I was at microsoft tech ed yesterday I saw the microsoft response to the problem. They have already come out with a version of Microsoft DotNet which is desinged to work on FreeDBS (as a first step) and later on other linux / unix OS. They are giving the codes free, with a license that allows use for non-commercial applications. This will allow software developed for Microsoft DotNet platform (win xp, etc) to "RUN FROM" linux based servers. It already mostly supports access from non-microsoft OS.
The thing is called ROTOT and is in beta, so I expect they will add more features to it later. I think this way they are going to tell govts. like peru that they are also in open source, they are not proprietory (they spent an hour drilling THAT into our heads) and give a larger user platform to vb developers. Apparently, there are already 2 open source (non-microsoft) initiatives that have ported dotnet framework to linux in Europe. The MS guys were trouting these as evidence of their "potentially cross-platform capabilities" Regards Saswata ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ram Baji Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Microsoft vs. Government of Peru > Edgar Villanueva, a legislator from Peru, has put a proposal for Peru > government agencies to standardize on Free Software for their own > internal use. > > This proposal worries Microsoft! > > Some government bodies around the world, e.g. in California and Peru, > have adopted an aggressive attitude towards restricting the use of > proprietary(read Microsoft) software and favouring open source. > > Open source appeals to government bodies because of its high > functionality, very low cost and easy compliance with licensing laws. > > Of course, Microsoft will try to persuade governments to avoid open > source software. They realize that , when governments choose Microsoft > as their foundation they are likely to select the whole suite of > products to go with it rather than fight incompatibilities. > > In July 2002 the UK Government also announced a new policy on the use of > open source software which favors a pragmatic approach. > > Back to the Peru case: Villanueva's point is that: Everybody has to deal > with the government. If a government uses Microsoft software, its > citizens will probably have to use the same software to communicate with > it. A government web site that only supports Microsoft Internet Explorer > would lock citizens into that Microsoft product. In contrast, government > sites using open standards and avoiding patented software would allow > citizens to choose between many different kinds of software to access > the site. > > Free Software, also called Open Source, is itself a kind of open > standard - its source code is its own reference. Developers of > proprietary software can use that reference to create interoperating > programs, without infringing on the actual Open Source code. Thus, when > a government uses Open Source, it assures its citizens a choice to > purchase both proprietary and Open Source software for communicating > with their government. The people's choice will be based on factors like > functionality, quality, and convenience, rather than on customer > lock-in. > > Read more about this interesting happening at > www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26616.html > > Also see: > www.SincereChoice.com > > Ram > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers > > _______________________________________________ http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
