Software Policies Can Fuel Waste

A photo posted to Reddit and followup media coverage about computers being discarded in large amounts due to software policies should ignite public concern on the use of taxpayer money being used responsibly.

The image shows a large pallet of PCs that were thrown out because they were not upgraded to a newer operating system.

The post highlights a growing concern among critics of government technology policy where public hardware is being retired not because it has failed, but because it no longer aligns with policy requirements.

Seeing stacks of computers that are still capable of using Linux operating systems like openSUSE and others raises a lot of questions about how tax money is being spent, especially in a country with uncontrollable runaway debt ($38.6 trillion at the time of publication). Migrating to open-source solutions could be an easy win for cost savings and government efficiency. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report notes the federal government spends more than $100 billion annually on IT and cybersecurity, which includes thousands of software licenses that do not isolate Windows alone.

Extended support for Windows 10 ends on Oct 13, 2026, according to endof10.org. End of 10 is an information campaign focusing on reducing unnecessary e-waste driven by software policy decisions.

The image illustrates how public policy choices can contribute to waste of taxpayer funds even when they appear in the form of discarded hardware. Serviceable computers are being retired not because they are broken, but because public institutions are locked into closed, inflexible software decisions.

Advocates for fiscal responsibility can point to Europe’s Public Money, Public Code principle, which is championed by the Free Software Foundation Europe, as an example to emulate. The Public Money, Public Code effort began as an information campaign that argued publicly funded software should remain open, adaptable and reusable, which extends the useful life of public hardware.

Supporters of the approach say open, publicly owned code can reduce costs by allowing agencies to reuse software rather than rebuilding similar systems repeatedly. They also argue that shared development spreads costs across governments, improves transparency through independent review, and extends the useful life of computer hardware.

A Federal Source Code Policy directed US agencies in 2016 to release at least some custom code as open source, but it has not mandated an “open-by-default” approach to mirror the logic of Public Money, Public Code.

This lack of policy further extends government debt and enriches shareholders through transferring wealth from the taxpaying public to private equity shareholders.

Though the Public Money, Public Code campaign originated in Europe, its goals can resonate with the taxpaying voter and it is a more responsible approach for the environment and usage of taxes. Environmental advocates like Joanna Murzyn, who spoke at the KDE Akademy conference in 2024, warns about the increasing problem of electronic waste (e-waste). Analysts are estimating that tens of millions of PCs are being scrapped as a result of software lifecycle decisions, which are equally reflected in government policies.

E-waste, which includes discarded laptops, desktops and other electronics, releases toxic substances like lead, mercury and cadmium into the environment, according to Murzyn. These substances can contaminate soil and water as well as cause long-term harm to ecosystems and human health. Murzyn urged people to resist the urge to “upgrade” to new hardware and instead explore solutions like Linux that extend the life of existing devices.

Join End of 10 to learn how extending the life of existing computers can reduce waste, lower public costs and promote more responsible technology policies.

This is part of a series on End of 10 articles where we offer reasons to transition from Windows to Linux.