←back to thread

473 points edent | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.999s | source
Show context
constantcrying ◴[] No.43769695[source]
The EU and member states are currently putting in quite a bit of money trying to limit their exposure to US tech companies.

Looking at the list of projects you can see that they support a huge variety of projects, with all kind of different scopes and intentions.

While I think that the overarching goal is good and I would like to see them succeed, I also think that they fail to address the single most important issue. Which is that Apple and Microsoft are the only real system vendors, corporations who can offer an entire integrated system and aren't just either single components or many different components packaged together, but without the interaction necessary to compete with Apple or Microsoft.

The funding goes to many, but small projects, but this means the single biggest issue, actually deploying an open source system over an entire organization remains unaddressed.

replies(12): >>43769726 #>>43769744 #>>43769766 #>>43769768 #>>43769783 #>>43769847 #>>43770463 #>>43770538 #>>43771011 #>>43771079 #>>43773087 #>>43774240 #
bbarnett ◴[] No.43769847[source]
Microsoft's push to the cloud and subscriptions for core stuff... outlook, word, excel, is so bizarre and filled with hubris.

An org can now transition everything to Linux locally, and only be left with these fully functional blockers.

That's a good step. And a there are vendors supporting Linux.

You can be sure such vendors would firm that up with a government sized buy.

Linux support is flawless, as long as you select supported components. And a vendor can easily integrate and ship that.

replies(2): >>43769893 #>>43770541 #
constantcrying ◴[] No.43769893[source]
>An org can now transition everything to Linux locally, and only be left with these fully functional blockers.

No. There is no vendor for this. Such a vendor would need to offer and support everything that MS is offering and supporting.

>And a vendor can easily integrate and ship that.

Integration is hard. It needs to work together. We all know that Linux has some rough edges (and so does Windows) and the vendor has to take care of it all and actually needs to fix it. A company like that has to suddenly do maintenance on many major open source projects.

replies(2): >>43769999 #>>43771976 #
nonrandomstring ◴[] No.43769999[source]
> No. There is no vendor for this.

You seem stuck on this model and not at all open to those commentators who are saying the single product vendor model itself is the problem?

My observation is that, regardless the myriad solutions based on strongly enforced interoperability standards, no government has ever had the courage to directly go up against US technopoly. I can see that changing at last. And my goodness, what a long, long, dark time it's been coming.

replies(2): >>43770044 #>>43770221 #
mcv ◴[] No.43770221[source]
It may be the problem, but it's also become the standard. If you want Microsoft, you know where to go. If you want Apple, you know where to go. If you want Linux or open standards, there's hundreds of companies that will help you, but which are good? Which are bad? Nobody knows.
replies(1): >>43770738 #
1. lesostep ◴[] No.43770738[source]
Just ask for their certification? Almost every distro that's big enough to need an org to maintain it, has a professional certification program.

>> hundreds of companies, but which are good?

most of them, since there is a lot of competition. Competition is good for businesses.