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.
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?
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.
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.