I said this exact thing to multiple Australian universities and government heads.
Not only would it save money, it would develop local industry and expertise.
No reply of course. No one’s interested if it doesn’t help make them rich!
hOSer
We could save even more by crowdsourcing much of it with partners around the world with the same goals.
When Microsoft said they would operate in our country, but not obey our laws, it was the begining of the end.
Yes and nobody seems to acknowledge that. They think data sovereignty is all that matters. But Microsoft has stated no they have to listen to the US no matter what any other countrys laws say. I thought countries would have been more upset about that but nope.
Author of the article missed the Netherlands going to NixOS by a week.
And Canada already has a homegrown operating system that’s just waiting for someone to read the handbook thoroughly, read the manual, install it themselves, and see what’s up. Canada has already played host to a free operating system with OpenBSD thanks to crypto being a munition back in the 90s and there’s no reason to not look at both Nix and OpenBSD if they’re going to head down that road.
I’ll go ahead and write the international treaty:
Canada and the Netherlands agree to go halfsies on a trusted NixOS and OpenBSD repo.Wasn’t Arch made by a Canadian?
Netherlands going to NixOS? I mean ok I hate Nix but it is slightly better the MS.
What are your arguments to hate Nix? Must have a lot to be almost as bad as Microsoft.
The author does discuss that actually
Here is the study it is referring to, which the author put out last week (although I don’t have the full text right now): https://www.emerald.com/dprg/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/DPRG-06-2026-0347/1400436/Open-source-digital-sovereignty-the-case-for-a?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Design/methodology/approach
This paper develops a comparative policy analysis of six state-sponsored Linux distributions (China, Russia, India, France, Germany and South Korea) using a dual total cost of ownership (TCO) + strategic autonomy analytical framework, benchmarked against Canada’s procurement landscape, laws and trade obligations.
Originality/value
This paper proposes a Canadian Free and Open Systems Foundation (Crown not-for-profit modeled on Germany’s Zentrum für Digitale Souveränität) alongside a three-phase implementation roadmap and five institutionally targeted policy recommendations. The proposal offers a generalizable middle-power template for reconciling digital sovereignty with open multilateralism, applicable to Australia, Japan, South Korea and Nordic states facing parallel dependencies.
So while the author mentions Debian, that is just an example. The actual recommendation is setting up a foundation to make those decisions after confirming it will meet the requirements + working with other countries on this
The actual recommendation is setting up a foundation to make those decisions after confirming it will meet the requirements + working with other countries on this
I also don’t have the full text. Is there anything in it about having this foundation lead from the front by using “strategically autonomous” software internally and experiencing the teething issues? Just dumping MS Office alone will be difficult. Did the full text go into the final thoughts on scale?
One more way to say fuck the US by not using Microsoft
On top of OpenBSD, I really don’t see why Canada needs a Windows replacement when open source replacements already exist? And we can already run NextCloud-AIO with EuroOffice on top.
The only things missing are AI and surveillance— and there’s a perfectly functional open source agentic tool that can run open models. And nobody really wants the surveillance.
As well as these work in progress app clones if you feel you are stuck on Windows OS because of a proprietary app, now you have freedom to move.
Features are about 60%, with them claiming they could hit 99% in several months.
Yes but also what is important is establishing meaningful, stringent, enforceable, independent security auditing of the tools that Canada chooses to use, they must be open in this sense if not fully open source. There is the obvious but quite unfortunately likely possibility Canada could throw out Microslop only to recreate the worst parts of it domestically. Canada must keep their eyes on two balls in this sense, getting rid of Microslop AND doing better at the entire framing of how these tools are built and maintained otherwise all the effort to get rid of Microslop will become a slap in the face when you end up in almost the same place… which none of this is meant to bash Canada at all, this is just how these things tend to want to go given the forces at work…
Time for someone to pick up TempleOS or maybe Plan 9.
I’d use CANos
Missed opportunity for CanaDOS
Will have to go back to disks, but I dig it
MaplOS?
CanoOS — I haven’t figured out what the second O is for yet, but it has to be there.
