In the course of having a discussion about security related system administration issues, someone said that there are a number of 'Anti Microsoft" policies, etc. that exist. Specifically:
1: In many professions, there in an insurance premium when using Microsoft/Google products
2: If you're after government contracts, there is often a clause that you have to use open source software exclusively, or can only use closed source software from an approved list, and Microsoft products are not on that list any more
3: If you produce machines that have to be approved according to the newest NATO data security standards or other governmental data security standards of the latest generation, you also have to exclusively use open source technology for the data handling, you can't even use some Microsoft filesystems any more, even if you use open source software.
4: Comapnies that provide payroll services or medical data management services or the likes, can save tens of thousands per annum in insurance and certification costs by simply banning Microsoft or Google products
5: That makes training people for the much more user friendly and productive open source software alternatives really attractive, because the savings in the first year despite the cost of giving everyone training, are absolutely worth it, and with the strongly reduced risk of causing prejudice and getting sued by customers, it's a no-brainer for many companies.
As a system administrator and company director, I'm concerned about these issues. However, in my 20+ years of professional experience, I haven't heard of these things being true. And due to the impact, I think I would have.
Does anyone have any info/links/cite-able facts on the above? Is there merit to these assertions or is this individual misinformed?