I think private interests should not run what is effectively public infrastructure, like Windows. Or, put another way, infrastructure of national importance should be publicly controlled and governed with transparency and public interests in mind. Either that, or true capitalist competition has to be reenabled aggressively: forbid walled gardens, split up the Googles, etc. This centralization of public utility and power in the hands of private individuals, coupled with an uncompetitive market, is nonsensical. Competition or nationalization.

▲

apetresc 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Windows is not public infrastructure. If the government's reliance on it has reached the level of "national importance", then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not Windows' ownership.

Public infrastructure should be built on open-source, period.

▲

dmos62 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Why is Windows not public infrastructure? Because it's privately owned, or because it's not relevant to enough of the public? I argue that it is public in function. My thinking matches yours as regards OSS.

	▲	Am4TIfIsER0ppos 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The government haven't yet mandated you use windows. Yet. It will be soon, like with androids and iphones, for user identification so the government knows who sends every network packet.