Linux for the Greens

[Lee Einer]

Absolutely, Hans-

 And no offense taken, David. All the same, it was I who espoused the 
virtues of Linux to the Maricopa Greens, they did not seek me out, so if 
this is all due  to some wannabe "hardcore to the max"  element in the 
Green Party, that wannabe is me :-) .

Actually, the basis on which I recommended  Linux  to the Maricopa 
Greens  was twofold. First, using MS Windows and MS Office costs $$$ 
which could well be used elsewhere. Second, as you explained so 
eloquently, Hans, the Green Party favors human rights and community 
participation over corporate oligarchy, which makes Linux and free 
software preferable to MS  on an ethical and philosophical basis.

I don't think that we need to do a sales job per se. I think that if we 
can show them how they can do what they need to do just as easily and 
cost-effectively on Linux, and we assist them with the transition, they 
will be on board. If there are objections, they will likely be of a 
practical rather than a philosophical nature. Lets just start talking, 
and see if/how Linux can help them get what they need done, done. It 
will all flow from there.

Lee Einer

der.hans wrote:

>Am 21. Jan, 2003 schwätzte David Huerta so:
>
>>No offense intended, but this just sounds like some elements in the Green
>>party are simply seeing Linux as something to make them a little more
>>h4rdc0r3 2 th4 m4x.  Not that I don't support the move, but is there any
>>practical reason for it?  I do web design myself, and I can say that it
>>will be hard for someone used to M$ Frontpage or Dreamweaver to start
>>coding in VI or Emacs.
>>
>
>Also on this, we kinda got off the important parts. Web servers are hosted
>somewhere. For AZGP.org that's cagreens.org, which is running apache.
>
>"Apache/1.3.26 Server at cagreens.org Port 80"
>
>Where we need to concentrate our efforts are their desktops and the
>applications they use.
>
>We also need to push the Freedom thing and remind them that Nader has
>publicly criticized the m$ monopoly. They can support that monopoly or they
>can use software from another source.
>
>"We uphold the belief that all people are entitled to life, liberty and the
>pursuit of happiness and deserve equal treatment regardless of class, sex,
>race, religion, citizenship, age or sexual preference."
>
>e.g. Freedom
>
>"Greens believe in direct participation by all people in the environmental,
>political, and economic decisions that affect their lives. Leaders are held
>accountable to those they represent.  Grassroots community involvement
>builds a free and prosperous society inhabited by an empowered population."
>
>We need the Freedom to have direct participation. We need to show that those
>they represent want Free Software to be used.
>
>"Grassroots groups take responsibility for the needs and necessities of
>their local environment and community. The power structure flows from the
>people to their representatives rather than from the representatives to the
>people."
>
>Now here we've got the secret weapon. Free Software projects are about as
>decentralized as it can get ;-).
>
>http://www.azgp.org/about.html
>
>Let's take the ideals here and see how Free Software matches up against
>them. I think the Green Party will find that Free Software meets their
>ideals and proprietary software doesn't.
>
>ciao,
>
>der.hans
>