Old Software or Open Source? 454
Pakled writes "I teach a high school multimedia course. We were scheduled to get new software this year but due to several pointy haired bosses, no software was ordered. The software I have to teach is Flash 5, Dreamweaver 2000, Photoshop 7 and (god help me) Movie Maker. The question is: is it better to teach old commercial software or their open source counterparts (Komposer, Gimp, etc.)?
Is the steep learning curve and slightly less uniform design worth a little student frustration to teach them software written in the past 5 years?"
Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:5, Funny)
It'd be like asking Larry Ellison, "So, I have this old version of Oracle we use in the classroom, but I want to upgrade to something newer. Tell me about this MySQL thing I keep hearing about...."
Heaven help us if RMS ever gets wind of this article....
Re:Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dept of redundancy department (Score:5, Insightful)
That was priceless! Thanks, you made my day! As to your point, I agree completely. What's wrong with pencils and rulers? The newest software will be out of date by the time these kids get out of college.
All a REAL artist needs is mud and a stick, and he can do without either in a pinch. You have to learn to see before you can learn to render.
-mcgrew [mcgrew.info]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the purpose of high school is to prepare young adults for the so called real world. That being said, I would recommend using Photoshop. It would be a real disappointment to know that you taught the kids all about GIMP, but they could not take their GIMP skills to the local web design company.
However, I think it is also wise to teach diversity. I would recommend also teaching GIMP and maybe a few other software packages, for the purpose of literacy for many different graphics packages available.
Re:Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, they can't take just a high school diploma to most design firms anyway, they are only just learning the basics, and design concepts that you could apply with paint and construction paper if needed. The high level nitty gritty details of how to smooth one's workflow by learning the specifics of a certain version of software isn't something they really need to worry about at this stage.
Besides, by the time they are finished their education CS3 will be just as outdated as PS7 is now, so there is no real advantage to upgrading when the features they'd gain aren't really what they should be concentrating on anyway.
Use the GIMP or use PS7 it doesn't matter really, they both have the features the kids need, but I am with the others who say using the GIMP in the classroom makes it easier for the kids to get and use the same software at home.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because the main differences are things that Adobe has added, like LivePaint and LiveTrace. The main difference between Illustrator 7 and CS2 is that 7's menus are shorter and its dialogues have fewer options.
OTOH, aside from the fact that it handles fewer file formats (open, import, export), I like Inkscape's drawing tools a lot better than Illustrator
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, there's nothing wrong with Photoshop 5. Version 10/CS3 has many more bells and whistles but for high school students learning the ropes they could use Photoshop LE (aka v5 OEM), which was included when I purchased a $50 graphics tablet and again when I bought a $75 scanner.
Re:Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that fact, Whether you do get PhotoShop CS3 or not, in 4 years when they start looking for a job it will be obsolete anyway. The only difference between PhotoShop 7 and CS2 is a couple more features to convert it to bloatware and THAT'S IT! Say thank you that you even have those older programs. Students in Africa and Asia struggle to find a computer running Windows 95!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you are horribly wrong. Anyone can get a job in the creative field, even with little or no 'academic or professional experience'. Why? Because if your portfolio is f#*&ing kick-ass, any company will see that and hire that person, period. I know several people that have tons of experience, but the
Adobe bloatware! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a high school class.
Pretty much every new feature you just touted is completely irrelevant in the context of what a high school student needs or is going to find useful.
I think the point being made is that except for a few high-end features and tweaks like you mention and the horrible, horrible, "integration" of the CS suite, Photoshop is virtually identical today to the product it was then.
IMO experience for users who are not professional photographers an
Re: (Score:3)
The software is just a tool.
Classes at this level should be teaching technique and understanding of the underlying theory.
Asking the question "Photoshop or Gimp for computer art class" is like asking "Stanley or Estwing hammer for woodwork class".
The woodwork teacher teaches the kids how to hit the nail squarely on the head, not what brand of hammer to swing.
Beef.
Re:Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but I feel obliged to point out that the word is point.
Re:Wow shortest Ask Slashdot ever. (Score:4, Funny)
I am obliged to you for pointing that out, but I feel obligated to point out that the word is obligated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not as straight forward... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you should do instead is to teach about web developing (HTML, etc), image manipulation, etc. If you teach only how to press x or y button you will be robbing the students because when the next version of X program goes out they wont do how to achieve that misterious effect the teacher shown them how to achieve which made the picture look better.
You do not need to teach them the science of what they are doing (i.e., no need for an extensive programming class, just HTML and the basics of web design). But you could very well teach them the concepts and apply the conecpts in your "old" propietary software and the "new" open source. In that way, they will be able to onder the benefits and disbenefits of each tool.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Either/Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Either/Or (Score:5, Interesting)
There were two reasons. 1) we needed to learn how to do data analysis in the presence of noise. 2) the next big science experiment is always done on tools not quite right to do it.
So it depends on what you want to teach your kids. You might be interested in the graphic arts product. You might be interested in vocational training on current industrial standard tools. Or you might be interested in teaching them how to coax an application to do something it was not really meant to do. Or even you might want them to lift the hood and build the next great graphics art tool.
If it's either of the latter then open source. If it's the first then both. If it's the vocational training then go with the older but more standard tools.
Wake up (Score:3, Insightful)
In particular, anyone who suggests using the GIMP over any moderately recent version of Photoshop for serious work should be sacked, tarred, feathered and shipped to Guantanamo. Photoshop 7 is light years ahead of GIMP today, and I will bet anyone here $5 that it's way ahead of where GIMP will be in ten years. (GIMP will then be twice as old, and if it's twice as good then it will still suck rod.)
D
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you don't like GIMP doesn't mean that it's useless. I find it easier to use than Photoshop. The only problem with it is if you think the Windows way of thinking is the only way to think. But hey, that's what schools are for, right, teach kids what to do, rather than how to think.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, Krita (from KOffice) is still behind GIMP (no script-fu), but it's running much faster in the multimedia race, and it already supports CMYK and 16bit color space.
That said, yes, it's sad that FOSS multimedia tools are years behind their commercial counterparts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Interesting)
What is so bad about GIMP?? I've used it for very simple purposes. I'm not a professional. I'm equally lost in GIMP as I am Photoshop. And unless you use one or the other every day, you are too; unless you are spinning one for us.
Maybe it's because I'm not a professional artist, I remain ignorant of the details for more complex, day to day operations? But then again, that should tell you the interface isn't fundamentally broken. Why? Because otherwise people wouldn't be able to intuit the interface as experience grows, just as people do with Photoshop. And frankly, I have used it enough now to do all the basic things I need to do without any trouble.
As a side note, I know professional photographers (they get paid big bucks for their work) which use GIMP without trouble. Does this mean it's ready for all photographers? No. What he does is a niche for sure. Nonetheless, with a zero digital editing background, he figured how to do what he needs to do with little effort or pain. This again suggests you're fighting a common bias rather than a fundamental UI flaw.
To be clear, I am not advocating GIMP's interface is the best thing since sliced bread. All I'm saying is it's different but I'm certainly not seeing anything bad; which is in stark contrast to the commonly offered opinion here.
Re:Wake up (Score:4, Interesting)
To me, the GIMP UI is just too clumsy and labyrinthine to prefer it over Photoshop. Just about all the features I want exist in GIMP; getting to them and using them is where I get angry. This mostly stems from GIMP's rootless design, a central decision which has hindered GIMP's adoption more than any other single attribute of the program.
Again, I would like to make clear that I am glad GIMP exists. In fact, I will even go so far as to say that Script-Fu kicks huge ass, and I miss its absence in Photoshop. I just find the GIMP to be a far less user-efficient tool than Photoshop in all other cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One comment I've seen several times is the lack of context menus. This mean people expect a right click to do something else based on the currently selected tool? Even so, that sounds like basis to argue there is room for improvement and not that the UI is completely foobared and unusable. One of the rational replies I received basically said commo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As someone who uses a number of graphics design and retouching programs, I'll tell you:
First off, I rarely use the mouse, ex
Concrete examples of GIMPS flaws (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Also-- the GIMP is ugly to these people. As a programmer, I find certain elements very elegant. Most designers couldn't care less that you can write GIMP plugins in Perl; they're irritated that when they double-click on an image in InDesign, it doesn't automatically come up for editing in the GIMP. Some of these issues are petty-- but in my experience, designers tend to work in a more immediate-feeling, less rational domain. Appearance is important-- after all, they're paid because they have a highly developed aesthetic sense. Programmers are so horrendously square to many of them.
Adobe's stuff is expensive, and in many cases overrated, but they have indeed put a lot of thought into the workflow (e.g., integration between DTP app and photo editor) and appearance, and for a lot of people, this is all that matters. These facts combined with certain mailing list posts that lead me to believe that some GIMP developers suffer from a bit of a 'high horse' syndrome lead me to believe that this is why GIMP is not universally accepted, despite the fact that it is a highly capable application.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
The main two issues with the Gimp are that the various windows not in a single container (Yeah, GimpShop. It sucks, too) and the lack of a good layer system. Nested layers and layer folders are a must, no room for debate. Acting on multiple layers is inconsistent, and that most definitely is unacceptable. For any aspect of the Gimp, as soon as you find yourself fighting the interface, the interface is broken and needs to be fixed. I find myself constantly fighting the window sizes, and constantly find myself looking for pieces of the interface that dropped behind another window. That sucks, and is bad design. I know it's a Unix-ism. But it's still bad design.
Having said all that, let me just say I love the Gimp, and kudos to all who have worked to make it what it is. Which is pretty awesome, but not good enough for professional design, considering the competition.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Informative)
and the switch to GEGL will take care of the 8-bits-per-channel limit.
then again, this all could be excessive optimism and nothing will really change in 2.6.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with the conclusions. If you do not expose your students to tools they are likely to be using in the workplace, you are likely to do them a disservice, but it depends a lot on how long it will be until the use them professionally. What age does high school start? In the USA, I believe it's age 14. Assuming the students then go on to do a degree (typically 4 years in the USA) then they will be 22 by the time they are looking for a job. Eight years is a long time in software. There is about the same difference between the office apps I was taught at age 14 and OpenOffice as there is between them and Microsoft Office. I was taught Paint Shop Pro (3, I think) at school and it has about as much in common with The GIMP as it does with a recent Photoshop.
Teaching two or more tools will put students in much better position to learn new tools later. If they understand what they are doing, rather than how the tool is used, then they will be much better able to adjust later.
Re: (Score:3)
Just thought I'd give feed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the groupthink here. I post a well thought out opinion from having extensively used both pieces of software, and some jackass moderates me redundant not because when I said actually was said elsewhere in the thread, but because he/she didn't agree with me.
Unfortunately, this is why projects like GIMP rarely (if ever) become as good UI-wise as commercial products like Photoshop. Instead of responding to critics intelligently with reasons why they are wrong or giving critics due consideration and i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, you dissed GIMP. On Slashdot.
Grab your ankles and get comfortable.
Suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Teaching Graphic Design (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Teaching Graphic Design (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a vocational school, so don't teach to a vocation.
Re:Teaching Graphic Design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, given that PS is THE standard in the industry, I would say it's best to teach with it. Not only can you teach the theory behind everything, you can also teach the program they'd actually be using. People here on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if you are teaching graphic design it's silly to teach anything other then what industry uses.
What you'd really like to teach is what industry will be using when the students hit the workforce in 2-7 years. But obviously you can't use what doesn't exist, so the next best thing (according to your philosophy) is to teach what industry is using now. Except that's not an option either. Instead, all that's available is either the open source tools or what industry was using 5 years ago. So, you can teach on commercial tools that will be a decade (!) out of date by the time the kids hit the job mark
Re:Teaching Graphic Design (Score:5, Interesting)
I learned Excel in version 4 for Macintosh. It sort-of resembles modern MS Excel, at least as far as the formula notation, but that's about it. Macros, editing, printing, graphing, etc... all different.
It is far more important to understand the concepts than to understand which button to click. If it weren't, we'd all be screwed when they released Office 2007. Oh, wait, a lot of people ARE screwed because they know what button to press, but not what it really does "under the hood". I just got off of the phone with a friend who wanted to know how to make the footer stop after page 3... ugh. If he ever took a word processing class using ANY program, he would have understood the concept of a section break. Sure, it was called a "format code" in WordPerfect, but the concept is the same - change the formatting starting at this point in the document. (Oh, how I miss "show codes"...)
Open source is lovely, too. I'd use it when the old programs no longer are adequate. There is no reason to buy thousand-dollar programs unless you are a vocational school, in which case the kids aren't planning on college and need to learn where to click.
So use the old crappy stuff - it's like complaining about the age of the Bunsen burners in the Chemistry lab. They may look different, but the concept is still the same.
Depends on what you're trying to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to teach them design or are you trying to train them in the use of software programs to accomplish any old goal?
If you're trying to teach them design principles in general, then I don't see what the difference is between outdated commercial software and their OSS counterparts. If you're trying to teach them to use software skills in software packages they are likely to see in the real world/college after graduation then that's not the best way to go about it.
If you're trying to teach both, I really don't know what to tell you. Probably retool a bit to put more emphasis on the design part and less on the use of specific software. Design skills change but not like specific software needs.
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Depends on what you're trying to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Concepts (Score:5, Insightful)
Use whatever software allows you to teach the concepts to your students in the easiest manner. The tools change much faster than the concepts so don't fret too much about which tool to use. Whichever one is easier for you to use and teach with, use that
Re: (Score:2)
bad software (Score:2, Funny)
Use Both (Score:2)
With Gimp and Photoshop, there is little question. (Score:3, Informative)
Well I'll be hard pressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I'll be haarrd-pressed![1] I work for a small business, and I use GIMP to prepare product images for the web store.
[1] Said in the tone of "Well I'll be dog-gone!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if its gimp or photoshop, just as long as you know what the diffrent between ansharpen mask, blur and gaussian blur is.
Both... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who were only taught a single app for a single purpose often have problems adjusting to other programs, they don't understand what features to look for but rather just where to look for them which ofcourse falls over if the software changes, even between different versions of the same application.
It's also worth considering, even if you teach the most up to date and widely used software today... A lot can change very quickly in software, the apps you teach may not be used anymore when your students go out into the world of work, or there may be much newer versions in use. Conversely, many companies keep using even older versions of apps because they still get the job done.
So basically teach the widest selection of apps you can, explain the differences and similarities and focus on the job that needs doing rather than the tools for doing it. Also for anything that is open/free provide your students with a copy of it so they can take it home.
Depends on the students (Score:2)
Get whatever (including open source) for the first group and get Genuine Microsoft/Adobe stuff for the second group.
Teach the commercial software (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
After all is said and done
Re:Teach the commercial software (Score:5, Funny)
Principles (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, as far as image editing is concerned, it would be nice to talk about brushes and layers, and filters, all the while showing that while different software can have various options, located in various menus, the work can be accomplished on either, as long as the person knows exactly what they are trying to do.
That way, your students would be more than just click-monkeys, who know little more than what sequence of buttons to push according to a flowchart.
Because otherwise they will wind up like our Pathology department administrator who, when I suggested that to save the school tens of thousands of dollars a year they should use OpenOffice and discontinue the MSOffice site license, turned to me and asked: "But without MSOffice, how will our people do any work?"
Movie Maker (Score:2, Interesting)
Kino or Cinelerra? (Score:2)
Ohh-Kay (Score:2)
Anywho...Are you teaching them how to use tools or how to get a job?
I think OS is better because it tends to teach the theory, and it saves school a bucket load of cash. If you goal is to make cogs, go with what you have. If your goal is to make people who can think and achive a high standered, go OS.
A good painter understand colors, a great painter understands where the colors come from. a Master painter know the breed and care of the animal they get their brush
Re: (Score:2)
That's a GOOD analogy there. In fact, I would venture the observation that it applies
for any skill or trade in question. And I'd be striving to make better "painters" in
any course that involves the use of computers. Far, far too often the coursework in
high schools and colleges leans toward just "prepping for the workplace" and making
c
OS is better (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest hurdle in open source software imo is getting people out of their comfort zone in order to use it.
In saying that I am slightly bias as I disagree with people using the likes dreamweaver for anything other than RAD. Better to code by hand, you learn more. The number of people I have using dreamweaver/contribu
principles or programs? (Score:2)
Hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
There is not OSS equivalent... (Score:2)
Teach the ability to learn (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd hope the class is more about how to use software than it is about how to use this software and, as such, I'd use whichever software you're more comfortable with. If you already have notes and lessons planned around the existing, old software, use that. If you have to make new notes anyway, why not introduce your class to the world of Open Source?
Ian
In short.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The older software will be your best bet - why? Many places still use older versions of the industry standards. It wasn't until recently that my place of employment upgraded to CS2 on every primary production machine - some machines still had Photoshop 6, and I think we've got one with 5.5 still that some sales reps use (this is at a newspaper). Second, the UI will still be relatively uniform and familiar in subsequent versions.
It sucks, but better to teach them something they are more likely to encounter in some version or another. Don't hesitate to introduce them to open-source alternatives, but keep in mind that they will rarely be used in a professional environment (cue flames here - I'm an open source user myself, but I have yet to encounter any place that uses The GIMP in any sort of professional high volume production)
Teach them how to learn how to use the software. (Score:2)
Most people learn how to
Industry (Score:2)
Not entirely sure this is the best place to be asking, anyway.
You're asking that here? (Score:2)
Dear Choir: (Score:5, Funny)
I teach a high school theology course. We were scheduled to get new books this year but due to several pointy haired bosses, no books were ordered. The books I have to teach are (god help me) pagan scrolls from the 3rd century BC. The question is: is it better to teach old religions or their open text counterparts (Christianity, Hinduism, etc)? Is the steep learning curve and slightly less uniform world view worth a little damnation to teach them religion founded in the past 5000 years?
Free as in Kool-Aid (Score:2)
With the commercial software, especially the packages you mentioned, the costs are prohibitive for high school students. So, they would get started in your class, then have no easy way to continue learning or put it to practical use.
I would try to stick with software that has good multi-platform support, including Windows support, so students can easily
Find a Flash replacement first... (Score:2, Insightful)
Some different than others... (Score:2)
Consider This (Score:5, Insightful)
-If they find that they enjoy what you are teaching, knowing an open source (and FREE) software tool will make it easy for them to continue tinkering with it at home. They can download the same tool they used in the classroom and continue to hone their skills at home if that really is their area of interest/career path. In the end, it's their eye and talent as an artist that will determine if their career at this early stage, learning the software is secondary. Practice is key. Chances are a student can't afford a legal copy of Photoshop for their home computer.
-Odds are that it will be a few years before they get into the working world anyway, so even if the school board gave you the latest versions of the commercial software, chances are that what they end up using in the working world will be several versions in the future anyway.
- Once you've learned one tool, it's usually easy to learn another of the same type. Like learning programming languages. Once you have the basics, the icons for the tools and the menus are trivial.
- Many artists do freelance work when they are first trying to break into the graphic design/art world. Knowing a free tool will keep their costs down.
- It will help support the free/open source software movement, and make them aware of the wide variety of awesome free/open apps available to them.
- Many employers even if they provide a commercial graphics program, will allow you to install and use your own preferred tool if it's free/legal/legit/compatible.
- Giving them an additional taste of the old version commercial software you have will mean they've been exposed to two different tools- an advantage in the long run. Choice is good.
Stick with Photoshop (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, they might actually use these skills. I took a desktop publishing class for fun in high school and learned to use PageMaker. I then got a job during college that involved creating publicity materials for an academic department (flyers for events, etc) in PageMaker, and from there got a job doing layout at a local paper also in PM. And no, I'm not a graphic design major or anything - I was a cognitive science major and am now in a PhD program, but layout is a hobby of mine (and possibly the only visual art-type-thing at which I have any skill). And that newspaper job paid much better than anything else I could have gotten at the time.
If some of the other open-source programs are more similar to the standard clossed-source ones, they might be valid alternatives. Or you could let them explore with both programs (for example, more advanced students might be able to do projects comparing the capabilities of two different programs).
Stop encouraging piracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, I think you're better off encouraging students' curiosity for use *at home*. Which would you rather hire to use Photoshop, someone who's spent 100 hours using Photoshop 5 in a classroom a several years ago, or someone who's played with everything in GIMP for 600+ hours, built some webpages, entered some silly photo-editing contests, etc, and is still using it?
In reality, of course, if you subtly imply that Photoshop is the only way to go, they'll just pirate it to work at home. This is pernicious. I'm betting 'moral education' is a part of your school's mission statement. Live it.
Teach students to use Open Source software. Hand out discs with the PortableApps files. Accept ODF/RTF/TXT/PDF files as well as DOC.
Free Software: Yes. Also, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethically speaking, as a good teacher you should absolutely abstain from proprietary concepts: Your obligation is to teach them something useful for society, not to teach them something useful for Adobe. Proprietary software essentially says that research into the functions and cooperation between people is forbidden, while free software actually encourages sharing knowledge and cooperation for a mutual goal. Read Stallman's essay on the topic [2] and decide what would be the ethically correct alternative.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_(software) [wikipedia.org]
[2] http://www.linux.com/articles/32587 [linux.com]
Best value for the students (Score:2)
Teach the Eclipse (Score:2)
Debatable (Score:3, Interesting)
I do web development/design for a living, so I will try to provide a little bit of insight.
I use Photoshop CS2 for the majority of my work... the problem being that I use Gentoo Linux. I have a WinXP install running under VMware just to use it... this is mostly because I learned how to use Photoshop when I was young, and I just stuck. I use gimp for the quick edits, and it does this VERY well. Examples: Crop/Resize, Add Text, maybe add a drop shadow, etc.
When it comes to Dreamweaver, I've always hated it. It was slow, and a painful mess last I used it (version 4 or 5). I'm a programmer, so I suppose I am a little biased, but I code all of my X/HTML by hand. Teach your students how to code HTML by hand. Students tend to use Dreamweaver as a crutch. They learn how to point and click with it, but never really understand what exactly they are doing. When I was in high school, I used to attend a national competition called "Skills Canada". Every year in the national round, there was always at least ONE person who freaked out and dropped out of the competition because Dreamweaver was not set up the same as they used to have it back home. Now, I, and others, used notepad or notepad++, etc (Ya-ya! I know Dreamweaver has an IDE built in -- I still don't like it). We had no issues because we saw, and built the code whereas the competitor who dropped out did so because they were dependent on the visual interface ("It's different, what the hell do I do!?").
When it comes to Flash, there isn't much of an alternative... Flash is what you need. I personally own Flash MX2004 and I like it fine. I'm planning an upgrade to the next release (CS4 I think it will be?) or if there is a nice update to the latest version (like a service pack)... I've heard it has some issues (mostly interface stuff).
As for my recommendation, someone above mentioned for you to teach until you receive the required materials.
Your Software Suite is Fine. (Score:2)
From the suite that you gave, with the exception of certain new features, the core of those programs have not changed much over the years.
Here's the thing that I noticed about most good software titles: if their original premise is held and the public accepts it, the basics usually don't change. The core of Microsoft Windows, for example, has not changed since its inception (it's quality is debatable, however). Neither has open-source software like emacs, grep, etc.
The tools that you are teaching them a
Whichever illustrates the principles. (Score:2)
That said, it looks like you have a choice between Gimp and Photoshop, no real alternative to Flash 5, possible alternatives to MovieMaker, and as for Dreamweaver, the only advantage it has over hand-coded HTML + CSS is in saved time, and
Teach methods and learning, not applications. (Score:2)
To generalize, software is becoming modified and updated continuously, and will throughout these students lives. In ot
A reason for OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
If you only teach them PhotoShop, they may be forced to (a) use a pirated copy at home or (b) not use their home computer at all.
If it's been said once... (Score:2)
Face it, when the slashdot faithful were in school we were taught on a different set of software than what we used at uni, and later in the workplace. Software changes on a year-by-year, month-by-month basis. Rote memorisation can get you far in, say, simple mathematics, but it doesn't extend so well into areas that change rapidly. Heck, I was brought
Old Commercial Software (Score:2)
Because no one is going to get a job for knowing Gimp of Komposer. However they could actually get a job for knowing Flash 5 and Photoshop 7.
First problem (Score:3, Insightful)
In college we used some sort of cad software that I don't even remember the name of. That didn't mean that the concept of snapping, lineto, center, tangent, etc didn't translate when I used autocad (which I most certainly did not take a class on) for a few things before becoming a full time computer geek. Same applies to firewalls and routers and such. If you know TCP/IP and Routing and such, how to configure the stuff is simply a matter of looking up how to do it on that particular device in the manual (how do I define a tunnel, how do I define a route, etc). I *hate* working with cisco guys who took their class, and can't think beyond the ciscoese (bringing up partner IPSec VPNs being the best example of this).
Simple question with a simple answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Which will be the easier transition: Photoshop 7 to Photoshop CS3, or GIMP to Photoshop CS3?
If the answer is the old version of the commercial software, then you should teach the old version of the commercial software.
teach both (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the commercial versions of the software you mentioned are expensive, so your students might like to know that there are freeware alternatives to piracy.
Because you are faced with a time constraint, though, it might be better to go with the commercial products. There will be fewer technical snags, more options for further education, more employment opportunities and so on. Besides, as others here have said, the commercial versions available to you are quite advanced. More recent versions have cool tools, but artists got by without them for the longest time, and had to be very creative to get past those limitations.
Re:What on earth is the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not teach students how
- to think along procedural and functional lines
- to consider the information in the abstract
- to decompose the system and troubleshoot the gazintas and the gazoutas
- to RTFM and search the web when the politician hits the fan
- to calmly view ideas that one finds objectionable (Creationism, proprietary licensing)
- to implement sound practices (version control, unit testing)
Binding the conversation to specific software versions seems a cop-out.Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize this is a school teacher, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as a mockery on management people, i.e. those who don't really have a clue about the technical side of things, but somehow manage to dictate the technical what decisions are made within an organisation.