Handling video files produced for a MOOC on Windows with git and git-annex

This post is intended to document some elements of workflow that I’ve setup to manage videos produced for a MOOC, where different colleagues work collaboratively on a set of video sequences, in a remote way.

We are a team of several schools working on the same course, and we have an incremental process, so we need some collaboration over a quite long period of many remote authors, over a set of video sequences.

We’re probably going to review some of the videos and make changes, so we need to monitor changes, and submit versions to colleagues on remote sites so they can criticize and get later edits. We may have more that one site doing video production. Thus we need to share videos along the flow of production, editing and revision of the course contents, in a way that is manageable by power users (we’re all computer scientists, used to SVN or Git).

I’ve decided to start an experiment with Git and Git-Annex to try and manage the videos like we use to do for slides sources in LaTeX. Obviously the main issue is that videos are big files, demanding in storage space and bandwidth for transfers.

Continue reading “Handling video files produced for a MOOC on Windows with git and git-annex”

A howto record a screencast on Linux and tablet

I’ve documented the process of how I’m trying to perform DIY screencast recording, for the needs of a MOOC.

I’m working on my Debian or Ubuntu desktop, using an external graphic tablet with integrated display for annotating slides.

The main software used for the process are xournal for annotating PDFs and vokoscreen for the screen and video recording.

Here is the documentation : http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/screencast-linux.html

And here’s the companion video : https://youtu.be/YxcUNqXPYZE

I hope this is useful to some.

New short paper : “Designing a virtual laboratory for a relational database MOOC” with Vagrant, Debian, etc.

Here’s a short preview of our latest accepted paper (to appear at CSEDU 2015), about the construction of VMs for the Relational Database MOOC using Vagrant, Debian, PostgreSQL (previous post), etc. :

Designing a virtual laboratory for a relational database MOOC

Olivier Berger, J Paul Gibson, Claire Lecocq and Christian Bac

Keywords: Remote Learning, Virtualization, Open Education Resources, MOOC, Vagrant

Abstract: Technical advances in machine and system virtualization are creating opportunities for remote learning to provide significantly better support for active education approaches. Students now, in general, have personal computers that are powerful enough to support virtualization of operating systems and networks. As a conse- quence, it is now possible to provide remote learners with a common, standard, virtual laboratory and learning environment, independent of the different types of physical machines on which they work. This greatly enhances the opportunity for producing re-usable teaching materials that are actually re-used. However, configuring and installing such virtual laboratories is technically challenging for teachers and students. We report on our experience of building a virtual machine (VM) laboratory for a MOOC on relational databases. The architecture of our virtual machine is described in detail, and we evaluate the benefits of using the Vagrant tool for building and delivering the VM.


  • Introduction
    • A brief history of distance learning
    • Virtualization : the challenges
    • The design problem
  • The virtualization requirements
    • Scenario-based requirements
    • Related work on requirements
    • Scalability of existing approaches
  • The MOOC laboratory
    • Exercises and lab tools
    • From requirements to design
  • Making the VM as a Vagrant box
    • Portability issues
    • Delivery through Internet
    • Security
    • Availability of the box sources
  • Validation
    • Reliability Issues with VirtualBox
    • Student feedback and evaluation
  • Future work
    • Laboratory monitoring
    • More modular VMs
  • Conclusions


  • Alario-Hoyos et al., 2014
    Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustın, M., Kloos, C. D., and Muñoz Merino, P. J. (2014).
    Recommendations for the design and deployment of MOOCs: Insights about the MOOC digital education of the future deployed in MiríadaX.
    In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, TEEM ’14, pages 403-408, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  • Armbrust et al., 2010
    Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., and Zaharia, M. (2010).
    A view of cloud computing.
    Commun. ACM, 53:50-58.
  • Billingsley and Steel, 2014
    Billingsley, W. and Steel, J. R. (2014).
    Towards a supercollaborative software engineering MOOC.
    In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 283-286. ACM.
  • Brown and Duguid, 1996
    Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1996).
    Universities in the digital age.
    Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(4):11-19.
  • Bullers et al., 2006
    Bullers, Jr., W. I., Burd, S., and Seazzu, A. F. (2006).
    Virtual machines – an idea whose time has returned: Application to network, security, and database courses.
    SIGCSE Bull., 38(1):102-106.
  • Chen and Noble, 2001
    Chen, P. M. and Noble, B. D. (2001).
    When virtual is better than real [operating system relocation to virtual machines].
    In Hot Topics in Operating Systems, 2001. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on, pages 133-138. IEEE.
  • Cooper, 2005
    Cooper, M. (2005).
    Remote laboratories in teaching and learning-issues impinging on widespread adoption in science and engineering education.
    International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 1(1).
  • Cormier, 2014
    Cormier, D. (2014).
    Rhizo14-the MOOC that community built.
    INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3).
  • Dougiamas and Taylor, 2003
    Dougiamas, M. and Taylor, P. (2003).
    Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system.
    In World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, pages 171-178.
  • Gomes and Bogosyan, 2009
    Gomes, L. and Bogosyan, S. (2009).
    Current trends in remote laboratories.
    Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 56(12):4744-4756.
  • Hashimoto, 2013
    Hashimoto, M. (2013).
    Vagrant: Up and Running.
    O’Reilly Media, Inc.
  • Jones and Winne, 2012
    Jones, M. and Winne, P. H. (2012).
    Adaptive Learning Environments: Foundations and Frontiers.
    Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st edition.
  • Lowe, 2014
    Lowe, D. (2014).
    MOOLs: Massive open online laboratories: An analysis of scale and feasibility.
    In Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), 2014 11th International Conference on, pages 1-6. IEEE.
  • Ma and Nickerson, 2006
    Ma, J. and Nickerson, J. V. (2006).
    Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review.
    ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3):7.
  • Pearson, 2013
    Pearson, S. (2013).
    Privacy, security and trust in cloud computing.
    In Privacy and Security for Cloud Computing, pages 3-42. Springer.
  • Prince, 2004
    Prince, M. (2004).
    Does active learning work? A review of the research.
    Journal of engineering education, 93(3):223-231.
  • Romero-Zaldivar et al., 2012
    Romero-Zaldivar, V.-A., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., and Delgado Kloos, C. (2012).
    Monitoring student progress using virtual appliances: A case study.
    Computers & Education, 58(4):1058-1067.
  • Sumner, 2000
    Sumner, J. (2000).
    Serving the system: A critical history of distance education.
    Open learning, 15(3):267-285.
  • Watson, 2008
    Watson, J. (2008).
    Virtualbox: Bits and bytes masquerading as machines.
    Linux J., 2008(166).
  • Winckles et al., 2011
    Winckles, A., Spasova, K., and Rowsell, T. (2011).
    Remote laboratories and reusable learning objects in a distance learning context.
    Networks, 14:43-55.
  • Yeung et al., 2010
    Yeung, H., Lowe, D. B., and Murray, S. (2010).
    Interoperability of remote laboratories systems.
    iJOE, 6(S1):71-80.

Testing the RuneStone interactive Python courses server in docker

I’ve been working on setting up a Docker container environment allowing to test the RuneStone Interactive server.

RuneStone Interactive allows the publication of courses containing interactive Python examples, and while most of the content is static (the Python examples are run innside a Python interpreter implemented in JavaScript, hence locally in the JS VM of the Web browser), the tool also offers an environment allowing to monitor the progress of learners in a course, which is dynamic and is queried by the browser over AJAX APIs.

That’s the part which I wanted to be able to operate for test purposes. As it is a web2py application, it’s not exactly obvious to gather all dependencies and run locally. Well, in fact it is, but I want to understand the architecture of the tool to be able to understand the deployment constraints, so making a docker image will help in this purpose.

The result is the following :

Now, it’s easier to test the writing of a new course (yet another container above the latter one), and directly test for real.

Configuring the start of multiple docker container with Vagrant in a portable manner

I’ve mentioned earlier the work that our students did on migrating part of the elements of the Database MOOC lab VM to docker.

While docker seems quite cool, let’s face it, participants to the MOOCs aren’t all using Linux where docker can be available directly. Hence the need to use boot2docker, for instance on Windows.

Then we’re back quite close to the architecture of the Vagrang VM, which relies too on a VirtualBox VM to run a Linux machine (boot2docker does exactly that with a minimal Linux which runs docker).

If VirtualBox is to be kept around, then why not stick to Vagrant also, as it offers a docker provider. This docker provider for Vagrant helps configure basic parameters of docker containers in a Vagrantfile, and basically uses the vagrant up command instead of using docker build + docker run. If on Linux, it only triggers docker, and if not, then it’ll start boot2docker (or any other Linux box) in between.

This somehow offers a unified invocation command, which renders a bit more portable the documentation.

Now, there are some tricks when using this docker provider, in particular for debugging what’s happening inside the VM.

One nice feature is that you can debug on Linux what is to be executed on Windows, by explicitely requiring the start of the intermediary boot2docker VM even if it’s not really needed.

By using a custom secondary Vagrantfile for that VM, it is possible to tune some parameters of that VM (like its graphic memory to allow to start it with a GUI allowing to connect — another alternative is to “ssh -p 2222 docker@localhost” once you know that its password is ‘tcuser’).

I’ve committed an example of such a setup in the moocbdvm project’s Git, which duplicates the docker provisioning files that our students had already published in the dedicated GitHub repo.

Here’s an interesting reference post about Vagrant + docker and multiple containers, btw.