[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:20 +0100, Terry Hill wrote: > This kind of proposal has > far reaching consequence, and as such needs to be handled well if to > avoid m$ sidestepping the issue by finding a new way to legally > monopolise. Absolutely. However, if all vendors were required to show and demonstrate alternatives alongside MS stuff, this would start to erode the monopoly. This would require them to copy images on to identical machines which worked immediately. But does not this start with the OEMs. It must be made illegal to have a sole agreement, for all OEMs simultaneously, throughout the EU. > If m$ software is perceived by the public to be the easy > option, thats the option they will take, even if it means paying a > premium. But this would change with the right approach. The report which Jonathan gave us makes it clear that IT should be taught as 2 chunks, with using software the second chunk, open to FLOSS as well as Windows. Soi schools would have to follow legislation. I think it would have to take legislation or a test case under existing law, to force first OEMs and then schools, though a test case against schools would be interesting. > Having said all of this, anything which drives home the issue of there > *being* a choice in the first place is a positive move. I still amaze > people on a regular basis when they find out they don't have to buy m$ > office for instance. That's up to us. I am hopeful we'll get some publicity from the Penzance workshop on the whole business. -- James Kilty http://www.kilty.demon.co.uk -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html