The state of Schleswig-Holstein is consistently relying on open source

I hate when switches like these get advertised first and foremost as some huge cost-cutting measure, further solidifying open source ecosystem as some cheap knock-offs of their commercial alternatives.

How about instead you donate the same amount of money you would've paid to Microsoft anyways to fund open source projects you rely on? At least for one year, then drop it down to some arbitrary chosen percentage of that cost. That way you can still advertise it as a cost-cutting measure, and everyone would benefit.

The idea is sound but the feeling of hate is perhaps strong. It’s understandable there’s no incentive to pay for open source software, and doing so would be seen as an unnecessary allocation of resources that could better be allocated elsewhere.

Given this understanding, the best away to achieve the desired outcome is to get creative about aligning incentives at the top of org structures where resources are allocated.

>”Given this understanding, the best away to achieve the desired outcome is to get creative about aligning incentives at the top of org structures where resources are allocated.”

I really don’t understand what this means; could you please explain it? It comes off as ‘mushy’ consulting-speak to me.

It’s a mini-language that you don’t have to learn unless you work with executive types. But it does mean something. In particular it means “activity at the grassroots is wasted effort when the real decision maker with the money is not aware or in agreement with the direction.”