[Tfug] Force govt to buy non-Microsoft OS? [OT]

[Jeff Davidson]

<offtopic>
I have to say I agree with what Jack's saying.  The ethics of pushing laws
that are sympathetic to ones own beliefs should be self-evident.  I.e.
Anti-Micro$oft people make noise about laws that do not mention M$
specifically, but which are detrimental to M$ anyway: we do it because we
want to see M$ taken down a few notches, not out of some higher-borne desire
to make the government hold to all of its own laws.

But the situation isn't black and white: Henry isn't wrong either.

If a government (federal, state, local, other) enacts a law that makes it
illegal, in this case, to interact with Contractors who have been convicted
of breaking Antitrust laws, that same government ought to hold to that very
law... otherwise, why bother passing it?  Who else was this law enacted for,
if not that government?
</offtopic>

So... Has anyone installed SuSE 8.0 yet?  I'm still getting my feet wet with
7.3.

~JMD

-----Original Message-----
From: tfug-admin@tfug.org [mailto:tfug-admin@tfug.org] On Behalf Of Jack
Gillum
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:13 AM
To: tfug@tfug.org
Subject: RE: [Tfug] Force govt to buy non-Microsoft OS?


My point about using law to fit one's advocacy had an animus which you
missed: the intent of that comment was conjure up those who misuse statues
in the name of their own ideology. (I begin to think of the lawsuits aimed
at Smith & Wesson for compensation of victims of 'gun violence.')

Nonetheless, I was more focusing on the anti-Microsoft propaganda -- as
correct, however, as it may be -- on this list or constantly at TFUG
meetings. Some businesses or corporations may wish to use Office or Windows,
as it may or may not work better in their environments.

In being fair, I only suggested that you should inspect other, perhaps,
illegal activities as well -- beyond the ones you say that 'make some
sense.'

--Jack