this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
126 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
59296 readers
4519 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Germany and ping ponging between proprietary and free software every 2 years, name a better duo
It is like... Each time we showed how well you can live with open source, Microsoft comes around with an even bigger coffin of lobby money.
Hehe. I think you mean suitcase but this works, too.
It was intentional play of words. :p
It's not just lobbying. The expertise to build and certify what Microsoft did for government cloud is expensive and rare. Open source still needs a third party to provide that level of support, because the documentation is more important than the technical capabilities.
Microsoft is a bunch of corporate fascist cunts just like the rest of the silicon valley and those fuckers should all die out. Sadly they won't. Thank you fucking traitor scum Scholz for showing your true shitface once more. Greetings from CumEx
This is a valid mention and I agree, but I also have to say that there are companies like the nextcloud corp itself who do offer that level of expertise and are German based and would use the money to improve nextcloud, which is open source, whereas we don't know how much of the money that Microsoft takes goes into the open source project.
Thing is the authorities are told to use their own IT hoster. This dumbsack just - again - took money from extern.
It was also, internally, conducted that a third party governing an open-source stack ia cheaper then redmond.
It's possible and not so hard, just too boring for people to do automatically (EDIT: I meant - as part of usual work), and also bureaucrats have a very different MO, one that you need a commercial company infected by that culture for.
Also governments steal money. It's obvious they do. Both in legal ways, when some secretary has salary disproportional to the work they are doing and the need for it at all, and in illegal ones (just for the fun of it).
It's about power and dealing with people of their culture.
The state is interested in less dependence from big corps, but its officials are interested in more dependence, because that means huge contracts with little transparency and lots of time to hide things that don't look nice.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on Software. At least, not any more. Open Source is the way to go, and there are plenty of Open Source consulting firms out there. Red Hat, Nextcloud, Redpill Linpro, etc.
They have a near monopoly on compliance though which is the draw of government cloud. It's a totally different product from their commercial offerings. The software portion isn't really a factor, it's the paperwork and audit results.
Hire any competent Linux sys tech?
Tech corpo shills hate the idea of government going open source. Think of all that investment into your competition that is known to be the better approach.
The worst thing in that is the amount of money and human time it must take just to migrate everything. People only looking at the bottom line is the bane of IT...
What I mean is that these kinds of people usually look at the financial cost per year for a given solution that's already in place and always look for something cheaper (usually only on paper).
Usually they look at the cost of a licence without giving a single thought about, let's say, the processing power that'll be needed for the new thing, the expertise to set it up and run it, and all the migration work that will be needed to make the switch.
Also, when these things happen, most of the time you have to fire/hire/train people to adapt, which means you lose some of your internal knowledge and experience. That's something that can't be really quantified and can really hurt an IT system.
In the end, with all the cumulative costs, it's often far more expensive to switch solutions, and not financially speaking, but that doesn't necessarily appear on the bottom line they will see from their desks.