Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Big Stick in Peru
An anonymous reader points out a Wired story on the continuing Peru saga. In this latest episode, Wired notes that the U.S. Ambassador to Peru has chimed in in support of Microsoft and in opposition to Dr. Villanueva's bill which would have mandated open source software be used by the Peruvian government. On the one hand, sure, our diplomats have a national goal of promoting U.S. enterprise, but do we have to promote companies which we are simultaneously pursuing in court for numerous violations of our laws? Isn't that a bit counter-productive?
For some reason, I read that as "Microsoft pig stuck in Peru." I got very confused..
slashdot!=valid HTML
Right now, the US needs Microsoft.
But does Peru?
(Sorry if this is a tad offtopic, but...)
The more I hear about stories like these, the more I think we need campaign finiance reform. Think how much more productive and progressive our laws would be if our senators weren't owned by companies. The problem I see with my fellow americans is that we tend to be, for lack of a better word, shallow. For most, memory of things political is only a few months at best. Further, yes, occasionally you get something like CBDTBA (or whatever it was named) that cause outrage, but the underlying problem - that most congressmen are owned my big cooperations (particularly republican, but democrats aren't immune either) - is the one that never gets solved.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
How is that possibly true? And what kind of behavior is it supposed to excuse?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Our economy does not need Microsoft. Just think of how much worse it would be if Microsoft also got caught with some corporate scandel (aside from this monopoly thing). Have you not noticed it only took a few huge companies, not many small diversified companies, to make our markets collapse.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
...this is wrong.
Sure, it is our government's job to promote the US's interests, but Peru is right to stand up to the pressure.
Paying for software should take a back seat to paying for water and electricity.
I think mandating Open Source is a bit much, but maybe that's what they have to do to keep their departments from deviating.
I own and run MS products (Win2K, Win2K Server, XP Home, XP Pro, SQL Server 7.0, VB Studio 6.0, etc.) I like them. I haven't had any real pain from them. But I couldn't go buy them today. If I was Peru I'd want Free Software.
But that's not what this is about. Peru didn't mandate Linux. They simply said all software must come with source, which effectively cuts out MS. It's an implicit endorsement of Open Source, but not an explicit one.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
And you wouldn't want to risk those potential 15,000 jobs, now would you? No matter that any real employment will be exported to the US. No, don't bother thinking about that...
We're in sad, sad times.
In his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.
This makes no sense, on many levels! First of all, any company can supply open-source software. In no way does this create any barrier to any company. Even Microsoft can submit software for this purpose.
To me this quote is the same as: "Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of green army tanks, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the color." Makes no sense! Anyone can write open-source software.
Microsoft is a monopoly, an illegal one at that, so hearing them talk about free markets is damn funny.
On another level, open-source software is closer to a situation where there are no copyrights, in other words, a true free market. Copyright monopolies are exactly that, monopolies. If you need your software serviced, you have to call exactly one company for permission (or even to have the work done). You have more freedom with open-source than proprietary software. Governments should be supporting freedom!
Of course, I'm not surprised. Microsoft did the same thing in Mexico. Free markets, my ass. Microsoft is just buying their way in and taking advantage of poorer countries.
You can make a good argument that by having M$ being huge and sucking lots of $$$ from the economy and sending it to a relatively few shareholders, that M$ may be hurting the economy by their very existance.
Its like trying to breathe in a room where someone is slowly sucking the air out.
-Sean
Ok as much as some people are going to hate this point of view, but I think it is ok for the American Ambassador to talk to the Peruvian government. But and this is where I think the ambassador went over the line, the ambassador should not have an opinion. The ambassador represents a country and yes Microsoft belongs to a specific country. Hence it is the job of the ambassador to help Microsoft. But I think only insofar to open doors so that Microsoft can talk to the right people. Likewise the ambassador should do the same if Richard Stallman were to have an opinion and what to express it to the Peruvian government. Richard Stallman is an American and has as much right as Microsoft.
But sadly this American Administration is more interested in serving big business and not the people. Was that to be expected? Yes after Bush received 350 million in support what else could you expect? Talk about "Indulgence"!!!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Really? Could you please explain to those of us who are quite obviously in the dark how not having red hot competition in the OS and office suite market is helping the US economy? There could be many more jobs out there for programmers right now if there were, for example, 4 worthy competitors to NT in widespread use. This recession started as a slump in business spending, a slump that would have definately been less pronounced had there been four competing companies fighting tooth and nail to stay alive in a ruthless market for operating system software. Want an example: see ATI vs. nVidia, neither can afford to lose and neither will ever win (hopefully).
We shouldn't resign ourself to the current status quo when things can be changed for the better right now.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
I do believe that nobody has any clue about what I said. Microsoft is a huge company, their failure will devistate the already poor US market. They will not improve it very much by growing but they sure as hell can hurt it by going out of business. Sure competition is good and a competitive market would be great but right now protecting existing companies and ensuring that they don't falter like WorldCom and Enron is essential.
It used to be that the U.S. was known for promoting freedom, in the guise of democracy and free markets, to other countries. Now, we have our diplomats promoting to keep those same countries in the grasp of a predatory monopolist that we ourselves convicted.
They can say they're not against free software all they want, but the industry they're promoting is not one that is known for giving freedoms to its users and it one that is clearly afraid of the true freedom that free software can give.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Microsoft is where taxes are collected from all the other industries. The problem is Microsoft doesn't redistribute those taxes to either the goverment or the final users. They keep it all to themselves. This is as true as [insert favourite example].
On the good side-effects, the US is better off every time MS sells software to foreing countries. So the net effect depends on how much MS hurts your economy by making US companies inefficient (higher costs) in relation of how much "taxes" they collect from abroad.
The problem MS sees is that if the "foreign taxes" get low, then the US should better end the monopoly ASAP. So MS NEEDS TO BUY POLITICIANS to FUD foreign countries representatives. If the rest of the world gets rid of the MS tax, so must the US. They can't let that happen. It would be their end.
Also note MS can't create ANY jobs in Peru. What they actually do is take the dollars away from their economy and back to the US banks. They need to keep 15000 employees just as IRS needs employees. No good for Peru, no love Peru, just FUD.
unfinished: (adj.)
This isn't a very good argument, at least on its face. If you were being unfairly imprisioned in another country, it wouldn't be right for the US State Department to refuse to help you because you had unresolved legal problems back in the US (asuming you're not a fugitive). It might undermine their ability to help you, but the State department's job is to look out for US interests in other countries, not to apply self interpreted legal punishment on people and corperations.
This is a teeny tiny favor compared to the lenient settlement they got from the Justice Department.
Microsoft apparently enlisted the American ambassador in Lima to help try and convince the Peruvians to kill the legislation.
I don't think I could put it much more accuratly than that!
I stole this Sig
Compared to what shell corp has done in Africa, Microsoft selling their product in another country is nothing. They are still in court, and can continue as they wish outside of the US or inside the US until the courts say otherwise.
What?
On the one hand, sure, our diplomats have a national goal of promoting U.S. enterprise, but do we have to promote companies which we are simultaneously pursuing in court for numerous violations of our laws?
Actually, these days I think this is a catch-22, if you want to promote U.S. enterprise, by definition you've pretty much gotta support the ones in court.
Seriously, though, it would be hard to define such a standard (at least for big business) since large enough companies are almost always the target of some sort of litigation or investigation, many of which are small or without merit, and are simply a function of their size, history, numerous divisions, and the law of numbers when they employ thousands of individuals. I'm not going shed tears for big business, but even corporations should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and even for the guilty ones government officials should not seek to impose extra-legal restrictions and punishments beyond whatever punishments are decided in court (although as citizens and consumers we are always free to voice our opinion and deny them our business and government agencies should evaluate potential suppliers based on past conduct).
That being said, the adoption of open source software abroad should have positive economic benefits to North America: with the bulk of open source developers based in the U.S. there is probably a quantifiable net benefit to skills and innovation as well as benefits to the many small businesses that rely on open source products and service for productivity gains and revenue. Politicians should be encouraged to promote this industry as well, especially with small business being the real lifeblood of the economy.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Knowing the United States less than honorable track record in Latin and South America, I find it almost funny the article would talk about a US Ambassador trying to "convine" Peru. What is the US going to do? Bomb them for not running Minesweeper and Solitare on their desktops? The irony of the situation is gigantic.
For those who think the US has every right to pursue pushing its own companies, that's fine. But I would hope that we would push companies in compliance with our own laws. Regardless, I would still like to see Linux in Peru.
Maybe it's a nuance of translation from Spanish to English, but Mr. Villaneuva constantly refering to Bill Gates as "the Bill" was confusing. And I disagree with many of the things Villaneuva had to say about him.
"The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever", "The Bill protects equality under the law", "The Bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software" - As far as I know, Mr. Gates doesn't do any of these things, strange that the Peruvian government thinks so.
The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.
They still can, and will, if Peru adopts an open-source mandate.
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.
Why should Peru make that a primary consideration? Or any consideration at all?
Let free trade and market forces determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.
Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months?
Yep. "IBM"
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Wrong.
They speak Spanish in Peru, therefor posible is the correct spelling. You can verify this on the Peru Posible website, which btw is the number 1 hit on google for the word 'posible'.
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
I don't see how Peru adopting Free Software for government use is going to put Microsoft out of business. My thinking is, it will make essentially no difference at all to the profitability for Microsoft. How much Microsoft Product does the Peruvian government pay for on an annual basis now?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You're stretching your point a bit, but it's still a valid one.
However, why should the US use strongarm tactics to take money from a poor country like Peru to give to rich stock-owners and software engineers in one of the richest countries in the world ?
As long as US companies don't put US workers first in their hiring, and as long as US companies are lying about the lack of available technical people just so they can get an H-1B brought in cheap to underpay and abuse, then why the hell should I go out of my way to favor these US companies in their foreign markets. Sure, I'd like to see more jobs here, but the fact is that companies like MSFT and SUNW are still doing more of their hiring overseas or bringing people in from overseas, than local. When you look at layoff stats and see that H-1Bs are much lower in their layoff percentages than US workers, for the larger of these companies, if you can even pry the accurate information out of them, then you know that what was going on during the peak is also still going on during the slump. And its about saving money, not about getting real talent. So I'm all in favor of Peru giving MSFT the shaft, not because I dislike MSFT products, but because I'm majorly annoyed at US companies for trying to keep US workers from being part of the benefit of global markets they sell to. I hope they give SUNW the same shaft.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
And the protection of those companies will likely last a lot longer than 'right now', and longer than a recession will.
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
I know everyone hates Microsoft but they are a big corporation and they do have a major influence on the rest of the American economy. Right now, the US needs Microsoft.
Microsoft has spent the past decade illegally using its monopoly power to levearage its usually inferior, often unstable software products throughout society. These products, deliberatly designed to be incompatible with widely accepted standards, and to drive competitors (often with superior products) out of business, have been responsible for uncountable damage to our economy, due to needless system crashes, excessive vulnerability to viruses, poor security, and intentional incompatiblity.
At the same time Microsoft has drained countless billions of dollars from average Americans, much of it through the "Microsoft Tax" it used its monopoly power to illegally impose through PC vendors, Microsoft has paid relativly little in taxes; in fact, over the past two years their tax rate was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
Some people think, anecdotaly, that Microsoft products have improved their lives, but on closer examination it inevitably becomes apparent that these products are inferior to and more expensive than products offered by competitors, or products that would have been offered had those competitors not been driven out of business or intimidated from even entering into a business that Microsoft might percieve as a threat to their monopoly.
The U.S. "needs" Microsoft only in the sense that a heroin addict "needs" their dealer to keep them supplied with smack. What they percieve as the thing that is absolutely essential is in fact the thing that is slowly draining their life away.
Peru and other developing countries would be well advised to stay as far away from Microsoft as they can. Embracing open source and standards-based computing will be a vastly better alternative for their whole society, in the short and long runs.
As for us (North) Americans, the sooner we can get the Microsoft Monkey off our backs the better off we, and the world, will be.
An IT industry covers quite a spectrum of jobs. There are your lower-level technicians and support staff. There are higher-level system and network administrators. There are system architects who identify organization's need and designs an appropriate sytem from available components (or identies components needed). There are programmers who build those additional components.
The only time any of these jobs require Microsoft is when the organization has already invested in Microsoft solutions. And even then - change will happen whether Microsoft is used or not (witness the slow deprecation of many long-standing Novell networks and the migration from one version of Windows to another).
If the Government of Peru invests heavily in a Linux or *BSD infrastructure, it will still have to hire a whole gambit of IT workers to support its environment. If the 15k job figure is correct then it will be 15k IT professionals with a background in Open Source systems and software.
MS isn't the first US corp to complain about "unfair" trading terms imposed by foreign governments. Take the beef row with Europe. Europe maintains that any US concern can ship beef to Europe, providing it meets European standards - basically that the level of growth hormone in the meat is below a certain level. So this is free trade, anyone can produce goods to the spec. The problem is that in the US nobody produces beef without growth hormones. So no beef goes from the US to Europe.
Similarly, MS could produce "open" software for use in Peru in order to compete in the free market according to local regulations. That would mean a big shift in its own practices which it is not prepared to make. I have some sympathy for the MS position. Remember the bit in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur Dent is told he had free access to the plans to demolish the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass. That is, if he can get to Alpha Centauri, get into the basement of the planning office, break open a locked safe etc.
But I'm still not eating American beef.
IIRC Peru cited two other reasons for specifying open source software besides money. There is a real fear that closed file formats might prevent recovery of information. There is also the possibility of back doors. If there are any it is far more likely that the US has access to them than the Peruvian government. Don't get me wrong, money is a real issue but common defense is the first order of the state. Machiavelli was right.
All your database are belong to U.S.
protecting existing companies and ensuring that they don't falter like WorldCom and Enron is essential
This is wrong on several levels. Companies like Worldcom and Enron should falter, and the government should do nothing to help them. Soviet-style economies are known for propping up decreipt corporations rather than letting them fail -- it's letting them fail that helps ensure competition and free markets. Propping up an otherwise doomed company may make things better for some people in the short term, but it's disasterous long-term.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You are overlooking one critical idea. Monopolies on thought tend to be near-impossible to break (just look at pharmaceutical companies). Microsoft has adopted an attitude specifically to avoid interoperatability with other companies' products. (Just look at kerberos, samba, the office .doc format, et al) The playing field is obviously not level - companies may choose to buy inferior microsoft products simply because they need that interoperability. Therefore, you can't simply let the free-market choose. I'll go so far as to say that Peru doesn't need to mandate open source - they just need to mandate open standards.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
So is IBM. Why is Microsoft's position being singled out for support by the US public's representive in Peru?
Requiring software to come with modifiable source code does not discriminate against any company. It should just be considered part of the specification that is desired from the software. Since pretty much all software has source code, it is only a business decision (like pricing, the color of the box, bundling, etc.) whether or not to release the source code with the binary code. As far as specs go, it is pretty easy to comply with. Easier than making a Spanish language set of documentation.
I am amazed by the audacity of trying to dictate the specs that another country's agencies want to use in a call for software. If companies don't want to bid on it, they are free to hawk their wares elsewhere.
What is next, opposition to countries that want documentation in their own peoples' languages instead of the Industry Standard (TM) American English?!?
- Free access to public information by the citizen.
- Permanence of public data.
- Security of the State and citizens.
i.e., the bill says "we think this kind of software best suits our needs at this time". Microsoft isn't being cut from consideration more than any other company is; Microsoft just doesn't choose to produce the kind of software the Péruvian government is interested in. Many of those companies (plus IBM) ship free software-based systems as well. The more people that adopt Linux, the more money there is to be earned in the support industry. So the Péruvian government shouldn't use Free software because their vendor would collapse in six months? That's extreme. Is IBM going to collapse in six months?A summary of your post: the U.S. economy relies on Microsoft (paragraph 2); Linux companies are all going to be bankrupt in half a year (paragraph 3); let different products compete for the business (paragraph 4). I don't see how [2] and [3] are true, first of all, and as for [4], Congressman Villanueva has let free software and Microsoft products compete: he compared them, and chose what looked like the best choice to be the government standard in his bill. Microsoft argued with his conclusions in the aforementioned letter, and Congressman Villaneuva promptly annihilated those arguments in his response.
..how having a requirement that you will only use open source programs is shutting out Microsoft any more than a requirement that the software have some feature X (say the ability to properly handle right-to-left writing) is shutting out Microsoft?
The legislation leaves the door entirely open for Microsoft to develop open source applications and sell it to the Peruvian government. Should Microsoft choose not to bid in that field, is that the Peruvian government's fault? In fact, they are letting market forces decide and it is the American Ambassador who is getting in the way of that.
In fact, if anything, this is the embodiment of the capitalist mentality. Entity A desires a product with various features. If entity B does not or can not supply those features, they do not get the business, and some entity that can does, and more power to that other entity.
Part of the Peruvian government's desired feature list (if the legislation goes through)is a product that they can inspect, modify, and alter themselves. The Ambassador is saying "Please change your requirements so we can compete" without giving any reason to do so other than without the change, they won't (not can't)compete.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
"what's good for GM is good for the US"
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Oh yeah I totally agree with you, don't forget to toss GM, Ford, and any other american auto maker in the same boat as MS and SUN.
Thing is though, it's too late to bring back the american auto factory. We still have a pretty decent chance of keeping coding jobs here on our shores.
I don't think Peru should give MS the shaft, I think before Puru or any foriegn goverment wants to get involved with a US company, there should be a standard trade system in place. In it's current form, coders are treated much like a commodity, it's volume and price instead of quality and craftsmanship.
I've seen isle after isle of h1-b workers from india in a former job. Even though they were on site, and they did have masters degree's in CS, and they spoke english, the quality of what they produced was shit, constantly crashed, was in an endless cycle of QA. This had nothing to do with how smart they were, it was due to the language/cultural barriers between that office and the main offices. A similiar team of good english speaking coders from the USA (note: they could have any ancestory) in another office constantly outperformed them because of their ability to communicate with upper management.
Back to peru though..
It's time Bush got off his ass and started commodisizing the coding trade deficet. I still see no problem with MS getting the contract if they are forced to use american labor.
Why do people always get mad when people get mad when their story doesn't get posted?
;)
Sorry, I'm just sick of always reading these complaints.
Oh? Roman and British Imperialism came to end, and so will the United States. Don't be so short-sighted to think that our empire is so righteous that it will last forever - it won't.
Also, what's with putting the word imperialism in quotes? Look it up then look in a mirror.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Let free trade and market forces determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.
And it's worth pointing out that "free trade" is itself an ideology. Most ideologies claim not to be ideologies. The preceding statement is not an ideology. Heh.
Give up, man. I remember the day the DOJ started the case against MS. The first line of Taco's writeup was "In a move that will only surprise those who thought monopolies were a good thing..." Half the replies were "What do you mean they aren't a good thing?" and we've been having the argument ever since. There are those who think capitalism is a perfect system, and any product of that system must be flawless as well, and ne'er will they be convinced otherwise.
The enemies of Democracy are
Sorry if this is picky, but I'd like to draw a distinction between your two examples and the US as it is today. Our troops are abroad primarily as international peacekeepers, not as conquerors like the romans and the british. They are in a few established bases, and they don't go out and conqueror more land. Second, look at where our bases, are: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Italy, Germany, and Japan. All of these are hotspots in the world that could flare up, and our troops help keep the peace. The only possible exceptions to that are Italy and Germany, which are relics of the Cold War (which, keep in mind didn't end all that long ago). And, those bases are vital to peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, another hot spot. The British and Romans were intent on taking uncivilized parts of the world and making them part of their respective empires; our troops are abroad to keep them countries stable, wars from being fought, to prevent ethnic cleansing, etc. Say what you will about US miltiary impearialism, but I much rather have them there than risk going through another world war because they aren't.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Yes, capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system there is. It tends to produce cyclic, unstable economies, joblessness, and negative externalities (like pollution). But all of these can be minimize or eliminated with vigouresly enfouced laws.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Sorry, I intended to expend the energy to refute your "logic" but it just isn't worth my time. If you can't read your own words over again and pick out the half-dozen or so absurdities, I say - Good day sir.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
If MS gets into the habit of heavy lobbing ( like in Germany) or even bribing goverments like seems to be happening in Peru and other countries is one thing. This is usual.
But if the U.S.A goverment starts threatening other goverments about the use of Microsoft products, it will be a completely different thing, and, in my mind, self defeating.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
IBM: 320,000 employees, $80 billion in annual sales, sells useful open source systems.
... the major strength of capitalism is diversity. Microsoft doesn't sell software that meets the needs of the government of Peru. If Microsoft would like to sell such software (open file formats + open source), that's fine. But if they continue to refrain from that, the whole point of a free market is that other companies can fill the customer's needs.
Microsoft: 48,000 employees, $28 billion in annual sales, sells crappy closed source software.
So, by your criterion of "big is good", IBM is 2 to 5 times as good as Microsoft.
Seriously
What's this "tax" you talk about? Please look up the definition of the word tax in a dictionary. I am free to buy a computer without any Microsoft software on it and thus pay no "tax". It's a usage fee placed on people who want to use software produced by that company. Doesn't sound unfair to me and it's certainly not a tax.
Calling it a tax is FUD on the same level as the RIAA trying to call people who listen to copyrighted music without paying for it "pirates".
Mmmm.. Donuts
I think the US pressuring Peru, saying that Peru will make more money (boost their economy) by not passing this bill, I can't help but be reminded about Janis Ian's comment:
Please lay off the "M$" thing. It's juvenile. it doesn't help your argument. It's silly to attack a corporation for making money -- it's why they exist. If you need a substitute, use "MSFT" or something.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.
Oh, they said so in the article so it must be true. What aspects of free trade or market forces has Microsoft violated, pray tell me? Antitrust law by itself is against the basic tenets of free trade. It forces different rules on sellers based on how much their competitors suck.
Mmmm.. Donuts
When you look at layoff stats and see that H-1Bs are much lower in their layoff percentages than US workers
What the fuck is this FUD about? People are hired and laid off based on merit. It is NOT cheaper to hire an H1-B and in fact is often much more expensive and difficult because of legal fees incurred. I know H1-Bs who have been laid off just like I know US citizens who have been laid off. The smart and qualified ones are keeping their jobs and the clueless idiots who got rapid certification because of the ".com boom" are the ones who're being laid off. It's called survival of the fittest - get used to it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*
What you miss is that the bill in no way cuts out MS (or any other company) from consideration of anything.
The bill simply says "if you want to sell to the government, you must supply the source and allow us to modify it"... THAT'S ALL.
If MS doesn't want to compete, that's fine - they're not hurting anyone but themselves.
Let's get this straight: it's MS themselves - NOT the government - that will stop them from competing
n his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.
He added that by excluding proprietary software companies like Microsoft, Peru would be hurting an industry that "has the potential to create 15,000" jobs in the local economy.
Well, what makes Hamilton (what an ironic name!) think that Peru has not made up it's mind about the quality of the software? I certianly have.
More, how is a GOVERNMENT spec for software purchases going to interfere with private purchases of software. What kind of "free market" is there in goverenment puchasing to begin with.
One more thing, who says that free software won't create jobs? It seems to me that free software has made more jobs here in the US than any single company ever will. Witness sendmail, Apatche, BSD, Linux, and others. What do Sun, Microsoft, HP, Compaq, IBM and other silly spellings have to compare to the thousands of jobs out there tending email, websites, company accounts and what not? Free software can do anything comercial software can and usualy does it better.
I'm disgraced. Our ambasador is meddling in an internal purchasing matter for reasons that don't make sense on their face for the sake of a few US companies. The decision is neither in the best intrests of the US as a whole nor even philisophicaly consistent. As Bill Gates goes in to buy government officials, our Government will be smeared with the corruption. Who will respect our wishes or opinions when we are so frivolous with them?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Numerous US companies support open source, and if open source is widely adopted in Peru the Peruvians will certainly be able to contribute a lot to the codebase used by US companies.
So microsoft!=US in that case.
the central government always makes those kind of decisions for their employees.
if they werent mandating open source they would be mandating microsoft.
Not selling, or threatening to not sell, products specifically to hurt a competitor.
Announding products that do not exist, and never do exist.
They buy competitors and potential competitors simply to shut them down.
They steal.
The put artificial barriers into place in their products.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
opensource is trade in a way.
both peru and the us will develop code and it will pass back and forth. And both sides will benefit.
so it is trade. it does not involve money but it does involve usefull ip.
how do you know the ambassador is not saying "accept microsoft"?
I agree. I'm very much in favor of capitalism. But I'm very much against pure, unregulated capitalism, which obviously you are as well. I'm just talking about those who think capitalism can do no wrong and that any interference is just preventing the "unseen hand" from doing its divine work. Bah.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yah, and `over there' would rather it happened on US soil. Who has the most right to say where a war should happen, `them' or `us'?
Because they actually do. There are two main reasons for this:
Agree. However, bear in mind that armaments corporations are far from the biggest beneficiaries in a war.
Think about World War II, in which companies like Ford and Bayer made money from selling to both sides of the war at once. Except where things got out of hand and their facilities were destroyed*, oil companies, steel companies, banks and many others all showed that in one way or another they thought of the war as a Godsend. Many Swiss banks, for example, did a roaring trade even in what were to all appearances financially destitute circumstances.
Consequentially, what you're basically looking for are two things:
* Krupp's factories, for example, seemed suspiciously immune to Allied bombing.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
See, this is what I'm talking about. Treating the Free Market like a religion whose precepts shall not be violated.
When you understand that the problem with a monopoly is that it operates largely free of market forces, and that anti-trust law exists to account for this and allow free market forces to work as they are meant to, then you will be in a position to intelligently contribute to the conversation.
The enemies of Democracy are
By this logic, does this not mean that other countries must NOT use MS products? After all, these countries will be letting their vital systems run on software will be known only to Americans!
All your favorite sites in one place!
Free Linux CD still could use a Peru affiliate. Interested parties should contact the maintainer on said page.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You wonder why the third world hates you? You wonder why a bunch of crazy arabs fly planes into your buildings? Because your government tries to force pepsi cola down the throats of the world and Microsoft onto the desktops of a country which is so poor that windowsXP costs several months salary if most of the people had jobs which they don't.
I hope your righteous government doesn't try that shit here in Europe, because then then your righteous corrupt president can go fuck himself along with Bill gates and company.
It has more to do with the economy generated by Microsoft.
You mean the software monoculture created by the Microsoft monopoly? I thought competition was supposed to be good for the economy...
Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft.
I think about this regularly. It is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with.
The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.
Every one of the vendors you list also ships Linux systems.
They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.
See above
Dell has already tried shipping Linux systems and it failed miserably for them.
They were essentially unadvertised, nearly impossible to find, and ludicrously priced. I doubt their failure has much to do with Linux itself. However, even though Dell has given up on Linux desktops, they still sell Linux servers.
Other companies have met limited success (what is VA Linux doing now?).
I've met limited success selling support contracts for the Linux systems I've installed, also. It's pretty hard to sell support when your product never breaks.
Think about how many Windows admins there are for every Unix admin.
Think about how many more admins are needed for a given number of Windows systems as compared to a given number of Unix systems.
The fact that Windows needs more admins than Unix is not a selling point.
What about all the software houses that write software (some of which would undoubtedly be used in Peru) for Windows not because Windows is the best, but simply because it's the most ubiquitous?
They will have to change their strategy if they want to compete in the Peruvian market, then, won't they?
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.
The proposed legislation doesn't say "don't buy Microsoft". There is nothing in the bill which prevents Microsoft from competing. The only thing preventing Microsoft from competing in the market outlined by the bill is Microsoft's unwillingness to provide the service the bill requires.
Can Dell make Linux-capable boxen? Sure. Is it in their best interests on a limited scale? History has shown no.
IIRC, Dell stated that they would be willing to provide Linux desktop computers to people who were willing to place large orders when they discontinued their desktop Linux line, and I can't imagine a government purchasing computers any other way.
In truth, with the possible exception of some modems or printers, Dell already sells Linux-capable boxen, they siply don't choose, except in certain circumstances, to actually install Linux on them.
Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy
The whole point of the bill is that the government will not be beholden to a songle source for it's software needs, and will be able to become self-sufficient in that regard if necessary. This is a non-arguement backed up by flamebait (which is why I didn't include the rest of the paragraph).
THe ambassador is not saying, "Accept Microsoft." He's saying "Don't shut out consideration of Microsoft by mandating an open-source regulation." Let free trade and market forces ("Is it a better product?" or "Is it a better deal?" or "Is it better service-wise?") determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
It is a technology based decision; the bill favors technologies which are interoperable, easily modified, and not subject to proprietary format lock-in and arbitrary forced upgrade. Again, the only thing keeping Microsoft from competing in such a market is Microsoft.
That's a capitalist mentality, true, but it's one that's allowed the growth of open-source in this country in some areas, and the last time I checked, Peru had an economy based on capitalism.
Here's a capitalist mentality for you: if a company refuses to offer what the customer wants, why should the customer even consider buying from that company?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
As much as it pains me to say it, I'm somewhat in favor of Microsofts position.
Look, what effect will Dr. Villanueva's bill have?
Perhaps, as all good *nix zealots know, open source really is a lot better. In that case, I'm sure the Peruvian goverment, populated as it is by honest, intelligent politicians will choose open source. Dr. Villanueva's bill will have no effect.
On the other hand...what if, unlikely though it may be, Peru might actually benefit in some small way from purchasing Microsft products? I can hear your laughter now, but what if they'd be better off with MS software? Well, in that case, Dr. Villanueva's bill would force them to make a bad choice.
Forcing people or goverments to do whats best for them is not generally a good long term strategy. Perhaps we (and Dr. Villanueva) really do know what's best for Peru, but forcing them to make the "right choice" seems a bit condescending. "Don't worry about this high technology stuff - you're just a small unimportant backwater, and obviously don't know what you're doing. Listen to us and everything will be fine."
Of course, if what we're really concerned about is that the politicians don't know how to weigh the pros and cons of the sitation - say so! Why not write them and explain? Get your friends to write them. Run a contest to find convincing arguments. Or maybe you're concered the politicians might accept bribes (in one form of another) from MS? In that case, maybe Dr. Villanueva should introduce some anti-bribary legislature. But the only way his current bill can help is if open source really is better, but the Peruvian goverment is too stupid, clueless, and/or corrupt to see and agree. If any or all of those is the case, I don't think the bill is the correct answer.
Actually, I beleive the British did provide, erm, "advisors" and other "military aid" to the Confederates. Just as the French did during the Revolutionary war. I'm not making excuses, but it's not as far-fetched as you make out.
Oh, and while we'rre on the subject, it might behoove you to go and find out where most of England's cotton was coming from around the 1850s...
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
because your fucking ambassador would not dare to do the same pimping in Europe because Europe is big, has lots of money and would tell him to go fuck himself. Your ambassador is doing what your ambassadors do best. Treading on small poor countries that can neither defend themselves financially or politically against your fair(sic) and democratic(sic) country.
This is going to give the poor oppressed buggers who think that armed revolution is the answer one more reason to gun him down in the street when they get the chance.
Although I hate violence, I think I wouldn't weep to see someone get their revenge on him or fat man.
http://saveie6.com/
The argument about the jobs is really so ridiculous that becomes funny:
;)), and thanks to that, the company is expanding and generating even more jobs, profits and taxes.
It would be like advocating to stop using trucks and any kind of machinery in agriculture and use horses and human power instead, that would create thousands, if not millions of jobs!
<sarcasm>So, lets give up the industrial revolution and go back to the middle ages so we can create thousands of jobs!
Let's stop using electricity, cars, planes, and computers all together! they all save jobs!</sarcasm> *sigh*
Open source is a kind of revolution in the IT industry, of course many people will lose their jobs as consequence of it, but many more jobs will be created thanks to it, and many companies will improve how they work allowing them to expand and generate more jobs. Any new tool that helps companies get their jobs done with a minimum cost is good for the economy.
Another of my favorite MS FUD is that the taxes for software are a good thing for the economy, oh well, so then is bad that companies save money? Lets duplicate taxes on software then! It will be even better! This also assumes that the money don't spent in MS software disappears in a black hole, I'm sorry, but it will be spent in more productive ways that will actually help the economy(and generate taxes) instead of just help MS economy.
Disclaimer: I work for a non IT company as software developer and system administrator using only Open/Free Source software, the company is doing quite well, thanks to the use of OSS, among other things(like having a smart boss, hi Carl!
\\Uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
yes it might be healthy, but it most probably would be stupid in the end (if it were accepted, not likely)
What SHOULD be mandated is to use only open formats for data!
That was pointed as an advantage of open source, but in fact there's nothing that prevent a user to use corectly a closed source application and refuse to get locked on it.
For anyone, it's a good advice; for public administration should be a requirement.
-Kz-
In the case of Peru, open software and public file formats are REQUIREMENTS. Nobody is keeping Microsoft out. If Microsoft wants to compete in Peru's market then they have to meet their requirements.
Government systems commonly require candidate system components to have a second source - multiple suppliers. This kind of thing is done all the time on US Government contracts. If a particular single-sourced processor is chosen for a critical weapons system, for example, and after the system is deployed, the vendor goes out of business, what do we do?
Peru has every right to require open source and public file formats. If Microsoft wants to get into markets where this is a requirement then they should make that commitment.
Your post seems to imply that Peru no right to establish these requirements. How childish is that?
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Please lay off the "M$" thing. It's juvenile.
:) I call M$ "M$" because I've been doing that for years, it isn't meant to ruffle your feathers, but it does show my bias....
First of all, relax dude. Second of all, I find this comment hilarious especially since it is coming from someone whose home page is "flyingbuttmonkeys.com" perhaps you need a refresher on the definition of juvenile?
-Sean
...and you'll see that this idea is not from the tinfoil hat brigade. And if you can't be bothered even looking, many will be asking, why did you bother to post?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Their main concern is whether a third world country can actually make the open souce IT industry model work, thus setting the example for the other countries. Mexico has been trying for some time, with some encouraging results. Not many (you all remember the botched plan to install linux in schools). But if Peru manages to get it to work well, a lot of other central and south american countries are sure to follow, thus creating a major potential problem for M$'s profitability.
--
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
Corporations do not exist just to make money. Their charters require them to perform a valuable public service. They naturally want to do this at a profit, but greed for greed's own sake destroys everything it touches. If it is only about money, then they should get into theft, or counterfeiting, and out of legitimate business, if there still is such a thing.
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
It's really quite a bit simpler than that.
It requires a certain number of jobs to run a certain amount of software. The number of jobs may vary quite a bit depending on the quality of software but there's nothing inherent in open source or proprietariness that causes software to be good or bad. We all have our opinions on this matter; let's stick to the basic assumption that the quality of the software packages is the same for both.
Peru requires a certain amount of software; it can get that software from a proprietary source or from a, well, an open source. They will still have the same amount of software when they're through, hence, the same number of jobs.
In fact, since open source tends to cost less than proprietary software (this is not a secret after all) there will be more money in the budget. It stands to reason that open source will create more jobs on average with that budget surplus.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Unless those 15,000 jobs are kickback jobs that is: "Buy the software of my largest contributor errr I mean constituency and we'll farm out some development jobs to your country."
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
You are a fucking moron, Chris. The parent post specifically said "free market". Free market + antitrust != free market. Feel free to call it whatever you want to, but it's not a free market and don't pretend that it is.
When you learn to read sentences and grow a brain then please come back. Until then you are unable to contribute to an intelligent conversation.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Complain politely but in quantity, ideally get Redhat and IBM to complain as well that Microsoft is seeking to exclude other american companies.
The ambassador is not a shill for Microsoft, he probably knows nothing of the business. He does try to represent US interests, but he needs to be told that there is a world outside Microsoft.
See my journal, I write things there
The parent post specifically said "free market". Free market + antitrust != free market. Feel free to call it whatever you want to, but it's not a free market and don't pretend that it is.
Are you really this stupid, or are you training for the Moron Olympics? I'm not calling it the Free Market! I'm specifically insulting those who believe that the "market" must be 100% "free"! Clearly you're going to be a shoe-in for the "Language Incomprehension" event.
Just in case the vacuous space in your skull is capable of any form of retention: I'm saying when the free market produces a situation where a company is operating free from the forces which supposedly make the free market work, then fuck the free market. The parent post's comments were about Microsoft's attempts to escape those market forces, those things which make the market work. Anti-trust is deliberatly not free market, you buffoon, and is aimed at those who have succeded in making themselves "free" from the "free market".
The enemies of Democracy are
Pero, Yo no puedo hablar el espanol!
Dyolf Knip
IBM.
Though this raise an interesting question. What would it take for, say, RedHat to offer their services in Peru (and exactly what kind of support infrastructure does Microsoft have in-country)? And would business with Peru justify the cost of putting any additional infrastructure in place.
Does it mean that you should give up and buy the database for your spaceship in CompUSA? It depends on the risk. It a single failure can be fatal for the mission, you really should try to find a company that would satisfy your requirements, even if it would cost much more than the off-the-shelf products.
Now, we are talking about the government of Peru (if you don't know that, shut up and read the article). If the government cannot do its job, much more people are going to be hurt than if a spaceship explodes. It's pretty reasonable for the government of Peru to set requirements that most off-the-shelf software would not satisfy.
You're arguing inane, completely irrelevent arguments on many fronts.
1.) The ambassador didn't single out and say "buy Microsoft". He said Buy American. The article _infers_ Microsoft because they're the biggest company. I'll bet you filthy nerds a shower that the letter doesn't specifically mention Microsoft.
2.) Nobody's dictating anything. They're lobbying, trying to persuade, etc... That's what ambassador's do. You don't think foreign ambassadors lobby for their businesses in the US?
Grow up, people, find a real cause.
The ones with merit are the ones getting shafted. People with 30 years experience are walking out the door when someone with 1 year experience walks in to do the same job at half the pay. These H-1B legal fees you refer to amount to a little over $1000 filing fee, and a little over $1000 preparation costs. That's a bargain compared to the money savings in H-1B. It's the smaller companies that get stuck with the big fees preparing these documents because they don't know anything about it. Big companies like Microsoft, Sun, Texas Instruments, etc, have standard H-1B templates that lawyers have already researched and have proven to work. So they can run them through a mill, and they do.
Of course many H-1Bs have been laid off. But in terms of proportion, it hasn't happened to them as much as it has happened to domestic workers. And the reason is that any round of letting people go isn't just to remove the dead wood (that does happen, too), but also to cut costs. Some of the people still working at major corporations are total idiots. I've even met 2 of them. I'm not talking about rapidly certified people, I'm talking the top of the line experts who have 20-30 years experience and can do any task in their field and do it well. And it's not about changing technologies. I know a programmer with 24 years experience who was in doing Java as soon as it came out, and he got let go because "he's too expensive". Companies don't really need top level skills; they just say that so they can continue to fool the government into thinking there's a shortage of people even while 700,000 high tech people are looking for work (far more than the H-1B cap).
Merit? HR has no clue how to measure that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It's not the government's place to dictate what is or is not a good business decision. What is a good decision for the nation is, though. But even then there are limits. But it might use tax incentives for that.
I hope we are not characterizing every H-1B worker as bad. Some are good. But the proportion of bad does appear to be quite high. The problem is, you don't really see how bad they are for quite some time in many cases. Too little real QA goes on, especially in software development.
The good H-1B workers are underpaid. If they are as good as the domestic worker they replaced, they should get the same salary (you know, same merit, same salary thing). But that's not happening. And the companies know that most H-1B workers won't change jobs, because of the extra paperwork and hassle of doing so, and the contract terms they are usually stuck with of paying back the first employer for a prorated cost of bringing them in. So in this captive state, an extra $5K a year isn't very interesting. And the H-1B worker isn't really interested in an extra $5K on the career track, because he's only here for 5-6 years anyway. Someone who's life is here has their career here, and moving to a better job has significance not only in the short term, but also in the long term.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Sure they do! And if they don't agree, we'll make 'em understand why they do. It's a mountain of MS software, or a carpet of bombs!
"either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs"
It amazes me that even though our press freely prints stories about how our education system is the laughing stock of the developed world, meaning that our citizenry is composed of ignorant fools for the most part, that most of the people here still actually believe that this country is free, and that we are the good guys.
If the quote above (mine, not the one I am replying to, although I'm sure his was based on mine) is not familiar to you, and you are an American citizen, then you *are* a traitor to everything this country is supposed to stand for.
It is your fucking job to inform yourself constantly. That is what is *required* from a citizen of a free society. Do you fucking get that? This does not mean just watching CNN or your local news. (Do you know who owns your station? Their job is not to inform you, it is to maximize revenue for their parent corporation. That is *it* ) That is passive. You have a responsibility to *actively* inform yourself. (Shut the fuck up. Yes, you do.) If you are not doing that then you are *not* a good American. And please, if you do fit that category, take that flag off of your car. You have not earned the right to fly it.
Here is a very brief lesson for you:
America *is* the most violent, destructive and evil terrorist threat this world has ever faced.
Do not cry like a little bitch. If you disagree, do your fucking patriotic duty and inform yourself and then try to debate that point. The fact is you can't. Big mindfuck ( assuming you actually did some research ), huh?
Did you know we have clothing stores here called "Banana Republic"?
Do you know where the fuck the name came from?
If not, you *are* a traitor to everything this country is supposed to stand for. (Shut the fuck up. Yes, you are.) Look it up.
Corporations run America.
Period. End of sentence.
Again, come up with a fact, develop an argument, if you disagree. Otherwise, wake the fuck up.
Corporations are by their very definition, amoral, and greedy. This is not that bad if you think in terms of human life spans. But consider, they have almost all of the rights of an American citizen, none of the responsibilities, and a potentially unlimited lifespan. This *is* new. This *is* different, and this *does* need to be addressed.
So, do a search on that quote. Pull your head out of your ass. Wake up. Please.
This is an appeal from a true patriot.
If you think I'm not, and you are, then you have a lot of waking up to do.
Besides that: this is not a restriction on trade at all. Peru is *not* closing their market to Microsoft products, any Peruvian company can continue buying them if they want. What Peru is doing, is making a purchasing decision for their government's IT structure. That's the whole point of a market, the buyer decides what he wants to buy, and in this case the buyer is the government of Peru.
Its USA meddling (for example, CIA coups against popular govts in Iran 'n Iran back in the 50's & finally creating a country for a bunch of foreigners, European Jews, in the middle of the Middle East) that led directly to the WTC attack.
Afterall does Switzerland worry about such things as WTC, attacks? No because the Arab Street doesn't give a fuck either way about Switzerland, & why is that? Because Switzerland doesn't meddle in their affairs.
For the hundreth time, the US only creats problems for itself by meddling in the affairs of every other continent (look at Pearl Harbour).
Its ironic Americans go on about the potential problem of Chinese agression, but has China ever shown any inclination to meddle outside of Asia.
Gez the US could halVE their defence budget overnight if they simply just kept their meddling to North America. Afterall if the US kept all their troops/military facilities at home, the only countries that could ever attack the US would be Mexico & Canada & I don't see that happening.
The fact is that US meddling is what turned the Arab street against the US, just as it turned Japan against the US.
Touche!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Imagine if a car dealer refused to show you anything but the outside of the car and the driver's seat. And you were forbidden to open the hood and look at the engine unless you took to the car to a licensed mechanic.
In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Pull your head out of your ass!
Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not a direct response to American meddling in the Middle East? Whatever your on, I'll take 2, because that has to be some good shit!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Funny thing is Allende's Doctor was the first one there after he died, and has repeatadly stated that Allende commited suicide.
So it has been often claimed, by many right-wing apologists for Pinochet. The truth is somewhat more complicated.
The Holy War against the West wouldn't exist if we had kept our noses out of middle east politics over the last 50 years. There is no mysterious Islamic doctrine that says they must bring down America. We have brought this upon ourselves through our self-righteous foreign policy. Perhaps you should actually learn something about the situation before you start spouting off about it.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
No really, I am curious. To lose credibility merely by *comparing* PostgreSQL to Oracle or MS SQL? Hmm. Seems to me the original juxtaposition between MySQL and Oracle was purposefully intended to be a straw man - clearly MySQL is much less full-featured and aimed at a totally different set of applications.
OK, though. I'm sure you are not a troll but genuinely advocate the use of Oracle or MS SQL for all databases even in the low-mid range where PostgreSQL is (as far I have been able to tell) perfectly adequate. If so, the extra license money must be buying something truly wonderful. Care to share what that might be?
I'm not an expert, but since this is an area in which you are not 'clueless', perhaps you can explain.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
Educate him that there is a lot of money to be made from open source software.
Name the company that's making it.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
So what you are saing is that it is OK for a goverment to decide to remain hostage to the needs of a foreign company when it comes to computing goods?
What you are saying is that if one day the Peruvian goverment can't pay its dues, it is OK that they can't have access to modern software unless they make a migration to free software to use closed applications?
What you are saying is that it is OK for a goverment to store sensitive data in propietary formats that change according to the whims of a foreign company bound by the laws of a foreign ountry that if angry, would not hesitate to embargo them?
Heck, the more I think about it, the more I think goverments should not rely on closed software, or at least should not use closed formats to store their data.
I hope Peru sees the light in spite of the obscene amount of sping that MS is applying to this matter (saying they donate this much US$, which in case it comes in the form of MS products, is a donation of far less money with strings attached, unless they donated also support and license renewals for a sizeable time in the future).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
IBM had lots of money before Linux entered the picture, and they could drop it now without seeing a blip on thier revenue stream. Get some hard numbers on how many Open Source programmers IBM has put to work or come up with a different company.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)