And I never said that. But almost all OS and enterprise purchased in government tend to be done without much competitive thought. Now it's Microsoft, they buy it all the time without even thinking about alternatives, and that is not right. The government does this with hardware, too, almost exclusively buying Dell where better alternatives exist. Prime example, one Windows system with a need for a dual-proc box with at least 32GB RAM, but they buy Dell, which costs a LOT more money than an Opteron-based one that can hold that much, and will even be faster. I could get a quad Opteron and still not get close to the Dell's price.
What I want is for people to do actuall cost/benefit analyses before purchasing IT products, not just buy Microsoft because that's what they're used to or, to hijack the old IBM saying, "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
I'm not a fan of Dell at all; however, I do see the business sense in having standard servers. I'd rather see a different standard than Dell; however, from a business case it's hard to beat. It's not 100% cost. If that were the case, you'd end up with a modge podge of unsupportable hardward and software. It's all about best value.