Amount of copium is insane in comments. Like, people straight up using fate, like it’s a fockin religion, instead of using their head.
Other countries also tried and failed. It’s never brings any profit, instead government usually end up losing shit ton of money. Reason is simple: adoption requires contribution. You need to hire new IT specialist, that knows linux and not windows. You need to do requalification of already existing specialist. You need to adapt software. You need to teach every single focking person how to work with new alternative software. And you need to suffer downtime, cause people still new to linux and it’s software.
Adoption is very hard and those miserable savings on windows licensing is nothing compared to cost of migration. I’m not even saying “hypothetically”, here documented list.
This is such a shortsighted take. After the initial hurdle of migration, you’re free of licenses forever. It won’t take long for the savings to match the initial costs, and after that it’s more money in the bank until the Sun explodes.
Not to mention the tiny insignificant issue of a foreign private company having backdoors into your government’s IT infrastructure. A foreign private company headquartered in Trumpistan of all places.
Yeah but you’re missing the point. Them choosing to change despite the massive marketing budget of m$ is what my takeaway would be.
Migrations are almost never easy.
This isn’t a decision being made to cut costs, it’s a strategic move because the EU just assessed how badly they’d be screwed if Trump throws a tantrum and forces American tech companies to disrupt services to their governments.
In addition, the EU has strong data privacy laws and US tech companies are resisting compliance (Elon was recently fined 150million, for example).
This has led to several hearings with tech executives who said that they could not guarantee that the data would stay in the EU and they could not guarantee that the data would not be provided to any other country.
Digital privacy laws don’t mean anything if they don’t apply to the major tech companies and they’ve said that they won’t comply.
5 million a year would go a long way towards making their open source solutions meet their needs.
Look, people in comments here think that it will be profitable. That it will save shit ton of money out of thin air. That what I call copium.
I did not said “it’s bad” to adopt linux, quite the opposite. What I said is that commenters here operate on a fate, not on a logic and that surprises me.
Upd. Like, you would expect from people on lemmy out of all places, especially in “technology” to be knowledgeable in terms of how IT and business works, but instead it’s like I reading comments of children’s.
That comment does not state that imo.
I interpret it as „If they would spend that money on the transitions and advancing the open source projects they consider switching to, that would help the process“.
But maybe that’s just a misunderstanding.
Well I was of course talking about the comment you quoted.
5 million a year would go a long way towards making their open source solutions meet their needs.
How is that „using fate instead of using their head“?
Germany already has funds in place specifically for open source projects so that’s not so far off the charts (even though the amount would be lower) so what’s your point ?
Edit:
And to be more specific the point of somehow being profitable is also not coming through to me on this, since when is open source software profitable except when used by for profit companies ?
I can understand the hype, I also know it will be pain for people involved and M$ will do everything to reverse the change possibly leading to even more headaches for said admins etc. as has happened in the past but you can’t finish what you don’t start so I think it’s still good news.
I worked for “business automation” company, mainly as tech support of SAAS solution that target accountants\clerks that works with government documents.
I feel sorry for support guys\system administrators and everyone else involved.
No no, I know what you’re implying, I was implying that the link doesn’t prove what you think it does. I’m assuming you fixated on the Munich project, and that is a convoluted story and the Wikipedia entry on that is not up to date. The latest on the Munich project is that they cancelled the switch back to Windows.
Edit: And I can only assume that you were referring to the Munich story because you threw up the link with zero quotations or direct references. If you have a specific interpretation of that Wikipedia article, then you need cite things. What exactly is the “cost of migration”? Is it one million dollars or 50 million? Did it take a weekend to do, or did it bog down entire departments for months at a time? Is that 50 million dollars over budget? How are the immediate costs vs long term savings measured? Because the savings are measured in decades, not single year or several year licensing costs.
I’m not going to do your job for you. You might think that a months or even years long transition progress is unacceptable, but someone like myself who works in IT would see that is within expectations. If you have a point to make, then MAKE IT.
Amount of copium is insane in comments. Like, people straight up using fate, like it’s a fockin religion, instead of using their head.
Other countries also tried and failed. It’s never brings any profit, instead government usually end up losing shit ton of money. Reason is simple: adoption requires contribution. You need to hire new IT specialist, that knows linux and not windows. You need to do requalification of already existing specialist. You need to adapt software. You need to teach every single focking person how to work with new alternative software. And you need to suffer downtime, cause people still new to linux and it’s software.
Adoption is very hard and those miserable savings on windows licensing is nothing compared to cost of migration. I’m not even saying “hypothetically”, here documented list.
Blind coping will get you nowhere.
This is such a shortsighted take. After the initial hurdle of migration, you’re free of licenses forever. It won’t take long for the savings to match the initial costs, and after that it’s more money in the bank until the Sun explodes.
Not to mention the tiny insignificant issue of a foreign private company having backdoors into your government’s IT infrastructure. A foreign private company headquartered in Trumpistan of all places.
Yeah but you’re missing the point. Them choosing to change despite the massive marketing budget of m$ is what my takeaway would be. Migrations are almost never easy.
Exactly.
This isn’t a decision being made to cut costs, it’s a strategic move because the EU just assessed how badly they’d be screwed if Trump throws a tantrum and forces American tech companies to disrupt services to their governments.
In addition, the EU has strong data privacy laws and US tech companies are resisting compliance (Elon was recently fined 150million, for example).
This has led to several hearings with tech executives who said that they could not guarantee that the data would stay in the EU and they could not guarantee that the data would not be provided to any other country.
Digital privacy laws don’t mean anything if they don’t apply to the major tech companies and they’ve said that they won’t comply.
You missing the point of my comment, not me.
Look, people in comments here think that it will be profitable. That it will save shit ton of money out of thin air. That what I call copium.
I did not said “it’s bad” to adopt linux, quite the opposite. What I said is that commenters here operate on a fate, not on a logic and that surprises me.
Upd. Like, you would expect from people on lemmy out of all places, especially in “technology” to be knowledgeable in terms of how IT and business works, but instead it’s like I reading comments of children’s.
That comment does not state that imo. I interpret it as „If they would spend that money on the transitions and advancing the open source projects they consider switching to, that would help the process“. But maybe that’s just a misunderstanding.
What do you meant :c
It’s right there, literally in the first sentence:
Well I was of course talking about the comment you quoted.
How is that „using fate instead of using their head“? Germany already has funds in place specifically for open source projects so that’s not so far off the charts (even though the amount would be lower) so what’s your point ?
Edit: And to be more specific the point of somehow being profitable is also not coming through to me on this, since when is open source software profitable except when used by for profit companies ? I can understand the hype, I also know it will be pain for people involved and M$ will do everything to reverse the change possibly leading to even more headaches for said admins etc. as has happened in the past but you can’t finish what you don’t start so I think it’s still good news.
I can only imagine all these bureaucrats with learning issues because something needs to be done differently now🙄
I worked for “business automation” company, mainly as tech support of SAAS solution that target accountants\clerks that works with government documents.
I feel sorry for support guys\system administrators and everyone else involved.
Except for the clerks I guess… I wouldn’t feel sorry for them.
What exactly are you trying to prove with that Wikipedia link? If anything it shows relatively wide adoption of Linux.
Reread my comment then from the start.
No no, I know what you’re implying, I was implying that the link doesn’t prove what you think it does. I’m assuming you fixated on the Munich project, and that is a convoluted story and the Wikipedia entry on that is not up to date. The latest on the Munich project is that they cancelled the switch back to Windows.
Edit: And I can only assume that you were referring to the Munich story because you threw up the link with zero quotations or direct references. If you have a specific interpretation of that Wikipedia article, then you need cite things. What exactly is the “cost of migration”? Is it one million dollars or 50 million? Did it take a weekend to do, or did it bog down entire departments for months at a time? Is that 50 million dollars over budget? How are the immediate costs vs long term savings measured? Because the savings are measured in decades, not single year or several year licensing costs.
I’m not going to do your job for you. You might think that a months or even years long transition progress is unacceptable, but someone like myself who works in IT would see that is within expectations. If you have a point to make, then MAKE IT.