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.
Flicking that switch would be pretty much a one time deal. Not likely.
What would happen instead, and has happened in the past, is Microsoft (or juniper, etc) leaving a remote vulnerability unpatched while certain groups use that exploit. It's much more deniable. So deniable, that it's impossible to say for certain that it was intentional.
It's more practical to audit FOSS systems for bugs than a Microsoft solution, and the tools for doing so are open source and getting even better every day. Like you said, sharing the burden helps with cost: It also helps with the trust issue. Going one step further, formally verified software solutions are possible (and exist!). Good luck getting that from Microsoft, they ship a calculator that needs updates and internet access to run.
I wonder what they use for Microsoft Office. My office license is renewing in 2 weeks and I have been looking at alternatives but they all have their own catch.
What if you have an excel workbook that relies on a bunch of custom formulas. I would be upset if this happened in my workplace. Datasets have been far easier to handle with lambda, vstack, byrow, and the rest. I would not like this move and would have to remain a holdout. That would also frustrate me because of the division.
We've been seeing variations of the same article every week. The answer has been the same for a long time: this is great but unfortunately there are advantages in using Office and that's the reason we shouldn't expect mass migration anytime soon.
Excel, in particular, hasn't been unseated despite billions in investments from competitors over the years. Parity will happen someday, but it's at least a decade away.
There's a history of German public administrations using Linux and other open-source software. In particular, the City of Munich has pioneered this with their 2006-2019 LiMux [0] project, which was ultimately cancelled in exchange for Microsoft moving their German offices to Munich proper.
Its been a very long time since I was a Sysadmin, but I'm curious what managing a fleet of Linux desktops is like today? Has it vastly improved?
When I last tried in a small pilot program, it was incredibly primitive. Linux desktops were janky and manual compared to Active Directory and group policy, and an alternative to Intune/AAD didn't even seem to exist. Heck, even things like WSUS and WDS didnt seem to have an open version or only had versions that required expensive expert level SME'S to perform constant fiddling. Meanwhile the Windows tools could be managed by 20 year old admins with basic certitifcations.
Also, GRC and security seemed to be impossible back then. There was an utter lack of decent DLP tools, proper legal hold was difficult, EDR/AV solutions were primitive and the options were limited, etc.
Back then it was like nobody who had ever actually been a sysadmin had ever taken an honest crack at Linux and all the hype was coming from home users who had no idea what herding boxen was actually like.
Initiated by the city of Munich, LiMux aimed to migrate public administration systems from Windows to a Linux-based OS to increase control over IT infrastructure and reduce costs. Despite initial success (announced at LinuxTag in 2014, I was there for the announcement), the project faced intense political lobbying by Microsoft leading to a reversion to Windows.
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.
It's crazy that organizations are willing to spend millions of dollars on Microsoft Office simply because people are used to it. There are literally no features most people actually use that aren't completely duplicated in open source alternatives. Whatever amount of time it takes the user to find the button they're looking for costs less than the permanent subscription cost for something that will only get more bloated and expensive with time.
"Saves 15 million" on license costs, but how much will be wasted on the contractors involved, the lost productivity for state employees (especially the ones who depend on Excel, who will be converted too per the announcement)? And how much do you really save if you keep switching back and forth between M$ and Linux every decade, as state governments seem to enjoy doing?
They should switch to open-source for sovereignty. Not "cost". The fact that they mention "cost" as motivation and to secure buy-in is very worrisome. If you really want to switch to open source permanently and secure your sovereignty, you should invest more (making LibreOffice Calc as good as Excel? One can dream, but it's not cheap). Cost-savings show a lack of seriousness. How long until another government switches back?
How to know when they're serious: when the federal government hires an in-house team of (well-paid) programmers, and sysadmins. Not consultants. Put them in charge of public-facing and internal-use digital infrastructure, serving both the federal and state governments. Make them work to tailor a distro, or LibreOffice, to government needs. Invest in workforce training to keep their productivity up despite the switch.
And then, one day (let's dream for a second), that team could also pick new projects that serve the public interest, like a vulnerability research team (like Google Project Zero), or helping out with all those underfunded core pieces of digital infrastructure out there with only a single maintainer. Creating public goods is the point of a government.
I really tried to read the comments on heise.de … but their website is the perfect example if ad revenue drives a company instead of providing value to their readers. Why do users have to create another page impression to read a comment?
Over half my life I've been reading this headline. "[Subdivision of Germany] switches to Linux". Here's some slashdot slop from 2002.
You'd think Microsoft would be dead and buried by now, or that the readers would have realized how inconsequential these changes are. One or the other.
Looks like what IBM tied. IBM allowed some people to stay on Microsoft Office, the 'some people' were VPs and a few 'important' people. That turned into a disaster.
Eventually almost everyone started requesting M/S Office Exceptions, and many were granted. Other people revolted. IBM then gave up and went back to M/S Office.
To do this correctly, convert everyone, from CEO, Board Members down to the lowest level of person. No exceptions.
That was by far the most hostile cookie banner I've ever seen by a lot. It required multiple levels of saying no with a bid level of clicking reject a few hundred times. It wasn't worth it.
Cost savings make headlines, but the important part is reducing structural dependency. Governments shouldn’t base essential functions on systems they can’t inspect or control. Even if OSS requires investment, that investment at least builds local capabilities instead of external lock-in.
Good move, gotta watch out for complicated contractual claims in Schleswig-Holstein. Microsoft might ally with the Danes and claim Schleswig, and then we'd have an 1864 situation on our hands again.
38 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 68.7 ms ] threadImagine 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.
What would happen instead, and has happened in the past, is Microsoft (or juniper, etc) leaving a remote vulnerability unpatched while certain groups use that exploit. It's much more deniable. So deniable, that it's impossible to say for certain that it was intentional.
It's more practical to audit FOSS systems for bugs than a Microsoft solution, and the tools for doing so are open source and getting even better every day. Like you said, sharing the burden helps with cost: It also helps with the trust issue. Going one step further, formally verified software solutions are possible (and exist!). Good luck getting that from Microsoft, they ship a calculator that needs updates and internet access to run.
Excel, in particular, hasn't been unseated despite billions in investments from competitors over the years. Parity will happen someday, but it's at least a decade away.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux / Discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15661372
When I last tried in a small pilot program, it was incredibly primitive. Linux desktops were janky and manual compared to Active Directory and group policy, and an alternative to Intune/AAD didn't even seem to exist. Heck, even things like WSUS and WDS didnt seem to have an open version or only had versions that required expensive expert level SME'S to perform constant fiddling. Meanwhile the Windows tools could be managed by 20 year old admins with basic certitifcations.
Also, GRC and security seemed to be impossible back then. There was an utter lack of decent DLP tools, proper legal hold was difficult, EDR/AV solutions were primitive and the options were limited, etc.
Back then it was like nobody who had ever actually been a sysadmin had ever taken an honest crack at Linux and all the hype was coming from home users who had no idea what herding boxen was actually like.
Initiated by the city of Munich, LiMux aimed to migrate public administration systems from Windows to a Linux-based OS to increase control over IT infrastructure and reduce costs. Despite initial success (announced at LinuxTag in 2014, I was there for the announcement), the project faced intense political lobbying by Microsoft leading to a reversion to Windows.
More examples in this note: https://lab.abilian.com/Tech/Linux/Sovereign%20OS%20-%20%22E... (in particular https://lab.abilian.com/Tech/Linux/Sovereign%20OS%20-%20%22E...)
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.
They should switch to open-source for sovereignty. Not "cost". The fact that they mention "cost" as motivation and to secure buy-in is very worrisome. If you really want to switch to open source permanently and secure your sovereignty, you should invest more (making LibreOffice Calc as good as Excel? One can dream, but it's not cheap). Cost-savings show a lack of seriousness. How long until another government switches back?
How to know when they're serious: when the federal government hires an in-house team of (well-paid) programmers, and sysadmins. Not consultants. Put them in charge of public-facing and internal-use digital infrastructure, serving both the federal and state governments. Make them work to tailor a distro, or LibreOffice, to government needs. Invest in workforce training to keep their productivity up despite the switch.
And then, one day (let's dream for a second), that team could also pick new projects that serve the public interest, like a vulnerability research team (like Google Project Zero), or helping out with all those underfunded core pieces of digital infrastructure out there with only a single maintainer. Creating public goods is the point of a government.
You'd think Microsoft would be dead and buried by now, or that the readers would have realized how inconsequential these changes are. One or the other.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/25936
Looks like what IBM tied. IBM allowed some people to stay on Microsoft Office, the 'some people' were VPs and a few 'important' people. That turned into a disaster.
Eventually almost everyone started requesting M/S Office Exceptions, and many were granted. Other people revolted. IBM then gave up and went back to M/S Office.
To do this correctly, convert everyone, from CEO, Board Members down to the lowest level of person. No exceptions.
Guess someone decided "we need to make it sound like we have 80% anyway we can", who knows what the real percentage is.