Open Source typically requires people to manage everything themselves, including update.
For those who see IT as cost-center/necessary evil, they want to have as less investment and as short-term as possible.
I'd say there has been a renaissance of of VPS hosting, with DigitalOcean/Vultr and other providers offering a modernized UI, fast service, decent APIs, a few extra services, etc.
There is value in the simplicity of just getting root on a Linux box and setting up from there yourself.
New employer has dedicated machines on site which definitely helps.
Once I give the main system a kick it will scream on a few year old Xeon.
I've seen far too many 'shove everything on AWS' approaches fail to undertake it lightly.
If this is the product of UX designers then I'm glad the OSS world doesn't have any.
How are they supposed to fix the model they created?!
I mean, I bet every government worker around the world needs a computer with an OS and an office suite. G7 countries could pool their resources together to hire engineers and designers and develop common solutions, like a FOSS alternative to Exchange, Windows and Office.
ReacOS would be a good start; it's already an open source clone of Windows.
Suggesting that we bury even more public funds into alternatives to Windows/Office is not helpful unless we can first devise a model that produces something better.
How is that efficient? What a waste of public funds.
What I am talking about is making ONE operating system for every level of governance. I'm talking about agreements by all party involved to pool their resources to make ONE OS, not 56.
The most popular desktop OS in the world is Windows. People are familiar with it and Win32 apps, so why not use ReactOS as a starting point?
That's exactly my point. Getting states to invest in free operating systems is not hard. But your proposal is only useful if it includes some way to get them to work together.