Pretty much all of the public system uses windows as OS, and most of the times it's just to use a browser to access a webapp. But there are actual windows lock-ins (due to people training and existing workflow/infrastructure that has no incentive to change), such as MS Office and Adobe Reader.
So there was no reason for Microsoft to bribe decision-making people to use windows, windows was already firmly locked in, they did it just so they can overprice licenses and for them to accept leased licenses instead of a permanent one time pay windows license. Big win for MS and bribe takers, big loss to common decency and public spending availability.
A sign of a healthy democratic government can be seen in the decisions to build future public software infrastructure on open source technology, and use Linux as client/server OS (as it's pretty much the only other alternative offering similar ease of use/maintenance/compatibility with existing software).
edit: wrote this to show it's not necessarily the cost of doing business, in most places, because the software ecosystem is already locked in and can't be replaced overnight and without considerable spending. It's just the cost of extracting more public money. And sometimes it's the cost to keep the business safe from decisions to steer towards Opensource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux
Pretty much all of the public system uses windows as OS, and most of the times it's just to use a browser to access a webapp. But there are actual windows lock-ins (due to people training and existing workflow/infrastructure that has no incentive to change), such as MS Office and Adobe Reader.
So there was no reason for Microsoft to bribe decision-making people to use windows, windows was already firmly locked in, they did it just so they can overprice licenses and for them to accept leased licenses instead of a permanent one time pay windows license. Big win for MS and bribe takers, big loss to common decency and public spending availability.
A sign of a healthy democratic government can be seen in the decisions to build future public software infrastructure on open source technology, and use Linux as client/server OS (as it's pretty much the only other alternative offering similar ease of use/maintenance/compatibility with existing software).
edit: wrote this to show it's not necessarily the cost of doing business, in most places, because the software ecosystem is already locked in and can't be replaced overnight and without considerable spending. It's just the cost of extracting more public money. And sometimes it's the cost to keep the business safe from decisions to steer towards Opensource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux