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

I'm a Windows/macOS developer, but I strongly feel that all national governments need to convert to Linux, for strategic sovereignty. I'm sure Microsoft, under orders from the U.S. government, could disable all computers in any country or organization, at the flick of a switch.

Imagine how Open Source Software could improve if a consortium of nations put their money and resources into commissioning bug fixes and enhancements, which would be of collective benefit.

Apart from a few niche cases, the needs of most government bureaucracies would be well served by currently available OSS word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and graphics software.

indeed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44336915 - Microsoft suspended the email account of an ICC prosecutor at The Hague

then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45837342 - ICC ditches Microsoft 365 for openDesk

Yup.

Microsoft pledged not to intervene like that again, reclassifying its legal interpretation of its own services, and added language to its contracts to guarantee that it would fight future US attempts to do so:

https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...

When the US manages to force Microsoft to do something, it responds by trying to protect itself from the same scenario in the future. Because it wants profits. The ICC leaving Microsoft is the last thing Microsoft wanted.

You said

> Where does this kind of conspiracy thinking come from?

Now you say

> Microsoft pledged not to intervene like that again

You are full of it

> You are full of it

Not appropriate for HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You’re dismissing the idea of interference one second and then excusing an example of such interference in the next.

People don't want political interference between countries to happen again and you're calling it "conspiracy thinking".

The snark of the above poster is the least problematic thing here.

No, you have it 100% backwards. I'm saying Microsoft is incentivized to not allow interference, and this is strengthened by the fact that when a government forced interference, it took steps to strengthen itself against future interference.

So in light of that actual evidence, yes I am calling it conspiracy thinking to suggest that Microsoft has built in some kind of kill switch to make it easier for the government to do things that are against its corporate interest. Because that's literally what it is -- imagining some kind of conspiracy where Microsoft wants to help the US government, instead of its own bottom line.

Explain to me what's problematic about that?

And whatever you think about the arguments on either side, snark is absolutely a problem on HN. We can't have civil, productive discussions with it, and if you say it's "the least problematic thing here", then that's part of the problem too. Let's be better than that, how about?

Sorry but I still disagree. Calling other people's legitimate concerns "conspiracy thinking" is worse than the snark.

IMO that's what we should be better than.

And I get what you're arguing for, I just don't see it as plausible or realistic.

There's zero evidence that Microsoft could shut down computers across a nation. Zilch. Nada. None.

Meanwhile, OP asserted they are "sure" Microsoft could do it at the "flick of a switch". Under orders from the US government.

That's absurd. If that's not conspiracy thinking, I don't know what is. A literal conspiracy between the two entities. When something is actually conspiracy thinking, you're allowed to label it as such, you know? You're trying to police ideas here, and that's entirely inappropriate. Be better.