[TheEngineer]

Otherwise, yes, MS tries very hard to stop adoption of Linux. Read what happened in Munich when it looked like Linux would win the bid on price and merits. Look what happened when India decided they could save money by going OSS. You would not believe the pressure they put on Largo, Florida after they switched to Linux. The IT managers were being grilled by the MS reps as to why they switched (they stopped when they had to admit they couldn't provide that capability for that low a budget).

I'm somewhat familiar with these cases. Microsoft tried their best to win these contracts. What's wrong/unexpected about that? And in no case did I see Microsoft attempt to have closed-source software mandated as a matter of blanket policy/legislation, as open source proponents are attempting.

[antiRepublicrat]

Microsoft tried their best to win these contracts. What's wrong/unexpected about that?

In the Munich case, they used their position as a rich company with deep pockets to offer what was possibly a contract at a loss just to keep competition out. This is what the big trucking companies used to do to independent truckers to drive them out of business. That's wrong. When India decided they might want to save money by going with free software where possible, Bill Gates showed up and donated lots of money, software and computers. The inability to lobby and throw money around may be the achilles heel of free software.

And in no case did I see Microsoft attempt to have closed-source software mandated as a matter of blanket policy/legislation, as open source proponents are attempting.

I haven't seen the bill you refer to, but most of the ones I see are in the form of reminding government agencies that there is a cheaper alternative, and that they have a current statutory requirement to go with the cheaper alternative. Just a habit-breaking wake-up, no more.