The Register is reporting on "a White House directive to federal chief information officers issued this week that calls for all new Windows PC acquisitions, beginning 30 June, to use a common "secure configuration". Applications (such as anti-virus, email etc) loaded onto systems remain flexible but what will be specified in the registry settings and which services would be turned on or off by default." In typic The Register is reporting on “a White House directive to federal chief information officers issued this week that calls for all new Windows PC acquisitions, beginning 30 June, to use a common “secure configuration”. Applications (such as anti-virus, email etc) loaded onto systems remain flexible but what will be specified in the registry settings and which services would be turned on or off by default.”In typical government fashion this is both totally logical and illogical. It absolutely makes sense that the gov’t versions of Windows should be locked down and all apps as secure as possible. What doesn’t make sense is why they would bother with Windows at all. This is *exactly* the reason why Linux should be on desktops. It’s much easier to secure the OS, the apps and the variety of other packages necessary. It also illustrates why open source is being adopted in governments worldwide…how can you control your infrastructure and apps if you are forced to rely on vendors who have to serve multiple market segments? GovBuntu anyone? Open Source