A national, open-source operating system could help reduce Canada’s dependence on the U.S. while improving security and saving a surprising amount of money.
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.
Yes. I wasn’t trying to exclude any projects, but I wanted to point out that another nation-state is looking to do the same project and for the same reasons (Netherlands with NixOS), and that there’s already an even older project (OpenBSD) that already meets some of the same goals Canada would be trying to achieve.
I think the same reason people don’t like NixOS is why it might be good for enterprise / government.
For personal use, it can be a pain to learn and configure everything the way that you want it. There is not as much value in having it be reproducible if you’re the only person using it
For enterprise use, the IT team can set it up and have it work the same way across every machine.
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?
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?
Yes. I wasn’t trying to exclude any projects, but I wanted to point out that another nation-state is looking to do the same project and for the same reasons (Netherlands with NixOS), and that there’s already an even older project (OpenBSD) that already meets some of the same goals Canada would be trying to achieve.
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.
I think the same reason people don’t like NixOS is why it might be good for enterprise / government.
For personal use, it can be a pain to learn and configure everything the way that you want it. There is not as much value in having it be reproducible if you’re the only person using it
For enterprise use, the IT team can set it up and have it work the same way across every machine.
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=fulltextEDIT: Full paper here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7585538
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
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?