Operating systems in academic settings

[canihazsekooriti]

[Mod: Split off from the introduction thread]

I learned the history of the AT&T UNIX and University of Berkeley days.

Funny thing, I went to UC Berkeley, and student computer labs were all Windows. So obnoxious. It's an insult to intelligence. Liek rly? (Don't mind me sound stupid, this is an alter ego account where I do not decide the fate of humanity and its technological development arc/trajectory).

 

[astyle]

Funny thing, I went to UC Berkeley, and student computer labs were all Windows.

Well, BSD was ultimately a research project. Student computer labs did need to be equipped with something that's usable by the masses. When I was a student in Computer Science, all labs (that were available to the general student population) had Windows, and an SSH client to connect to UNIX servers. Only by the virtue of being in the Computer Science program and taking specific classes, did I even have access to a couple tiny Linux-equipped labs. Well, wait, there was a Sun Solaris lab with Sun hardware that was available, too, but even that went to Linux later. There were also a couple Mac labs, I avoided those the entire time.

Research projects had their own spaces for computing, which was not available to the general student population.

 

[canihazsekooriti]

Well, BSD was ultimately a research project. Student computer labs did need to be equipped with something that's usable by the masses. When I was a student in Computer Science, all labs (that were available to the general student population) had Windows, and an SSH client to connect to UNIX servers. Only by the virtue of being in the Computer Science program and taking specific classes, did I even have access to a couple tiny Linux-equipped labs. Well, wait, there was a Sun Solaris lab with Sun hardware that was available, too, but even that went to Linux later. There were also a couple Mac labs, I avoided those the entire time.

Research projects had their own spaces for computing, which was not available to the general student population.

I'm available for Mortal Combat on this in less public spaces. I'm an expert on this because a) I was a student, b) I've personally witnessed blue screens of death multiple times in my lifetime, c) the truth will set you free?
When you go to a world-class research institution, you don't just expect them to hate you for loving Trump. You expect top notch education. There's virutally zero education in using Windows in an institution that bore BSD and that wants to actually truly educate.

 

[astyle]

I'm available for Mortal Combat on this in less public spaces. I'm an expert on this because a) I was a student, b) I've personally witnessed blue screens of death multiple times in my lifetime, c) the truth will set you free?
When you go to a world-class research institution, you don't just expect them to hate you for loving Trump. You expect top notch education. There's virutally zero education in using Windows in an institution that bore BSD and that wants to actually truly educate.

There's kind of a reason why labs are primarily Windows-based. A world-class university would offer a variety of OSes in its computer labs so that people become computer literate and be able to use anything out there.

Deriving an education from an OS only matters if you're in Computer Science, like I was. Then you can make informed comparisons between Windows, BSD, whatever, and make your own choice.

 

[canihazsekooriti]

There's kind of a reason why labs are primarily Windows-based. A world-class university would offer a variety of OSes in its computer labs so that people become computer literate and be able to use anything out there.

Deriving an education from an OS only matters if you're in Computer Science, like I was. Then you can make informed comparisons between Windows, BSD, whatever, and make your own choice.

There was a small number of Macs, admittedly. But they only derived a little bit from BSD and diverged significantly.

What you are saying about deriving education from an OS is not true. Research scientists are required to be able to learn new OSs, to secure their work, to be able to think deeper about hardware and its limitations. Frnakly, all people should have curiousity about how things work and to know their options, be exposed to things, especially when (and if) they pay big bucks specifically to broaden their horizons.

There is some (anti-)education about seeing Windows in school labs. It's about seeing how corporate money/kickbacks and collusion prioritize profit at the expense of some core things? It's not even private money, it's a public school, so it's public money being funneled to their leftie buddies at Microsoft.

 

[astyle]

What you are saying about deriving education from an OS is not true. Research scientists are required to be able to learn new OSs, to secure their work, to be able to think deeper about hardware and its limitations

They are not, they just hire technicians to do that work. I'd know, I'm from a family of research scientists myself, so I got an earful every day about that.

 

[canihazsekooriti]

They are not, they just hire technicians to do that work. I'd know, I'm from a family of research scientists myself, so I got an earful every day about that.

Good research scientists work minimum with Linux to a large extent.

 

[astyle]

Good research scientists work minimum with Linux to a large extent.

And top-rate ones can secure grants from NASA, get Nobel prizes and sit on international panels on climate change policy.

 

[canihazsekooriti]

And top-rate ones can secure grants from NASA, get Nobel prizes and sit on international panels on climate change policy.

But the real question is if it's even legal to choose a for-profit operating system (like Windows) over a free open-source and comparable/superior one (like FreeBSD) for a public entity that gets gazillions in public money from the state and federal government. [Not even to pay Microsoft (because they can give them a kickback), but to merely choose.]

 

[astyle]

But the real question is if it's even legal to choose a for-profit operating system (like Windows) over a free open-source and comparable/superior one (like FreeBSD) for a public entity that gets gazillions in public money from the state and federal government. [Not even to pay Microsoft (because they can give them a kickback), but to merely choose.]

I don't think that's a real question that a public institution even considers when deciding whether to go with Open Source or Mac or Windows as the primary choice for a lab. Maybe you can consider the realistic prospects of filing a lawsuit because a university doesn't have a FreeBSD-based lab. You'll only waste time and money, and get nowhere. Choice of an OS for a public institution is not normally regulated by law. Actually spending money to equip a computer lab, yes. Deciding on an OS, no.

 

[canihazsekooriti]

I don't think that's a real question that a public institution even considers when deciding whether to go with Open Source or Mac or Windows as the primary choice for a lab. Maybe you can consider the realistic prospects of filing a lawsuit because a university doesn't have a FreeBSD-based lab. You'll only waste time and money, and get nowhere. Choice of an OS for a public institution is not normally regulated by law. Actually spending money to equip a computer lab, yes. Deciding on an OS, no.

A public institution's choices are regulated by law - public institutions' decisions should be made with public interest in mind.

You are right, though, nobody's gonna go against a behemoth like the University of California system that's literally the biggest employer in the state with all sorts of ties and connections in-state and beyond.

 

[USerID]

So, in the US, I think, everything is relatively good for now.

 

[USerID]

I don't think that's a real question that a public institution even considers when deciding whether to go with Open Source or Mac or Windows as the primary choice for a lab. Maybe you can consider the realistic prospects of filing a lawsuit because a university doesn't have a FreeBSD-based lab. You'll only waste time and money, and get nowhere. Choice of an OS for a public institution is not normally regulated by law. Actually spending money to equip a computer lab, yes. Deciding on an OS, no.

Isn't it regulated by the contract?
And when the university purchased hardware for the lab, wasn't there a clause about the supply of "licensed software" (Windows OEM or something similar)?

 

[Don Y]

Research projects had their own spaces for computing, which was not available to the general student population

My EECS education predates the PC. Our "main", campus-wide computer ran MULTICS. Each "class" typically had its own computer system (a small mainframe usually supporting 100 concurrent users) running whatever "pet" OS the professor was tinkering with. And, each class taught in whatever language the professor saw as appropriate. So, the class you had at 9AM likely used entirely different tools/environment from the one you had at 10AM.

Obviously, businesses (DEC, IBM, GE, Honeywell, etc.) were very happy to gift equipment to the school as it would tend to bias the experiences of the students who learned on it.

The advantage, to the students (only visible in hindsight) was that you were exposed to a variety of solutions and not captive to *one*.

 

[Ogis]

So, in the US, I think, everything is relatively good for now.

Your knowledge is hopelessly out of date....I don't know where you got that from, but to me it sounds like schizophrenic hallucinations from a irradiated brain...

 

[astyle]

Your knowledge is hopelessly out of date....I don't know where you got that from, but to me it sounds like schizophrenic hallucinations from a irradiated brain...

It's not, I did have that happen to me when I was in college... The Computer Science department invited some engineers from the nearby Hewlett-Packard campus to teach some classes on Software Engineering... those classes ended up being unpaid labor to work on those engineers' pet projects, and had very little to do with the textbooks we had to buy . The textbooks did have some solid theoretical content, but the instructors never made an effort to make a connection between that and the project. To top it off, all classes sounded like the instructor was just trying to foist some work on the class without much explanations. The guy could not even teach properly and follow the textbook, and had no real interest in putting in an effort to do that.

After spending some time with Open Source, and learning how it works, I realize that Software Engineering is a pretty unwieldy topic, but even with that, I think the class could have been better organized and conducted. It was unfortunately a required class, so most of us just sat through it just to get the requirement out of the way.

 

[Ogis]

It's not, I did have that happen to me when I was in college...

And when was that? How many years ago? What I'm trying to say is that education in the US has hit rock bottom right now. I mean secondary education...and let's say such graduates who can't write without mistakes enter the University. Let's say to the programming department. What can they create if their secondary education is poor?

 

[Don Y]

After spending some time with Open Source, and learning how it works, I realize that Software Engineering is a pretty unwieldy topic, but even with that, I think the class could have been better organized and conducted. It was unfortunately a required class, so most of us just sat through it just to get the requirement out of the way.

Most of the "CS" folks I've met are just programmers. The education system now (US) seems to just crank out folks who can "use <whatever>" -- because its easier to teach <whatever> (than more abstract concepts) and because employers want folks with specific skills.

I can design a language -- or write a compiler. Or design an OS -- or a device driver. Or design a CPU (hardware or software emulation). Or, an amplifier. Or a power supply. Or, some signal conditioning circuitry. Because that's what an EECS did, in my era. Now, it appears writing code in some small number (one?) of languages is the main description of a "CS" student.

CS was taught as a *science* not a "skillset".

 

[astyle]

CS was taught as a *science* not a "skillset".

That assessment, I agree with... 'Was' is the keyword, however... Programming used to be treated as a 'science' because it was basically experiments in automation. Science has the steps:
1. Question
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion.

So for programming, it would look like this:
1. Can this algorithm be written in a given language?
2. Theoretically, yes.
3. Practically - let's find out, make mistakes, and blow money along the way.
4. Conclusion: This is too expensive, takes too much time, it's not reliable. Let's try again, and blow even more money along the way.

 

[Don Y]

That assessment, I agree with... 'Was' is the keyword, however... Programming used to be treated as a 'science' because it was basically experiments in automation.

I can't speak to what currently happens in universities since my education is so far behind me (last time I was on a campus was to make use of their library).

But, CS was taught as a science because there were proven methods to do things, criteria to follow, constraints that led to "better" programs, etc. E.g., you KNOW that keeping programs short ("on a single page") aids in understanding -- which aids in correctness. Likewise, information hiding minimizes unwanted interactions. Modular development, etc.

Do folks still learn about the lambda calculus? Petri nets? Study machine architectures? OS architectures? Language design? Grammar creation and parsing? The differences between call by value and call by reference? Artificial Intelligence algorithms?

AFAICT, it is now "this is how you extract parts of a string", "this is how you write a function". Tomorrow, we'll show you how to write a RECURSIVE one! (yippee!) And, "this is how you invoke the compiler on a Linux host..."

 

[hasbeen]

When I was taking CS-IT related courses in College, to supplement my education in mid 90’s, we had variety of computers that ran various operating systems: HP-UX Windows-NT and MacOS-8.1. Computer labs were assigned to support various CS-IT related subjects, such as:
UNIX Systems – C, csh on HP9000 Server HP-UX OS/Unix System V
TCP/IP Networks - HP9000 Server HP-UX OS/Unix System V
PC LAN – Windows NT/Windows 95 on Intel P5
IBM/PC Programming – MS-DOS, BASIC and Visual BASIC on Intel P5
Apple/PC Programming – Python/MacOS-8.1 on Macintosh Performa 475

So, I completed 45 College Credits in CS-IT program and I never worked a day in IT industry. I took the classes because I was interested in IT and my employer paid for it, after I convinced HR dept. that the CS-IT program was related to my work as a CATIA CAD/CAM mechanical parts developer and designer – no it wasn’t ;-) But, if I never took those courses, I would not be using FreeBSD today or consider IT as my hobby since 1998.

 

[astyle]

I convinced HR dept. that the CS-IT program was related to my work as a CATIA CAD/CAM mechanical parts developer and designer – no it wasn’t ;-)

Yeah, most IT Support positions are treated as sales roles... Problem with your ethernet card? Ok, how about a more expensive Internet subscription to solve that? What's IPv6? never heard of it!

 

[astyle]

Do folks still learn about the lambda calculus? Petri nets? Study machine architectures? OS architectures? Language design? Grammar creation and parsing? The differences between call by value and call by reference? Artificial Intelligence algorithms?

Never got call-by-value vs call-by-reference, even though that was covered in my curriculum.

The AI that I know is now classified as "Hard AI". The AI these days is about feeding the program a huge config file and LLMs to guide the decision-making. It's about as complicated as a web server.

 

[dnb]

[Mod: Split off from the introduction thread]


Funny thing, I went to UC Berkeley, and student computer labs were all Windows. So obnoxious. It's an insult to intelligence. Liek rly? (Don't mind me sound stupid, this is an alter ego account where I do not decide the fate of humanity and its technological development arc/trajectory).

There is no need for public computer labs at all. For what? To have someone set up FreeBSD for me? If someone needs lab/hardware, he goes to the server and spare parts market (possibly second hand) and builds his system like Max from Aronovsky film, leaving his fellow students far behind. FreeBSD helps with this.

 

[astyle]

There is no need for public computer labs at all. For what?

The reason universities provide public labs for students is to educate them on the standards. People need to know which software is in use, how powerful a computer needs to be to run that software, and more. I actually had very little idea about any of that until I got into college and got my CS degree. I had no idea how beefy hardware needs to be, or why compilations take up a lot of RAM.

The labs were a showcase of what's considered optimal for the learning. And then there's modifications for special cases. Penniless students just buy the cheapest gadget that will still do an acceptable job on homework.