France starts moving government systems from Windows to Linux

[bingo600]

As a (i think) basic/simple office user, i find LibreOffice to be fully adequate for me.

Where i occationally have "missed" MS Office , was when opening advanced excel sheets, where macros or VBS was heavily used.
Ie. STM once had a MCU PLL caculation excel sheet, that Libre did not like.

And my neighbour used a "Diabetes excel sheet", that she got from her doctor.
Libre didn't like that too.


My wife used Libre at home , and MS Office at work.
She complained about the Text documents looking diffferent, but that was due to MS using MS copyrighted fonts per default.
Libre did a decent job of substuting them with non copyrighted fonts. But they (printouts) weren't 100% alike.

My guess is that for 90% of the users - Libre would be an "easy fit".
For the last 10% (Power users) - Quite some work would have to be done, in converting the VBS & Macros.

But if/when the majority of users would switch to LibreOffice, i guess it would be MS that begins to "not look the same".

My wife switched to Libre, and newer looked back.
When changing job, and there were no Free Office License via the company anymore.
She didn't want to "self pay" for a Yearly Office365 license.

Btw:
I have converted many "simple" MS Win users from MS Office to LibreOffice.
Libre works excellent on Windows too.


I'm all in for Europe to get an "Independant choice" of OS/Office, and hopefully payment methods.
I still remember when ICC did "misbehave" according to the recent US GVMT.
Didn't the ICC President loose access to his MS hosted e-mails ?
And I'm quite sure i read several other ICC menbers, also went "into bad standing" , and suddently couldn't pay with VISA/MC or Paypal.

I expect that "Freedom of Speech" should apply to EU citizens too.

[hotnuma]

I switched to Linux in 2021 after using Windows for 23 years. Now I have Debian/XFCE everywhere, Desktop, Laptop, Raspberries, I'm really glad I have such a lightweight and reliable system instead of bloated M$ crapware.

I think any EU country should hire developers to work full time on open source softwares, it would benefit not only to administrations but also to everyone.

[Karel]

For the people here who think it isn't possible, in 2017 the French gendarmerie moved 70,000 computers to GendBuntu Linux.

2024: 97% of workstations running GendBuntu (103,164 stations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu?useskin=vector

[madires]

The issue is social inertia.  We do have tens of thousands of people who will absolutely object to, and many fail, retraining from Windows to Linux.  Just shifting your Windows knowledge to Linux desktop environments works for a small number of lightweight users, but not for support personnel.  I know this as a practical fact, having observed it close-by.

Subcontractors, service providers, et cetera will apply pressure at the higher levels, those who make the decisions.  Local companies aren't a problem, because they can and will adapt; it's the government-sized internationals that can buy just about anything.  (I'm not talking about bribes; I'm talking about making certain decisions so politically beneficial to the decider that they simply cannot refuse.  Politicians first and foremost interest is, unfortunately, always their own; most just explain to themselves that what benefits themselves, benefits the rest of the country too.  It's just human.)

Yep, a simple "the boss/government has decided to migrate to Linux" won't work. Most PC users are afraid of change. We need to explain the reasons (plus road map) and tell a story to motivate employees/people. And we have to accompany them during the whole migration process (there's no reason to be afraid).

[madires]

I'm all in for Europe to get an "Independant choice" of OS/Office, and hopefully payment methods.
I still remember when ICC did "misbehave" according to the recent US GVMT.
Didn't the ICC President loose access to his MS hosted e-mails ?
And I'm quite sure i read several other ICC menbers, also went "into bad standing" , and suddently couldn't pay with VISA/MC or Paypal.

I expect that "Freedom of Speech" should apply to EU citizens too.

As a side note, EU law has a provision to deal with companies discriminating or sanctioning against EU citizens unlawfully. AFAIK, that provision wasn't invoked yet because of 'diplomatic' reasons.

[Karel]

Austria's armed forces switch to LibreOffice

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Austria-s-armed-forces-switch-to-LibreOffice-10660761.html


Danish Ministry switching from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice

https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2025/07/08/danish-ministry-switching-from-microsoft-office-365-to-libreoffice/

[Simmed]

She complained about the Text documents looking diffferent, but that was due to MS using MS copyrighted fonts per default.

ah this
copyrighted fonts
i hate this

[tooki]

And users get upset if you force them to switch to LO, because it's not perfect at rendering Word documents (because MS doesn't want it to be).

That simply is not true: Microsoft opened up the file format many years ago. The problem with file fidelity is that to achieve identical rendering, you must FLAWLESSLY mimic every single behavior of the source program, including bugs.

You've been duped by OOXML, which was its main intention; to create a standard which so esoteric it's of little use to anyone else who wished to make a parity replacement for Word, yet ticked the government check boxes for open standards. ODT was standardised 2 years before OOXML, which MS pushed through in a hurry to in response to governmental push for open standards, they didn't want ODT to get a foothold. Note they chose not to act in good faith and use the ODT standards (meaningfully, or by default), or assist in their improvement. No, it was all about keeping the golden goose propped up.

Fidelity needs well documented on-disk standards AND rendering which adheres to those standards.

https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/03/27/odf-is-the-future-ooxml-is-the-past/

Did you even read, let alone attempt to understand, my entire comment?!?

I haven’t been “duped”, I literally explained in detail why it’s impossible to have 100% document fidelity. Getting the data in and out — and whether it’s stored as binary or XML — is the easy part. Knowing what to do with it is the hard part. As I said: you must flawlessly reproduce every single feature, behavior, quirk, and bug.

The only point you and I differ in is whether this fact is deliberate or not: you claim it is. I maintain that it doesn’t matter whether it is deliberate or not, because from a technical standpoint, it’s an impossible task regardless. Microsoft didn’t have to try and be evil: technology made it impossible anyway.

Those governments which wanted Office to switch to “open” file formats did not understand that what they were asking for is not actually possible. So it’s no wonder they got a kludge that technically checks the box, but doesn’t really do what they wanted. That kinda tends to result from unrealistic expectations.

Microsoft fully documented both the binary and XML formats, but having the documentation still leaves you with the monumental/impossible task of recreating the Word engine to actually make full use of the data. OOXML simply changes the container format for the data. It doesn’t change the document object model, which is inherent to the way Word works. You can’t use any other document object model without translation, which is going to be lossy in at least some situations.

Those are your only two options: translate the data or recreate the entire rendering engine.

And the reverse is equally true: since Word can’t change its engine, for it to work with ODT, it must use a translator, which it does. But translation is lossy. (And honestly, Word’s ODT support isn’t that bad.)


My main point, though, is simply this: don’t act like the task at hand was trivial, and the only reason it doesn’t work perfectly is because MS sabotaged it. In reality, while I’m sure MS didn’t really want to do it, the sheer difficulty of the task makes perfection impossible, even if you want to do it.

As others have pointed out: even between different versions of Word, there can be fidelity issues. And that’s something MS definitely didn’t do on purpose.

[voltsandjolts]

My main point, though, is simply this: don’t act like the task at hand was trivial, and the only reason it doesn’t work perfectly is because MS sabotaged it. In reality, while I’m sure MS didn’t really want to do it, the sheer difficulty of the task makes perfection impossible, even if you want to do it.

I said the task was deliberately made harder by a poor OOXML standard that MS never intended to be actually useful. See LO link I gave, they said;

OOXML, or Office Open XML, was not designed for interoperability, but to do something very specific: to encode Microsoft Office’s binary formats in XML in such a way as to allow Microsoft to claim compliance with the standard without relinquishing control over users through lock-in.

As others have pointed out: even between different versions of Word, there can be fidelity issues. And that’s something MS definitely didn’t do on purpose.

We both agree that MS is imperfect. You have a softer view of them than I do. I still remember the 'Linux is a cancer' statement, and I don't believe that has been entirely eradicated at MS.

They definetly chose to not use ODF formats as default standard, because that reduces lock-in, benefits competition in the marketplace, and the consumer.
They definetly added useless features in Word designed to needlessy obsolete older versions of Word.
etc, etc..

MS continue to be a monopolist happy to abuse market position for there own gain over customer choice, the evidence is right there in Windows. MS definitely chose that path.

[tooki]

My main point, though, is simply this: don’t act like the task at hand was trivial, and the only reason it doesn’t work perfectly is because MS sabotaged it. In reality, while I’m sure MS didn’t really want to do it, the sheer difficulty of the task makes perfection impossible, even if you want to do it.

I said the task was deliberately made harder by a poor OOXML standard that MS never intended to be actually useful. See LO link I gave, they said;

OOXML, or Office Open XML, was not designed for interoperability, but to do something very specific: to encode Microsoft Office’s binary formats in XML in such a way as to allow Microsoft to claim compliance with the standard without relinquishing control over users through lock-in.

As others have pointed out: even between different versions of Word, there can be fidelity issues. And that’s something MS definitely didn’t do on purpose.

We both agree that MS is imperfect. You have a softer view of them than I do. I still remember the 'Linux is a cancer' statement, and I don't believe that has been entirely eradicated at MS.

They definetly chose to not use ODF formats as default standard, because that reduces lock-in, benefits competition in the marketplace, and the consumer.
They definetly added useless features in Word designed to needlessy obsolete older versions of Word.
etc, etc..

MS continue to be a monopolist happy to abuse market position for there own gain over customer choice, the evidence is right there in Windows. MS definitely chose that path.

How much effort is worth investing in a task that cannot succeed? Especially when it goes against your own business interests?

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with Microsoft’s choices — heck, I’m primarily an Apple user, and have been since the days when Microsoft was the mortal enemy #1 — but I also don’t think it’s fair to pretend that any other for-profit company would have behaved differently. Nor am I willing to rule out that Microsoft actually did make a good-faith effort, and OOXML is the best they could come up with. (Given that user expectations were that existing documents would be faithfully rendered, how can you even do that with a format that doesn’t represent all the features and options in your program?)

Despite not being a programmer myself, I do have a background in the (commercial, for-profit) software industry, so I am willing to look at things from that perspective, too. And as it happens, the product my employer sold (reference management software, i.e. a specialized database to help you make your bibliography) worked with both Word and ODT documents, and required the programmers to have intimate understanding of both formats’ object models, since you have to if you’re going to modify documents. Their conclusion was that Word’s object model, despite being more complex, was better thought-out, and that Word’s API for modifying a document was much, much better than OpenOffice/LibreOffice’s API. There were things you just couldn’t do in ODT because the format simply wasn’t complete enough. That’s not to say that it never will be, but one of the things Word has going for it is that it’s been around for 40 years, so plenty of time to add every feature under the sun. (Something most people don’t realize is how many obscure features Word has that they will never use, or even realize are there. Replacing Word in a workflow not only means file formats, but feature integration that simply isn’t there in the alternatives. For most use cases, these aren’t used and won’t be missed. But in a major migration like this one in France, it’s almost guaranteed they’ll run into such missing features and will either need to reimagine workflows to work around them, or invest in implementing those features in the open source software they intend to use.)

[voltsandjolts]

How much effort is worth investing in a task that cannot succeed? Especially when it goes against your own business interests?

To a point. Then people realise your not playing nice and look elsewhere.
Note the EU fined MS 1.6 billion euros in the last couple of years for bad business practices.

[bingo600]

How much effort is worth investing in a task that cannot succeed? Especially when it goes against your own business interests?

IMHO a lot, since it's a Supplier & OS lock-in too.

First - Let the buisinesses run MS if they want, need it.

But EU & the individual countries should endorse LibreOffice as their "Official Office package".
Meaning that all "Official correcpondance" etc. to citizens , would be made with LibreOffice.
That would enable most private users to use LibreOffice too, making quite a large userbase.

Then the LibreOffice users , would also have the choice of switching away from MS Windows, if so desired.

[Nominal Animal]

She complained about the Text documents looking diffferent, but that was due to MS using MS copyrighted fonts per default.
Libre did a decent job of substuting them with non copyrighted fonts. But they (printouts) weren't 100% alike.

You can get some of them (Andale Mono, Arial Black, Arial, Comic Sans MS, Courier New, Georgia, Impact, Times New Roman, Trebuchet, Verdana, and Webdings) by installing the ttf-mscorefonts-installer package in Debian derivatives (Ubuntu, Mint, et cetera).  (See SourceForge project.)  They are properly licensed by Microsoft, even though Microsoft no longer distributes them themselves.  For the rest of the fonts MS provides, you need to acquire a license.  The exact same .ttf font files will work, though; it's just the licensing rules that limit their use outside Windows.

Personally, I do prefer the DejaVu fonts used e.g. here at EEVBlog.  They look nice, and the license is permissive.  Thus, with say FontForge, one can create a new variant adding new glyphs to use for say timing diagrams; the Unicode private use area is dedicated for exactly this purpose.  That is, those glyphs will then be compatible with all applications, from plain text editors to LibreOffice/Inkscape/Gimp et cetera.  You can even package it as a webfont for use on a web page, like this forum does.  Very useful, if you have a special use case "locally standardized" glyph set.

[golden_labels]

For the people here who think it isn't possible, in 2017 the French gendarmerie moved 70,000 computers to GendBuntu Linux.

2024: 97% of workstations running GendBuntu (103,164 stations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu?useskin=vector

Austria's armed forces switch to LibreOffice

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Austria-s-armed-forces-switch-to-LibreOffice-10660761.html


Danish Ministry switching from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice

https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2025/07/08/danish-ministry-switching-from-microsoft-office-365-to-libreoffice/

I don’t recall anybody saying it isn’t possible. Many state agencies did install some software taken from the FOSS communities, some even Linux distros. Above I gave famous examples myself. Examples that also show it’s an unstable equilibrum, and the agencies are equally likely to jump to proprietary solutions at any moment. All because the choice was made for all the wrong reasons. Adoption is even higher than just these major cases, much higher, because there is a large number of smaller projects that use open solutions as components. The ordering party didn’t care, didn’t make that choice, likely is not even aware; the contractor simply delivered a product or service with such a component. These are also going to be discarded as easily as they were introduced.

Why is there GendBuntu? Not because French state seen benefits in the open approach. It exists, because at the time it incurred less costs in the budget. If the next Windows release is cheaper, GendBuntu is going to be slaughtered without a second thought. They also didn’t move to open solutions other than the operating system.

Why does Bundesheer move to LibO? Not because Austrian army sees benefits in the open approach. The move is a reaction to Microsoft’s insistence on cloud solutions, coupled with the current resurgence of isolationist and mercantilistic sentiments. The moment Microsoft changes the stance or political winds change, the reason disappears too. Though, given military’s particular nature, there are chances LibO may stay there for longer than elsewhere. And note they didn’t resign from other proprietary solutions either — it’s just the office suite.

This is the same story, repeated over and over again, for years.

[Nominal Animal]

Nor am I willing to rule out that Microsoft actually did make a good-faith effort, and OOXML is the best they could come up with.

Having read the OOXML standard back then, and noted the utter strangeness of how it worked (tags in the XML tree applied to sibling nodes, the definition of a tag was sometimes famously of the order of "do borders like Word 6 did"), I am willing to rule out a good faith effort.  It was done exactly for the same reason MS implemented POSIX subsystem for Windows NT: to fill a requirement on paper, nothing more.  It sufficed for contractual obligations, and doing anything more/better/further would have been against their then completely-against-open-source-and-open-standards business tactics.  I didn't like it then, but I fully understood immediately why they did it that way.

My prediction of what will happen is that the IT support personnel will fail to become as efficient in Linux as they were for Windows, and because there is so many of them, they cannot just fire them en masse, especially not in France.  You'd have a much easier time and an order of magnitude better results/efficiency doing the transition with completely new support personnel, but that is just not possible: it would be a political suicide to even try.

It will fail, but not because of Linux or Windows or technology: because of humans being unwilling and unable to learn, once they feel they have a career, and invested time and effort in what they already know and can do.

[Cyclotron]

I suppose that means that France finds no problem with protection of domestic markets by other countries.  No more French wine or cheese or airplanes.  Or perhaps a ban on French CAD systems.

Do they have a choice in this matter?

Through the 21st century, the biggest new feature of every M$ Office version N was producing documents that can't be opened by version N-1, even if they are simple enough that N-1 could handle them in principle. And the biggest export of their home country in general was instability around the world.

What's the value proposition of M$ and U$ anymore?
It's greed for the sake of greed.

Of course, there's a choice. All of the high speeches and indignation for what? I sense entitlement and self-righteousness. If the US does something protectionist, it's exporting instability, but if another country does it, it's righteous reactionism.
 
You just used the term "value proposition" when addressing a nation of people and then claimed they are all in it for the sake of greed. That's ironic.

Entities building power and claiming cost reduction or dependency reduction have been going on forever. While Linux is a global, decentralized project, a significant portion of its kernel development is driven by U.S.-based companies, including Intel, Red Hat, Google, and IBM, often with employees working on company time. The Linux Foundation is also headquartered in the U.S., contributing to its strong influence. Fleeing the US influence and dependence seems to be a failure out of the gate if that's the purpose.

Microsoft is a corporate beast, no different from any other corporate beast. These things are everywhere around the world. Governments are a different kind of beast and often worse than the corporate ones. It is almost certain that the underlying government bodies see a path to gain more power by taking this action. The bureaucracy will grow because this path requires it, and that's beneficial to the beast's growth in power and control.

I am certainly not a big fan of Microsoft. I have companies I hold in higher regard, and I can certainly list many for which I have much more disdain. But Microsoft puts a lot of money back into France, according to public information.

https://news.microsoft.com/fr-fr/2024/05/13/microsoft-announces-the-largest-investment-to-date-in-france-to-accelerate-the-adoption-of-ai-skilling-and-innovation/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-invest-4-billion-french-064001520.html

Microsoft employs around 2,000 people in France, with a primary headquarters located in Issy-les-Moulineaux, near Paris.  By comparison, MS employs 20k people around its headquarters, which means France has 10% of that number in the country. I suppose the proper reactionary path is for MS to abandon France and move to another, more stable country, per the logic here.

[Karel]

It will fail, ...

The French gendarmerie managed to do it.

[free_electron]

For the people here who think it isn't possible, in 2017 the French gendarmerie moved 70,000 computers to GendBuntu Linux.

Just make sure that Ludovic Cruchot and his gang of nitwits don't find the ASCCI Art files to sent to the 0 column printer ...

[nctnico]

It will fail, ...

The French gendarmerie managed to do it.

Not surprising. The French are quite tech savvy. In the 1980's they already had an online system for doing online purchases through a computer terminal (Minitel) long before people heard about internet. When they shut it down deep in the 2000's there where still millions of users. France is big enough for these kind of systems to make economic sense without needing to export to foreign countries.

[free_electron]

because of humans being unwilling and unable to learn, once they feel they have a career, and invested time and effort in what they already know and can do.

Here's the thing : i want to make a cabinet. I know how to do it with my set of tools. You take away the tools and give me something different. Similar, but different. Some tools will be better, some will be worse. This now becomes a hurdle for me to do my job. I want to get that cabinet built. I don't want to deal with figuring out how to cut a precise angle using the saw you provided.

My original saw had a setting for cutting angle. The one you gave me doesn't. When i raise this issue you tell me : work around it, or, since you have the plans for the saw, modify it and share the modification . Yeah. i use saws, i don't make them. i make cabinets !
I see this all the time. It is counterproductive and a source of endless irritation.

switching tools is not as easy as it looks.

[tooki]

How much effort is worth investing in a task that cannot succeed? Especially when it goes against your own business interests?

IMHO a lot, since it's a Supplier & OS lock-in too.

I don’t think you understood my question?

“A lot” means here “it is worth it for Microsoft to invest a lot in trying to make open file formats for Office, even though it can’t succeed and goes against its business interests”.

But doing so decreases lock-in.

I’m arguing that Microsoft didn’t have to make an active effort to increase lock-in, because merely investing the minimum in openness (as opposed to investing a lot) was more than sufficient to ensure lock-in.

[bingo600]

How much effort is worth investing in a task that cannot succeed? Especially when it goes against your own business interests?

IMHO a lot, since it's a Supplier & OS lock-in too.

I don’t think you understood my question?

You are correct here ... sorry i missed your point.

“A lot” means here “it is worth it for Microsoft to invest a lot in trying to make open file formats for Office, even though it can’t succeed and goes against its business interests”.

But doing so decreases lock-in.

I’m arguing that Microsoft didn’t have to make an active effort to increase lock-in, because merely investing the minimum in openness (as opposed to investing a lot) was more than sufficient to ensure lock-in.

Could be plausible.
MS Office has always been the "Golden Goose".  Not the one time "few bucks", made on a one time Windows OEM license.

[Cyclotron]

MS Office has always been the "Golden Goose".  Not the one time "few bucks", made on a one time Windows OEM license.

Absolutely the golden goose. They have extensively attempted to turn that into a lock-in for Azure by making it unpleasant to run Exchange on-premises.
As they have also positioned their desktop management platform as a "cheap" competitor in the MDM, most enterprises take this easy path.

Pay a per-user license fee to get Office, Teams, MDM, and more.  Honestly, I doubt you can beat them on cost by doing what France has said they will do.
And on top of that, the MS integration and functionality across companies, governments, and so on will make this even more unpleasant.

I see this movement by the French government as something only governments can afford to do. Maybe startups, too, since they don't have a lot invested. But at any significant scale, the training costs and loss of productivity during the transisition would be massive and too costly for most to consider. In the private area, I would call that decision "career-limiting".  The mantra "no one got fired for buying IBM/Cisco," etc., comes to mind.

I call these "opportunities to get yourself promoted to a customer".

[magic]

Of course, there's a choice. All of the high speeches and indignation for what? I sense entitlement and self-righteousness. If the US does something protectionist, it's exporting instability, but if another country does it, it's righteous reactionism.

Sucks to be the leader of the free world Righteous or not, it is reactionism just like uncontrolled globalism of the past was monkeying the US too. How much of it was choice, how much brainwashing and how much coercion I don't know, but post-war Western Europe never amounted to more than an America copycat with extra socialism thrown in.

You just used the term "value proposition" when addressing a nation of people and then claimed they are all in it for the sake of greed. That's ironic.

What's ironic is that the word "nation" comes from Latin "born", which is the opposite of a population whose only shared trait is having sought better life by immigrating to some place at some time. Whole concept is a greed magnet, attracting the greediest of the world as surely as socialism attracts the laziest. And the value proposition of this social construct has been deteriorating for a while, including before the particular administration which some love to blame for all ills.

Microsoft is a corporate beast, no different from any other corporate beast. These things are everywhere around the world.

Hell no. For one, Eastern Bloc was shit enough that no enshittification was needed or even could have been afforded Microsoft is a symptom of the mentality that individual greed motivates people to work for common good. Maybe it's true for a while, maybe it risks becoming greed for the sake of greed afterwards, who knows.

Entities building power and claiming cost reduction or dependency reduction have been going on forever. While Linux is a global, decentralized project, a significant portion of its kernel development is driven by U.S.-based companies, including Intel, Red Hat, Google, and IBM, often with employees working on company time. The Linux Foundation is also headquartered in the U.S., contributing to its strong influence. Fleeing the US influence and dependence seems to be a failure out of the gate if that's the purpose.

That's true, but it's infinitely safer than Windows. Countries serious about technological independence like China are investing into Linux too and I'm sure they could keep a fork going if the US suddenly sanctions open source software exports. Anyone with development resources can do it. There currently seems to be no point going further and building yet another OS from scratch when you can latch onto a successful open source one.

[nctnico]

I see this movement by the French government as something only governments can afford to do. Maybe startups, too, since they don't have a lot invested.

Form where I'm standing the world has moved away from MS-Office. I deal with quite a few small companies and startups. The past 10 years the requests to use MS-Office document formats have dried up completely for me. I see most customers using Google docs or LibreOffice.