>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm working my way through the letter in the article. It's pretty
scathing,
and devastating, unless you're a die-hard MS fan. To quote the lead-in,
"The letter provides the most thoughtful and thorough rebuttal we've ever
seen to Microsoft's standard open-source terror boilerplate." And, it
underscores a point I made in a presentation last month, that a number of
governments around the world are seriously looking at Open Source software
as an alternative to Microsoft (and other proprietary) software.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The true strength of the note was the justification- so that each
person can, if they wish, study the system to ensure their personal
data was safe. While few citizens will have the skills to do so,
enough WILL and can then provide confirmation in a "web of trust"
that no governmental assurance can (which would then be based upon
a commercial entities' assurances).
In some ways this provides the ultimate manifesto.
Finally, consider the technology transference- Peruvians would find
it difficult to contribute to Windows (and see ANY recognition or
even financial rewards) so M$ (and closed proprietary systems) treat
countries outside the US as colonies (ensuring dependancy on M$, for
instance) so Open Source provides a way for the Peruvian Government
(at least) to ensure independance in their software needs.
I've thought that the best solution for the M$ anti-trust resolution
is to make it illegal for the US Government to purchase or use ANY
M$ software (excepting forensic analyses) so that M$ can have it's
monopoly- but not with the backing of the USG. This'd also ensure
inter-operable interfaces and documents between business and the
government.
--------------------
John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines (GNUrd) {813-356|697}-5322
Adsumo ergo raptus sum
IBM Certified: IBM AIX 4.3 System Administration, System Support
