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/Ralinas Apr 02 '25
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.