←back to thread

473 points edent | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Deukhoofd ◴[] No.43769726[source]
Note that this funding round was from applications up to October last year. The last couple of months have really accelerated the desire of European states and organizations to decouple from US tech, so we might see very different funding rounds soon.

As for an entire integrated systems provider, I don't think it'd fit a funding round like this. It'd need stable and secure funding, and I think the only real way to do so is to start out either private with good backers, or public, with the EU directly funding it (and not through intermediate backers like NLNet, that's more for small but important projects).

replies(2): >>43769756 #>>43769777 #
constantcrying ◴[] No.43769756[source]
>As for an entire integrated systems provider, I don't think it'd fit a funding round like this.

I agree. But it is the single most important thing there is, if you want to limit exposure to US tech companies.

The EU has the monetary resources to fund this. But it obviously does not know how, so we have these distributed system, where funding trickles down through multiple layers into many different small projects, which then get some funding for some time.

I think the EU funding these many small projects is nice, but we should not pretend that distributed funding like this makes any meaningful difference, as long as most government and corporate institutions are running Microsoft products everywhere.

A new system vendor needs to be created, it needs to be well funded, it needs to attract really good people and it needs to be deployed, millions of people need to be trained to use it, EU wide. This is a decade long project, but it is the only way to create an EU independent of Microsoft.

replies(2): >>43769911 #>>43769984 #
wqaatwt ◴[] No.43769984[source]
> A new system vendor needs to be created

If it’s not created and grown organically (with some extra funding and indirect support) it will certainly and inevitably suck.

Government bureaucracies can’t directly establish and build a tech company. They will end up replicating their structure and decision making processes which will lead to massive inefficiency and result in crappy product with poor UX that are not built for actual users.

Also free market competition always was and is the main source of human progress. If EU can establish an environment where competition can thrive something might happen. If they create a government owned monopoly and everyone is forced to use the same vendor who has zero incentive to build non crappy products, well.. the outcome won’t be good.

replies(6): >>43770098 #>>43770154 #>>43770163 #>>43770338 #>>43770422 #>>43771599 #
guappa ◴[] No.43770163[source]
> Also free market competition always was and is the main source of human progress.

Source: "100 things that never happened"

replies(1): >>43771314 #
1. wqaatwt ◴[] No.43771314[source]
Or the majority of human history..

But of course it depends on how you define “free market competition” (markets are very rarely even close to being free without significant regulation). Entities which end up “winning” almost inevitably do their utmost to restrict any competition which leads to stagnation.