The majority of Internet infrastructure runs on either something Linux based or something FreeBSD based.

A lot of the tools used are also various flavours of open or semi open source.

I'd say open source already has success. Just not in places where you see consumers using it. Except... Wait a minute, Android is a fork of Linux, and Android is open source too.

Also good and free: Sumatra
You can read any pdf.

Libre office drawer you can sign. No need for acrobat or any of that garbage.

Yes average people need to learn the open source stack instead of Microsoft.
It used to be most people could just learn some Microsoft thing, and they were almost guaranteed a job. Obviously a lot of people will be unhappy that isn't the case anymore, and they'll be annoyed they have to learn something new.

But this should have been done 20 years ago when Linux was obviously ready for it, and sensible people have advised it for just as long.
In the old CP/M days we had lots of good software developed locally, but when IBM became dominant, and chose to use MS-Dos, Microsoft was very cleverly deviously leveraging that to sabotage the competition, and take mostly every main stream market.

Trump is kind of a blessing in disguise, because he finally got people to wake up to reality.

I wouldn’t consider Android a fork, the differences at the kernel level aren’t unlike differences you might find on embedded devices. It mainly just has the Google software suite instead of GNU

Also the PS4/5 run on freebsd

But that’s not what is being compared

The question is why not?

Im Danish and had no clue about this, even though Im rather interested in open source.

Thanks for sharing.

Including adobe acrobat form pdfs?

I can't recall a single MS product that ever was good. Maybe I was late to the party (or quit early, as lots of people seam to like vscode for some reason)

Libreoffice for the fucking win!

they are also no providing intelligence and ai assistance to the israeli regime rogue state genocide on neighboring city state Palestine

Sumatra? I am going to take note of that.

I wonder if it creates more inhouse sysadmin jobs? When you buy a license from M$ you also get tech support. But if you have problems with open source, you gotta go get a computer person

There is a out of the box product for that available,btw:
The UCS@school environment does exactly what they want, using only Open source products. It basically joins OpenLDAP,Samba,Keycloak,etc. together.
Works both with Windows as well as Linux clients.

Hopefully. But I think companies are already starting to realise the value of having your bytes in a place you control

I don't see anything contradicting what the other person said.

Not necessarily, lots of open source projects offer enterprise support contracts and in house staff could be retrained. Definitely going to be good for training, consulting, and MSPs though

But if you have problems with open source, you gotta go get a computer person

• Not necessarily, most commercial enterprise Linux distros sell support contracts, for example, RHEL and SUSE being the two most famous examples of that.

Possibly does. On occasion I read about German cities trying to do similar, but then reverting back to M$.

Most of the issues are around people not wanting to take time to get use to new software (happened at a job where they moved to GSuite) or the FOSS stuff not having a corporation that can be sued for loss of earnings (like crowd strike when they didn't read only friday). Note that these are not technical issues with FOSS.

Still there is political support to not just use this as an angle to get M$ to lower their pricing.

Yeah true, but these are more business to business. RHEL support is pretty expensive, and in my experience Oracle support (maybe not really open source) is both terrible and ridiculously expensive. Maybe this will create a market for more consumer like support. Maybe that could even create new business models for open source software.

I'd think it would be obvious that a country wouldn't want to depend on a foreign country's proprietary product when an open source alternative exists. Even if it's not spying, what if the US forced Microsoft to put some kill switch on their products? Even if it doesn't affect your most secure systems because of air gap, it could still cripple enough to cause huge problems.

There's simply no reason to take the risk.

If I was running a government, I would strongly desire proof that all of my government software is doing only what I want it to. That means not only do I have access to the source code, but I also need it to be simple enough that my government teams can actually audit all of it.

Obviously, that's not going to be feasible in every situation. There might be proprietary software that is protected from competition via IP laws, and some software is so necessarily complex that it would be really hard to audit completely, but overall, I find it shocking that any foreign government would run a Microsoft product when a feature comparable open source alternative exists.