the government has given the go-ahead for the first step towards complete digital sovereignty in the state, with further steps to follow.
The term digital sovereignty is very important here. If a public administration uses proprietary, closed software that can’t be studied or modified, it is very difficult to know what happens to users’ data:
We have no influence on the operating processes of such [proprietary] solutions and the handling of data, including a possible outflow of data to third countries. As a state, we have a great responsibility towards our citizens and companies to ensure that their data is kept safe with us and we must ensure that we are always in control of the IT solutions we use and that we can act independently as a state.
Digital sovereignty seems to be the primary impetus, so this might go far. Saving money is secondary.
digital sovereignty is among the best reasons to switch, good on them!
There were also previous notes about public tax dollars should not feed private corporations, but stay within a public system
Lol. Geez in America this would be radical ideas haha.
Seems nice not to have tax dollars going to private companies at a glance. However, I do not trust the government to get the job done right by themselves either in many cases.
- Wouldn’t be government anyway.
- I’ve worked on both public and private sectors, and they’re both run by people with the same potential for good and bad decisions and performance. I’ve seen great things coming from public organizations and terrible things coming from successful private organizations. Don’t buy into the narrative that government = bad.
Saving money is secondary.
Weird how that’s always the case in a capitalist society.
They will need to stay the course and not be tempted with huge Microsoft savings Microsoft will give them just like what happened with Munich: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-not-windows-why-munich-is-shifting-back-from-microsoft-to-open-source-again/
The agreement was finalized Sunday and the parties will be in power until 2026. “We will adhere to the principle of ‘public money, public code’. That means that as long as there is no confidential or personal data involved, the source code of the city’s software will also be made public,” the agreement states.
poggers
I don’t think it is that great of cost savings as you need staff to support Libreoffice
You only need IT support, which you would be paying for one way or another with MS.
You need support for Windows and MS Office.
So the Germany has been moving back and forth between Microsoft and Linux / open-source.
When Munich decided to ditch many of its Windows installations in favor of Linux in 2003, it was considered a groundbreaking moment for open source software – it was proof that Linux could be used for large-scale government work. However, it looks like that dream didn’t quite pan out as expected. The German city has cleared a plan to put Windows 10 on roughly 29,000 city council PCs starting in 2020. There will also be a pilot where Munich runs Office 2016 in virtual machines. The plan was prompted by gripes about both the complexity of the current setup and compatibility headaches.
Do you know what this smells like? Corruption and consulting companies with friends in the govt looking for ways to profit.
What else can be more profitable for a consulting company than shifting the entire IT of a city or a country between two largely incompatible solutions? :)
Do you know what this smells like? Corruption and consulting companies with friends in the govt looking for ways to profit.
No it doesn’t. It smells like Microsoft has a monopoly on office software, and city employees are not tech enthusiasts. Anyone who used Office at home or in another job is going to complain when they have to learn a new software (regardless of which is “better” - for the average person, different is bad)
Plus, every document they receive from outside is almost certainly formatted in Office, so if there isn’t 100% compatibility, people will again complain.
Migrating an entire enterprise to FOSS software is not easy, and in government where leadership changes can be more regular, it’s not shocking to see the pendulum swing back and forth.
Could be both of those things as well.
Definitely could be both, but I’d posit that it would still happen regardless of corruption, just because they’re taking on the ambitious task of trying something new.
Plus, every document they receive from outside is almost certainly formatted in Office, so if there isn’t 100% compatibility, people will again complain.
That’s not like that with governments. Governments are huge clients, they can and should dictate file formats to suppliers.
If the state of Santa Catarina in Brazil, with a GDP of 2/3 of that of Munich, could transition to Open Document Format almost 20 years ago, Munich can.
They definitely can dictate requirements, however that means that you’re now making your staff play document format police.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that it’s an additional headache. If I were working in that office, I’d die a little inside each time I have to go back to a consultant/contractor/community member and say “can you please resubmit this, the formatting is broken when I open it in Libre Office”
Yes, again, they have the authority to do this, and it is technically feasible, but it’s going to be a bad user experience for a long time until everyone is properly “retrained”. Especially if you’re working with partners outside of Germany who have their own document standards.
I’m not saying this is a bad move, just that I understand why they might be inclined to jump back and forth.
your staff play document format police.
Often the email filter will just convert everything not allowed to PDF.
For the average person; msoffice and libreoffice function pretty much the same. Even the icons mostly match.
Oh, cool, so I can have multiple people editing a live document at the same time?
Only Calc / Spreadsheet
https://help.libreoffice.org/6.1/en-US/text/shared/guide/collab.html?DbPAR=SHARED
That’s possible, but in the past I think Germany stuck with Windows after Microsoft gave them a better deal or something.
Heck, they may have even paid Germany to keep using Windows.
That is how big companies operate. There was that huge lawsuit / fine of
1.4 billion corruption
A large corporation gave cash to companies and Govt officials to migrate to their software products.
No.
Things were very different “back then.” Linux was less friendly at the time. And non-Microsoft products still had noticeable gaps. Web browser office suites didn’t exist.
The parts I remember reading were just that it took a long time for workers to get used to the system. Back then, home computers were uncommon for the average person. And what computer experience the average person did have was noticeably different from Linux.
I did not see articles about tech issues such as viruses or data leaks or configuration issues. Please show any if you have them.
There’s a lot of high level corruption in Germany these days, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
IIRC the last time this made big headlines they tried to roll their own distro and it went very poorly longterm. The TL;DR version was they so thoroughly took the hardest route and made questionable choices that it was almost sure to fail, and then MS swooped in with some great offers and that was that. (This is entirely my dusty recollection of articles I read about it at the time, FWIW.)
I don’t know whether it was malicious compliance because the folks doing the change didn’t actually want to do it or what, but that effort was as doomed as Firefly was when Fox aired it out of order and with a constantly shifting schedule.
Hopefully they make some sensible choices this time around (at a minimum not trying to create a custom distro) and it goes better. It would be great to see this become a cascade effect.
they so thoroughly took the hardest route and made questionable choices that it was almost sure to fail
Typical government move going full malicious compliance while allowing “a few selected friends” from consulting companies to make a ton of money. They could’ve just picked Debian and rolled with it. Let’s face it, nobody develops desktop applications anymore most of the govt work is already done on custom built web platforms, any OS that can run a browser is good enough to address around 90% of the govt daily work.
Meanwhile China is creating their own distro that will be successful for sure because they’ve plans to move the public sector and whatever private they influence to the thing.
Because there’s no “Germany” in this movement. Different lands, different governments, different offices, etc.
What else can be more profitable for a consulting company than shifting the entire IT of a city or a country between two largely incompatible solutions? :)
See that’s the neat thing SH has (together with HH, HB and ST) its own IT consultancy. Public enterprise, not some public-private partnership, and 5300 staff a quite a bit more than what Munich’s IT department has.
And yes of course Munich is corrupt what do you expect it’s Bavaria.
So… it’s exactly what I said but with extra steps.
A way to provide money to the friends and have underplayed govt workers without the benefits and the stability 😂
Nah dataport doesn’t make profit, or at least it’s not paying out any to the states. It’s about as close to a ministry as you can get without being required to pay government wages and there’s not many in the industry who’d work for that. They don’t pay as much as FAANG or even SAP but among the wider industry it’s definitely competitive, especially if you don’t plan on job-hopping and dodging lay-offs.
I hope they do not try to save that money but rather take the opportunity to invest some of it into the open source ecosystem that are now relying on.
Hahaha no way. Im Germany we say “Sparen!”
And some lobby bitches say “Schuldenbremse”
To become chancellor you have to swear an oath on the “schwarze Null”.
To become chancellor you have to swear
an oath on the “schwarze Null”.that you forgot what you did during the largest tax-scam in history
That’s not how governments work
Why not both?
Let’s say MS charges $5M a year.
Their support contract, assuming they get one, for libre office might be $1M.
They could still invest another $1M in OSS and still save $3M
A $1M net gain for OSS and a $3M savings for the govt.
That’s still not how governments work
It would be nice if it worked like that, but we both know it doesn’t
That’s called a pareto optimum
In reality it’s gonna be something like:
M$ charges 5M €. Libreoffice might be 1M € so they will give 1M € to OSS and waste the remaining 3M € on some overly expensive one-time crap like car infrastructure. Later they will realize that they had understaffed their IT department and will need extra 5M € paid by more state debt.
That, again, is not how governments work.
What you depict is how companies work: You save amount X on something, so there are X moneys left to invest in something.
Governments work with separated and highly regulated budgets. That is sometimes bullshit, but sometimes necessary to make sure government aids are spent fairly, for example. So: You save amount X on something, you aren’t allowed to just give this amount to someone. There has to be either a program, a law, or (most often) an entirely different budget somewhere else that this someone is allowed to receive.So the “trade-off” logic cannot be fulfilled by governments, and it shouldn’t be. Think about the myriad of bullshit, money would just be dumped into by the government if this wasn’t the case. On top of the myriad of bullshit that already made it through the nets, that is.
And having a government as a significant backer for an open source project is a great recipe for conflicts of interest and general trust erosion.
who else should be a significant backer for an open source project? google? microsoft?
Things get weird as corporations increasingly have power comparable to nation states.
But, generally, I would rather a megacorporation than a government. Because megacorps are at least “smart enough” to pretend they aren’t trying to take over the world. Whereas governments have a tendency to justify a lot of horrible shit for righteous reasons.
But, in a perfect world? I would rather a wide range of different donors and backers but mostly clustering around maybe fortune 500 companies instead of fortune 10?
Because megacorps are at least “smart enough” to pretend they aren’t trying to take over the world.
there are enough examples for corps doing evil things. You hear about them less often, because they cover their tracks and the outcry is generally smaller than when governments do similar things.
Whereas governments have a tendency to justify a lot of horrible shit for righteous reasons.
corps justify a lot of horribble shit for financial reasons. Is that better?
Corporations can also act on behalf, or on the orders of nation states. So you don’t solve anything, if a state wants to get involved, it will. You have the additional cons that corporations tend to cater to their financial interests anyway, while a public institution might not always have ulterior motives.
Well think again, Germany invests in open source.
The fund will rise with the savings for sure
I recall randomly check open source project and some of them has German public funding.
I hope your government has an emergency fund. Savings are really important
This is unironically a good move for them. As Office gets more and more interconnected you have to wonder if there’s a danger of using sensitive data as training for their AI. Not only will it save them money it’ll also keep their data secure.
I have an idea in which federal state Microsoft Germany headquarters will move next…
MS HQ in Kiel? That would be so desperate.
Doesn’t Germany do this every so many years to get a better Microsoft deal?
bavaria… we are different.
Which is leas good, but still fine.
One of the marginal transitional benefits of open source software is keeping proprietary shit at least kind of in it’s place.
I wonder if this is related to https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/. This as it shouldn’t be about saving cost. It should be about being sovereign.
I’m not sure it’ll even save them money, at least initially. They’re likely paying consultants to work out the best approach, they need to retrain staff, and they’d probably go with a distro like RedHat that has vendor support (plus have paid support for LibreOffice too)
Not being held hostage by one US company should be a priority by much more countries
A good number of European cities and countries have tried Linux and open source software in the past. They use it for a few years and then they have almost always have quietly gone back to MS Windows and Office products.
As much as I enjoy using Linux, (and no, I don’t use Arch), and open source for my own needs, I would be willing to bet after a few years, this German state will quietly move back to Micosoft products again.
The intense pressure from Microsoft doesn’t have anything to do with it I’m sure.
It’s cheaper to find support
*at first
Its only cheap because its normalized in that domain. As more work is done to iron out bugs and get people in the office space the feature they need on Linux the more experience IT folks will get support.
Its an investment as always. There is no such thing as a free lunch
Society favours the short term and it will be a long time before Linux sys admins are cheaper than Windows sys admins
Or even asking random kid out of high school how to do x
Who else to start the trend than the government that was created for the public good in the first place.
You have too look at it at scale too, and most places should either be adopting some platform that already does or be planning on scaling some special service they do.
Every Podunk municple probally should have to have a AD expert, a security expert, a hardware/software lifecycle management person, etc etc
That’s how o365 can be cheaper total cost of ownership then an army of siloed sys admins, even if the software is at no cost to them.
Its an investment in total operations of the organizations of the state, from the current state of 1990s tech most operate off of to a modern IT infrastructure.
Microsoft certainly tries it’s best to keep you locked into their ecosystem by making it inconvenient but not impossible to leave though that’s not the real reason, it’s security. Businesses and especially governments are scared of nation state hackers contributing malicious code to open source products and falsely assume it’s safer to use closed source software because those incidents aren’t public. There’s so much great software out there I’d love to use and the first question I’m asked when I bring it up is can you prove China hasn’t contributed code?
As the result of a change in the city’s government, to leave LiMux and at the time, critics of the decision blamed the mayor and deputy mayor and cast a suspicious eye on the US software giant’s decision to move its headquarters to Munich.
Just a coincidence.
Moving to Firefox will make a huge impact too
Not sure why you were downvoted
It’s the validation downvote. If you get any attention at all someone somewhere will downvote you.
Maybe a $BROWSER user…
If they put as much money into these foss projects as they where giving microsoft before, maybe Libreoffice will become halfway decent.
I use Libreoffice and it’s fine for a non-power user, but it sure has some rough edges
It has some rough edges to be sure. I’ve found myself fighting with it quite a bit. But it’s usable.
I’m just glad there is more incentive for [organization] to help patch the issues.
While I’m all for OSS, I’m also objective enough to know where it’s not a good idea. And I think this is one of them. They have commercial one available in their own country called softmaker, which comes with support which is really important for a business or organization. I’ve been using it for many years because the OSS where just not right for me. Also liked WPS more but Linux dev was slow, but now I found my match
LibreOffice does “develop and maintain a certification system for professionals of various kinds who deliver and sell services around LibreOffice.”
But let’s be honest, most seats at the government does not use anything much advanced anyway.
There are places where nested formulas in pivot tables are needed to work, but most places are using just simple documents.
Again with the squeaky shoes
The last time I tried it, which is now a few years ago, LibreOffice Calc was substantially slower than Excell for larger spreadsheets. Like a difference between night and day, it was no acceptable substitute if productivity was a concern, which it usually is.
Imo a big swoop change like this, which is done for ideological reasons, but without practical considerations, is doomed to fail and leave a lasting bad impression in peoples’ minds. Imo it would have been far better to only drop windows 10/11 for a familiar looking Linux distro, while continuing to use Microsoft Office.
If an Excel sheet is that big, it should be replaced with a proper database, which most likely would run on Linux. I think you’re right, though, about the lack of planning around the practicalities.
Using the right tool in an office setting isn’t something that’s typically done. Unless that tool is a spreadsheet of course. A spreadsheet is always the right tool.
There often aren’t spare funds to develop something proper.
What is the best sheet to Db Tool out there? Surely this is a normalized path by now, right?
you can probably just use python (pandas or something) or an equivalent in other languages
In structural engineering (bridge design etc), we use quite complicated spreadsheets for calculations; a database wouldn’t be the right tool for that job. We use excel because everyone knows how to use it and it’s easy to print to PDF and see the inputs and outputs and any graphical summaries you have added. Using a spreadsheet makes it easy to check and easy to adapt/change when you want to do a slightly different calculation next time.
I’ve tried building spreadsheets of similar complexity in libreoffice and it’s true they are very slow in comparison and more prone to crashing.
Libreoffice works well for some tasks and I enjoy using it at home but honestly if I tried to use it at work it would cut my productivity significantly. I’m probably using it more intensively than most people though.
I agree that spreadsheet use in engineering is one of the most complicated use cases, but I submit for your consideration another very complicated use case: laboratory software ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_information_management_system ) LIMS do what Excel can but with the added benefits of being more controlled, secure, user friendly and faster because they’re built upon the back of a modern database. In my experience with engineer built worksheets, the engineer that built them is typically the only one who knows how to use them. This is job security for that engineer, but isn’t scaleable for others’ use. In the lab software, a scientist builds the methods, and lab technicians use those methods over and over again daily. Each step of each use of the method is recorded with the inputs, the results, who performed it and exactly when. The workflows are built-in and the calculations are comparable to those used in engineering.
Interesting, I think it’s different for structural engineering because you’re doing calculations in accordance with a code of practice and the spreadsheet needs to be adapted to tweak the inputs and outputs of a standard formula and apply it slightly differently for different bridges / structural arrangements. I’ve written loads of spreadsheets that have been used and adapted by other people in my company, I honestly don’t think they are that difficult to understand (or people wouldn’t have been able to build on them and adapt them).
I can see that lab software is quite different, especially if you have very well defined procedures and you are repeating exactly the same test again and again with the same inputs and outputs.
Ah, yes. Easily adoptable by coworkers + low repeatability = no need to change. Stick with spreadsheets.
Software freedom is about being in control of your computing. We can’t verify what proprietary software from a foreign company is doing on a government computer.
Public money public code is about citizens getting back the code we paid for. When a proprietary company improves software to get paid then they keep that advantage to themselves. LibreOffice is a collaborative project, everyone gains from it being improved by our money.
These aught to be valid concerns as much as productivity: to the degree it affects people. It cannot be dissmssed as being idelogical.
Those are ideological reasons though and me calling them idealogical does not mean that I dismiss them as valid reasons. Idealogy in itself is not a bad thing and it should certainly have a part in decision making.
Where we differ in opinion is in which should take priority: I’m of the opinion that practicality should trump ideology (in this case), while you find the idealogical reasons more important.
Are you working on ods formats? Anyways… We need more people using LO so we’ll have more developers and rhen comes a point in which LO surpasses everything else. Meanwhile, if we stick to proprietary software,we would be stuck in a vicious loop. We need to break trough and sometimes inthat transition there are some concessions to make. If we manage to make it aa a big collective of people,the transition process will be shorter.
I’m not using it anymore, I just tested it to see if I could propose it as a substitute. In my testing I tried both open and ms formats: I started with old excel files which didn’t work well, so then I tried open format files that were build up from a clean slate state, with the data imported from CSV files. After that didn’t perform satisfactory either, I turned to the internet. After searching for the major issue that I encountered (slow in a large sheet), I came to the conclusion that calc could not be a full substitute for excell, so I never proposed it and we’re still using ms office to this day.
I’m just going to copypaste some other people’s thoughts with which I agree, saving me a bit of time:
*"If you work at a large company for a while you’ll encounter a class of user that Calc doesn’t really address. They’re like super-specialists. They often have a deep knowledge of Excel, but are otherwise completely computer illiterate. They also work with large datasets and specific models. Calc isn’t a replacement for them. Not just on a feature level, but on an accessibility level.
Look for Excel resources. Classes, books, articles, howtos, everywhere. Do the same for Calc and you’ll struggle a lot more. There is stuff there, but it just isn’t nearly as professional and rich. There is no great way to transition Excel users to Calc users and have them still be as productive.
In the Linux world, when we get those style of work-loads we generally put aside Calc / Excel as a tool and begin looking at programming languages (e.g., Python, Matlab). I feel like this somewhat handicaps our ability to reach those users.
for basic use though, it’s perfectly acceptable. I just wouldn’t consider it a poweruser tool, and those power users are what make Office a multibillion dollar product for MS."*
*"Sadly, it’s just not there in book.
The only time I try to use LOCALC is when I have a few hundreds/thousands of rows of formatted values to sort into a simple graph and performance is just abysmal.
I just tried again earlier this day and though most daily features are there for your regular user, all my “casual” uses of it ended up underlining the severe performance problems.
Maybe my uses are far more corner case than I believe…"*
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/9yjwyf/is_libreoffice_calc_truly_a_worthy_replacement/
Wow. i dont know. Ive never used calc nor excel for things that big. For that Ive used python or php/mysql. I use spreadsheets a lot, even complex ones, and calc always work for me. Anyways, you are right in regarda to the lack of support/books. Of course. Same happens with a lot of things. They are not mainstream (yet) because they are projects that havent had the money or power corporations like microsoft has had for lobbies and marketing. So we can struggle a little on the transition (some very brave pioneers have already paved the way for us, so its not that hard anymore) and hope we are contributing to a libre/free future in which digital technology helps build a better and fairer society for all. And then, they’ll become mainstream and we’ll have more books, support and communities than we ever dreamed of before.
I think we should aim for what is ideal and then take into consideration the constraints of what we can do. If it’s not plausible enough to go for what is ideal then aim to make that more likely while doing whatever is the next best thing. We risk being stuck on a peak of possible good if we refuse to go down to eventually go up higher.
I only use LibreOffice but don’t need it much. I can’t comment on how practical it is, or isn’t, for use in a government. If there’s another free software option then we aught to consider that. Else spend money to make it good enough for frequent and important use cases.
I think reducing their reasons to ideological is not fair. They stand to save a lot of money, reduce the risk of leaking data (to MS or hackers), and will have the ability to fork/add their own features.
While I am not familiar enough with Calc or Excel to comment on the speed, I imagine having an entire government using it could get the ball rolling on optimizations.
The money that will be saved is peanuts compared to the cost of the workers. Loss of productivity through the implementation of bad tools can be very costly. The various Microsoft Office programs also offer the possibility to add bespoke features. Microsoft Office does not leak data unless you chose to let it do so, at least in the eu.
Optimizations that might happen once a program with unacceptable performance is in a production environment, are generally optimizations that never happen. I’ve never seen a program make such a turnaround, it’s wishful thinking without a basis in reality.
This thing really is set up for failure. I’m not against organisations moving away from products from large monopolistic companies, rather the opposite, I’m very much in favor. But if the move is done in such a way that it’s bound to fail and then cement itself into people’s mind as a bad thing, then it has accomplished the opposite of what it has set out to do. Right now Linux is ready for widespread adoption in environments where productivity matters, but in my experience libre office is not.
the possibility of bespoke features Such a shame you can’t do this with open source software.
Every time I see someone say ‘I’m actually really a fan of open source’ it reads like ‘I’m not racist but’.
They stand to save a lot of money
Do they? They’ll now have to start training people to use Linux.
These people aren’t going to be enthusiasts like us. They need to be shown where everything is.
It’s a question of both expenses and dependency on a monopolist.
There simply won’t ever be an opportunity to move from MS solutions to FOSS solutions which won’t have these problems.
Being dependent is possibly more expensive in the long term too.
If you throw even half the money that would go to ms license for the foss community instead you can get some pretty huge improvements for that foss program. Blender for example, got actually nice looking and seriously good program while being foss because they got decent funding
Well, people blamed old (archaic, what it had when it was an Amiga program) UI for being hard to use, but the new one is even harder, so dunno.
I touched Blender with the old UI somewhere in late 00s on Windows, managed to sculpt and render a few clumsy objects. I don’t remember how long it took, but it feels as if the new one took twice that for the same.
EDIT: On the actual subject - yes, that too. I sometimes think that (moderate) positive inflation is not always better than deflation. It encourages a narrow way of thinking where we always stop at first local optimum. Say, MSO is cheaper right now than LO - then we choose MSO, period. Nobody thinks about finding a bigger optimum, because constant inflation psychologically encourages you to think that way. That’s just clumsy philosophy.
I find the new much so much more easy and clear
Lol, has sheets the size where performance matters and talks about productivity. And then chalks LO up to failure because of this. Maybe converting your .xlsx to .ods would save more money then, LO is faster there, because .xlsx & co are inherently broken.
Wow, Schleswig-Holstein meaning well and starting beef by doing it. I’m sure there’s no precedent for that.
Awesome. Bravo.
Which municipality was it that switched to Linux only to be seduced back to Windows?
Sadly, I think most employees would hate it particularly if the transition isn’t well managed.
That was apparently Munich. And even with a promised 90% discount (of which I don’t know the terms), they stayed away from Microsoft. But recently they switched back anyway :(
My buddies and I have worked at companies that went through similar transitions and reversions.
The issue is not the cost or even the ideology. It is the training and support. There are a LOT of really good training resources for MS Office and, at least for millennials, outright education in k-12. So, by switching to libre office or anything similar, you are suddenly putting a large burden on yourself and random enthusiast youtubers who will start advertising nordvpn partway through explaining what a pivot table is. Because the vast majority of people don’t know how to google “how to edit the footer for slides in Libre Office”
And that RAPIDLY adds up to being a lot more expensive than even the full priced licenses from MS. your more technically competent staff suddenly have very large support burdens because “Oh, I just have a quick question” and that increases their burnout.
That said, it is going to be really interesting in the next 5-10 years (… assuming the world doesn’t end in a series of thermonuclear explosions first) since gen-z are very much brought up on Google Docs and the like. So even MS Office will have a significant training overhead for new hires.
At one of my other jobs we had to migrate a codebase from SVN to Git. it… was incredibly overdue and it was making for a greater burden on new hires who had to learn an antiquated toolset to contribute. But it was a genuine concern because most of the existing developers who understood “where the bodies were buried” had already “suffered through giving up on CVS for no good reason”. And we genuinely had to acknowledge that we would lose staff “on both sides” and, while I am not proud to admit it, more or less set up a few underperforming early career staff to be sacrificial lambs. Making it a point to let Old Fuck #5 know that the guy who was struggling to understanding how to write performant kernels was available to work through how to write a commit message. That way the rock stars who we were dependent on would not put in their notice.
This really depends on adequate training. And it’s a shame this training does not start in school. Microsoft and Google have a very strong hold in schools and that conditions people to stick with what is familiar :(
I don’t have the direct experience you do, but when you say “training and support” I would venture that includes “the vibe” of the thing.
People who have used Windows & Office forever will find using a new platform irritating just because everything is just a little different.
Couple that with the fact that non-tech people often perceive opensource as the free+shitty version, and it’s surely a recipe for an “ideology” whereby employees feel that they’re being abused - forced to use a shitty platform so the city can save a few dollars.
There’s also a halo effect, whereby any issue gets blamed on free+shitty platform instead of simply tech being tech.
I just don’t think that training and support can really solve that. You really need employees to believe in the benefits if opensource and I’m not sure that’s achievable.
The “vibe” doesn’t really matter. You are getting paid to do a job, you are gonna do it. You can’t refuse to write documents because you have to use Word instead of Google Docs or whatever.
No, it really is the training. Because the most obnoxious thing in the work force is an old white guy. They can’t outright say “no”. But they will do everything in their power to talk about how EVERYTHING is a blocker and they can’t get any work done because nobody wanted to teach them something. Or nobody was able to answer the questions that they refuse to ask. And so forth.
Having a database of training videos or even an outsourced consultant goes a long way toward “Hey Jon? Nobody gives a shit. Do your job”. Whereas having to link to just a document or explain something yourself is how they will actively refuse to ever retain any information.
Because the vast majority of people don’t know how to google
My mother is like that. Every now and then she asks me whether I’m skilled with Excel and how to do x thing in Excel. x is usually some pretty basic thing that I don’t know how to do but I’m sure it is googlable. I wonder whether this is the norm for people who use a computer for work daily but aren’t “tech guys”.
If only my employer, the state of Geneva, Switzerland, did the same.
I hate the fact we’re giving so much taxpayer’s money to the GAFAMs.
That was Munich. This is also Munich.Following a successful pilot project, the northern German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein has decided to move from Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office to Linux and LibreOffice (and other free and open source software) on the 30,000 PCs used in the local government.
Munich is in Schleswig-Holstein now?
Anti Commercial AI thingy
I saw a 2020 link someone else posted and got confused.
Tuens out after the switch back to windows which I linked to in another reply, they actually switched back to Linux in 2020!
Really?!
I’d never heard about that.
Awesome. Now stick with it!
And remember, different isn’t wrong, it’s different.
