Content-Type: RST

Last week, in my Introduction to Engineering and Design class, I had a
lab. While I don't normally take issue with schoolwork that is easy
enough that I already know how to do it, I take issue with this lab in
particular because of what its objectives_:

   The objective of this lab is to use Microsoft Word, Excel, and
   PowerPoint to perform specific exercises and learn which programs
   are best suited to particular tasks. Your goal, after having
   completed the assigned tasks, is to have a basic familiarity with
   these three software tools.

.. _objectives: https://egmanual.poly.edu/index.php/Software_for_Engineers_2007#2_OVERVIEW

.. figure :: http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/feed-me-cat

   I wanted to post "don't feed the troll," but I am the troll, and
   lolcats are more awesome anyway.

Perhaps I'm preaching to the chorus with a domain like mine, but
seriously, what the heck is with the continual kowtowing toward
Microsoft? The excerpt from the lab manual is actually tame relative
to the way the professors and TAs talked about Microsoft
products. You'd think there was no other way to write a report or draw
a graph or make a slideshow than use Office. Am I to fail the lab
because I used `OpenOffice.org`_ instead of MS Office? Do I need to
pay the hundreds of dollars necessary to install the latter on my
computer just so I can pass a class in *engineering and design*? I
would understand if it were a class in "The Workings of Office" or
some such thing that depended on the program itself. I can
write a paper just as well in Notepad as in Word, because it's the
*content* that matters, not the bloody interface used.

.. _`Openoffice.org`: http://www.openoffice.org

And, the nonsense doesn't stop here. Maybe I walked into a class on
over-engineering, because for the semester-long final project we have
to -- no, must -- use `Microsoft Project`_ to track our progress and
organize our group of 2-3 people, when we see each other around
anyway. Honestly, plain e-mail feels like overkill for this, but
Microsoft Project? A tool for tracking a hundreds-strong project, with
complex dependencies and other requirements?

.. _`Microsoft Project`: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project/

.. figure :: http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/frustration

   **%@#&!**

Plus, it's closed source, and we were assured there is nothing else we
could use instead. So, naturally, I took the liberty to take their
words with a bit of salt, and found `Gantt Project`_, a free
alternative. I *really* don't know why I can't just use this
instead. I mean, let's compare screenshots. Gantt:

.. _`Gantt Project`: http://www.ganttproject.biz/

.. figure :: http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/gantt-project

   `Full View <http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/gantt-project>`__

MS Project:

.. figure :: http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/ms-project

   `Full View <http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/ms-project>`__

I think it's ironic that the first image that came up when I
searched for "ms project 2007 screenshot" was one of MS Project
showing a project imported from Gantt. Maybe the college only needs us
to use MS Project to justify the heaps it must be spending on its
Microsoft licenses. Which could be easily done away with if it used
something, I don't know... free?

Maybe that's also why the compsci department gives out Visual C++ and
has it as the "environment" even though it's evident the professors
really don't have a special preference for it. What happened to
cheaper, just as efficient and compatible stuff, like Eclipse? g++?

.. figure :: http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/frustration

   **%@#& %$ @#&$% #$%^! @#$%^@ %$@#$ %! #@#!**

So, I'm wondering... Is all this because of a contract? Because of
plain ease of choice ("put a check next to all the Microsoft
products!")? Or because people actually believe that Microsoft
products are worth the cost, or that because they're all written by
Big Brother they're automagically the best choice?