Jack Bryar is commenting on some of the issues raised by Edgar Villanueva Nuñez, the pro-linux congressman in Peru. I really don't care too much about the backstory -- who said what to whom and when in Peru, whether this letter to Microsoft Peru is fabricated, or even if this whole series of correspondances is a very well-executed is a press stunt for a very small community.
Jack alludes to issues raised by Congressmen Villanueva that are just as true in other parts of the world, especially in non-industrial nations. He cites a handful of examples, including recent negotiations in South Africa to provide certain Microsoft products for free for public use.
There is a crucial disconnect in Jack's posting and all of these recent discussions -- we are talking about spending public funds, which are typically raised through taxation in one form or another. It doesn't really matter where you stand on taxation; the fact remains that a public entity with reduced expenses needs fewer bond offerings and less tax to fufil its mandate. This is true everywhere, not just in Peru or Oregon.
Another modern truth here is that Microsoft is providing commodity software at a premium price, with annual licensing to keep that basic commodity "up and running". If Microsoft were providing some critical piece of software, like adaptive traffic monitoring to reduce gridlock, then there would be no legitimate reason to question their stranglehold on public funds. But they're not providing irreplacable, critical software -- they're providing commodity software.
A great deal (if not all) of these commodity services are capable of being provided by open source software. Of course I praise the government of Peru for actively encouraging open source software, just as I wish my own local, state and federal governments would do the same. There are other reasons to support such a move, but better allocation of tax dollars is a very compelling one.
