## 4 Discussion  
This research conducted a study to empirically answer the RQ presented at the beginning of this paper. Checking the production environment this study considered that those machines with an average volume consumption of 2.1 GB have been used and those with higher space consumed. Under these values, it was measured a total of 39 machines, which \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline  & **Total** \\ \hline Valid & 42 \\ Mean & 72.26 \\ Median & 72.50 \\ Mode & 70.00 \\ Std. Deviation & 14.33 \\ Minimum & 32.50 \\ Maximum & 95.00 \\
25 th percentile & 67.50 \\
50 th percentile & 72.50 \\
75 th percentile & 82.50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: System Usability Scale: Total overview. Figure 5: SUS results: (**left**) using classic scale [40], (**right**) updated approach [41]. Figure 6: SUS boxplots: (**left**) by age, (**middle**) by gender, (**right**) by internet connection. means that corresponds with a set of students that did not try to follow the course with our solution. Initially, we analyzed the technology acceptance model by assessing the constructs of the model in the context of the Computer Science course. The results validated the three hypotheses H2, H3 and H4. Likewise, the hypotheses H1 was validated. This study presented not only the general score, which fits in the SUS _Good_ objective window. We explored a completed a fine-grain analysis of the data for validating SUS alternatives. The results were always quite positive except for those with no internet connection at home. However, it is not possible to grow up under this hypothesis because some of the sample groups are not significant (for instance, there were just two individuals between 23-30 years old). Finally, it is evaluated the qualitative answers delivered in the three open questions proposed in the questionnaires. Regarding the qualitative analysis, we include a sample of 11 of the student's answers from the 41 gathered. These answers are shown in Table 7 and they are distributed by proximity criteria as suggested by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [36]. The first question (EXT-Q1) requested to show their opinion about CINDY with their own words. The answers present positive (very good, great idea, quite useful at the beginning) and some negative comments (lacks some functions). The former was focused on its characteristics of \"Plug-and-Play\", mainly for newcomers, as well as to have a clone machine from the laboratory to double-check the results when the student is not sure about the root of an issue, their computer, or their solution. The latter was focused on some functions that are missing on CINDY such as other course tools or some social media blocking in the browser for avoiding student distractions. Question two and three (EXT-Q2 and EXT-Q3) were focused explicitly on the advantages and disadvantages of CINDY, to avoid random comments in question 1. Thus, the set of answers were categorized into categories, either objectively or subjectively measured:  
1. Usability I: Some students valued positively the utility of remote attendance by teachers synchronously. 2. Usability II: the efficiency of arriving at the class and home and finding everything installed and the last exercise that they did in the class. 3. Usability III: flexibility, some of the students proposed a mechanism for working in the cloud and locally indistinctly for avoiding the network problems. 4. Usability IV: robustness against network issues. They highlighted the need for a network for being able to continue their practices, and some of them suffer issues from their homes. 5. Performance expectancy: some of the students are not happy with its performance, given parameters such as lag that creates delays between its interaction and the results. 6. Robustness: two students complain about the maintenance reboot programmed every day at 4:00 a.m. This behavior was necessary to reset some of the most expensive computational and memory applications running in the system.