3 ms·
What do you mean by "exclusively" and "government"? Outside of the DoD/US Military (where hardened Linux has quite a few uses), I'm pretty sure the US Federal g
by deaddodo 3y ago
What do you mean by "exclusively" and "government"? Outside of the DoD/US Military (where hardened Linux has quite a few uses), I'm pretty sure the US Federal govt is fairly Microsoft-centric as they offer them the guarantees and concessions needed to sign contracts. It's not that the Fed thinks Windows or Office is better than the open source alternatives, as much as it is that if/when they do fail they have a direct point of contact with strict SLA guarantees to get things fixed and they have full control of all of their software to do so without hindrance.
Local and state govts usually follow suit, as it makes sense that what works for the Fed will work for them. But I've seen plenty of open source softwares being used in various municipal and state offices. LibreOffice and CentOS would probably be the most common alternatives.
So, to answer your question, no it's not exclusively Windows. It's almost exclusively Windows in the Federal govt as there are mandates there, but otherwise it's a hodgepodge of what works/can be afforded throughout all other levels of govt.
- graemep 3y ago> It's not that the Fed thinks Windows or Office is better than the open source alternatives, as much as it is that if/when they do fail they have a direct point of contact with strict SLA guarantees to get things fixed Does MS provide SLAs? Are there no suppliers who will provide similar SLAs for FOSS software? > and they have full control of all of their software to do so without hindrance. That puzzles me. How can you have more control over proprietary software than over open source? If you mean MS have full control, how does that benefit their customers?
- deaddodo 3y ago> Does MS provide SLAs? Are there no suppliers who will provide similar SLAs for FOSS software? Gotta love how internet commentators feel like picking a statement apart in isolation somehow validates their point. Yes, they offer SLAs and have full control of their software and its release cycle. So can offer guarantees and stand by them. > That puzzles me. How can you have more control over proprietary software than over open source? "They" is Microsoft. > If you mean MS have full control, how does that benefit their customers? It means they don't have to wait for Linux (or a plethora of other open source softwares) for upstreaming or need to fork / manage an independent branch. It means that they aren't at the whims of a community who decides to abandon projects willy-nilly or replace them with brand new implementations at the drop of a hat. Or commercial entities built on top of those projects that can only offer surface level guarantees. No one here is saying Windows (or proprietary software) is intrinsically better. What they're saying is that what Microsoft offers to certain large-scale/enterprise entities is clearly better. If you disagree, have at it. I don't care. The fact that people continue to sign with Azure, Microsoft, Office, etc makes it self-evident.
- CRConrad 3y ago> It means that they aren't at the whims of a community who decides to abandon projects willy-nilly or replace them with brand new implementations at the drop of a hat. Yeah, because only the Open Source community ever does that. Corporations never do... /s (The "Google Graveyard" site is famous, but wasn't there one for Microsoft too? I want my Microsoft Bob to be maintained, dammit!) ETA: > The fact that people continue to sign with Azure, Microsoft, Office, etc makes it self-evident. ...that they're idiots. That's what you meant, right?