Petition Summary: The petitioner calls for the European Union to actively develop and implement a Linux-based operating system, termed ‘EU-Linux’, across public administrations in all EU Member States. This initiative aims to reduce dependency on Microsoft products, ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and promoting transparency, sustainability, and digital sovereignty within the EU. The petitioner emphasizes the importance of using open-source alternatives to Microsoft 365, such as LibreOffice and Nextcloud, and suggests the adoption of the E/OS mobile operating system for government devices. The petitioner also highlights the potential for job creation in the IT sector through this initiative.

  • sibachian@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I’ve said this a million times, but it’s definitely about time we stop spending taxes on a rogue entity across the ocean who definitely does not have our best interests in mind. I’m not convinced it’s even legal and I don’t understand why the legal prospects have never been brought up about this fucking situation. R&D money should not go to a foreign corporation. In addition, I (and pretty much everyone else on the planet) already paid for microsofts products and services so my government can use it (against my will), so why the fuck do they get away with setting a public price at all? It should legally be free or the governments shouldn’t need to pay for it in the first place, and it should legally be open source because it’s publicly funded. There are just so many problems with the entire idea of our government using Windows, Office, and their services.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    45 minutes ago

    Especially in light of Microsoft CoPilot. You do not want obvious spyware on any computer.

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Focus instead on enforcing standards’ compliance so i can open a .docx with any program and be usable anywhere.

    Then focus on enforcing FOSS software in public services but don’t bother with a “european linux distro”, that’s just a waste of resources. There are already a great deal of distros around. Considering geopolitics i’d go with SuSe or some other EU-based distro.

    • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Focus instead on enforcing standards’ compliance so i can open a .docx with any program and be usable anywhere.

      That’s an impossible task. Not even Microsoft manages that. Do not want to count how often i used libreOffice to repair or convert an older MSOffice file so it can be opend with modern Versions of MSOffice.

      Once there was a 500MB Excel Sheet with lime 500-1000 used Cells, opened and saved it to.a xlsx file using libreOffice and reduced it to a few MB while still being fully functional.

      • ⁂ jnk :InfinityVerified:@masto.es
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        @ShortN0te @0x0 I mean the real problem here is that MS office is a mess but somehow still standardized, so “enforcing standards” would be as easy as showing MS the middle finger and using libre office. They’d save a lot of money and time, it’s a clear win-win scenario imho

        • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Open standards are the first step of a functional transition to an open government. From there Open Source Software can compete against commercial software, once the ppl see that the FOSS offers the same features then the proprietary paid software they can easily switch to it. With open standards they only need to train the users, no data to migrate etc.

    • Handles@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Focus instead on enforcing standards’ compliance

      For sure, but ¿por qué no los dos?

      Completely agree with your other prioritisations.

  • Papamousse@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Just use Debian, it has old root, stable, still being developed, it’s the base of various others distro that “enhance” it (sometimes badly).

    Debian.

    I’m using MX Linus AHS, based on Debian, BTW.

  • N0x0n@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    As long as the EU doesn’t reinvent the wheel, why not? I mean if they are going to fork Linux and rewrite a EU-based linux OS, this would further divide the community and make issues and security a lot more wacky… Not sure this is a good idea.

    • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Pretty sure they’re talking about making a distro, not forking the Linux kernel. I don’t see any reason why they would need to fork it anyway.

  • elucubra
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    This is dumb. Hand over development to bureaucrats? create a set of guidelines and requirements, and allow distros to be certified, and fund development of distros that are being used.

    • Handles@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It would make so much more sense to fund existing Linux development than making a new distro, tbh.

      If the EU changed to Linux systems and donated the same amount back to open source development as they currently pay for Microsoft licenses, that would make a hell of a difference.

  • Stephane L Rolland-Brabant ⁂⧖⏚@mathstodon.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    @JRepin

    just an idea, it could be based on #NixOS , if I remember well the project was partially funded by European Research or Opensource funds.

    Please correct me if I am wrong on the fundings, I say this from distant memory.

    EDIT: it was just an idea, as it is not the most user-friendly distro out there…

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Or they could use a distro that’s already been created by a European vendor, maybe even create a competitive tender. There’s no point in creating a new distro, add a new repository if you must.

  • Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If only the GAFAMS could stop getting money from taxpayers! It would be a big start and then it would just be the individuals who would decide to support by buying their products or not.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Ain’t no way that’s getting accepted. It’s like asking to completely destroy and rebuild one of the EU countries.

    • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 hours ago

      They’re already putting out a petition so they’re not wholly against the idea of an EU-Linux.

      Also, this has been done before by other governments, like parts of the UK’s and many Indian governments.

      I think it’d be a big step, but a doable one and for the better.

      Why do you compare it to destroying and rebuilding one of the EU countries, if I may ask?

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Why do you compare it to destroying and rebuilding one of the EU countries, if I may ask?

        Because destroying and rebuilding the digital infrastructure is very similar. It’s extremely expensive and causes a lot of breakages in the process.

        • sibachian@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          most software is web based and OS-agnostic so there is no destruction and rebuilding happening, and for everything else, FOSS is literally free. How is it expensive to switch from X with a monthly cost to X that is free? Even if things breaks initially, the cost would equalize and long-term be considerably reduced.