Yes, American government and schools should run 'Free Software' as in Open Source. Why are we using taxpayers monies on wasteful licenses, where the money could be put to better use. Stop paying M$ taxes. It is a shame my city and school taxes are way too high and they are in a serious money crunch, and yet they refuse to embrace LINUX. Funny, I never paid for an OS or anti-virus software. Why M$ Office Suite when OpenOffice.com works great.

I wish I could change ran to run, but this site allows no edits.

I agree..."ran" is incorrect...it should be "to be run"....
(You can do a Google Search on "ran vs run" for explanations....)

I think you should change 'ran' to run.

Also, for those who argue "there is no free lunch", I don't think you understand the open source development model.

Open source is developed mostly by professionals for their own use. It follows that this model is about making quality software, not money. This is a point many seem to miss. OSS is built by developers, for developers, because it is the best product for the job.

Obviously, everything I've said is an oversimplification, and there is much more to security than this. But for the sake of not filling this forum with only my comments, I'll leave it at that for now, until what I've said is debated.

It's true that Windows has come a long way in regards to security. Microsoft has done a decent job implementing true multi-user support, sandboxing Internet Explorer, and creating a basic privilege escalation system, but the base system is still flawed, and will be flawed until it's rebuilt from the ground-up.

Yet another good reason for the enhanced security of Linux(this applies specifically to Ubuntu) is the state of the network ports. In Windows, many network ports are left open by default, allowing crackers an entrance into the system. In Ubuntu, this is not so. All ports are closed by default. Because of this, unlike Windows, Ubuntu doesn't even need a firewall.

So, if an application such as, say, Firefox, was cracked, the cracker would have access only to Firefox. In order to gain control of the entire system, the cracker would have to crack each consecutive layer, increasing the odds of successfully taking control of the system exponentially. In a monolithic system, on the other hand, each layer basically has full access to every other layer.

A monolithic design is problematic for a similar reason. There are many different layers in an operating system. At the heart of these layers is the kernel, at the top is the user applications, and there are many layers in between. In a modular system, such as Linux, each layer is restricted to access only its own layer, with limited access to the layer directly underneath itself.

A single-user system, because it was designed for only one user, does a poor job of protecting a user's files from other users on the system. And, because the administrator and user are the same person, this gives the user unlimited power over the system. This is a problem, because if that user's account is cracked, the cracker has whatever privileges the user has.

Secondly, the security of Linux can be better explained by its inherent design. Linux was originally created to be a multi-user, multi-tasking, modular operating system. Windows, while it has come a long way, is still very monolithic, and based on a single-user system. There are several inherent problems with this design.

Secondly, the security of Linux can be better explained by its inherent design. Linux was originally created to be a multi-user, multi-tasking, modular operating system. Windows, while it has come a long way, is still very monolithic, and based on a single-user system. There are several inherent problems with this design.

Linux has less desktop marketshare than Windows. But desktops are not the only types of computers. We also have servers, where Windows does not hold a monopoly. Servers are arguably more important than desktop computers. Linux is the most widely-used operating system by large corporate servers. Google runs Linux on their servers. Crackers definitely have enough motivation to crack Linux.

For those who claim a "lack of security" in open source, allow me to clarify this issue. Open source constitutes more than just operating systems, but operating systems are central to most debates on this issue, so I will be comparing the security of Windows vs. Linux distributions.

Some claim Linux has less malware simply because it has less marketsare. This logic fails for two reasons. (cont)

The good news about open source software (OSS) is - it's open. The bad news is - it's still software! Global OSS debates ended 6-7 years ago with OSS declared mainstream by tech surveys around 2004-5. Without raising the software engineering and management bar in the government w/ OSS knowledge, skills, abilities and cultures, all the fed is going to do with OSS is shoot their feet off, as usual.

Please look at the recent histories of Brazil, Venezuela, and others to see that this can and should work. This is the most important issue. This means so many more thing than just migrating machines off of Windows.

Max security is not needed in all gov't offices. Many office computers are used for basic functionality-office productivity, e-mail, & web browsing. Open source software could suffice, & save $millions. They're often more secure than MS Office, Outlook, and IE. Windows' often attacked with viruses thru these, where Linux has none. Windows runs as a vulnerable default root user, Linux doesn't.

I have been involved in a large open source deployment for 4 years. Open standards is much more important then free. This would ensure that in the future, decisions could be based on need, not on what was used last year. Proprietary software has its place, but “free” as in freedom is much more important then “free” as in free beer.

This is a horrible idea. You should use the best tools for a job and not make blanket statements that anything you pay for is a waste of money. I can't tell you how many times I've used free open source software and it's turned out to be a complete waste of time and energy.