> these people where basic users, without access to proper > education, and needed a monolithic MS style set up to keep > them afloat, also people often

> these people where basic users, without access to proper > education, and needed a monolithic MS style set up to keep > them afloat, also people often without internet access, or > reliable power (or even drinking water ATM). The response > back was a blunt "oh well bad luck for them, thats not our > problem". I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Why would these nations need "a monolithic MS style set up to keep them afloat"? It seems to me to be the case that a properly tailored GNU/Linux distribution would be a more user-friendly first encounter with a computer than anything from the Windows family (see OLPC, for example), and then there's the whole added benefit of not running a nation on costly, proprietary infrastructure. Regarding your second point, I get the impression that you're talking with FLOSS advocates. If that's the case, then it's hardly surprising that they are more interested in promoting free software than discussing other social issues.