[Am-info] Re: Microsoft muscle and children's education

[Roy Bixler]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 01:22:23PM -0700, Mitch Stone wrote:
> I know, and that doesn't speak very well of him or his cause, does it?
>
> If the justification provision was removed, the bill would be little 
> more then a resolution of policy. It would have no force and effect as 
> far as I can see.

In fact, reading between the lines, it looks like this is what they
are trying to do to get the bill revived.  See this piece:

http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/04/29/117227&mode=thread&tid=4

by the same author, Ken Barber.

> Well, anyway, the bottom line is I don't see this as a particularly 
> effective way of advancing alternatives to Microsoft products.

Even if all it does is highlight issues like proprietary data formats
that can be changed at the will of a vendor forcing upgrades to remain
current while losing support for older formats, higher licence costs
or the possibility of licence audits, then it's better than the
alternative of tacit approval of the status quo.  I like this better
than, say, a situation like an e-government initiative which forces
everyone to have a particular brand of browser, word processor or
spreadsheet program in order to use it.  With open formats, the issue
of the state tipping the IT market is mooted.

>   The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
>   always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
>   --- Bertrand Russell

Heh, too true.

R.