Free software can be problematic also.
For one, serious use isn't free...enterprise use requires growing or renting expertise. Many of the major stuff, such as Mozilla, are supported by groups that actually do at least in part require funding.
They dont need expertise in windows? Both require someone to make it work.
For another, all open licenses are not the same - can matter depending on what one intends to do
True, but no one reads the Microsoft Licensing agreement. If legal ever did read it they would not allow the software to be installed. I know because I did a search and replace on the word Microsoft in their licensing agreement and then submitted it to legal. Legal put a stop to the install because we could not agree to the licensing terms of the software. They were surprised when I let them know it was Microsoft and eventually allowed the install.
Yet another, sometimes unintended consequences like Heartbleed are included equally 'free' yea right.
Ill take heartbleed security issue with the SSL cryptography over the millions of windows viruses any day.
Then there are things like shooter games and windows vs linux.
I really dont care which. Windows has it's uses as does Linux. Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.
Finally, some of the commercial stuff works well in some respects,; Chrome is not bad on security although personally I do not like it's approach to customizations and store aps (Chrome is not exactly free it's part of the driving forward of the Googlezillan Empire)
You are right, some of the commercial apps are great and well worth the $$ you pay for them. However, the decision should be made on a technical level by the IT people who know what they are doing and not by a politician who can not even spell IT.
Also, some political entities, being supposedly sovereign, actually support intellectual property in the sense that Windows or Nvidia or HP drivers are not penetrable by ordinary mortals, but at least most of the time developed in a coherent manner. I myself prefer the idea that inventors/investors/first movers will do at least as well without DMCA, but not everyone agrees.
But laws saying what software can be used or dictating the OS to use is just stupid. That is not a matter for government it is a matter that should be decided by the IT departments in government. Laws saying that the data storage formats have to be open and available for review would be good but that does not appear to be what is going on here.