680
German state moving 30,000 PCs to Linux and LibreOffice - The Document Foundation Blog
(blog.documentfoundation.org)
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
680 points (99.6% liked)
Linux
48920 readers
1159 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not how governments work
Why not both?
Let's say MS charges $5M a year.
Their support contract, assuming they get one, for libre office might be $1M.
They could still invest another $1M in OSS and still save $3M
A $1M net gain for OSS and a $3M savings for the govt.
That’s still not how governments work
It would be nice if it worked like that, but we both know it doesn't
In reality it's gonna be something like:
M$ charges 5M €. Libreoffice might be 1M € so they will give 1M € to OSS and waste the remaining 3M € on some overly expensive one-time crap like car infrastructure. Later they will realize that they had understaffed their IT department and will need extra 5M € paid by more state debt.
That's called a pareto optimum
That, again, is not how governments work.
What you depict is how companies work: You save amount X on something, so there are X moneys left to invest in something.
Governments work with separated and highly regulated budgets. That is sometimes bullshit, but sometimes necessary to make sure government aids are spent fairly, for example. So: You save amount X on something, you aren't allowed to just give this amount to someone. There has to be either a program, a law, or (most often) an entirely different budget somewhere else that this someone is allowed to receive.
So the “trade-off” logic cannot be fulfilled by governments, and it shouldn't be. Think about the myriad of bullshit, money would just be dumped into by the government if this wasn't the case. On top of the myriad of bullshit that already made it through the nets, that is.
Well think again, Germany invests in open source.
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/cybersecurity/germany-launch-sovereign-tech-fund-secure-digital-infrastructure
The fund will rise with the savings for sure
And having a government as a significant backer for an open source project is a great recipe for conflicts of interest and general trust erosion.
who else should be a significant backer for an open source project? google? microsoft?
Things get weird as corporations increasingly have power comparable to nation states.
But, generally, I would rather a megacorporation than a government. Because megacorps are at least "smart enough" to pretend they aren't trying to take over the world. Whereas governments have a tendency to justify a lot of horrible shit for righteous reasons.
But, in a perfect world? I would rather a wide range of different donors and backers but mostly clustering around maybe fortune 500 companies instead of fortune 10?
there are enough examples for corps doing evil things. You hear about them less often, because they cover their tracks and the outcry is generally smaller than when governments do similar things.
corps justify a lot of horribble shit for financial reasons. Is that better?
Corporations can also act on behalf, or on the orders of nation states. So you don't solve anything, if a state wants to get involved, it will. You have the additional cons that corporations tend to cater to their financial interests anyway, while a public institution might not always have ulterior motives.