Lose Microsoft and save money

Great efforts are being made to cut expenses at the University of Arizona. However, the considerable expense of software seems to have been overlooked. Why is the university using both my tuition money and my tax dollars to purchase expensive software when inexpensive and free alternatives exist?

The biggest beneficiary of this misguided benevolence would have to be Microsoft. There are four major expenses involved with Microsoft software that is draining the funds and resources of the university.

First, the up-front purchase cost of Microsoft software is much larger than their competitors. There are professional-quality, inexpensive and free alternatives to Microsoft's operating systems and office suites. Second, a great deal of time and expense is wasted due to the poor quality of Microsoft's software. Security holes, viruses, crashes, and bloat cost much more in productivity than the purchase price. Why should we pay for their products when Microsoft uses free software to run their Hotmail.com and Wehavethewayout.com sites?

Third, Microsoft's licensing scheme requires a great deal of oversight and management, requiring greater expenditures in human resources and legal advice. By using alternative software, the company can avoid Microsoft's regular threats of expensive software audits and the associated legal liabilities. Finally, alternative software is able to run on less powerful hardware.

Not only does this save money on the up-front cost but also in long term air conditioning and electricity expenses.

I do not throw away my own money on expensive items when I can purchase an adequate option. It is fiscally irresponsible for the university to throw away our money by paying a premium for the Microsoft name when they produce such unreliable software. The university should cut software expenses before cutting personnel or raising tuition.

Matthew Leigh
physics grad student

Careless fact use misrepresents Pakistani leaders

Mr. Rish Patel has his facts straight and knows everything about Pakistan without living there, and feels that he is an expert on Pakistan's foreign policies. Bravo, Mr. Patel; you have mastered ignorance. How does he know that bin Laden was an ally of Pakistan? It's news to me.

If you talk about cross-border terrorism, then I can just as ignorantly associate terrorism in Pakistan with India. Since Mr. Patel has lived in Pakistan for his whole life, he probably witnessed the joy with which people embraced "Dictator" Musharraf's government.

Apart from a few disgruntled people, the rest of the country stands firmly behind him. Pakistan spends 60 percent of its finances on defense, not on terrorism, but mainly to counter the threat of its neighbor's attacks. I suggest that Mr. Patel try to research his facts before he makes fallacious comments about Pakistan's politics.

Adnan Qadri
pre-business sophomore

Women are people, too

A good friend of mine has a bumper sticker that reads, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." When stated as simply as this, I don't understand how people like Charles Petersen can speak out against it. According to Mr. Petersen, being a feminist makes me anti-family, irresponsible, and a hypocrite - allegations I find not only untrue but hurtful. Am I anti-family because I believe that women and men should be treated equally?

Am I irresponsible because I believe women should get paid as much as men? And am I a hypocrite because I think abstinence should not be asked of women until it is asked of men? No, all I am is a young woman who believes in the "radical" notion that women are people, too.

Melinda Mills
political science senior