On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 21:14, Thomas Adam wrote:
--- garry saddington
wrote: Yes you could use the reverse argument but it is proprietary software that is entrenched and not free software. i don't use free software because of the reasons stated above and i am sure that all on this list don't either.
I use free software because I believe in the open-source ideals. I am a developer for a number of open-source projects and it is the thrill of helping others that I like.
This machine is running entirely free software and I guess I use it 90%
of the time. The only thing I use Windows for these days is specialist
schools applications (Complex Word documents) and picking up E-mail sent
to my Learning Machine account -that's just laziness cos I could get it
here. The Specialist Schools form is complicated and runs text boxes
across pages which is a problem for OO.o at present but I dare say that
this will get fixed before long and then I could be an entirely MS free
zone. The only reason the rest of the company still use Windows is that
the accounts system depends on it and they need something to practise on
for fixing other people's stuff. I can't see us ever buying new products
or upgrades from MS for work since there is nothing in the new stuff
really that worth having and by the time it is, there will most likely
be Linux alternatives. The way I look at it is that the more people that
use FLOSS, the more it gets accepted so the more people use it etc. Its
constantly improving and at worst forces costs down by providing
competition for the proprietary monopolies. On that basis alone
Government has a responsibility to promote a healthy FLOSS industry. I
believe they are beginning to get the message but still a long way to
go. At least BECTA are doing a bit of research - ok its 3 years after
everyone else but come on, this is a government quango, you can't expect
them to be innovative or quick off the mark ;-)
--
ian