> I agree with this approach. FOSS can be prioritized and non FOSS will
> only be considered in the absence of competent FOSS.
That is effectively what Casino's bill legislates. FOSS only unless there
is no viable FOSS solution. Then -- and only then -- will proprietary
solutions be considered.
I like this approach not because I hate microsoft. I like it because it will free us of propriatary things and not to be tied to monopoly. This I hope is one of the reason for that bill.
Although bashing of microsoft will come along (naturally and Unaturally), but should not be an argument not to have this in to law because bashing of MS is not the what the bill for. As I have said, the bill is for us not to be monololized. And, I hope that is what the bill is for since I know nobody wants a monopoly (as a customer at least).
Now regarding the other "options" that if there is no FOSS, then
others are highly welcome. But the bill have to give emphasis that we
want as much as possible not to be tied to a monopoly.
I hope this bill will represent that within.
JGaspar
I hope this bill will represent that within.
JGaspar
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
