3 ms·

This feels like a case that I really need an article explaining this not from their prospective. On here https://libreboot.org/news/usa-libre.html https://libr

This feels like a case that I really need an article explaining this not from their prospective. On here https://libreboot.org/news/usa-libre.html https://libreboot.org/news/usa-libre.html one of the examples given: "Bans state agencies from using proprietary software - maybe this could include schools, in the future!" "Bans state agencies from purchasing proprietary software if libre software exists, for a given task" That seems... excessive and way to heavy handed. Doesn't that reduce the ability of a specific agency to choose either the best or just what people are familiar with (which means what people will be effective with) software for a given task/department? Or am I completely misreading what this is saying? Advocating and educating people on open source or free available software is a good thing, but straight up requiring its use if it exists seems really bad and kinda counter to the culture that this kind of software should have.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
Requiring people to use any particular software is bad. The government wanting to use libre software and passing a bill saying that it shall use libre software is not that.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  How is it not given those 2 quotes? This sounds like it is requiring the use libra software even if the alternative is superior.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    It's not a law that prohibits citizens from using proprietary software, it's a law that prohibits the government from doing it. But the government is the thing enforcing the law, so it's really just the government choosing not to use proprietary software itself.
    - nerdjon 4y ago
      You’re acting as if everyone in the New Hampshire government is making this decision when that is obviously not the case. Someone (or a group of people) decided to push a bill with their ideals that will impact everyone who works a government job in NH. So again this very much sounds like it is forcing people to use certain software instead of allowing a team or agency to be able to determine what is best for them. This is no better than a bill requiring the use of software from Microsoft and should not be encouraged. I would even argue it’s worse since it seems it’s being done under the idea of “freedom” when it’s obviously not actually for that.
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        This is no different than the executives of a company making the decision to use some particular software. Then the employees of the company use it, because that's their job. They don't have to; they can work somewhere else. The government has many monopolies but a source of employment isn't one. I mean what are you proposing, some ideological principle that each government employee has to be able to choose their own governance software?
        nerdjon 4y ago
        I mean there is a major difference between the executives of a company pushing the use of something in a private company and a bill being introduced too legally require the use of specific software within the government. I don't particularly care what a private entity does, especially when that could be changed with relative ease. But a bill being signed into law is completely different. Not only is this public and I want the government to be efficient and be able to make the right decision for a given organization within the government. No I am not proposing that each government employee chooses the software that they want to use. I am saying that a given organization within the government should be able to choose the right software for whatever it is that they are tasked to do not be dictated by a law that is pushing an ideological idea about software. Especially when that article states that they hope schools too. The government is not a single entity. What works for one part of the government doesn't mean it is right for another. And yes you can make that argument about a private company and executes, but again there is a major difference between a private company pushing something internally and a public government pushing something that may mean it runs less efficiently since each part of the government did not have the ability to make that decision for themselves. What particularly bothers me about this, is if there was truly a desire to use software like this. Then this bill would not be necessary. Maybe a bill to cover the costs to do some conversions, but those lines would not be necessary if people actually wanted to do it. But from my prospective this bill is trying to legally require something's use internally and that is too heavy handed in my opinion.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

Requiring people to use any particular software is bad. The government wanting to use libre software and passing a bill saying that it shall use libre software is not that.

nerdjon 4y ago
How is it not given those 2 quotes? This sounds like it is requiring the use libra software even if the alternative is superior.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  It's not a law that prohibits citizens from using proprietary software, it's a law that prohibits the government from doing it. But the government is the thing enforcing the law, so it's really just the government choosing not to use proprietary software itself.
  - nerdjon 4y ago
    You’re acting as if everyone in the New Hampshire government is making this decision when that is obviously not the case. Someone (or a group of people) decided to push a bill with their ideals that will impact everyone who works a government job in NH. So again this very much sounds like it is forcing people to use certain software instead of allowing a team or agency to be able to determine what is best for them. This is no better than a bill requiring the use of software from Microsoft and should not be encouraged. I would even argue it’s worse since it seems it’s being done under the idea of “freedom” when it’s obviously not actually for that.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      This is no different than the executives of a company making the decision to use some particular software. Then the employees of the company use it, because that's their job. They don't have to; they can work somewhere else. The government has many monopolies but a source of employment isn't one. I mean what are you proposing, some ideological principle that each government employee has to be able to choose their own governance software?
      - nerdjon 4y ago
        I mean there is a major difference between the executives of a company pushing the use of something in a private company and a bill being introduced too legally require the use of specific software within the government. I don't particularly care what a private entity does, especially when that could be changed with relative ease. But a bill being signed into law is completely different. Not only is this public and I want the government to be efficient and be able to make the right decision for a given organization within the government. No I am not proposing that each government employee chooses the software that they want to use. I am saying that a given organization within the government should be able to choose the right software for whatever it is that they are tasked to do not be dictated by a law that is pushing an ideological idea about software. Especially when that article states that they hope schools too. The government is not a single entity. What works for one part of the government doesn't mean it is right for another. And yes you can make that argument about a private company and executes, but again there is a major difference between a private company pushing something internally and a public government pushing something that may mean it runs less efficiently since each part of the government did not have the ability to make that decision for themselves. What particularly bothers me about this, is if there was truly a desire to use software like this. Then this bill would not be necessary. Maybe a bill to cover the costs to do some conversions, but those lines would not be necessary if people actually wanted to do it. But from my prospective this bill is trying to legally require something's use internally and that is too heavy handed in my opinion.