s has been planted, and the government is more efficient, local ICT research and development efforts in Ghana will eventually mature the country’s ICT capabilities to a state where they can export homegrown ICT innovations more than they require importing it. Effectively, FOSS holds potential for Ghana that will bridge the expanding ‘digital divide’ of the developed and developing countries without sacrificing their independence, freedom and self-sustainability.

FOSS and Ghana: Government, Education, and Economic Development

To clarify how FOSS can be used in Ghana, I will explore some of the existing and future planned projects that help out in increasing government efficiency and its accountability to the people, and the advantages of using FOSS in education and business environments over other proprietary software alternatives.

Government: Gains in efficiency and accountability
Everyone knows that when computer technologies are properly implemented into any large institutions such as government agencies, they inherently bring huge speed and efficiency gains. This is proven by their huge success and expansion all over the world. On the same hand, everyone knows that in order to implement existing proprietary computer technology into an institution, a lot of money will be spent in purchasing the hardware, software, training, and in the provision of support and maintenance over the computer systems lifetime. In Ghana, the amount of money that is required for modern proprietary computer technology and support simply does not exist. This capital insufficiency is one of the most common reasons for there being so much hype in Ghana over FOSS. Using FOSS allows for exponential amounts of cost savings over using proprietary software.

First off, FOSS enables consumers to effectively make use of the very inexpensive and widely available hardware that is considered ‘obsolete’ to the developed world’s consumers. FOSS, unlike modern versions of Microsoft and other proprietary products, run more than adequately on much older computer systems. Many old refurbished systems available today can be purchased as complete packages, with all necessary computer hardware and a monitor for less than one hundred dollars from organizations like Computer Aid International. More information can be found at www.computer-aid.org.

Secondly, FOSS has no licensing fees. This means that when Ghana decides to purchase computer systems and use FOSS, they can use as many copies of all FOSS programs on as many computers as the need for free. Where as if they choose to use a proprietary alternative, they would generally be required to purchase individual licenses, or acquire bulk licenses for every computer they plan to use the software on. When we start talking about numbers of computers that are used in large organizations, we generally see numbers in the ranges of ten to fifty thousand desktop computers. As we do the math and add in the licensing fee for ever proprietary software program that is required to be purchased for every individual computer the software is to be used on, we begin to see to a great extent just exactly what impact FOSS has on cost-savings. For example, although I have not found an estimated saving for using
FOSS in Ghana specifically, I have found that its’ close neighbors in South Africa have estimated that they are saving over three hundred million US dollars annually now that they have switched to using FOSS. (Reijswoud) This gives the organization much more flexibility with its’ budget, and allows them to focus their resources into other important areas that would otherwise need to have spending cutbacks.

Another issue using FOSS addresses in government organizations is that of maintaining accountability and increasing participation in government activities. In Ghana, the government has begun to address these two issues by using FOSS to give free and universal access to government documents, research studies and their findings, policy information, election dates, and more. The major portal for this information is found on the Internet at www.ghana.gov.gh. The Ghanaian government boasts their successful E-government pilot project and is very excited that it is run using FOSS components only.

Finally, any organization that uses computer applications, which depend on the security and stability of the software such as a government institution, can benefit greatly from using FOSS because the code is widely accessible. The fact that FOSS is ‘open source’ so that everyone can see exactly how the application was made might seem contradictory to the idea of security, but this is not true in the least. Some proprietary software vendors actually add components into applications call spy-ware that hide in the background and monitor the activities of the user. This is a huge threat to national security that exists on with closed source software.

With FOSS, even if someone tries to hide something in the code, such as a piece of spy-ware, someone, somewhere, will find it and quickly announce the problem to the entire world. Also, insecure code and critical bugs in FOSS applications have a significantly greater chance to be fixed over closed source applications because the source code is open to the view of millions. Unlike proprietary vendors, who, when they find a bug, just cross their fingers and hope that no one else notices it and they keep quite as possible about it so that no one exploits it. Sometimes, some proprietary software vendors do not ever attempt to fix certain bugs because they have newer products that have their attention. For example, Microsoft Windows 98 bugs will never be fixed because all the focus is on their latest operating system Windows XP.

The security of FOSS development model has proven to be strong so far by the fact that there are an extremely small number of viruses’ that exist to exploit serious bugs in FOSS applications. Again, this is because when a bug is posted on the one of thousands of FOSS bug-crushing Internet forums, a patch, or fix is usually posted by someone and is freely available for download within only a few days.

Ghana: Economic Development
A couple of major things that using FOSS does to encourage economic development are that it increases the efficiency and security of existing organization at a minimal cost, and that it provides many new entrepreneurial opportunities.
We just saw how much money one large organization—namely the government—can save, as well the gains in efficiency and security that come from using FOSS. Now just image if FOSS was applied across all the areas of business; the benefits that come from patience and commitment to FOSS would quickly outweigh the efforts it takes to train and implement the transition to becoming a modern technological society.

The concrete examples of FOSS applications that businesses are using today are widely varied. One very good example of a FOSS application used in small and large businesses is called WebErp. WebErp’s homepage, www.web-erp.sourceforge.net says its accounting software “comes fully equipped with all the attachments required to process multi-currency accounts receivable, multi-location inventory, multi-currency accounts payable, as well as bank accounts and general accounting.” WebErp appears to be scalable, simple, well documented, secure, remotely accessible, and free of charge, and all you need to run it is a FOSS Linux compatible operating system and a web browser.

So I do not bore the reader with the practically inexhaustible list of available FOSS applications that are used regularly in business environments, consult www.linuxgazette.com/node/view/386 for a very extensive and up-to-date listing of hundreds of FOSS applications and their proprietary alternatives.

The other thing that using FOSS does in terms of economic development is that it opens up a new market niche for Ghanaians. If the government, businesses and education facilities begin to use FOSS, there will be a huge demand for custom, local software development and also for support and training. At first, all of these demands will be meet through importing the needed services. This is how the majority of demand is being meet today, and is how the proprietary vendors want to keep it. But, in time, if the environment is right, as proprietary software is replaced with FOSS to meet the local economy’s needs, the consumers will become knowledgeable enough to develop the software locally to meet the demand; then the dependency on importing will inevitably become profits from exporting.

Ghana: Education

Recently, in a presentation at a forum in Ghana about the opportunities “to critically analyze the options for adoption of FOSS in Ghana,” (qtd. in SchoolNetAfrica) Gudio Sohne, a FOSS programmer and organizer of the Free and Open Source Software Foundation for Africa (FOSSA) “captured it all when he remarked ‘successful economic development is linked to the national capacity to absorb, disseminate and apply technology.’” (ibid.) The way for this capacity to be met and maintained is through universal education of the nations’ citizens by having literacy and problem solving skills, mathematical understanding and more. Without proper education, progress is just not possible.

This vital issue is being addressed in Ghana right now and has been for over five years. In 1999, a “paper on the education sector for the national network of coordinating group, as input to the comprehensive development framework” (CDF) for education reform, introduces us to the efforts being made in Ghana’s education sector by saying the following. ”Education plays a vital role in the socio-economic development of societies. It is the gateway to knowledge and understanding and consequently, the key to social and economic empowerment.” (ibid.) The paper then goes on to say that The Ministry of Education’s adopted vision for reform is “intended to make Ghana a middle income country by the year 2020” (ibid.) by being ”committed to the production of a functionally literate and productive population. This commitment seeks to make the educational system and its products responsive to changing industrial demands and socio-cultural conditions. The Ministry therefore envisages the production of a vibrant and active citizenry able to cope with modern trends in science and technology so as to enhance productivity and consequently the earning power of the labor force. It is also envisaged that the production of a literate population would generate a tolerant political culture conducive to the sustenance of peace and democracy.” (ibid.) Their mission is stated in short as being “determined to provide relevant education to all Ghanaians irrespective of gender, ethnic, religious and political affiliations.” (ibid.)

One of the biggest challenges that the Ghanaian government faces in achieving their mission is lack of capital. What a coincidence it is that FOSS can bring so much relief when investment capital is low. Because I have already made it clear how FOSS can be used in any situation where capital is scarce, it is unnecessary to explain how FOSS can meet the improvement needs of Ghana’s education institutions at a low cost. Instead, I will give some information on specific projects being administered in schools all over in Ghana and in South Africa, and the needs they meet besides being able to bring technology into the schools cheaply.

One amazing project is called the Open Source School Management System (OSSMS). It was developed by an organization from South Africa that develops education projects in FOSS called The Shuttleworth Foundation (TSF). More information can be found at http://tsf.org.za. TSF says that OSSMS is a “sophisticated OSS software designed to help sustainably manage learners, staff, assessment and report-cards, timetabling, textbooks and other resources, learner attendance, extra-curricular activities, statistical reporting, auditing and more.” (TSF) This makes operating schools much more efficient, gives the staff and faculty more flexibility to focus on developing meaningful curricula, and because it is practically free to use, the capital saved can be invested into other areas such as purchasing new text books, raising staff and faculty pay, and maintaining and upgrading the education facility.

Another project is an African initiative to bring local translation packages to major open source applications. The organization is called Translate.org.za, and can be found at that web address respectively. This gives all students, no matter what their native language is a chance at being able to learn from using the computers; whether they know English or not.

Learn.co.za is another very interesting education project in Africa. Their website,
www.learn.co.za says they are an “open source provider of free online education resources, localized to African needs.” They develop curriculum for basic math and science courses and provide it all for free to local schools.
Finally, Direqlearn.net offers a compote package of localized FOSS software for African schools. Their site claims “over 200 schools have it in use. They also offer consulting services, low-cost PCs, as well as alternative (off-grid) ways to be connected to the Internet.”

This is only a short list of all the projects in Africa that are using FOSS to improve education. A lot of time, and dedicated work and energy went into creating these very amazing projects, and gives me hope that FOSS can truly help the Ministry of Education in Ghana achieve its mission to provide “basic education to all” and “to ensure that all citizens are functionally literate and self-reliant.” (CDF)

Conclusion

For progress to occur, Ghana must continue to stress the importance of basic education for all, better spending policies, decentralization, and the importance of small local businesses in developing a sustainable economy.

Even though FOSS is not a ‘savior’ and could never lead any country, especially a country with such a spotted history like Ghana’s to finding democratic freedom, economic sustainability, or universal education, by itself, it has the potential to bring more benefits that than any proprietary software vendor could ever hope to provide. FOSS empowers local citizenry to be active in the democratic process, it provides many new job opportunities, and most importantly, it allows the education system (as well as many others) to have access to valuable computer technology without having to sacrifice scarce resources which could be better spent in other areas of improvement.

Bibliography — Works Cited

“Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF)” Ministry Of Education.
November 1999. 15 May 2004.

Ghanaian Ministry of Communications (GMC). “Draft Committee at the World Summit
on Information Society.” 15 May 2004.

“Ghanaian Stakeholders meet to discuss OSS” SchoolNetAfrica. 15 May 2004.

LaVerle, Berry. Ghana: A Country Study. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-
Publication Data. Washington DC. 1995.

Marshall, Wayne. “Algorithms in Africa.” LinuxJournal.com. 1 June 2004. 15 May 2004.

Open Source Software Group. “Using Open Source Software in the South African
Government.” South Africa: Government IT Officers Council. 2002.
15 May 2004.

“Open Source School Management System (OSSMS)” The Shuttle Foundation.
15 May 2004.

Parens, Bruce. “The Open Source Definition, Version 1.0” OPEN SOURCES.
O’reilly and Associates, Inc. 1999.

Szyliowicz, Joseph S, ed. Technology and International Affairs.
New York: Praeger Publishers. 1981.

The Code. Dir. Hannu Puttonen. Perf. Linux Torvalds, Richard Stallman, et al.
Movie File, 2001, Peer-To-Peer File Share.

Tuszynski, Marek. “Open Source” Information Program. 15 May 2004.

Reijswoud, Victor van, Corrado Topi. “Alternative Routes in the Digital World”
15 May 2004.

Posted by drpooville_Admin as Linux / Open Source, College Of The Atlantic at 9:41 AM PDT

1 Comment »