For decades, Microsoft has been one of the foundations of modern government computing. Windows computers, Microsoft Office, Teams, cloud services and other products are deeply embedded in public institutions and businesses around the world.

But something is changing.

Governments are beginning to ask a question that would have seemed almost unthinkable a decade ago:

What happens when dependence on one technology ecosystem becomes a strategic vulnerability?

The Netherlands is now part of that discussion.

In 2026, four Dutch municipalities—Amsterdam, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Zaanstad and Ede—are participating in a pilot exploring Linux-based workstations and more autonomous digital working environments. The Dutch government has also made digital autonomy a policy priority, including reducing strategic dependencies and increasing the use of open-source solutions where appropriate.

This does not mean that the Netherlands is abandoning Microsoft.

It means something more important is happening: the government is testing whether it can operate without being completely dependent on one supplier.

That distinction matters.

Germany is moving in a similar direction. Schleswig-Holstein has migrated almost 80 percent of eligible government workplaces to LibreOffice and says the transition has already generated more than €15 million in licensing savings. The state has also outlined plans involving Linux as part of a broader open-source strategy.

France has likewise been pursuing greater use of GNU/Linux and open-source software as part of its digital-sovereignty strategy. France’s Gendarmerie has used Linux and other open-source tools extensively for years.

Why now?

Because governments have discovered that digital infrastructure is no longer simply an IT issue.

It is an economic, security and sovereignty issue.

The more an organization depends on one ecosystem, the harder and more expensive it can become to change suppliers. Employees are trained around particular software. Documents are stored in particular formats. Data moves through particular cloud systems. Businesses build applications around particular platforms.

Eventually, switching becomes difficult not because alternatives don’t exist, but because the organization has become deeply locked into the existing system.

Recent Microsoft-related incidents have added another dimension to the debate.

Windows updates in 2026 have caused several compatibility and functionality problems, including issues affecting some Hyper-V Linux virtual machines and other systems, prompting Microsoft to issue additional fixes.

And the much larger 2024 CrowdStrike outage demonstrated another vulnerability of highly interconnected digital systems. A defective security update caused widespread Windows crashes and disrupted airlines, hospitals and other organizations. Importantly, that incident was caused by CrowdStrike—not Microsoft—but it demonstrated how a problem in one technology component can cascade across enormous numbers of organizations.

The lesson is not that Microsoft is inherently unsafe.

The lesson is that concentration creates dependency.

For governments, that raises a serious question: should critical institutions always have an alternative?

Open-source software does not automatically solve every problem. Migration costs money. Employees require training. Some specialized applications may not work properly on Linux. Support and compatibility have to be managed.

But having an alternative changes the negotiating position.

And that may ultimately be the real attraction of Linux.

Not that it is perfect.

Not that Microsoft is finished.

But that governments increasingly want choice.

The future may therefore not be Microsoft versus Linux.

It may be something more fundamental:

Can governments remain in control of the technology they depend on?