Microsoft Grants Their Way Out of Massachusetts Open Source Mandate

Maybe it's me but aren't these the same tactics used by cigarette company's over the years? Target advertising young people to get them hooked for life? A software giveaway this large to a state who happens to be rocking the MS boat? Anyone know Microsoft's past in grants like this, software value per student/per state?

isnt this like hooking people to drugs ? only that this time microsoft is using software to get people hooked. pick the bad microsoft habits with clippeys and stuff, yu have dumbed down another generation of kids early up! in effect, it plain old bribing, nom atter what MIcrosoft choses to say! the cost of giving away all those licenses is close to nil, but for the occasional support cost. after an initial percentage of support cost - it costs nothing for microsoft for duplication of the same unlike hardware. also in hardware, the costs go down as the number of copies increase in sale, no such luxuries for software. the marked price remains exactly the same till the end of the product cycle. who so ? why cant that change ? the music industry, the movie industry and software industry had come to the conclusion during the boom of Web 1.0 that they could simply rent thier wares, and compute each person in the world in "X" number of sales = Gobs of money. when the reality hit them hard - they are crying hoarse. somebody - that is us - the people should show them thier place - that is earn money the regular way!

The outrageous thing about this "gift" is that the cost of $800 for this "advanced software" is an entirely made-up figure. The incremental cost (or the cost of creating another copy of the software to give out) of each $800 package to Microsoft is extremely close to zero. It's like a furniture store advertising a $400 couch that they got from a supplier for $200 with a sticker that says "regular price $5000, you save $4600!!!!!"

Similarly, in the real world, noone pays full price for Microsoft software unless they have been hoodwinked by a salesman. In addition, with the common availability of advanced and free (as in pizza and speech) open source software-writing and web site creation software the value of Microsoft's gift is further exposed as the sham that it is.

The other mistake made here and in the linked article is that the ITD ETRM applied to any Mass. state body other than the Mass. State Executive. Unless the schools and universities are under the auspices of the Mass. State Executive, then the ITD ERTM does not apply to them and they can save their documents in any format they please.

It would be nice, too, in the USA to make a law maintaining Windows / Microsoft as standard, for administration, education, households. And, as a basical and human right, to warrant to each and every poor (or not so poor) student or any other person, that the government, as part of the social assistence, pays Windows / MS Office etc for the person can use it. Why Microsofts advocates dont claim this human / basical right and such a law not ?? -- In the meantime, we, Europe, as well as China, Russia, India, Brazil, progrede, with open software as a community project and freedom of thinking and progress, left them behind. :)

I like very this occurences. The lack of democratic control and corruption brings down their concurrence, economy and force, and make us free from the USA, like the same occured with the communism. :)

Yes, the distinction between "open source" and "open standards" is very important. The media need to be careful not to confuse the audience (worse than many already are).

That said, Microsoft's own Mr. Gates once made a reference to letting the Chinese get "hooked" on Microsoft software. His comment did not win friends in China. The company continues to engage in its largely reprehensible behavior while buying their way out of whatever they don't want to do. I don't know why anyone continues to do business with such a company.

Our North Carolina ministry is completely independent of Microsoft. Massachusetts schools should have turned down the offer. There are much better gifts than Microsoft's software.

good point Andrew - I the subtle difference between "open source document format" and "open standard format" is key. They're not advocating software like Open Office, which is free, but a document format that will work with everything, not just Microsoft programs. Still, it seems like MS worked a little corporate magic to make them a viable addiction.

You seem to be making a common mistake in regards to the MA Information Technology Division's Enterprise Technical Reference Model. The AP did too in the the linked article.

It doesn't mandate anything be Open Source (that source code to the software be freely distributable.) but rather all software write its documents in an Open Standard format (of which they gave the OpenDocument format and PDF as acceptable open standards.)

There is software that is, or at least will be available that support's ODF (IBM Workplace and future versions of Lotus Notes for examples) that is sold in as commercial (what people call "closed source" or "proprietary" in order to differentiate from Open Source)