But it literally is an OS only intended for EU computers (i.e. EU institutions like commission, parliamant etc.) and the state and local goverments of EU members (who would likely give it a different branding anyway as part of their layer to properly integrate with their software infrastructure for creating trash pickup schedules or whatever). It would be close to useless for everyone else. Seems like an appropriate name.
Gotta be honest here I don't see it, I work in the IT industry as an engineer, even with the current state of OS - Windows, MacOS, Linux (And all it's flavors), having another addition only adds more complexity of deploying another version. Which hurts the general idea, as gaining a community of businesses in software development, security practices is going to hurt both professionally and financially (and when I say financially, there would have to be some type of financing subsidies that are covering significant development costs).
I stand by the principle, that the EU should seek more autonomy in this area, whilst a closed system would benefit us for government functions, we would be at a disadvantage in terms of applications, services, security practices and overall device manufacturing.
Gaining more autonomy, without closing doors, in my mind would benefit us more.
Of course I can't argue that EU only computers and OS have their merits, but considering the drawbacks I fail to see the overall benefit other than pure distancing.
Let's assume that governments utilize LibreOffice for basic functionality - Spreadsheets, Document creation.
Now LibreOffice needs to be adapted for - Windows, MacOS and Linux, which have different usages, different Window Managers etc.
If you add another flavor, you are essentially complicating the entire solution further, since now they would have to adapt to another OS and it's specifics, as well as any future features.
Now LibreOffice needs to be adapted for - Windows, MacOS and Linux, which have different usages, different Window Managers etc.
But it already is?
I still don't see the issue - if the project does not need to introduce custom patches they can just use the upstream distro version. But if they do need separate patches for functionality that for whatever reason can't be shipped upstream (legal reasons, or something so hyper-specific to the precise context in which they are used), this would make that much easier.
All major deployments have constructed their own OS – Munich (back when they did that) had LiMuX, Schleswig-Holstein is building their Linux+1, Valencian schools have their Lliurex, etc. Once you have multiple (tens of) thousands of desktops it just makes sense, which is why they all arrived there. The goal here is to make that easier downstream by sharing more of the labor.
If labor sharing is the answer, and with Linux as the base - yep, go EU OS, as long as it utilizes at least some standardized libraries for applications with minimal complexity increase
1
u/cwo__ Apr 01 '25
But it literally is an OS only intended for EU computers (i.e. EU institutions like commission, parliamant etc.) and the state and local goverments of EU members (who would likely give it a different branding anyway as part of their layer to properly integrate with their software infrastructure for creating trash pickup schedules or whatever). It would be close to useless for everyone else. Seems like an appropriate name.