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

(www.heise.de)

597 points doener | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 13:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.191s | source

Show context

input_sh ◴[07 Dec 25 14:30 UTC] No.46181911[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.

replies(17): >>46181952 #>>46181960 #>>46181973 #>>46182002 #>>46182008 #>>46182025 #>>46182301 #>>46182376 #>>46182422 #>>46182426 #>>46182799 #>>46183031 #>>46183033 #>>46183171 #>>46183399 #>>46185220 #>>46189421 #

Jean-Papoulos ◴[08 Dec 25 07:27 UTC] No.46189421[source]▶

>>46181911 #

>In contrast, there would be one-time investments of nine million euros in 2026 [...] and the further development of solutions with free software.

They are contributing actively it seems, so even better.

replies(1): >>46190801 #

1. input_sh ◴[08 Dec 25 10:44 UTC] No.46190801[source]▶

>>46189421 #

And in the sentence above that, they're "saving" 15 million in Microsoft licenses. So either they've paid 24 million to Microsoft this year, in which case their next year's expenses are dropping by over 60%, or it's the same pot of money, in which case their yearly bill dropped by 40%.

I get that 9 million sounds like a lot, but it's much, much lower than what they would've paid to Microsoft anyways. And those 9 million are advertised as a "one-off investment", while their contract with Microsoft was perpetual.

↑