Am 04. Jul, 2002 schwätzte Robert Bushman so:
> We should be virtually capable of quoting the
> entire letter from the Peruvian Congressman, and
> should definately have all the key points down.
> http://linuxtoday.com/mailprint.php3?action=pv<sn=2002-05-06-012-26-OS-SM-LL
While this is good info to have at our fingertips I think we should
concentrate on the fact that Microsoft has broken the law and the government
shouldn't be entering into contract with them.
This shouldn't be a use Free Software drive. It should be a Microsoft
broke the law and there *are* alternatives. Sure the alternative *we*
want to mention is GNU/Linux. Yes I think that's the way the government
should go. Dr. Nuñez showed quite handsomely why the government has a
responsibility to use Free Software. BUT, those are points we should make
after we've gotten the county to realize there are alternatives.
We need and want Apple and the commercial *NIXen to ante up with us on this.
Does anybody participate in AMUG? Can you post a summary of what's going on
to them and see if you can drum up support from their membership to show up
Monday?
I think we want to involve as many groups as we can. I think the short term
solution for the county is a mixed environment pulling in Linux/*NIX and
Apple where appropriate. Normally I would also say short term solutions
involve Microsoft, but as I say, their actions have been such that they
should no longer be considered as a viable vendor.
Long term I think that Free Software is the way the government needs to go,
but the government needs short term and medium term plans for the transition
and to test and validate the long term plans.
Once again, these are my opinions. They do not necessarily reflect the
consensus of everybody else on the list. I know that. I offer them up as
what I feel is the right direction to take. Feel free to disagree.
ciao,
der.hans
--
#
https://www.LuftHans.com/
# Keine Ahnung, was ich dir sagen soll,
# keine Ahnung und keinen (.)plan. -- die Toten Hosen
(text/plain)