I studied at Utrecht University and all the programming classes in the Bachelor were C#, Visual Studio, XNA, DirectX. Windows. Database class i had to learn in Proprietary Microsoft tools too. All Microsoft stuff. Sure nobody would complain if you did stuff on Linux but all the support by TAs and teachers was on Microsoft platforms only.. The Master was much better but the Bachelor basically was grooming people to become Microsoft consultants.
If the rot starts at the core of your education curriculum there is no saving your dependence on Microsoft.
I always found this choice puzzling to teach people proprietary technologies in a public institution. This was before DotNet core and VSCode was a thing and Microsoft hadnt whitewashed themselves to look like an open source friendly brand yet.
And same goes for less technical disciplines too. Adobe, Autodesk, Archicad, etc. It's pretty bad software: expensive, very buggy, poor extensibility, poorly maintained, closed-source, rapid tech debt accumulation requires upgrading your pc every few years. If only a minor percentage of organizations licensing it would instead spend that budget financing an open source project, that would have a very positive effect for everyone. I can somewhat understand private businesses not thinking long-term, but public institutions paying licensing fees instead of financing open-source seems like plain incompetence. Then again, maybe there's a lack of open-source initiatives willing to spearhead this.
But if students learn some open-source software that doesn’t get used in private industry, will they be able to land a job that’s asking Autodesk et al. knowledge as a requirement?
As a former medical and scientific illustrator, learning a software package (Photoshop or GIMP) really isn't as crucial as learning principles and practices of art, design, and graphics. Color theory, negative space, composition, etc., are critical to production and apply to any media one chooses to work in: oil on canvas, pen and ink, or computers.
The other issue is access. Again, from an art/graphics/design perspective, costs associated with proprietary software can limit some students from even participating in art/graphics/design programs. Adobe Creative Suite is US$69.99/mo or US$840/yr.
It's not the job of a university to prepare you for the workplace. That's the job of the workplace. I'm sick of industry outsourcing their jobs to public institutions.
It's the job of a university to teach cutting edge research
Sure, you can say that. But a good chunk of people will disagree with you. I went to one of the top schools, and it was fairly 30/70 between teaching “cutting edge research” and teaching “what’s being used in practice”. I think that was fair. During bachelors, hardly you’ll get cutting edge research cause you don’t have prerequisite knowledge.
Agree with this 100%. At some point the private sector decided that it will accept no responsibilities of any kind (except for what was fought and defended tooth and nail by the civil society and a few slightly more responsible governments), and all the costs that can be avoided will be avoided, shifting the burden on the public sector.
It's not a big jump to go from open-source equivalents of the close source products. The concept and what one wants to accomplish is the same. Many of these companies have certification programs, if the point is to be specific and narrow, for a particular job.
Good points. Funding the open-source equivalents, even at a fraction of what they are spending on close-source, would have circumvented the problem of being "trapped" in the first place. Even more, the universities would be able to contribute code to the projects, if they wanted to.
It was always pretty obvious what Microsoft wanted and was trying to do. Now trying to escape, will be painful, but that's the price they will have to endure if they want freedom and data sovereignty.
Well I guess at the time large part of GHC development technically was Microsoft Research ;) . But yeh the Functional Programming and Compilers course were nice exceptions to the Microsoft trend. That's also why I ended up following that path in my master's programme :')
Visual studio code sucks badly, just most common developers started with it and are used to it in the same way that Windows was "the os" for the same kind of developers at a specific point in the past.
It is even worse know that vscode and all the clones are packed with llm agents that such devs can't live without.
For one thing for example, the latency of the editor is crazy for someone that worked with native editors.
It did slowly sneak in over time I guess. In my last year of my master's eventually the faculty was forced to stop hosting its own intranet and mailing lists and migrate everything to the "cloud" (Microsoft 365 and Blackboard).
I have a copy at home of all the old wiki content and the old cs.uu.nl website. The university themselves didn't even think they should archive it so I archived it myself.
I hope there's other people with copies too. My archive isn't complete
> if the rot starts at the core of your education curriculum there is no saving your dependence on Microsoft.
TBF, the curriculum being MS based can mean very little if the concepts taught in are valuable enough. I've briefly looked at the project linked in your user description, and they don't look nice and absolutely not tinted by MS influence.
It is indeed dancing with the devil, but if MS forks the money to renew the whole university's computer park, clear all the licensing issues and train part of the staff, it can be a boon for the university.
My uni had a deal with Sun (RIP), many basic courses were in Java, all our system programming course we're Solaris targeted, all servers were Solaris anyway so our code had to run there. It's a pretty basic arrangement IMHO.
I spent the past year working for a company that relies heavily on Microsoft for email, productivity tools, and identity management. After that experience, I can say with confidence: never again. The support is astonishingly poor, and user experience feels like an afterthought.
More importantly, using Microsoft at scale can leave your organization fundamentally insecure. The obscure, insecure defaults are, at best, dangerous missteps and, at worst, borderline negligent. I’m convinced that only a small fraction of enterprises using Microsoft have the expertise and budget required to secure it properly.
My personal view is that if your organization depends heavily on Microsoft, it’s not serious about security, whether they’re aware of it or not.
I work for a company that now uses everything from Microsoft. They used to have Jira, AWS and tons of other different products, but now everything is Microsoft, and it's terrible. Azure DevOps is particularly horrific. It's like Jira+Jenkins except you can never find anything. Nothing about it makes sense to me.
As far as I can tell, the databases on Azure are all either slow, expensive, or both.
And of course it means we hand over all of our highly sensitive data to a company that has said that US law will overrule EU law. How can anyone trust a company that says they will not obey the law?
That's the thing. The decision makers are not programmers who care about good dev tooling, but executives who care about good agenda management. So Microsoft's agenda management is great, and their dev tooling sucks.
It really feels like ADO was just quickly patched together to they can offer it as part of a complete package.
Corporate people who decide what services to buy don't care about what the employees think about those services.
And regarding Microsoft, it's easy: paying for the whole package is much easier in terms of contract overhead and with MS the discounts are quite advantageous as soon as you increase the width of the package.
Short term and if you only look at the bill, it makes sense.
Long term, forcing your teams to work with shitty services is a terrible idea.
I'm always amazed at how needlessly complicated and useless administration of Microsoft products and services are. So much of 365 feels like it is 75-90% completed then abandoned. Every time I find something that sounds like it should be really useful, it turns out to lack at least one function or feature needed to do what I would need it to.
Where do I find money to fund my rewrite of Kerberos 5 in Rust, removing the dumb options and Kerberos 4 compatibility and eventually create Kerberos 6 + AD that will solve a metric buttload of issues in Linux and knock a major peg of MS off?
That doesn't seem right to me, assuming you still want the paradigm of one-time principal-to-domain authentication with just-in-time principal-to-resource authentication. While I think you could probably use x509 certs to streamline and modernize the ticket-granting-and-session-key dance, you'd still be doing a lot of the same high-level things.
Depending on the use-case, Kerberos (/this imagined x509 Kerberos) or Oauth2 still seems suitable for single-authenticator/multiple-services paradigm.
Ultimately Kerberos is used to authenticated basically everything in a Windows on-prem environment and in a way that is largely transparent to the user. Silent SSO is a very nice feature.
Even if you're doing OIDC or SAML, those protocols do not define what is actually performing authentication at the IdP which, again, ultimately ends up being Kerberos if you're people are on-prem.
So whatever your feelings are about Kerberos as a protocol, it doesn't matter if that's what Windows uses.
And again, it cannot be obsoleted by other protocols.
Even if you're using a newer fido thing like passkeys or client certs or whatever, ultimately the device has to be authenticated to get that passkey or cert or whatever it is installed into the authenticator app of the device. So Kerberos is king on prem.
MIT Kerberos on Linux is not really compatible with Windows Kerberos in ways that cause problems that are not solved by re-writing Kerberos in another language. More important issues have to do with sharing credentials and getting trust info and other such things.
> Ultimately Kerberos is used to authenticated basically everything in a Windows on-prem environment and in a way that is largely transparent to the user. Silent SSO is a very nice feature.
When it works. And when it doesn't work (which is most of the time if you're outside of corporate LAN) you simply can't debug what's happening.
> MIT Kerberos on Linux is not really compatible with Windows Kerberos
It actually is! Long, long time ago I managed to join Windows into a pure Kerberos domain. Everything worked, including things like GSSAPI authentication in Putty or MySQL. It involved some `ksetup.exe` incantations, I think this guide might be still relevant: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19316-01/820-3746/gisqf/index.ht...
Of course, there was no group synchronization (because no AD).
That was about 20 years ago. Back then, I was working on helping companies migrate to Linux, and I toyed with an idea of having a background service to periodically sync groups from the Linux SMB server with the local users.
simplify gssapi, for one. single authentication and authorization: submit on slurm? ask kerberos + ldap. can i upload to this service? as kerberos + ldap. Policies applied on this computer? ask kerberos + ldap
i may be naive a bit, i'll accept that, but I really like how AD works (which is essentially kerberos + ldap)
I tried to set up network file sharing with NFS the other day and it was like pulling teeth. You need Kerberos if you want to map user names instead of user ids and still have some security.
Ultimately I gave up and used samba instead, but it does seem like there's a big gap in linux offerings for "home/small business network file sharing" with shared auth
Even if you do, you’re still going to get breached. They drop features all of the time that open potential vulnerabilities.
I used to run a Microsoft productivity ops team. Email/SharePoint/etc. Our headcount was about 20-24. O365 dropped that to ~8. Now? I’m told it’s about 60, much of it relating to security.
Check out the Microsoft baseline security guidelines for Windows 11. It's about 400 entries. 400 settings that Microsoft themselves recommend changing from the defaults to achieve a baseline security.
Why does windows 11 show stock values in the task bar by default? Why does it show ads, games and yellow press headlines when you click on it? On the enterprise edition! Xbox services are installed and running by default. Why?
Direct Send was my favorite. Direct Send allows devices to send unauthenticated email to internal recipients using your organization’s domain, which can expose you to internal emails for phishing etc. It bypasses user authentication, making sender identity difficult to verify or audit. For all orgs made before mid 2025 it was enabled by default.
I saw a great Blackhat talk this year about Entra misconfiguration that got Microsoft's own sensitive internal services owned by a researcher, one of them owned by their security team. After the report they reconfigure their services, didn't pay a bounty and considered the problems solved. What about their customers making the same config errors as the Microsoft team... no changes planned.
One not-so-obscure problem is how hard it is to only elevate yourself to admin when you need it (and run as a regular user the other time).
Essentially you need to pay double license for admin users so they can have two logins; and it's a pain to quickly elevate privilege to do day to day admin tasks.
So if your friendly domain admin clicks the wrong link, your entire network is owned.
Obscure from a typical user's POV: the fact that file extensions are not being shown by default. This makes it possible for the user to click on a file that has the extension and the icon of a picture (imbedded inside), but turns out to be an executable file.
They've apparently had a corporate philosophy of obfuscating the underlying system from the end user and deliberately inhibiting their ability to learn how it fits together since at least the early 2000's.
I feel like the current ignorance of the average computer user was a deliberate outcome they've been working towards for more than 20 years. As someone who has been using computers since the late 80's, I find their current offerings harder to use than ever.
Have you admined a Google Apps account and an MS365 account? I'm curious why you think Microsoft is more secure? For me they are completely different, Google is secure by default, Microsoft is not. Do you have "Direct Send" enabled on your account for example?
Because outside of a handful of nerdy tech companies, all small businesses need to use Microsoft Office. From there, it’s a no brainer to stay in the MS ecosystem and use Sharepoint etc…
For a small business without a dedicated IT team, simply hire a IT contractor to harden the tenant (MFA etc…), have them review every six months and be done with it and focus your resources on running your business.
My father’s decidedly non-nerdy logistics consulting business with roughly 20 employees ran (and runs) on Mac OS since the founding of the company in the mid 1990s with my mom being the „IT team“. There are some situations where companies rely on certain compatibilities requiring windows. But most could do completely fine without, especially nowadays.
You can run a logistics consulting business without windows, but you will struggle without Excel and PowerPoint, and 365 with SharePoint is basically needed for collaboration in any consulting business.
Im also a logistics consultant… try to parse a multi-million line orderlines extract in Google Sheets compared to excel.
I’m also on Mac but to be honest it’s a challenge - there are still enough industry specific tools that are windows only so I have to run a parallels VM to get by.
Collaboration with Sharepoint is I think the biggest issue with M365. It’s impossible to figure out where a file is stored… on your hard drive? One drive? Teams? Sharepoint?
And the biggest problem I have is managing revisions with multiple editors. If I were talking to Microsoft about strategy, this would be the thing I’d suggest. I know it’s common to use Sharepoint for collaboration, but it’s such a Frankenstein’d system that it’s going to be a problem for everyone sooner or later.
Many of the 22-25 year old-ish people in a grad school class I was part of recently had no idea where a shared project document was or how to edit it outside of Office 365’s online editor. Many didn’t know that the “attachment” from email was actually a Sharepoint link and not a file. This becomes a problem when you need to use some features in the desktop Word program that aren’t in the online editor.
Honestly, I’m less interested in how things work on day one. When systems are fresh or new, it’s easier to keep working. The mess always ends up happening after things have had time to accumulate cruft. Working on a collaborative manuscript in the current Microsoft shared system is normally a nightmare.
Trying to manage/accept/reject edits and revisions between different people is still difficult. That is unless you can use a source code repository like GitHub. But good luck trying to convince people to do that. Sadly, this means that emailing files around is still the easiest way to keep things straight.
If China can survive — and even start to thrive without ASML and TMSC, then have no doubt that should push come to shove Europe will be able to run a mail server and some office tools.
They’re just hedging that American politics will stop licking the car battery.
EU politicians are just too dependent on keeping the status quo of the last decade. The status quo is how they got to their position so they have no incentive to change anything (Starmer, Merz, Marcon, Von der Lyen. Yuck). By the time they finally get the shove they need to rapidly decouple, e.g. when America invades The Hague* to rescue Netanyahu from war crimes charges, it will be when they're already on the edge of the proverbial cliff.
Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years.
Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.
> US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there
War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban.
Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.
Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.
"Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense"
Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes.
For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine.
And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.
In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands...
And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters.
Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent.
Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.
"In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe."
Only by using the UK as a staging post - and then invading a country that wanted to be liberated with an active partisan network.
So, if China can't take Taiwan over a 150km stretch of littoral waters, a naval in invasion from over the Atlantic is impossible.
There is also no way such a fleet would get past Gibraltar or the Suez canal, so the US would they'd have to stage in Morocco or possibly take Scandinavia then cross into Denmark.
>And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters.
That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same.
I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that.
No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff.
Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC.
What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do?
- break him out? how?
- openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in?
Of course not, haven't you seen any movies? They break him out during transport, either by hijacking a plane, or through a complicated series of car and bus chase scenes! Maybe a helicopter and submarine, too.
i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing
if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)
> Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it.
There’s no actual threat of Western Europe invasion from Russia.
Russia is a gas station operated by racketeers, they’ll bite off as much as they can and threaten with guns and nukes, they don’t have capability to meaningfully invade Western Europe.
Not western Europe, no. Not yet at least. But Russia does threaten eastern Europe. The Baltics in particular are high on Putin's wish list. And if he invades there, and the EU and NATO is slow to respond, that could easily be the end of NATO.
Of course Russia can't attack western Europe right away, but he can weaken it by taking a bit at a time from eastern Europe. And Ukraine is part of that. Europe should really be stepping up there, but they keep telling themselves that Russia can't invade western Europe, so it's not that urgent.
> Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it.
Yes, it does. Sentiment in politics and the population seems to have shifted significantly. And Trump being Trump seems to be helping Europe realize the necessity of this. I'll count that as one useful thing he has accomplished.
Yes, but they're still not actually doing all that much. I mean, sure long term military investment, and some support for Poland, but it's too little, too divided, and they're standing at the sidelines while Trump proposes to sell Ukraine to Russia.
Well, at least in the Netherlands, that's not true. Our elected representatives have been rather.. volatile over the past decade. I liked the boomers better.
The Netherlands just elected the youngest prime minister ever. He and his hot Argentinian husbando is going to make Trump look very old and disgusting if he ever comes visiting again.
Europe is not a political entity or an organisation. Who exactly will do it? The EU, some EU country, Russia, the UK, Switzerland, some cooperative agreement...?
We're talking about running a few mail server, network shares, and an office suite (LibreOffice if you want). Any university's in-house IT department should be able to pull that off, and it's exactly what many did for a very long time.
If Universities are anything like other large public/public-adjacent organizations, the bulk of the in-house IT department was long since replaced by Microsoft resellers posing as IT. It’s insidious.
Not all universities in Europe are like this, but some are 100% like this. But if there was a larger political directive towards a more autonomous solution, it would eventually work, I think.
Can universities be given political directives like that in most European countries? In the UK they are usually (entirely?) independent, are non-profits and registered charities.
They get government funding for both (British resident) students and research so the government has leverage but would have to use that to incentivise them. I imagine at least some other European countries are much the same.
An even trickier question if you are interested in digital sovereignty is how to get the private sector to do the same. Running everything on AWS and requiring a mobile app to do anything seems to be almost instinctive for many organisations.
In most europeans countries afaik most (known) universities are public ie state-owned, with few exceptions. Big part or most of the funding is public too. Regardless of whether they are state-owned, the states usually set up the framework the universities operate in. How loose or tight is the state control varies from country to country. But there is always some way to meddle into university affairs and very often they do, in the context of public policy. Eg in the recent years universities tend to get very specific directives about from which countries they can freely form collaborations with academics and from which not, depending on the foreign policy of a country. A lot of stuff eg if and how a university can own property is also regulated depending on the country. It varies a lot, but I see no reason to set up some stricter framework wrt data sovereignty. Ime the supposed autonomy of the universities here is only on paper.
The trap of Microsoft is long contracts and setting up dependency. In many cases it was a big undertaking to get the current setup, now try convincing anyone to tear it out.
This. Not long ago, every organization had their own email server. It's only in the last 10-15 years or so that gullible IT managers drank the cloud kool-aid.
When I started doing cloud there were two options at my old company: AWS or Azure. I went for Azure.
Now I do m365 consulting and some Azure and I feel terrible. First of all those are terrible products, they lock you in heavily, they are overly complex. I would love if we started selling sovereign cloud solutions, open desk etc and I think our customers would be interested too. But we don't.
I'm actually thinking about starting my own business.
It's not as much about complacency as it is about the lack of funding and resources. We're talking about countries with government budgets as low as 20 billion USD. Looking at common election promises, people here would rather see that money spent on non-profit housing, healthcare, infrastructure, than some ambitious AI or tech project that they likely wouldn't directly benefit from - at least compared to the things mentioned before - so there's little money left for "developing our own MS Office / LLM / Google".
Whereas China not only has a much bigger budget than individual EU countries, but also central planning on a large scale, so they can just "force" things be done, no matter whether people like it or not. China giving 0.01% for such projects is way more money than a small EU country giving the same %. And it's not like they'll vote the party out for a failed project (which happens in EU countries quite often).
Does China actually "force" things to be done? As far as I can tell, in the realm of technology at least, the government mostly just sets direction and then lets private capital do its thing, albeit without letting power concentrate in a way that subverts government.
When they want something to be done, it just gets done. I guess that is the point; I was working in China when one year there were 0 electric scooters; the next year, only. Gas scooters were forbidden overnight basically and that was that. Try doing that over here...
I loved it (still go on holiday), but the sentiment changed (during/after HK + Covid) and clients started to demand non-china produced electronics so we had to leave.
Yes, see Great Chinese Firewall. Providing a VPN access to civilians is a criminal offense in PRC.
This is not the same as forcing companies to use domestic software, but to illustrate the ability of Chinese government to implement draconian limitations in general.
The problem is , there are very few Europeans or EUans. There are French and Germans and Spanish etc; they all want their country first and sure open markets but their country first. That is how they vote (certainly these days). Most people do not feel EU unfortunately. Language is one thing: it is getting better but having language not unified (English, Spanish, Mandarin; pick one) is a massive and real issue keeping people's minds and efforts local instead of, at least EU wide. It is slowly getting better but the EU should made easier accessible and far higher funds for pan EU projects. Currently it is a serious pain to get access to EU funds and many just get eaten by the few massive consultancy corps who have dedicated teams going for any funding and tender in any locality and language.
As a EU citizen that moved to a different EU country: Yes please!
I constantly need a VPN as some services from my old country are geo-blocked. And when I forget to disable the VPN to my old country I can't visit certain sites from my current country. I need two phone numbers as some services require a phone number from the country they operate out of. I'm talking banking, classifieds, insurance, municipal. I can't use certain apps from my current country because I have to switch my account country but that disables apps from my old country.
And the best part, I can't vote for the national elections in my current country. Only for those in my old country. And it will be like that for the rest of my life. An example: I had to enable VPN to see the election results of my old country, the one I am eligible to vote in.
Please unify the EU so I don't have to deal with all of this.
Why should countries allow foreign influence - the voting in the most important elections in the country, by foreign citizens who didn't integrate enough to even get their citizenship?
Participating in local elections is often allowed.
In the case of these two countries dual citizenship is not allowed. So for the rest of my life I will not be able to vote here. This isn’t about “not integrating enough”.
If someone has been living and working in a country for a long time that should be enough to let them vote in national elections, regardless of what citizenship they have.
Not willing to change your citizenship is a sign of not integrating fully, in not being completely loyal to the country and to its citizens.
Imagine that both countries start a war between each other - who are you going to support? Whoever you choose does not matter, the fact remains that you would have to choose, legally speaking. Why should your current living country give the strongest possible leverage to an untegrated potential agent/supporter of the foreign country?
Highest privileges should be given to people who decided to be fully in, in both good and bad. You can't be allowed to only cherrypick the good stuff: "I want to vote, but I don't want to be drafted to be killed in a war".
Having people vote who don't live in the country has always struck me as weird. If you are some place else for say a year or even 10 years it seems a reasonable topic for debate but longer?? Never pay taxes either???
Often the rule is that one gets the vote in local elections after living for some time, but only citizens can vote in national elections (Parlament, President). This makes sense. If you want to fully participate in a society, you should integrate and become a citizen.
> Well written. I hope one day the united states of Europe is a real political entity, burying the stupidity that is fragmented national interests.
And I personally hope it won't. Seeing how things are going, I have no interest for my country to become a small province of the EU to be managed by some bureaucrats in Brussels who have never set foot in it.
Sharing intel and and resources why not? Becoming a vassal state of an EU federation no thanks.
The world is going back to zones of influence, and little fish will be eaten by big fishes. I'd rather that the big fish be the EU than Russia, even if it means giving up some national rights.
> The world is going back to zones of influence, and little fish will be eaten by big fishes
That has always been the case. I don't see how that would justify giving up our independence to become a province of a super state.
Secondly, using Russia a bogeyman to justify giving up our national rights is not a really convincing argument.
Russia hasn't been able to conquer a third of Ukraine in the last 3 years and it's economy is in shambles, yet we are supposed to believe that only a European super state can save us from it? That makes no sense.
But each to their own, those who want to give up their national rights, identities and shared cultural heritage should go ahead and integrate this super state and those who do not should be able to stay out of it.
I guess fundamentally we have a different view of what Europe should be.
It's more a risk management issue. A country that wants to do everything by itself (from food, to shovels, to cars, to computers) will not be the most efficient and will loose a lot. Before '90s communist countries were "proud" that everything was produced locally - except many things were breaking or bad quality or unavailable (not all, but many).
I would claim that today is a much better moment to switch than it was 20 years ago - much more open source options, so less overall costs.
I knew plenty of office workers managing just fine using OpenOffice 10-15 years ago.
Today people are much more reliant on real-time collaboration, polished cloud and mobile experiences. Fractionalized open source software has a harder time competing with this than file based boxed software workflows of the past.
Agree, Personally I consider these newer systems a curse as far as productivity goes, using a simple email/open-office combination never caused any issues with clients or suppliers in the last 20 years.
Coming from ex-USSR, I can assure you that shortages and shitty quality was not because of closed garden. But because of politics (and corruption) first. And lack of meritocratic natural selection.
Many factories were building crap or wrong stuff just because somebody high up in the Party found it convenient for some reason.
Yugoslavia didn't have centralized planning for products, one could even argue it had a meritocratic natural selection (sort of) and there still were shortages.
Maybe the EU as a whole could pull off being 'fully independent' but it would require way more collaboration between countries than what we currently have.
And, compared to USSR, Yugos production was much higher quality and shortages were much smaller.
EU could become fully independent by simply taxing imports. Designated collaboration between countries would just lead to inefficient central planning style stuff. Which is how many trans-Europe projects died
Europe's failure to facilitate a competitive tech scene in the early 2000's (and even still ongoing today) will haunt them for decades. Such an enormous fumble that people still celebrate as a win.
"Europe" is, unlike the US, not a single entity. Yes, we have European Union which helps a lot, but it is not complete (and certainly wasn't in the time when Microsofts and Googles of this world started), making that all-important initial scaling way more difficult than it is in the US.
The issue I've seen is that there isn't really the political will to fix it. Europeans broadly seem uncomfortable giving up national sovereignty when it comes to digital issues (including those that impact scaling businesses), so they implicitly choose the status quo that makes it hard for software/internet businesses to succeed.
Literally in this thread you can see Europeans who are against greater federalization. And their objections are entirely understandable, but at the same time, can't exactly have your cake and eat it too. If you insist on 27 different sets of regulations to protect certain interests, however valid, you can't exactly be surprised when that makes scaling businesses rather challenging.
Digital can probably be fixed easier. Energy independence on the other hand was a more stupid thing not to target (like Germany closing nuclear reactors, then buying gas from people that thought they could do whatever they want...).
The technology for energy independence has only been developed in the last few years. Before electric cars everyone was dependent on oil. We’re very close to the tipping point where renewables outcompete everything else and all sectors get electrified. Then energy independence becomes achievable.
on the other hand, the USA got mass surveillance normalized, and an entire generation with serious emotional disturbances due to social media.. Many indicators of required cell phone IDs and airport biometrics still on the way. Is that a "win" in the long term?
Sarcasm aside, what could go wrong is what is going wrong: the democracy is a little too indirect so that it feels like the EU leadership is governing itself.
This article is about the Council, which is comprised of the heads of the various nation states, i.e. the positions more centralization of power would get rid of.
I can't fathom why you would give one parlement all the power. This is the root issue of America right now, individual states have less and less power every year.
I would argue that the root issue in America right now is that you have one guy that can pass 200+ executive orders in less than a year completely bypassing the other two supposed branches of government.
There's no such position or a branch in the EU. None of the three can make any sort of change of their own.
The executive can't bypass the courts with an executive order, unless you've seen something I haven't. The reason Congress doesn't do anything is because it ceased to be a functioning body sometime around the AUMF. Congresspeople realized that doing anything other than what the donors paid for is fraught with risk. Better to watch things being done and complain about it. The UK went the same way, concentrating all power in the current government with even backbenchers being absolutely powerless.
I guess the only thing saving the EU from the same fate is its powerlessness and indecisiveness. The people who run it are certainly insane in the same way as the leaders of the UK and the US. You're both crippled from your lack of federalization and protected by it.
edit: In the US, our real problem is that our executive (including the intelligence agencies) can do whatever it wants without an executive order or a coherent legal rationale, they will simply never be prosecuted. The next executive will proclaim that the illegal acts under the last one will never be tolerated again, pardon everybody who did it, and make those acts legal from now on.
> The reason Congress doesn't do anything is because it ceased to be a functioning body sometime around the AUMF.
That was kind of my point, I just didn't want to write an essay about it. Congress does nothing therefore the only tangible change happens from one guy signing whatever he wants to sign into the law, effectively reducing three branches of government down to one. That said, I sure can point to for example Trump essentially taking over the power to impose tarrifs away from the congress and congress doing absolutely nothing to assert what was previously widely understood to be 100% within their authority. Or dozens of people that were deported despite various courts literally ordering the administration not to do that, Kilmar Abrego Garcia being just the first of them.
> I guess the only thing saving the EU from the same fate is its powerlessness and indecisiveness. The people who run it are certainly insane in the same way as the leaders of the UK and the US.
Now here we vehimently disagree. Nobody "runs" the EU. You need something like 500 people to agree on something for it become a law. Each of those represents their nation, their party, and their EU-level coalition. The biggest countries don't get to impose a change on smaller countries, the smallest countries don't get to do so either.
It is by far the most complex political system we have in the world for a very good reason. It came from decades of negotiating and re-negotiating between countries. It set some base standards that apply equally to otherwise incomparable nations. It is not meant to move fast and break things, it is meant to be slow and ineffective because every decision it makes impacts people that have absolutely nothing in common except the fact that they all volutarily joined the EU. From Finland to Portugal, from Cyprus to Ireland. Seriously, name me one other thing that those four countries have in common. Two of them are not in NATO, one of them is not even in Europe geographically-speaking, but I guess they all kinda like football? The fact that the EU does anything at all is a miracle of human cooperation.
And we're comparing it to one guy with questionable mental capacity (to say the least) signing things into law. Give me a break. The biggest "problem" with the EU is that at least 95% of the population that like to shit on it as an institution haven't invested more than 10 minutes into trying to understand how it works, yourself very much included.
She's the head of one of the three branches, she doesn't get to sign a piece of paper and for that to instantly become a law. Neither does her branch as a whole.
At most I would concede that she's way more of a household name than her predecessors, but that doesn't automatically mean she holds more power.
America is already a country. The EU isn't. You could give the EU a metric ton more power and they'd still be more decentralized than the halcyon days of the US that you reference.
It might not be ideal and wildly swing the pendulum every couple of years, but looking at American centralization from our end, it still seems more functional somehow. At least you guys can get something done.
Imagine if every state governor in the US had veto power over federal legislation. Imagine trying to get anything done that would require buy-in from both California and Alabama. That's the situation we find ourselves in.
>> "Europe" is, unlike the US, not a single entity
>
>It really needs to be, though, that's kind of the crux of it.
>
>Federate or die off, it's time to get rid of old tribal thinking. We're all Europeans.
OK, let us play this game...
China, Japan, Taiwan and the Koreas "really needs to be" a single entity. Theyre all East Asian.
USA, Canada and Mexico "really needs to be" a single entity. Theyre all North Americans.
Nigeria, Algeria, Somalia, and so on "really needs to be" one entity. Theyre all Africans.
It is obvious where this is going, and it is not some place most people want to be. You never explained the rationale behind the need you think there is. You just stated your opinion. But your rationale would be much more interesting to hear.
China and the US are the two superpowers right now.
Together, they are of about the same scale as a united Europe. If we want to play in the same league as them and not be subjugated by them, uniting is our only way forward.
It always struck me funny how Americans refer to it as "Europe". Like, "I traveled to Europe this summer"; what does that even mean, lol. It's like their country's land mass is so large that they intuitively assume that other entities must have a large mass too, and see homogeneity where there is none.
It would be like Russians traveling to America, but making no distinction between Canada and Mexico. Except that Russians don't do that. This is an entirely and purely American problem.
This was not an analogy. It was an additional example to add to the parent's observation. As well as to dispute that it had anything to do with people from countries with big land mass.
Intellectually, I think people agree with that. But I think the weight of history works against it. When you have a history filled with war, and intense competition...
I agree with you but until we speak the same language, this is going to take a while. I am Dutch, speak Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese (and Mandarin) rather well, but I speak mostly English to prove a point as I believe we should pick a language (does not have to be English but seems the most obvious). I won't see this in my lifetime, nor my childrens or grandchildren.
With easily accessible and massive funding by the EU for issues like this would get a lot of uniting done without more federating. I easily can point out 1000s of people who would spend their time working on EU sovereign/open source office 365, ai, aws etc etc the rest of their working lives and beyond, but it needs to make money and there is no money. Both investor money and EU money are incredibly hard to secure here for these type of efforts. Not impossible but very hard.
I think this is the logical next step, but I feel like it won’t be based on the EU but assembled entirely parallel by some of EU‘s members, and this seems consequential to me.
As Swiss resident coming originally from EU country, how to put it politely... fuck that. EU does some good but its top politicians are absurd obscure career bullshitters (Leyen, who the heck likes her and whom she represents? Certainly not eastern EU, she represents everything wrong with EU though. She is so lost and yet untouchable, ie still pushes for destruction of whole European automotive industry while playing her political games. EU parliament is a behemoth of corrupt ultra bureaucracy and so on. Certainly not a leader for whole continent).
For poor countries in the east, EU is salvation, it dumps billions every year on them that are promptly stolen by cleptocratic governments (I know this darn too well as coming from one such place and literally everybody there knows this, you guys are fools for allowing this for decades). Yeah, all you westerners, you don't even bother to check whats happening with your truckloads of money as long as politicians don't stick out like Orban or Fico. And even if they do, all that happens is some PR statements and things go on as usually.
For Swiss for example, it would be a massive downgrade in many aspects - sovereignty, general freedom, performance, agility in ever-changing world, freedom of self-determination, and obviously economical power and wealth. They themselves voted in public vote to not join, same for NATO.
EU should be more like Switzerland, that I honestly believe is the only general recipe how long term old continent can compete and be peer to behemoths like US or China. Its not about this topic or that program, but general working and mindset of society. But good luck that western EU egos would ever accept that somebody found a more effective and way more sustainable way of functioning within European dominion. So its a path to stagnation, I see it as inevitable.
Harder working, more clever countries not laying comfortably deep in their unsustainable social systems, bureaucracy and corruption will catch up and move far beyond EU in upcoming decades, and those further like US will keep pushing beyond whats possible for EU. Maybe bigger war with russia would actually change that mindset not sustainable in 2025, but it could also mean collapse and utter catastrophe. EU is weak and slow and lost, in times when its really bad idea.
Excuse denied. All they had to do was nothing. Instead they over-regulated way too early, before the industries could grow enough to support operating in such an environment. Now they are behind and will likely never catch up. The future of European tech is government handouts/scraps, collected by force from American companies.
That doesn't feel true. I've founded several companies and talk to many other founders in the Netherlands. I've never experienced or heard of government regulation (though often somewhat annoying of course) being an inhibiting factor.*
Funding opportunities are nearly absent though. And it seems that buying 'local' software has never been a consideration (until now). On the contrary: I've seen many cases where EU/national products were pushed out of the market by US products that came later and were (subjectively) worse. They were way better funded though. And, because of that or because of being American, they were considered to be more serious/trustworthy companies. Also, they could afford to flood the market with dump prices, until local competition was basically gone.
*: Okay, with one exception: hiring employees involves a lot of work and risk, and doesn't allow for fiscally attractive stock plans.
I as an European get the feeling people usually hate on the EU just because it dares to interfere with local legislation. But that's its job. And usually the EU interferes for a good reason. Usually because member countries falling back to only thinking about themselves and forgetting that we Europeans are in this shit together.
> you can't do that
It's good that you can't call sparkling wine that's not from the Champagne "Champagne".
It's good that you can't screw over flight passengers the way they do in the US.
It's good that you can't annoy customers with phone power sockets that change with every model.
When I hear about actual examples of excess bureaucracy, it's usually on the country-level.
When people talk about the EU, they don't necessarily mean the EU proper, just like many "US" problems are more at the state or local level. People often mean "within the EU", including national regulations that may be widespread.
EU is in a really tough situation. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while also facing a belligerent Russia on their eastern borders. And their internal politics and governance makes it very difficult to align in a direction that could enable them to start digging out of so much globalized dependence.
A recent analysis of the Trump Tarrifs on the EU concluded that while “some regions and industries could suffer”, for Europe overall the hit may be “limited but not negligible.
The EU is quietly investing massively in diversifying away from the US market. there are trade negotiations or agreements in process (or being advanced) with countries/regions including India, the countries of the Mercosur bloc, Mexico, and Middle-East countries.
European defence spending is going to be much less transatlantic than it would have been were it not for Trump. Some of this is about mindshift. We could have avoided us defence contractor tie in before, but we don’t see the need. Now we do.
The economics have changed, and now it's worth their time.
It's a priority for economic and political reasons. The Trump Tariffs and the US's policies towards Ukraine, and questionable commitment to NATO highlighted the dependencies and exposed the EU is to Trumps corrosive tactics.
Yes. Unfortunately, the EU institutions have been designed during heyday of globalization and neoliberalism. So they are unable to adapt to (or even recognize) the end of it.
Oh, it’s very well recognized. You can check the Mario Draghi report or even recent comments by ECB‘s Christine Legarde. I think it’s mostly reluctance to make big structural changes that seems to be the issue right now.
But when Draghi wrote his report, he was leaving the power structures. It will probably slowly change, but the neoliberal hegemony is still there.
I think the big issue is that all European elites have investments in the USA, and they don't have reason to pick EU over USA for investing. So there is nothing compelling them to voluntary worsen the relations.
Along with Europe's incompetence and divisiveness, you must also consider that the US has kept it so tight under its umbrella that it has squeezed it. The US wants a rich market to sell into, a suitable ally for oil campaigns, but not a competitor.
The US is also still cultivating divisiveness, at the EU level, they groom a politically aligned minority that conveniently opposes any long-term improvement (Looking at Meloni's Italy, Hungary, etc.), at the country level, where possible, they again groom divisiveness by propping up yet another sovranist party.
Of course, that's what a "normal" competitor does, and of course China russia are also taking part in it. But the ambiguous situation of the USA-EU friendship needs to be solved.
I don't see how the EU can get out of this without recognizing that the US is not a friend anymore, and enduring a few decades of protectionism at the services level to try to pull a china on key sectors.
As long as the European psyche is at "40 days PTO, 4 day work weeks, and generous worker protections" the US doesn't have to worry about Europe getting out from under it.
Europe is in the intractable situation of needing to double defense spending, slash taxes, gain energy independence and bankroll it with an aging population skilled in mostly legacy industries. And doing all this with a working population that has only ever known generous work/life conditions.
Thankfully we don't have to rely on anecdotes, and can just check data. The average American works 300 (!) more hours a year than the average Frenchman.
37.5 days more, That's huge. And France isn't even the lowest in the EU.
I disagree about that being the root cause of the issue. It's true that in some countries there is a sort of permanent work contract that essentially means once you are in, you cannot be fired; that's obviously bad.
In my experience, work ethic, or perhaps, bargaining power, is generational, long story short: young people have to work much harder/longer for lower pay than boomers, due to the lack of leverage of their generation and overall market conditions.
Agree with your second paragraph, just disagreeing with the generous work/life conditions part, that's something that was enjoyed by boomers (through country-level debt, even!), but new generations work harder for a salary that in US terms looks like scraps.
Yeah, but unless there's AGI right around the corner, it's starting to look more and more like there's no real moat in the trillions being invested. As switching between AI providers is easy (especially when compare the stranglehold say Microsoft has on organizations), catching up may be relatively easy and cheap for latecomers.
It feels like an emphasis has been placed more on legislating or policing what other people make rather than making anything of value themselves (as far as tech goes).
Being a barnacle on the side of a boat might be a nice free ride for a while until it goes somewhere you don't want to.
I feel like this sentiment comes at least partially from American companies(especially Microsoft) habit of buying successful European tech companies, making people believe they're American and not European.
There is plenty of European tech success stories, but plenty of them will be mistaken for American ones after Microsoft bought them(and more often than not ruined the product, see Skype for example)
That might be your feeling, but it isn't reality. It comes instead from EU companies not even being in the same galaxy as US ones when it comes to revenue, size, and market impact. There is literally no comparison. It's not like the major leagues compared to the minors, it's like the major leagues compared to tee-ball.
So, I'm going to chip in with a different perspective from that of some other commentators on here. The overwhelming majority of computers in the entire world, used by our entire species, have windows as their OS.
While I applaud the use of alternatives to windows and it's apps, universities teach it because it is what their graduates will use in the real world. Governments use it because while it has it's flaws, it mostly works and is a universal standard. It's the toyota of operating systems. The parts and manpower to repair it and use it are available everywhere, and it's cheap and reliable.
I am in university currently and I run Linux, and the only thing that I have needed Windows for has been SolidWorks. Everything else has worked just fine. We’re actually provided Linux VMs because so much software development happens in Linux (or MacOS); you need to know *nix to be job-ready in CS. I’m not sure what world you live in.
Microsoft is not the Toyota of operating systems. That would imply some kind of culture of continuous improvement absent from Microsoft. It’s the General Motors of operating systems
> and manpower to repair it and use it are available everywhere
So why each time i announce myself as working with computers, there is always someone that approaches me saying "great, i have a problem with my computer, can you ..."? I just make them stop and ask "Are you talking about Windows?", and when the answer is affirmative i just say "Sorry, I only work on Linux." and they go "What is that?", lol, i would like you to see their faces when i say "It's a professional system!" and leave. :)
I think you do know the answer, and are just being coy.
In case you don't: The products that people report problems with are the products that people actually use frequently. When "Linux as daily driver" market share is the same order of magnitude as Windows, then such observations will tell us something about the two systems' relative usability.
Because for a CS degree students are expected to work with other systems and the software needed to complete the course work is usually low level. Even when I did my CS degree 20 years ago our labs were Linux and Solaris.
For other degrees you need software which only runs on Windows.
It might also help that Microsoft was totally irrelevant in the professional world in the 80s.
I did a 4 year degree in earth science minor in CS graduating in 2019 and had to touch microsoft for arcgis in one class, and an excel spreadsheet in another.
Like yeah if you have a lot of pre-existing infrastructure migration can be a pain but MS is not in anyway necessary.
As much as I agree with the need for digital independence and the fact that universities (and governments) in Europe are over reliant on US tech, it is not as simple as you describe.
There is a lot more happening in the administrative and infrastructural side of things in most universities that one barely observes as student. So every change needs to take also that into account, the management and maintenance of services and infrastructures that must reliably support thousands of users, with relatively strict privacy and security standards, and their migration.
Same here in 2000s, studying CS was completely MS free. The professors mostly used linux or Mac anyhow. The university system for students was web based. Papers were written in LaTeX with official template. The email system was hosted by the university and not based on outlook. Math related professors did not even use a PC at all during class but a blackboard/OHP/paper. So I don't see a problem for the netherlands..
Students go to university to get an education and obtain employment. All larger employers use Microsoft. Universities would be failing students by not giving them an education on their technologies. Microsoft gives the Universities and their students steep discounts or free software to propagate this.
Companies can pay to train their employees on the software that they use. This is neither the responsibility of the secondary education system nor the Dutch taxpayers.
My first experience with an original IBM PC, I wondered what this thing called Microsoft was.
It just didn't seem right. Why would you need that?
What if you just wanted a plain IBM computer? Why isn't that the mainstream without need for any third party software? Or is it software? How do people do without it? What if you just want to compute? Not use the PC as an office machine or do any gaming?
Is this Microsoft content really essential?
Isn't the hardware any good without a Microsoft?
How would you go about doing that?
I guess Linus eventually asked himself the same kind of things and drove it home :)
At this point all tech is big business. Microsoft or Apple. Azure or AWS. Google Apps or Office. Even dealing with Red Hat feels like you’re dealing with big tech.
And the thing is 99.99% of the time everything works just fine. I think these governments often struggle with moving off of them because they find that making the common case worse is not a trade off that most of their users want.
Governments also don't move to open standards because open standards doesn't have a hospitality suite to invite them to at football matches or Cheltenham.
One of the most remarkable things in British politics in the last 25 years went almost unremarked upon, in part because it happened in a reactionary way.
Blair/Brown's New Labour got so deeply into bed with Microsoft that it caused the coalition government that replaced them to develop a point of agreement and move government functions off Microsoft to open standard formats, and that change stuck. Hence this weird little country that has so many problems has accidentally good IT for anything that they rolled out, there's a lot of open data etc. etc.
That would never have happened if their decision was being guided only by lobbyists; it happened that it was so strengthened by the major tech giants working with the other side.
EU governments can absolutely do this; I find it difficult to believe universities cannot.
That is a tiny part of it though. Lots of government functioning depends on big tech clouds. The NHS depends on AWS. A lot of the private sector does too. Everyone depends on Apple or Android phones. Card payments (and the government is pushing a move to cashless) rely on Mastercard and Visa. Windows increasingly requires logging in with an MS account. In the meantime govt and big business are pushing people to use mobile apps more, increasing this dependence.
I think this bit of the article is a critical problem:
>By outsourcing the management of IT systems, these educational institutions are losing technical knowledge and control. As a result, they are becoming increasingly dependent on big tech, putting academic freedom and independence at risk.
All of this is fixable but its expensive to fix. No one is motivated enough to spend the money.
> moving off of them because they find that making the common case worse is not a trade off that most of their users want.
Until you have companies trying to intervene.
If Universities are publicly funded by the government, and those companies do stuff like spying on, or silencing public officials, then why should the government finance those companies?
I think its nuts that the EU has seen spying, access from services taken away, yet continues to fund those foreign companies.
Are the Open Source alternatives worse? Would change suck even if the alternatives were better? It doesn't matter really. It makes no sense to pay to keep your bad deal running.
USA does corruption and also does threatening if you try to not use their companies. I've read an interview to a mexican minister who basically got direct threats from the USA ambassador when the government decided to stop using windows.
Unfortunately part of it is that it likely goes both ways. For example illegal subsidies to Airbus. And US companies still buy Airbus. I think all of these go into the calculus of the decisions to purchase though. It’s likely you value open source much higher than they do based on your own principles.
Gov don't move because it's not worth the risk for people with decision power.
If you succeed, there's no big win to tag on your resume, if you fail (the most likely to happen) you're out.
Moreover, the people working for the teams that should make the migration usually don't want a migration, so you have to perpetually convince them of the future gains.
For the last 10-15 years, very few revolution have been made in gov ICT. Most of the job is usually rewriting existing app in a recent language or creating apps for not critical features.
It's like the proposals to get rid of daylight savings time. People get ruffled when the time jump happens, so conversation of getting rid of it bubbles up.
But then a week later everyone has adjusted and the motivation to fix it is forgotten.
For one reasono another im not seeing any of the currently OSS solutions like LibreOffice/OpenOffice.orgwould not gain much traction and will remain niche even as the MS/Goog options remain entrenched.
The path taken by Blender(propreiety initially to open source) to reach industry lead would to me seem the most viable to make a dent.
In that i think best cost effective options like WPSOffice or Corel Suite , would be a good option.They have the professional usability in the interface and functionality.
Corel is basically leaving the market wide , by mostly collecting rent from lawfirms as they are well taken care of there.Considering they used to have viable Linux options , seems a lack of vision theer to pick up marketshare.
Not just the UI ,as you can see with Blender it goes toe-to-toe with the paying big suites like Maya and Autodesk, a legacy of its dvelopment being proprietary.Comparad to GIMP et al difference is stark.
Most of those UI/usability changes are market specific, like in my post Corel has speciaized to cater to lawyers so their workflow reflets that. LibrOffice and the others are highlygeneric , even MO as bloated as it is has specific workflows that hook their respective nicehe business verticals.
You're talking about business workflows, and that makes sense. But this article is about universities, they have far less Microsoft-specific document editing workflows, compared to established enterprises. At least, that was my experience when I was a part-time teacher at a university - LibreOffice did the job just fine for me. And although other professors used MS Office, none of them did anything fancy (they didn't have any custom VBAs/macros, no disgusting database-like Excel spreadsheets etc) - I can see these people easily switching to the oss options we have today.
Of course, every university and every person is different, but it's not an impossibility unlike businesses.
Yeah for faculty i guess the basic featureset would suffice. For the students however its basically a immersion in the tools/workflows that they would encounter post graduation.
Knda the way the propreity software is heavily subsidised to get it into schools , and even allowing to some extent piracy.
I have found daily-driving Ubuntu at Delft shocking pleasant. Chrome, zotero, obsidian, zoom, and so on all work great. Outlook, teams, and the office suite, and signing pdfs are all the sharpest edges by far.
I feel if the TUs were required to dogfood this, especially if generously funded such that startups could come along and provide the same service and support, that it could be a great positive externality
My university uses Teams and the browser version is missing some features. For example, I can't see the files uploaded by the professor. That tab won't load.
PDF signing is the bane of my existence, luckily I can get by with a cloud solution but it's nowhere near how easy I wish it would be. Sadly I'm still forced to use a Windows VM or dual-boot because the tax authority in my country requires a root/digital certificate for login to their web system, at least for incorporated entities.
I can find a dozen solutions to sign a PDF on linux without much trouble. Now redacting seems a whole nother story.
I've failed to find even a single option on linux that does real PDF redaction like adobe acrobat. Most don't do redaction at all or worse they say they redact but it's actually just black highlighter on black text or some other kind of overlay that leaves the underlying text data intact.
Thanks for the tip, it might work if I can figure out where the certificate is stored on Windows because I am forced to go through an application first.
I completely support not being dependant on a foreign company (or any company at all, standards FTW) and I don't think there should even be a shadow of possibility that an organization like the ICC could be cut off from services due to a foreign directive, but while I have seen it repeated many times, I think the article's opening assertion is not true; https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...
It is very distressing how many organizations have become dependant on Microsoft and the US cloud for core services. I hope that an unintended consequence of the current US administration's approach is that this becomes less so.
It's not strictly true, but the distinction between the truth and the assertion is small enough that the ICC itself draws the conclusion that Microsoft didn't yet:
> I think the article's opening assertion is not true
The link you provided does not appear to contradict the assertion in any way. "We have not cut off services to the ICC" != "We have not cut off services to one specific sanctioned individual who just so happened to coincidentally be on the ICC". The linked article even mentions Microsoft were pressed on the specific subject of the individual rather than the ICC as a whole, but declined to comment, so it looks like a regular case of weasel wording to distort the truth.
I was one of the people fighting for keeping Unix when the UU went to Exchange. It was a drama: instable af, the MS consultants could not keep it running even for 24 hours at a time while unix had 0 issues and kept chugging along (I don't remember what Unix: I think it was SunOS/Solaris). It was forced through at great cost and effort but of course sponsored by MS. It sucked for years to come.
I was at the UvA too when they moved to, equally instable MS stuff too: I worked behind some of the last Sun machines and got to take a palet of sparcstations, ultras and an e450 home when they got phased out (I still have them and they are still working, of course). Could have all been Linux now but MS was so aggressive and no one listened to profs or students, even in all tech deps who were all vehemently against the move.
Is it really that hard to switch to [google|libre|apache|free|etc.|etc.]? It seems like at the university level the ideas are the important part, and the need to write/spreadsheet at the bleeding edge of functionality much less so?
Short answer: to Google it's not so bad but it's not like the legal risks are any different from Microsoft. And to the rest -- yes it is very hard.
Universities need cloud storage with online collaboration and a fully functioning office suite.
LibreOffice doesn't work because it's desktop-only and has no collaboration. However, there's an online-collaboration fork called Collabora Online, and you can use something like Nextcloud to provide your own privately hosted cloud backend. But obviously this is a gigantic effort for the university's IT department to provide and maintain with reliable redundancies and backups.
Also, LibreOffice/Collabora is pretty good if you stick to its native formats, but its interoperability with MS Office files has a lot of bugs.
In the end, it's just cheaper and more reliable to use MS or Google like everyone else. Students, professors and administrators wind up having basically the same needs around office software as businesses do.
At 4 european universities i studied/taught this has never been the case. Most universities are used to run their infra, they ran their email servers way before google existed and they run big fleets of servers for thin clients. Afaik they still kept their own internal messaging as backup but it was still email servers hidden behind web gui.
What happened was that the big tech came in and made everything for them free. It is really hard to compete with free. They get windows for free, they get gmail for free at some point even unlimited google drive for free.
Now the situation is changing as the corps are tightening. I've seen 40k student university switch from gmail to office360 in two months because google suddenly wanted money and microsoft didn't. Now Microsoft also wants money. And it's not small money. So the school is doing cost assesment - you can give it to european third party provider that will be way cheaper tham microsoft. Or you go back to your own infra.
Turns out that what to be really expensive when google was giving people 30gb of free space to everyone in 2012 now is actually not that bad and you own your future. My guess is they will pay Microsoft for a year while they transition their email to their infra. The other parts gonna come later. But the students are required to use libre office (or latex) for writing their thesis so i don't think they see google docs as big blocker.
There's a huge difference between running an email server and some additional servers for thin clients -- all traditional stuff -- versus running an entire private cloud that redundantly stores the many many petabytes for your 40,000-person university, and all the web servers for the office software. Keeping it secure, keeping it updated, and having a live failover site if there's a fire or flood in your main data center that takes it out for weeks or months.
If it were that easy and cost-effective to do, large corporations would be doing it too. But there's a reason they're not.
Unis are more suited to do this than most corporations. For example at school i am at
1. They already self host many apps in production. Including their own complex homegrown app that manages the school. All of the students have 30 gigs of “network drive” for their virtual computer. That means lot of the infra is already there - including unified oauth/ldap.
2. There are already experts there teaching programming/devops. So these people can both administer and teach. I wouldn't underestimate inhouse capabilities.
3. It is quite easy to get grants for infrastructure modernization. These funds wouldn't be possible to use on paying third party services.
Overall I think its simply matter of costs and once googles/microsoft is not free they might not be the cheapest option anymore.
How much is the typical dutch university paying MS/Google? Maybe 10k students x 200EUR/year = 2 million EUR/year.
Twenty universities come together to move to make Collabora+NextCloud work for them. That's 40 million EUR/year. How much do they need to actually spend on developers + infrastructure to make it happen?
If you look at the numbers that way, open source usually looks like a slam dunk.
The problem is coordination issues: actually getting people and orgs to look at it that way and spend the money that way, rather than just waiting for someone else to fix the problem.
I can guarantee some dutch banks are also locked into MS. Maybe not the big ones that actually need to care about tech, but the ones that don't care about tech went head-first into Microsoft Suite these last few years.
Its' an awful sight. What's worse is that there's no argument for this extra cost (apart from maybe vendor lock-in), and now no one knows who to blame for the big bill that comes in every month.
We switched completely to Microsoft/Azure a couple of years ago. My previous employer as well.
There was no stopping it, I'd tried and they looked at me like I'm crazy. "Everybody else is doing it" is a very strong argument.
At the same time, a very popular open source security package that I wanted to use was deemed a security risk because the maintainer has placed Ukrainian and Palestinian flags in the readme.
I am sure UK universities cannot go without Microsoft. I believe the absolute majority rely on it. And I can see how they rely more and more on it, by stopping using non-Microsoft/local solutions and switching to Microsoft's ones.
step 1. have syadmins run your stuff, recruit ITSM kids to help run it! We all learn and maintain our own hardware, software and get to poke at the fun internals of email, storage, etc.
Dependence on Redmond and Washington (for high-complexity software, national security, and any other "really hard" stuff) is a very easy, comfy local optimum.
Actual independence would require a great deal of competence, expenditure, hard work, long-range planning, and time living unhappily far from any optimum.
While the Dutch obviously know how to do that - nobody in America is keeping the North Sea at bay for them - I would not bet that they'll actually do it here.
Most people barely know what OS they are using. its just a way to start apps.
As long as they have an obvious way of opening a web browser, an office suite, and maybe an email and calendering client, the average office worker will barely notice the OS.
If a viable Office 365 alternative appears, it won't be a big top-down bureaucratic initiative from the government, or even the universities. It'll be a nimble EU-based startup company building a full office suite and making it available not just to government organizations via a "contact sales" link (you hear that, NextCloud and OpenDesk?), but via one-click deploy to AWS EU region, docker/k8s, and whatever EU-based cloud hosts exist, so you and your friends can test it out at home.
(If the EU never figures out how to allow nimble startups companies to exist, then forget about it)
I think a better question is if there is an operating framework that would remove Microsoft's ability to sanction individuals on the whim of the current US administration in lieu of the appropriate EU institutions.
Microsoft's partnership/JV with 21Vianet in China shows that it can be done (with limitations on features) and this is probably the right direction to go.
In my experience it went something like this: Before covid it seemed to be run mainly locally, during covid there was a massive lobby by MS to push teams and most Unis caved and thats how most unis ended up in the MS eco system.
Yes, this is what happened. 'The only way' to scale up Teams video conferencing such that everybody could use it, was to move everything to the cloud. Never waste a good crisis!
Yes, of course, when their teachers learn to use a FLOSS desktop for all tasks, starting with writing theses and papers in LaTeX... In other words, when they run courses for students to recover what they didn't learn in high schools.
Today, a desktop is the primary epistemological tool; only a FLOSS one is suitable for study, as it reveals what it does and is, or at least can be, shaped according to need. Most are simply IT illiterate, like professors from the 1950s unable to read and write fluently, except they still haven't realised it...
Not just in education, but even at work, companies or even governments would rather have MS, for example, paying them hefty contracts, while hiring borderline minimum wage workers to run such systems. I remember I had similar arguments with an executive before, and I recommended hiring competent people and using alternative tools. The answer was simple: "We don't want to have XYZ department relying on this person/group, but rather on this big popular company." They thought they were mitigating the risk, only to put all their eggs in one basket!
AWS had announced a sovereign European cloud, probably to avoid a loss of business in the long term due to these initiatives. But it's questionable whether this would survive strong political pressure from the US government.
The US CLOUD Act says that if Amazon has the technical ability to access those machines, they must do so if the US government asks them to.
So, unless it’s a separate legal entity, and also shares no authentication, software deployment, or related infrastructure with the US part of Amazon, it’s either not providing sovereignty or is being offered in violation of US law.
It’s unclear to me if they’d have to comply with requests to (for example) backdoor their IAM service backend and push the binaries to Europe, or not. (I’m not a lawyer.)
How I can imagine it works: Amazon only provides the packaged software, the infra and the ops are officially driven by a 100% European company. AWS probably provides support, but they don't have the encryption keys not any access to the installation.
I guess the question then becomes: what happens if some future US government pressures Amazon to revoke the license. Unless and until there's a good answer to that, it'd still be better to develop something locally.
Sort of. AWS operates the China regions more or less like any other region, with oversight by the Chinese holding companies.
The EUSC will be more restricted, similar to GovCloud. Only EU citizens can access/operate it.
Specific example: an alarm fires for your service. If it’s in China, anyone on the team can go look at the logs. If it’s in GovCloud, only teammates who are American can look at the logs. In the EUSC, only Europeans can.
Whoops, the European company just got bought out by a US entity. Tough luck! [1]
Is this part of the spec? If not, it's as loose as a tent. And by "part of the spec" I mean "all your assets will be forcefully nationalized the second you or a parent company of yours becomes less than X% European owned", where X is well above 50.
As a rule of thumb, I wouldn't assume that any scenario you came up with on the spot was overlooked by an agency whose job it is to not overlook complex scenarios, let alone trivially simple ones.
To start with... states can and will absolutely block the sale of strategic national companies to foreign actors. But I'm sure you knew that.
Anyone knowledgeable of history knows the Dutch universities existed for four centuries before Microsoft even existed. With that knowledge the question becomes farcical.
I read quite a lot of bashing of various national and transnational European institutions for relying so much on US tech. But what about YOU, european? gmail, facebook, instagram, twitter, whatsapp, macbook, iphone, uber, steam etc etc are all working fine for you?
yep, but for most of those its not very good for us.
Like fast food, it makes satiates a short term desire for a long term problem.
At least, facebook, instagram and an argument can be made for gmail.
I think goods are a different thing altogether though, nobody tells you what to do with your washing machine after you buy it, but social media engines use your data against you and change the rules/system on a whim.
Obviously terrible seeing the US government harm its own international standing for no real gain, but if it results in Europe developing viable alternatives to American big tech services, that'd be fantastic.
I have time so I tried to study one or two things. The harsh reality is that every university that supports remote studies I have looked at explicitly or implicitly required apple or even worse windows hardware.
Functionally, they can easily do without Microsoft... I'm more worried about the implications in terms of PsyOps and repercussions... Like they pulled with that ICC judge.
>to be honest, Microsoft is making it increasingly attractive to switch. Now that the company is putting AI in everything, everything is becoming more annoying to use."
In the 90s I used to sort of tease/banter our sysadmin guy at a small, developer-centric company in Europe (SunOS/Linux/etc-focused) in a friendly way with something like:
"It seems to me like all the things you're doing can and should be automated at a larger scale."
Ten years ago when I recalled this I felt sort of good about the prediction. What I predicted pretty much happened.
That sysadmin guy has become some sort of CIO and seems to be doing well.
I did not anticipate the loss of data sovereignty.
.... and now I'm doing like 50% SRE/devops. Who's the sysadmin now, but without physical control of our data?
Europe can do without Microsoft, however it will require a kick in the rear to get there.
I was kind of hoping that the GDPR would be that kick, as it's clear to anyone that Microsoft, or really any other major US corporation, can't actually satisfy that completely as long as they have their tendrils in its European subsidiaries and that the US can compel them give up the information they care about. But this is a rather large elephant the EU has elected to ignore since that's the path of least resistance.
The EU actually realising the using Microsoft as your foundation does break the GDPR and fining the relevant institutions (and fixing itself on that same front!), or relevant institutions being embargoed to the point of not being able to use Microsoft products, as is apparently now the case with the ICC, will probably kick Europe into gear, but it needs to be a solid kick, and not just an institution here and there.
But what's the alternative? Most people use either O365 or Google Docs.
I hate that people are incapable of using Libreoffice and mailing documents around, but modern users are addicted to "the cloud", and it's my understanding there's no EU centric competitor to those two giants.
Can they get rid of Typescript, npm, Github, VS, VSCode, .NET, C#, F#, C++ / DirectX, Next.js, vcpkg, Microsoft contributions to Java, Rust, and Linux kernel, on their students teaching materials?
If they can switch to UNIX FOSS technologies with zero trace of Microsoft's money sponsorship, and hinder the students careers in specific job markets, then surely.
People usually never look beyond getting rid of Office and Windows.
The problem is described in the first two sentences of the article:
> "The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court suddenly couldn't access his email. According to Microsoft, that's because of US sanctions against the court's employees."
Nothing you've listed relates to that.
If American services and platforms have become unreliable and untrustworthy because the American government is erratic, then it's only natural that European organisations will look for alternatives.
DirectX is a funny one to list because 90% of Windows games run on Linux. WINE and Proton solve that problem for you:
No, it represents a market opportunity. WINE (a European led project) effectively makes Win32 and DirectX into Linux APIs. It works well for games. You can bring those games to Linux with less effort. And Valve can offer SteamOS (based on Arch Linux, also a European led project) for less cost.
You don't need Visual Studio. JetBrains has nice, cross-platform IDEs and they're a European company to boot:
Which is why I listed several Microsoft dependent technologies that Europe kingdom guards have to stop the merchants from Microsoft kingdom trade at the borders.
Without wagons carrying Windows game boxes, there is nothing at the SteamOS theater to play, and then the actors have to actually come up with their own original plays.
No, the point is precisely what Microsoft can do. This is all about sovereignty of the computers you use, the software you use, and control of your data.
As long as we depends on any Microsoft technology, the dependency won't go away, thinking the problem is only Windows and Office is throwing to the eyes of the public.
To achieve Microsoft freedom, you have to have 100% Microsoft free technology, from computer, operating systems, programming languages, hosting services, communication platform, social media, job platforms, the whole deal.
I studied at Utrecht University and all the programming classes in the Bachelor were C#, Visual Studio, XNA, DirectX. Windows. Database class i had to learn in Proprietary Microsoft tools too. All Microsoft stuff. Sure nobody would complain if you did stuff on Linux but all the support by TAs and teachers was on Microsoft platforms only.. The Master was much better but the Bachelor basically was grooming people to become Microsoft consultants.
If the rot starts at the core of your education curriculum there is no saving your dependence on Microsoft.
I always found this choice puzzling to teach people proprietary technologies in a public institution. This was before DotNet core and VSCode was a thing and Microsoft hadnt whitewashed themselves to look like an open source friendly brand yet.
And same goes for less technical disciplines too. Adobe, Autodesk, Archicad, etc. It's pretty bad software: expensive, very buggy, poor extensibility, poorly maintained, closed-source, rapid tech debt accumulation requires upgrading your pc every few years. If only a minor percentage of organizations licensing it would instead spend that budget financing an open source project, that would have a very positive effect for everyone. I can somewhat understand private businesses not thinking long-term, but public institutions paying licensing fees instead of financing open-source seems like plain incompetence. Then again, maybe there's a lack of open-source initiatives willing to spearhead this.
But if students learn some open-source software that doesn’t get used in private industry, will they be able to land a job that’s asking Autodesk et al. knowledge as a requirement?
As a former medical and scientific illustrator, learning a software package (Photoshop or GIMP) really isn't as crucial as learning principles and practices of art, design, and graphics. Color theory, negative space, composition, etc., are critical to production and apply to any media one chooses to work in: oil on canvas, pen and ink, or computers.
The other issue is access. Again, from an art/graphics/design perspective, costs associated with proprietary software can limit some students from even participating in art/graphics/design programs. Adobe Creative Suite is US$69.99/mo or US$840/yr.
Look at Blender. No reason why that success can't be repeated.
Yes there is, blender has a unique win/win/win that justifies funding by these major software organizations.
It's not the job of a university to prepare you for the workplace. That's the job of the workplace. I'm sick of industry outsourcing their jobs to public institutions.
It's the job of a university to teach cutting edge research
Sure, you can say that. But a good chunk of people will disagree with you. I went to one of the top schools, and it was fairly 30/70 between teaching “cutting edge research” and teaching “what’s being used in practice”. I think that was fair. During bachelors, hardly you’ll get cutting edge research cause you don’t have prerequisite knowledge.
Agree with this 100%. At some point the private sector decided that it will accept no responsibilities of any kind (except for what was fought and defended tooth and nail by the civil society and a few slightly more responsible governments), and all the costs that can be avoided will be avoided, shifting the burden on the public sector.
It's not a big jump to go from open-source equivalents of the close source products. The concept and what one wants to accomplish is the same. Many of these companies have certification programs, if the point is to be specific and narrow, for a particular job.
Good points. Funding the open-source equivalents, even at a fraction of what they are spending on close-source, would have circumvented the problem of being "trapped" in the first place. Even more, the universities would be able to contribute code to the projects, if they wanted to.
It was always pretty obvious what Microsoft wanted and was trying to do. Now trying to escape, will be painful, but that's the price they will have to endure if they want freedom and data sovereignty.
I agree with your point generally, but wouldn’t call adobe software buggy or poorly maintained. That’s a bit of a stretch.
Surely not _all_ the courses... Utrecht was and is big on Haskell as you know... Given that you TA'd a course on it :)
Well I guess at the time large part of GHC development technically was Microsoft Research ;) . But yeh the Functional Programming and Compilers course were nice exceptions to the Microsoft trend. That's also why I ended up following that path in my master's programme :')
Visual Studio is world class IDE, C# is one of the better designed languages and ecosystems, Windows is everywhere - from home, to enterprise.
Looks like your education was well received if you went to those uni's!
I didnt!
Visual studio code sucks badly, just most common developers started with it and are used to it in the same way that Windows was "the os" for the same kind of developers at a specific point in the past.
It is even worse know that vscode and all the clones are packed with llm agents that such devs can't live without.
For one thing for example, the latency of the editor is crazy for someone that worked with native editors.
Visual Studio != Visual Studio Code
But tbf VS Code is decent at being editor tho
Nobody is talking about VS code though.
VS Code is fine.
Perfectly so
X is great; Y is great; Z is everywhere!
Probably not intended, but had to laugh a bit at that.
I meant people often complain that unis do not teach them things that are useful in "real world"
Windows indeed is real world.
It wasn't always that way. When I began studying CS at Utrecht University, there was no Windows at all. It was Solaris, IRIX and a bit of HP-UX.
And it should've been NixOS after!
It did slowly sneak in over time I guess. In my last year of my master's eventually the faculty was forced to stop hosting its own intranet and mailing lists and migrate everything to the "cloud" (Microsoft 365 and Blackboard).
I have a copy at home of all the old wiki content and the old cs.uu.nl website. The university themselves didn't even think they should archive it so I archived it myself.
I hope there's other people with copies too. My archive isn't complete
I've gone without Microsoft products for many years now. It's SOOOOO much better.
I went for a decade without using any Microsoft products until they bought GitHub
I ditch Windows in 1996 and went Linux. Really SOOOOO much better. :D
You'd have to pay me to use windows and office, which is exactly what's been happening at work, essentially.
I had a similar experience at a different university in NL, practically the entire curriculum was Oracle & Cisco.
The things that's puzzling is that I overall find it much harder getting my toolchains and stuff working on windows.
In my experience, getting the periphery stuff is harder than the contents of the course a good chunk of the time for beginners.
> if the rot starts at the core of your education curriculum there is no saving your dependence on Microsoft.
TBF, the curriculum being MS based can mean very little if the concepts taught in are valuable enough. I've briefly looked at the project linked in your user description, and they don't look nice and absolutely not tinted by MS influence.
It is indeed dancing with the devil, but if MS forks the money to renew the whole university's computer park, clear all the licensing issues and train part of the staff, it can be a boon for the university.
My uni had a deal with Sun (RIP), many basic courses were in Java, all our system programming course we're Solaris targeted, all servers were Solaris anyway so our code had to run there. It's a pretty basic arrangement IMHO.
[dead]
[dead]
I spent the past year working for a company that relies heavily on Microsoft for email, productivity tools, and identity management. After that experience, I can say with confidence: never again. The support is astonishingly poor, and user experience feels like an afterthought.
More importantly, using Microsoft at scale can leave your organization fundamentally insecure. The obscure, insecure defaults are, at best, dangerous missteps and, at worst, borderline negligent. I’m convinced that only a small fraction of enterprises using Microsoft have the expertise and budget required to secure it properly.
My personal view is that if your organization depends heavily on Microsoft, it’s not serious about security, whether they’re aware of it or not.
I work for a company that now uses everything from Microsoft. They used to have Jira, AWS and tons of other different products, but now everything is Microsoft, and it's terrible. Azure DevOps is particularly horrific. It's like Jira+Jenkins except you can never find anything. Nothing about it makes sense to me.
As far as I can tell, the databases on Azure are all either slow, expensive, or both.
And of course it means we hand over all of our highly sensitive data to a company that has said that US law will overrule EU law. How can anyone trust a company that says they will not obey the law?
Because I can't help it, and ADO is my pain:
Type the same id number into a bug related links twice. It'll have no match, and then a match.
Dont know why employers do this. Why pay for shitty tools your employees hate ?
The top of the stack loves Outlook/Exchange. They want that calendar experience and that's what they're going to get.
That's the thing. The decision makers are not programmers who care about good dev tooling, but executives who care about good agenda management. So Microsoft's agenda management is great, and their dev tooling sucks.
It really feels like ADO was just quickly patched together to they can offer it as part of a complete package.
Corporate people who decide what services to buy don't care about what the employees think about those services.
And regarding Microsoft, it's easy: paying for the whole package is much easier in terms of contract overhead and with MS the discounts are quite advantageous as soon as you increase the width of the package.
Short term and if you only look at the bill, it makes sense.
Long term, forcing your teams to work with shitty services is a terrible idea.
I'm always amazed at how needlessly complicated and useless administration of Microsoft products and services are. So much of 365 feels like it is 75-90% completed then abandoned. Every time I find something that sounds like it should be really useful, it turns out to lack at least one function or feature needed to do what I would need it to.
For every Microsoft service there are 5 tiers of certifications that are needlessly updated every few years.
Like Azure. 90% in the UX and the one feature that you need that is only accessible on the cli…
Where do I find money to fund my rewrite of Kerberos 5 in Rust, removing the dumb options and Kerberos 4 compatibility and eventually create Kerberos 6 + AD that will solve a metric buttload of issues in Linux and knock a major peg of MS off?
Kerberos solves the problem that doing public key authentication is slow on a i386
kerberos solves the problem that you can have short one time tokens using your password.
Add public key infrastructure support, make ldap the default store and you got AD. Even better, you can throw all the OAuth crap down the drain.
now, starting services with a password becomes an issue of booting the machine.
No one would build KRB4/5 today, it makes no sense. It's only advantage over an X.509 cert based system is speed on really really slow CPUs.
That doesn't seem right to me, assuming you still want the paradigm of one-time principal-to-domain authentication with just-in-time principal-to-resource authentication. While I think you could probably use x509 certs to streamline and modernize the ticket-granting-and-session-key dance, you'd still be doing a lot of the same high-level things.
Depending on the use-case, Kerberos (/this imagined x509 Kerberos) or Oauth2 still seems suitable for single-authenticator/multiple-services paradigm.
Ask IBM/RedHat. They did a lot of foundational work with SSSD (aka "too many 'S' D").
Kerberos is not a great protocol, though.
Ultimately Kerberos is used to authenticated basically everything in a Windows on-prem environment and in a way that is largely transparent to the user. Silent SSO is a very nice feature. Even if you're doing OIDC or SAML, those protocols do not define what is actually performing authentication at the IdP which, again, ultimately ends up being Kerberos if you're people are on-prem. So whatever your feelings are about Kerberos as a protocol, it doesn't matter if that's what Windows uses. And again, it cannot be obsoleted by other protocols. Even if you're using a newer fido thing like passkeys or client certs or whatever, ultimately the device has to be authenticated to get that passkey or cert or whatever it is installed into the authenticator app of the device. So Kerberos is king on prem. MIT Kerberos on Linux is not really compatible with Windows Kerberos in ways that cause problems that are not solved by re-writing Kerberos in another language. More important issues have to do with sharing credentials and getting trust info and other such things.
> Ultimately Kerberos is used to authenticated basically everything in a Windows on-prem environment and in a way that is largely transparent to the user. Silent SSO is a very nice feature.
When it works. And when it doesn't work (which is most of the time if you're outside of corporate LAN) you simply can't debug what's happening.
> MIT Kerberos on Linux is not really compatible with Windows Kerberos
It actually is! Long, long time ago I managed to join Windows into a pure Kerberos domain. Everything worked, including things like GSSAPI authentication in Putty or MySQL. It involved some `ksetup.exe` incantations, I think this guide might be still relevant: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19316-01/820-3746/gisqf/index.ht...
Of course, there was no group synchronization (because no AD).
That was about 20 years ago. Back then, I was working on helping companies migrate to Linux, and I toyed with an idea of having a background service to periodically sync groups from the Linux SMB server with the local users.
> Kerberos is not a great protocol
Understatement of the week
sssd is a dogpile of dogcrap. I have 15 tickets on github about fixing their manpages.
and you really need to read the kerberos book before picking up sssd.
Memory safety or type safety are the least of Kerberos' issues. The protocol itself is fundamentally flawed.
What issues on Linux would this actually solve?
simplify gssapi, for one. single authentication and authorization: submit on slurm? ask kerberos + ldap. can i upload to this service? as kerberos + ldap. Policies applied on this computer? ask kerberos + ldap
i may be naive a bit, i'll accept that, but I really like how AD works (which is essentially kerberos + ldap)
I tried to set up network file sharing with NFS the other day and it was like pulling teeth. You need Kerberos if you want to map user names instead of user ids and still have some security.
Ultimately I gave up and used samba instead, but it does seem like there's a big gap in linux offerings for "home/small business network file sharing" with shared auth
sshfs doesn't work for you?
It's a great option to have, but ultimately it's at-best pretty slow.
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Even if you do, you’re still going to get breached. They drop features all of the time that open potential vulnerabilities.
I used to run a Microsoft productivity ops team. Email/SharePoint/etc. Our headcount was about 20-24. O365 dropped that to ~8. Now? I’m told it’s about 60, much of it relating to security.
What kind of obscure insecure defaults are there?
Check out the Microsoft baseline security guidelines for Windows 11. It's about 400 entries. 400 settings that Microsoft themselves recommend changing from the defaults to achieve a baseline security.
Why does windows 11 show stock values in the task bar by default? Why does it show ads, games and yellow press headlines when you click on it? On the enterprise edition! Xbox services are installed and running by default. Why?
Changing the default would cost sales and increase support costs.
Direct Send was my favorite. Direct Send allows devices to send unauthenticated email to internal recipients using your organization’s domain, which can expose you to internal emails for phishing etc. It bypasses user authentication, making sender identity difficult to verify or audit. For all orgs made before mid 2025 it was enabled by default.
I saw a great Blackhat talk this year about Entra misconfiguration that got Microsoft's own sensitive internal services owned by a researcher, one of them owned by their security team. After the report they reconfigure their services, didn't pay a bounty and considered the problems solved. What about their customers making the same config errors as the Microsoft team... no changes planned.
There's much much more...
Everything on by default in general has plagued them, because they don't want users to complain it doesn't work.
One not-so-obscure problem is how hard it is to only elevate yourself to admin when you need it (and run as a regular user the other time).
Essentially you need to pay double license for admin users so they can have two logins; and it's a pain to quickly elevate privilege to do day to day admin tasks.
So if your friendly domain admin clicks the wrong link, your entire network is owned.
Obscure from a typical user's POV: the fact that file extensions are not being shown by default. This makes it possible for the user to click on a file that has the extension and the icon of a picture (imbedded inside), but turns out to be an executable file.
They've apparently had a corporate philosophy of obfuscating the underlying system from the end user and deliberately inhibiting their ability to learn how it fits together since at least the early 2000's.
I feel like the current ignorance of the average computer user was a deliberate outcome they've been working towards for more than 20 years. As someone who has been using computers since the late 80's, I find their current offerings harder to use than ever.
This is blatant nonsense. The best security choice for any small business that doesn’t have a dedicated full time security staff is Microsoft 365.
Have you admined a Google Apps account and an MS365 account? I'm curious why you think Microsoft is more secure? For me they are completely different, Google is secure by default, Microsoft is not. Do you have "Direct Send" enabled on your account for example?
Because outside of a handful of nerdy tech companies, all small businesses need to use Microsoft Office. From there, it’s a no brainer to stay in the MS ecosystem and use Sharepoint etc…
For a small business without a dedicated IT team, simply hire a IT contractor to harden the tenant (MFA etc…), have them review every six months and be done with it and focus your resources on running your business.
My father’s decidedly non-nerdy logistics consulting business with roughly 20 employees ran (and runs) on Mac OS since the founding of the company in the mid 1990s with my mom being the „IT team“. There are some situations where companies rely on certain compatibilities requiring windows. But most could do completely fine without, especially nowadays.
It's not proof of anything
How do you know that they wouldnt be more productive if they were using Windows and Office bundle all the time?
You can run a logistics consulting business without windows, but you will struggle without Excel and PowerPoint, and 365 with SharePoint is basically needed for collaboration in any consulting business.
Im also a logistics consultant… try to parse a multi-million line orderlines extract in Google Sheets compared to excel.
I’m also on Mac but to be honest it’s a challenge - there are still enough industry specific tools that are windows only so I have to run a parallels VM to get by.
Collaboration with Sharepoint is I think the biggest issue with M365. It’s impossible to figure out where a file is stored… on your hard drive? One drive? Teams? Sharepoint?
And the biggest problem I have is managing revisions with multiple editors. If I were talking to Microsoft about strategy, this would be the thing I’d suggest. I know it’s common to use Sharepoint for collaboration, but it’s such a Frankenstein’d system that it’s going to be a problem for everyone sooner or later.
My 22 year old fresh out-of-school communications manager admin was able to figure all that out on her first day of work.
Don’t know what to tell you.
Many of the 22-25 year old-ish people in a grad school class I was part of recently had no idea where a shared project document was or how to edit it outside of Office 365’s online editor. Many didn’t know that the “attachment” from email was actually a Sharepoint link and not a file. This becomes a problem when you need to use some features in the desktop Word program that aren’t in the online editor.
Honestly, I’m less interested in how things work on day one. When systems are fresh or new, it’s easier to keep working. The mess always ends up happening after things have had time to accumulate cruft. Working on a collaborative manuscript in the current Microsoft shared system is normally a nightmare.
Trying to manage/accept/reject edits and revisions between different people is still difficult. That is unless you can use a source code repository like GitHub. But good luck trying to convince people to do that. Sadly, this means that emailing files around is still the easiest way to keep things straight.
If China can survive — and even start to thrive without ASML and TMSC, then have no doubt that should push come to shove Europe will be able to run a mail server and some office tools.
They’re just hedging that American politics will stop licking the car battery.
EU politicians are just too dependent on keeping the status quo of the last decade. The status quo is how they got to their position so they have no incentive to change anything (Starmer, Merz, Marcon, Von der Lyen. Yuck). By the time they finally get the shove they need to rapidly decouple, e.g. when America invades The Hague* to rescue Netanyahu from war crimes charges, it will be when they're already on the edge of the proverbial cliff.
*: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan. Now they are invading continental Europe?
As I said, still licking the car battery.
>The usa couldnt handle Aghanistan
Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years.
Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.
> US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there
War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
What were the goals for Afghanistan?
Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban. Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.
Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.
"Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense"
Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes.
For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine.
And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.
The EU put together has the second largest military in the world.
> And their leadership is so docile and complacent
That is the real issue.
In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands...
And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters.
Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent.
Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.
"In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe."
Only by using the UK as a staging post - and then invading a country that wanted to be liberated with an active partisan network.
So, if China can't take Taiwan over a 150km stretch of littoral waters, a naval in invasion from over the Atlantic is impossible.
There is also no way such a fleet would get past Gibraltar or the Suez canal, so the US would they'd have to stage in Morocco or possibly take Scandinavia then cross into Denmark.
Back to licking batteries.
>And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters.
That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same.
I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that.
No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff.
Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC.
What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do?
- break him out? how?
- openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in?
- blow up civilians?
What?
Of course not, haven't you seen any movies? They break him out during transport, either by hijacking a plane, or through a complicated series of car and bus chase scenes! Maybe a helicopter and submarine, too.
i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing
if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)
Only invasion, or a real threat of invasion, from Russia, US or China can shook Europe into real change.
Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it. China is too far away. The US? Half of Europe might actually side with them.
> Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it.
There’s no actual threat of Western Europe invasion from Russia.
Russia is a gas station operated by racketeers, they’ll bite off as much as they can and threaten with guns and nukes, they don’t have capability to meaningfully invade Western Europe.
Not western Europe, no. Not yet at least. But Russia does threaten eastern Europe. The Baltics in particular are high on Putin's wish list. And if he invades there, and the EU and NATO is slow to respond, that could easily be the end of NATO.
Of course Russia can't attack western Europe right away, but he can weaken it by taking a bit at a time from eastern Europe. And Ukraine is part of that. Europe should really be stepping up there, but they keep telling themselves that Russia can't invade western Europe, so it's not that urgent.
> Threat of invasion from Russia doesn't seem to be doing it.
Yes, it does. Sentiment in politics and the population seems to have shifted significantly. And Trump being Trump seems to be helping Europe realize the necessity of this. I'll count that as one useful thing he has accomplished.
Yes, but they're still not actually doing all that much. I mean, sure long term military investment, and some support for Poland, but it's too little, too divided, and they're standing at the sidelines while Trump proposes to sell Ukraine to Russia.
The EU has - just like the US - a generation of boomer senators and presidents in (voting) power for more than 2 decades at this point.
In the coming decade, that will change.
Hopefully for the better.
Well, at least in the Netherlands, that's not true. Our elected representatives have been rather.. volatile over the past decade. I liked the boomers better.
The Netherlands just elected the youngest prime minister ever. He and his hot Argentinian husbando is going to make Trump look very old and disgusting if he ever comes visiting again.
Wait a moment, Rob Jetten isn't the Prime Minister yet, and it's not guaranteed he will be, just like Wilders didn't get that position.
Europe is not a political entity or an organisation. Who exactly will do it? The EU, some EU country, Russia, the UK, Switzerland, some cooperative agreement...?
We're talking about running a few mail server, network shares, and an office suite (LibreOffice if you want). Any university's in-house IT department should be able to pull that off, and it's exactly what many did for a very long time.
If Universities are anything like other large public/public-adjacent organizations, the bulk of the in-house IT department was long since replaced by Microsoft resellers posing as IT. It’s insidious.
Not all universities in Europe are like this, but some are 100% like this. But if there was a larger political directive towards a more autonomous solution, it would eventually work, I think.
Can universities be given political directives like that in most European countries? In the UK they are usually (entirely?) independent, are non-profits and registered charities.
They get government funding for both (British resident) students and research so the government has leverage but would have to use that to incentivise them. I imagine at least some other European countries are much the same.
An even trickier question if you are interested in digital sovereignty is how to get the private sector to do the same. Running everything on AWS and requiring a mobile app to do anything seems to be almost instinctive for many organisations.
In most europeans countries afaik most (known) universities are public ie state-owned, with few exceptions. Big part or most of the funding is public too. Regardless of whether they are state-owned, the states usually set up the framework the universities operate in. How loose or tight is the state control varies from country to country. But there is always some way to meddle into university affairs and very often they do, in the context of public policy. Eg in the recent years universities tend to get very specific directives about from which countries they can freely form collaborations with academics and from which not, depending on the foreign policy of a country. A lot of stuff eg if and how a university can own property is also regulated depending on the country. It varies a lot, but I see no reason to set up some stricter framework wrt data sovereignty. Ime the supposed autonomy of the universities here is only on paper.
The trap of Microsoft is long contracts and setting up dependency. In many cases it was a big undertaking to get the current setup, now try convincing anyone to tear it out.
This. Not long ago, every organization had their own email server. It's only in the last 10-15 years or so that gullible IT managers drank the cloud kool-aid.
When I started doing cloud there were two options at my old company: AWS or Azure. I went for Azure.
Now I do m365 consulting and some Azure and I feel terrible. First of all those are terrible products, they lock you in heavily, they are overly complex. I would love if we started selling sovereign cloud solutions, open desk etc and I think our customers would be interested too. But we don't.
I'm actually thinking about starting my own business.
Already heard about the plans of the European Union to spend 200 billion on AI Factories?
China is bigger, and a lot more ambitious, and is willing to put resources into it.
European countries (except maybe Russia!), in the EU and outside, are very complacent.
It's not as much about complacency as it is about the lack of funding and resources. We're talking about countries with government budgets as low as 20 billion USD. Looking at common election promises, people here would rather see that money spent on non-profit housing, healthcare, infrastructure, than some ambitious AI or tech project that they likely wouldn't directly benefit from - at least compared to the things mentioned before - so there's little money left for "developing our own MS Office / LLM / Google".
Whereas China not only has a much bigger budget than individual EU countries, but also central planning on a large scale, so they can just "force" things be done, no matter whether people like it or not. China giving 0.01% for such projects is way more money than a small EU country giving the same %. And it's not like they'll vote the party out for a failed project (which happens in EU countries quite often).
Does China actually "force" things to be done? As far as I can tell, in the realm of technology at least, the government mostly just sets direction and then lets private capital do its thing, albeit without letting power concentrate in a way that subverts government.
When they want something to be done, it just gets done. I guess that is the point; I was working in China when one year there were 0 electric scooters; the next year, only. Gas scooters were forbidden overnight basically and that was that. Try doing that over here...
Hilarious. Such efficiency, not even the free markets can catch up!
Also, curious: did you not like it there and left, or was that a fixed-duration contract or something?
I loved it (still go on holiday), but the sentiment changed (during/after HK + Covid) and clients started to demand non-china produced electronics so we had to leave.
Yes, see Great Chinese Firewall. Providing a VPN access to civilians is a criminal offense in PRC. This is not the same as forcing companies to use domestic software, but to illustrate the ability of Chinese government to implement draconian limitations in general.
Push has come to shove and has been shoving for nearly a decade. Europeans continue to be incapable. As a Canadian I wish they were not, but they are.
The problem is , there are very few Europeans or EUans. There are French and Germans and Spanish etc; they all want their country first and sure open markets but their country first. That is how they vote (certainly these days). Most people do not feel EU unfortunately. Language is one thing: it is getting better but having language not unified (English, Spanish, Mandarin; pick one) is a massive and real issue keeping people's minds and efforts local instead of, at least EU wide. It is slowly getting better but the EU should made easier accessible and far higher funds for pan EU projects. Currently it is a serious pain to get access to EU funds and many just get eaten by the few massive consultancy corps who have dedicated teams going for any funding and tender in any locality and language.
Well written. I hope one day the united states of europe is a real political entity, burying the stupidity that is fragmented national interests.
As a EU citizen that moved to a different EU country: Yes please!
I constantly need a VPN as some services from my old country are geo-blocked. And when I forget to disable the VPN to my old country I can't visit certain sites from my current country. I need two phone numbers as some services require a phone number from the country they operate out of. I'm talking banking, classifieds, insurance, municipal. I can't use certain apps from my current country because I have to switch my account country but that disables apps from my old country.
And the best part, I can't vote for the national elections in my current country. Only for those in my old country. And it will be like that for the rest of my life. An example: I had to enable VPN to see the election results of my old country, the one I am eligible to vote in.
Please unify the EU so I don't have to deal with all of this.
Why should countries allow foreign influence - the voting in the most important elections in the country, by foreign citizens who didn't integrate enough to even get their citizenship?
Participating in local elections is often allowed.
In the case of these two countries dual citizenship is not allowed. So for the rest of my life I will not be able to vote here. This isn’t about “not integrating enough”.
If someone has been living and working in a country for a long time that should be enough to let them vote in national elections, regardless of what citizenship they have.
Personally I don't think
Not willing to change your citizenship is a sign of not integrating fully, in not being completely loyal to the country and to its citizens.
Imagine that both countries start a war between each other - who are you going to support? Whoever you choose does not matter, the fact remains that you would have to choose, legally speaking. Why should your current living country give the strongest possible leverage to an untegrated potential agent/supporter of the foreign country?
Highest privileges should be given to people who decided to be fully in, in both good and bad. You can't be allowed to only cherrypick the good stuff: "I want to vote, but I don't want to be drafted to be killed in a war".
Can you give up citizenship of the old country? Not being willing to give up your old citizenship could be one example of "not integrating enough".
Having people vote who don't live in the country has always struck me as weird. If you are some place else for say a year or even 10 years it seems a reasonable topic for debate but longer?? Never pay taxes either???
Often the rule is that one gets the vote in local elections after living for some time, but only citizens can vote in national elections (Parlament, President). This makes sense. If you want to fully participate in a society, you should integrate and become a citizen.
I personally believe that voting should be based on residency, not citizenship.
If you live in the country you can vote. If you don’t live in the country you can’t vote. Simple.
No taxation without representation.
Even the USA has no problem taxing without representation.
Representation without obligation (e.g. to be drafted) is even wilder.
Representation without taxation seems even more offensive.
But the real joke has to be to vote for laws for others (not you) to be subjected to.
Vulnerable.
Third generation Turkish immigrants vote for the Turkish elections despite never having set foot in Turkey because of the military draft.
Goes to show that voting based on a passport is silly.
Portugal has nearly 9.5% that seems enough for a dedicated party.
> Well written. I hope one day the united states of Europe is a real political entity, burying the stupidity that is fragmented national interests.
And I personally hope it won't. Seeing how things are going, I have no interest for my country to become a small province of the EU to be managed by some bureaucrats in Brussels who have never set foot in it.
Sharing intel and and resources why not? Becoming a vassal state of an EU federation no thanks.
The world is going back to zones of influence, and little fish will be eaten by big fishes. I'd rather that the big fish be the EU than Russia, even if it means giving up some national rights.
> The world is going back to zones of influence, and little fish will be eaten by big fishes
That has always been the case. I don't see how that would justify giving up our independence to become a province of a super state.
Secondly, using Russia a bogeyman to justify giving up our national rights is not a really convincing argument.
Russia hasn't been able to conquer a third of Ukraine in the last 3 years and it's economy is in shambles, yet we are supposed to believe that only a European super state can save us from it? That makes no sense.
But each to their own, those who want to give up their national rights, identities and shared cultural heritage should go ahead and integrate this super state and those who do not should be able to stay out of it.
I guess fundamentally we have a different view of what Europe should be.
It's more a risk management issue. A country that wants to do everything by itself (from food, to shovels, to cars, to computers) will not be the most efficient and will loose a lot. Before '90s communist countries were "proud" that everything was produced locally - except many things were breaking or bad quality or unavailable (not all, but many).
I would claim that today is a much better moment to switch than it was 20 years ago - much more open source options, so less overall costs.
I knew plenty of office workers managing just fine using OpenOffice 10-15 years ago.
Today people are much more reliant on real-time collaboration, polished cloud and mobile experiences. Fractionalized open source software has a harder time competing with this than file based boxed software workflows of the past.
Agree, Personally I consider these newer systems a curse as far as productivity goes, using a simple email/open-office combination never caused any issues with clients or suppliers in the last 20 years.
Coming from ex-USSR, I can assure you that shortages and shitty quality was not because of closed garden. But because of politics (and corruption) first. And lack of meritocratic natural selection.
Many factories were building crap or wrong stuff just because somebody high up in the Party found it convenient for some reason.
Yugoslavia didn't have centralized planning for products, one could even argue it had a meritocratic natural selection (sort of) and there still were shortages.
Maybe the EU as a whole could pull off being 'fully independent' but it would require way more collaboration between countries than what we currently have.
And, compared to USSR, Yugos production was much higher quality and shortages were much smaller.
EU could become fully independent by simply taxing imports. Designated collaboration between countries would just lead to inefficient central planning style stuff. Which is how many trans-Europe projects died
Europe's failure to facilitate a competitive tech scene in the early 2000's (and even still ongoing today) will haunt them for decades. Such an enormous fumble that people still celebrate as a win.
"Europe" is, unlike the US, not a single entity. Yes, we have European Union which helps a lot, but it is not complete (and certainly wasn't in the time when Microsofts and Googles of this world started), making that all-important initial scaling way more difficult than it is in the US.
This is true, but it's also a fixable problem.
The issue I've seen is that there isn't really the political will to fix it. Europeans broadly seem uncomfortable giving up national sovereignty when it comes to digital issues (including those that impact scaling businesses), so they implicitly choose the status quo that makes it hard for software/internet businesses to succeed.
Literally in this thread you can see Europeans who are against greater federalization. And their objections are entirely understandable, but at the same time, can't exactly have your cake and eat it too. If you insist on 27 different sets of regulations to protect certain interests, however valid, you can't exactly be surprised when that makes scaling businesses rather challenging.
Digital can probably be fixed easier. Energy independence on the other hand was a more stupid thing not to target (like Germany closing nuclear reactors, then buying gas from people that thought they could do whatever they want...).
The technology for energy independence has only been developed in the last few years. Before electric cars everyone was dependent on oil. We’re very close to the tipping point where renewables outcompete everything else and all sectors get electrified. Then energy independence becomes achievable.
on the other hand, the USA got mass surveillance normalized, and an entire generation with serious emotional disturbances due to social media.. Many indicators of required cell phone IDs and airport biometrics still on the way. Is that a "win" in the long term?
Europeans also use social media.
europe uses American social media, it doesn’t have its own so it doesn’t count :)
> "Europe" is, unlike the US, not a single entity
It really needs to be, though, that's kind of the crux of it.
Federate or die off, it's time to get rid of old tribal thinking. We're all Europeans.
What could go wrong with more centralization of power…
https://reclaimthenet.org/eu-council-approves-new-chat-contr...
Sarcasm aside, what could go wrong is what is going wrong: the democracy is a little too indirect so that it feels like the EU leadership is governing itself.
This article is about the Council, which is comprised of the heads of the various nation states, i.e. the positions more centralization of power would get rid of.
I can't fathom why you would give one parlement all the power. This is the root issue of America right now, individual states have less and less power every year.
I would argue that the root issue in America right now is that you have one guy that can pass 200+ executive orders in less than a year completely bypassing the other two supposed branches of government.
There's no such position or a branch in the EU. None of the three can make any sort of change of their own.
The executive can't bypass the courts with an executive order, unless you've seen something I haven't. The reason Congress doesn't do anything is because it ceased to be a functioning body sometime around the AUMF. Congresspeople realized that doing anything other than what the donors paid for is fraught with risk. Better to watch things being done and complain about it. The UK went the same way, concentrating all power in the current government with even backbenchers being absolutely powerless.
I guess the only thing saving the EU from the same fate is its powerlessness and indecisiveness. The people who run it are certainly insane in the same way as the leaders of the UK and the US. You're both crippled from your lack of federalization and protected by it.
edit: In the US, our real problem is that our executive (including the intelligence agencies) can do whatever it wants without an executive order or a coherent legal rationale, they will simply never be prosecuted. The next executive will proclaim that the illegal acts under the last one will never be tolerated again, pardon everybody who did it, and make those acts legal from now on.
> The reason Congress doesn't do anything is because it ceased to be a functioning body sometime around the AUMF.
That was kind of my point, I just didn't want to write an essay about it. Congress does nothing therefore the only tangible change happens from one guy signing whatever he wants to sign into the law, effectively reducing three branches of government down to one. That said, I sure can point to for example Trump essentially taking over the power to impose tarrifs away from the congress and congress doing absolutely nothing to assert what was previously widely understood to be 100% within their authority. Or dozens of people that were deported despite various courts literally ordering the administration not to do that, Kilmar Abrego Garcia being just the first of them.
> I guess the only thing saving the EU from the same fate is its powerlessness and indecisiveness. The people who run it are certainly insane in the same way as the leaders of the UK and the US.
Now here we vehimently disagree. Nobody "runs" the EU. You need something like 500 people to agree on something for it become a law. Each of those represents their nation, their party, and their EU-level coalition. The biggest countries don't get to impose a change on smaller countries, the smallest countries don't get to do so either.
It is by far the most complex political system we have in the world for a very good reason. It came from decades of negotiating and re-negotiating between countries. It set some base standards that apply equally to otherwise incomparable nations. It is not meant to move fast and break things, it is meant to be slow and ineffective because every decision it makes impacts people that have absolutely nothing in common except the fact that they all volutarily joined the EU. From Finland to Portugal, from Cyprus to Ireland. Seriously, name me one other thing that those four countries have in common. Two of them are not in NATO, one of them is not even in Europe geographically-speaking, but I guess they all kinda like football? The fact that the EU does anything at all is a miracle of human cooperation.
And we're comparing it to one guy with questionable mental capacity (to say the least) signing things into law. Give me a break. The biggest "problem" with the EU is that at least 95% of the population that like to shit on it as an institution haven't invested more than 10 minutes into trying to understand how it works, yourself very much included.
> people that have absolutely nothing in common
they have a lot in common.
> There's no such position or a branch in the EU.
cough vdL cough
She's the head of one of the three branches, she doesn't get to sign a piece of paper and for that to instantly become a law. Neither does her branch as a whole.
At most I would concede that she's way more of a household name than her predecessors, but that doesn't automatically mean she holds more power.
She's basically a civil servant for the Council and Parliament.
America is already a country. The EU isn't. You could give the EU a metric ton more power and they'd still be more decentralized than the halcyon days of the US that you reference.
Otherwise you get an economy stifling patchwork of regulations, which is what we have within the EU now.
Further, it'd probably be two Chambers, and we have proportional representation, which should make a slide to fascism a bit more difficult.
It might not be ideal and wildly swing the pendulum every couple of years, but looking at American centralization from our end, it still seems more functional somehow. At least you guys can get something done.
Imagine if every state governor in the US had veto power over federal legislation. Imagine trying to get anything done that would require buy-in from both California and Alabama. That's the situation we find ourselves in.
The root issue in the US is regulatory capture. Easier to do with one parliament, but not impossible with dozens.
The US has been fighting corporatism vs. oligarchy since the cold war ended, with regulatory capture as a primary tool in both tool chests.
There are some simple policy changes, politically unsavvy in the US, that a federated EU could implement to induce better outcomes.
>> "Europe" is, unlike the US, not a single entity > >It really needs to be, though, that's kind of the crux of it. > >Federate or die off, it's time to get rid of old tribal thinking. We're all Europeans.
OK, let us play this game...
China, Japan, Taiwan and the Koreas "really needs to be" a single entity. Theyre all East Asian.
USA, Canada and Mexico "really needs to be" a single entity. Theyre all North Americans.
Nigeria, Algeria, Somalia, and so on "really needs to be" one entity. Theyre all Africans.
It is obvious where this is going, and it is not some place most people want to be. You never explained the rationale behind the need you think there is. You just stated your opinion. But your rationale would be much more interesting to hear.
China and the US are the two superpowers right now.
Together, they are of about the same scale as a united Europe. If we want to play in the same league as them and not be subjugated by them, uniting is our only way forward.
United we stand, divided we fall.
China has much more people.
Europe is too heterogeneous. What you see as europe is not what others may see as europe.
It always struck me funny how Americans refer to it as "Europe". Like, "I traveled to Europe this summer"; what does that even mean, lol. It's like their country's land mass is so large that they intuitively assume that other entities must have a large mass too, and see homogeneity where there is none.
It would be like Russians traveling to America, but making no distinction between Canada and Mexico. Except that Russians don't do that. This is an entirely and purely American problem.
This analogy makes no sense.
This was not an analogy. It was an additional example to add to the parent's observation. As well as to dispute that it had anything to do with people from countries with big land mass.
Europeans also use the word Europe.
Intellectually, I think people agree with that. But I think the weight of history works against it. When you have a history filled with war, and intense competition...
I agree with you but until we speak the same language, this is going to take a while. I am Dutch, speak Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese (and Mandarin) rather well, but I speak mostly English to prove a point as I believe we should pick a language (does not have to be English but seems the most obvious). I won't see this in my lifetime, nor my childrens or grandchildren.
With easily accessible and massive funding by the EU for issues like this would get a lot of uniting done without more federating. I easily can point out 1000s of people who would spend their time working on EU sovereign/open source office 365, ai, aws etc etc the rest of their working lives and beyond, but it needs to make money and there is no money. Both investor money and EU money are incredibly hard to secure here for these type of efforts. Not impossible but very hard.
I think this is the logical next step, but I feel like it won’t be based on the EU but assembled entirely parallel by some of EU‘s members, and this seems consequential to me.
It's been tried a number of times. It has never worked out well.
Right now the USA is working hard to prevent it from happening.
Please god no.
As Swiss resident coming originally from EU country, how to put it politely... fuck that. EU does some good but its top politicians are absurd obscure career bullshitters (Leyen, who the heck likes her and whom she represents? Certainly not eastern EU, she represents everything wrong with EU though. She is so lost and yet untouchable, ie still pushes for destruction of whole European automotive industry while playing her political games. EU parliament is a behemoth of corrupt ultra bureaucracy and so on. Certainly not a leader for whole continent).
For poor countries in the east, EU is salvation, it dumps billions every year on them that are promptly stolen by cleptocratic governments (I know this darn too well as coming from one such place and literally everybody there knows this, you guys are fools for allowing this for decades). Yeah, all you westerners, you don't even bother to check whats happening with your truckloads of money as long as politicians don't stick out like Orban or Fico. And even if they do, all that happens is some PR statements and things go on as usually.
For Swiss for example, it would be a massive downgrade in many aspects - sovereignty, general freedom, performance, agility in ever-changing world, freedom of self-determination, and obviously economical power and wealth. They themselves voted in public vote to not join, same for NATO.
EU should be more like Switzerland, that I honestly believe is the only general recipe how long term old continent can compete and be peer to behemoths like US or China. Its not about this topic or that program, but general working and mindset of society. But good luck that western EU egos would ever accept that somebody found a more effective and way more sustainable way of functioning within European dominion. So its a path to stagnation, I see it as inevitable.
Harder working, more clever countries not laying comfortably deep in their unsustainable social systems, bureaucracy and corruption will catch up and move far beyond EU in upcoming decades, and those further like US will keep pushing beyond whats possible for EU. Maybe bigger war with russia would actually change that mindset not sustainable in 2025, but it could also mean collapse and utter catastrophe. EU is weak and slow and lost, in times when its really bad idea.
So what's your proposed alternative? For every country to stick to their own stuff and wish for the best?
Have you forgotten what a hassle it was to do international trade before your East European country was a part of the EU?
EU is far from perfect but it's still better than pretending member countries can do it all on their own.
Tell that to the right-wing nutjobs who all want their "<country code>XIT"
Excuse denied. All they had to do was nothing. Instead they over-regulated way too early, before the industries could grow enough to support operating in such an environment. Now they are behind and will likely never catch up. The future of European tech is government handouts/scraps, collected by force from American companies.
That doesn't feel true. I've founded several companies and talk to many other founders in the Netherlands. I've never experienced or heard of government regulation (though often somewhat annoying of course) being an inhibiting factor.*
Funding opportunities are nearly absent though. And it seems that buying 'local' software has never been a consideration (until now). On the contrary: I've seen many cases where EU/national products were pushed out of the market by US products that came later and were (subjectively) worse. They were way better funded though. And, because of that or because of being American, they were considered to be more serious/trustworthy companies. Also, they could afford to flood the market with dump prices, until local competition was basically gone.
*: Okay, with one exception: hiring employees involves a lot of work and risk, and doesn't allow for fiscally attractive stock plans.
…and that’s why all the major big tech is dutch. Amazon, google, meta, apple, Netflix, nvidia. All Dutch
Sorry, I really don't understand how your response relates to my earlier comment.
if we talk beaurocracy EU is very well consolidated: "you can't do that", everyone says consistently.
This is a popular meme, but compared to the combined regulation of 27 member states, the EU as a whole is doing great.
What exactly is overly bureaucratic in the EU?
I as an European get the feeling people usually hate on the EU just because it dares to interfere with local legislation. But that's its job. And usually the EU interferes for a good reason. Usually because member countries falling back to only thinking about themselves and forgetting that we Europeans are in this shit together.
> you can't do that
It's good that you can't call sparkling wine that's not from the Champagne "Champagne". It's good that you can't screw over flight passengers the way they do in the US. It's good that you can't annoy customers with phone power sockets that change with every model.
When I hear about actual examples of excess bureaucracy, it's usually on the country-level.
When people talk about the EU, they don't necessarily mean the EU proper, just like many "US" problems are more at the state or local level. People often mean "within the EU", including national regulations that may be widespread.
Then they should say that, not bash on the EU as a whole.
And yet, people will still say that the US has shit public transit, even if NYC is mostly fine.
If you expect generalizations to be perfect all the time, you'll be persistently disappointed, and probably a hypocrite to boot.
drugs on street of California is USA's failure. "Country level" blocking is because Brussel didn't said "you should allow this" explicitly.
Right but as an entity it can also do quite the damage. Cookie popups come to mind.
EU is in a really tough situation. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while also facing a belligerent Russia on their eastern borders. And their internal politics and governance makes it very difficult to align in a direction that could enable them to start digging out of so much globalized dependence.
A recent analysis of the Trump Tarrifs on the EU concluded that while “some regions and industries could suffer”, for Europe overall the hit may be “limited but not negligible.
The EU is quietly investing massively in diversifying away from the US market. there are trade negotiations or agreements in process (or being advanced) with countries/regions including India, the countries of the Mercosur bloc, Mexico, and Middle-East countries.
If that was so easy to do then they would have done it already years ago
European defence spending is going to be much less transatlantic than it would have been were it not for Trump. Some of this is about mindshift. We could have avoided us defence contractor tie in before, but we don’t see the need. Now we do.
The economics have changed, and now it's worth their time.
It's a priority for economic and political reasons. The Trump Tariffs and the US's policies towards Ukraine, and questionable commitment to NATO highlighted the dependencies and exposed the EU is to Trumps corrosive tactics.
Yes. Unfortunately, the EU institutions have been designed during heyday of globalization and neoliberalism. So they are unable to adapt to (or even recognize) the end of it.
Oh, it’s very well recognized. You can check the Mario Draghi report or even recent comments by ECB‘s Christine Legarde. I think it’s mostly reluctance to make big structural changes that seems to be the issue right now.
But when Draghi wrote his report, he was leaving the power structures. It will probably slowly change, but the neoliberal hegemony is still there.
I think the big issue is that all European elites have investments in the USA, and they don't have reason to pick EU over USA for investing. So there is nothing compelling them to voluntary worsen the relations.
Along with Europe's incompetence and divisiveness, you must also consider that the US has kept it so tight under its umbrella that it has squeezed it. The US wants a rich market to sell into, a suitable ally for oil campaigns, but not a competitor.
The US is also still cultivating divisiveness, at the EU level, they groom a politically aligned minority that conveniently opposes any long-term improvement (Looking at Meloni's Italy, Hungary, etc.), at the country level, where possible, they again groom divisiveness by propping up yet another sovranist party.
Of course, that's what a "normal" competitor does, and of course China russia are also taking part in it. But the ambiguous situation of the USA-EU friendship needs to be solved.
I don't see how the EU can get out of this without recognizing that the US is not a friend anymore, and enduring a few decades of protectionism at the services level to try to pull a china on key sectors.
As long as the European psyche is at "40 days PTO, 4 day work weeks, and generous worker protections" the US doesn't have to worry about Europe getting out from under it.
Europe is in the intractable situation of needing to double defense spending, slash taxes, gain energy independence and bankroll it with an aging population skilled in mostly legacy industries. And doing all this with a working population that has only ever known generous work/life conditions.
Surprisingly, from France, Hen I work for US companies, the American employees were on holidays more often than the french ones.
For example, here "sick leaves" days are not considered normal holidays that have to be taken in the year to not be lost.
Thankfully we don't have to rely on anecdotes, and can just check data. The average American works 300 (!) more hours a year than the average Frenchman.
37.5 days more, That's huge. And France isn't even the lowest in the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a...
I disagree about that being the root cause of the issue. It's true that in some countries there is a sort of permanent work contract that essentially means once you are in, you cannot be fired; that's obviously bad. In my experience, work ethic, or perhaps, bargaining power, is generational, long story short: young people have to work much harder/longer for lower pay than boomers, due to the lack of leverage of their generation and overall market conditions.
Agree with your second paragraph, just disagreeing with the generous work/life conditions part, that's something that was enjoyed by boomers (through country-level debt, even!), but new generations work harder for a salary that in US terms looks like scraps.
They tried. They were either spied on (Earth - then developed by Google) or aquired (Star Office by Sun).
AI is gonna be even worse. At least there's some competition from scandinavia and germany and france's tech scenes. For AI there's basically none.
Yeah, but unless there's AGI right around the corner, it's starting to look more and more like there's no real moat in the trillions being invested. As switching between AI providers is easy (especially when compare the stranglehold say Microsoft has on organizations), catching up may be relatively easy and cheap for latecomers.
It feels like an emphasis has been placed more on legislating or policing what other people make rather than making anything of value themselves (as far as tech goes).
Being a barnacle on the side of a boat might be a nice free ride for a while until it goes somewhere you don't want to.
I feel like this sentiment comes at least partially from American companies(especially Microsoft) habit of buying successful European tech companies, making people believe they're American and not European.
There is plenty of European tech success stories, but plenty of them will be mistaken for American ones after Microsoft bought them(and more often than not ruined the product, see Skype for example)
That might be your feeling, but it isn't reality. It comes instead from EU companies not even being in the same galaxy as US ones when it comes to revenue, size, and market impact. There is literally no comparison. It's not like the major leagues compared to the minors, it's like the major leagues compared to tee-ball.
https://www.voronoiapp.com/markets/Comparing-the-Largest-Com...
I think we're comparing different things. While you appear to be talking about financial size, I meant in terms of technical capability.
Financially, yes. American companies are obviously larger. How else would they be acquiring all the European companies?
In terms of technical capability, European powerhouses like ASML doesn't even have competitors from America as far as I can tell.
It's entirely possible to argue they don't have competitors at all. For certain categories of products (EUV), they literally don't!
Deepmind is another good example, as is ARM.
So, I'm going to chip in with a different perspective from that of some other commentators on here. The overwhelming majority of computers in the entire world, used by our entire species, have windows as their OS.
While I applaud the use of alternatives to windows and it's apps, universities teach it because it is what their graduates will use in the real world. Governments use it because while it has it's flaws, it mostly works and is a universal standard. It's the toyota of operating systems. The parts and manpower to repair it and use it are available everywhere, and it's cheap and reliable.
> The overwhelming majority of computers in the entire world, used by our entire species, have windows as their OS
The majority of computers in the world run Linux. Windows only has majority share in the desktop space .
I am in university currently and I run Linux, and the only thing that I have needed Windows for has been SolidWorks. Everything else has worked just fine. We’re actually provided Linux VMs because so much software development happens in Linux (or MacOS); you need to know *nix to be job-ready in CS. I’m not sure what world you live in.
Microsoft is not the Toyota of operating systems. That would imply some kind of culture of continuous improvement absent from Microsoft. It’s the General Motors of operating systems
> and manpower to repair it and use it are available everywhere
So why each time i announce myself as working with computers, there is always someone that approaches me saying "great, i have a problem with my computer, can you ..."? I just make them stop and ask "Are you talking about Windows?", and when the answer is affirmative i just say "Sorry, I only work on Linux." and they go "What is that?", lol, i would like you to see their faces when i say "It's a professional system!" and leave. :)
I think you do know the answer, and are just being coy.
In case you don't: The products that people report problems with are the products that people actually use frequently. When "Linux as daily driver" market share is the same order of magnitude as Windows, then such observations will tell us something about the two systems' relative usability.
When I did a 4 year CS degree at a UK university in the 1980s I don't think I touched anything from Microsoft for the entire time I was there!
Because for a CS degree students are expected to work with other systems and the software needed to complete the course work is usually low level. Even when I did my CS degree 20 years ago our labs were Linux and Solaris.
For other degrees you need software which only runs on Windows.
It might also help that Microsoft was totally irrelevant in the professional world in the 80s.
I am pretty sure you wouldn't have touched anything from google and meta as well.
I did a 4 year degree in earth science minor in CS graduating in 2019 and had to touch microsoft for arcgis in one class, and an excel spreadsheet in another.
Like yeah if you have a lot of pre-existing infrastructure migration can be a pain but MS is not in anyway necessary.
As much as I agree with the need for digital independence and the fact that universities (and governments) in Europe are over reliant on US tech, it is not as simple as you describe.
There is a lot more happening in the administrative and infrastructural side of things in most universities that one barely observes as student. So every change needs to take also that into account, the management and maintenance of services and infrastructures that must reliably support thousands of users, with relatively strict privacy and security standards, and their migration.
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46080495
It was much easier in 1980's, unless you would be using CP/M or MS-DOS.
Same here in 2000s, studying CS was completely MS free. The professors mostly used linux or Mac anyhow. The university system for students was web based. Papers were written in LaTeX with official template. The email system was hosted by the university and not based on outlook. Math related professors did not even use a PC at all during class but a blackboard/OHP/paper. So I don't see a problem for the netherlands..
Students go to university to get an education and obtain employment. All larger employers use Microsoft. Universities would be failing students by not giving them an education on their technologies. Microsoft gives the Universities and their students steep discounts or free software to propagate this.
Companies can pay to train their employees on the software that they use. This is neither the responsibility of the secondary education system nor the Dutch taxpayers.
When I did a 4 year stint in college, nobody had ever heard of Microsoft.
My first experience with an original IBM PC, I wondered what this thing called Microsoft was.
It just didn't seem right. Why would you need that?
What if you just wanted a plain IBM computer? Why isn't that the mainstream without need for any third party software? Or is it software? How do people do without it? What if you just want to compute? Not use the PC as an office machine or do any gaming?
Is this Microsoft content really essential?
Isn't the hardware any good without a Microsoft?
How would you go about doing that?
I guess Linus eventually asked himself the same kind of things and drove it home :)
And surely nothing has changed about the world in the last 40 years
same for me in the 2000s
unfortunately the university has gone full MS since then
At this point all tech is big business. Microsoft or Apple. Azure or AWS. Google Apps or Office. Even dealing with Red Hat feels like you’re dealing with big tech.
And the thing is 99.99% of the time everything works just fine. I think these governments often struggle with moving off of them because they find that making the common case worse is not a trade off that most of their users want.
Governments also don't move to open standards because open standards doesn't have a hospitality suite to invite them to at football matches or Cheltenham.
One of the most remarkable things in British politics in the last 25 years went almost unremarked upon, in part because it happened in a reactionary way.
Blair/Brown's New Labour got so deeply into bed with Microsoft that it caused the coalition government that replaced them to develop a point of agreement and move government functions off Microsoft to open standard formats, and that change stuck. Hence this weird little country that has so many problems has accidentally good IT for anything that they rolled out, there's a lot of open data etc. etc.
That would never have happened if their decision was being guided only by lobbyists; it happened that it was so strengthened by the major tech giants working with the other side.
EU governments can absolutely do this; I find it difficult to believe universities cannot.
That is a tiny part of it though. Lots of government functioning depends on big tech clouds. The NHS depends on AWS. A lot of the private sector does too. Everyone depends on Apple or Android phones. Card payments (and the government is pushing a move to cashless) rely on Mastercard and Visa. Windows increasingly requires logging in with an MS account. In the meantime govt and big business are pushing people to use mobile apps more, increasing this dependence.
Moving to a different mail server and office suite keeps the ICC working, but does not really protect people at the ICC from US sanctions. Their lives can be made very difficult: https://www.heise.de/en/news/How-a-French-judge-was-digitall...
I think this bit of the article is a critical problem:
>By outsourcing the management of IT systems, these educational institutions are losing technical knowledge and control. As a result, they are becoming increasingly dependent on big tech, putting academic freedom and independence at risk.
All of this is fixable but its expensive to fix. No one is motivated enough to spend the money.
> moving off of them because they find that making the common case worse is not a trade off that most of their users want.
Until you have companies trying to intervene.
If Universities are publicly funded by the government, and those companies do stuff like spying on, or silencing public officials, then why should the government finance those companies?
I think its nuts that the EU has seen spying, access from services taken away, yet continues to fund those foreign companies. Are the Open Source alternatives worse? Would change suck even if the alternatives were better? It doesn't matter really. It makes no sense to pay to keep your bad deal running.
USA does corruption and also does threatening if you try to not use their companies. I've read an interview to a mexican minister who basically got direct threats from the USA ambassador when the government decided to stop using windows.
Unfortunately part of it is that it likely goes both ways. For example illegal subsidies to Airbus. And US companies still buy Airbus. I think all of these go into the calculus of the decisions to purchase though. It’s likely you value open source much higher than they do based on your own principles.
What’s the alternative?
WTO says US gave illegal aid to Boeing
https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/wto-says-us-ga...
Gov don't move because it's not worth the risk for people with decision power. If you succeed, there's no big win to tag on your resume, if you fail (the most likely to happen) you're out.
Moreover, the people working for the teams that should make the migration usually don't want a migration, so you have to perpetually convince them of the future gains.
For the last 10-15 years, very few revolution have been made in gov ICT. Most of the job is usually rewriting existing app in a recent language or creating apps for not critical features.
It's like the proposals to get rid of daylight savings time. People get ruffled when the time jump happens, so conversation of getting rid of it bubbles up.
But then a week later everyone has adjusted and the motivation to fix it is forgotten.
Red Hat is IBM, the OG big tech really
I'd say Bell is the OG, which was founded about 40 years before IBM.
For one reasono another im not seeing any of the currently OSS solutions like LibreOffice/OpenOffice.orgwould not gain much traction and will remain niche even as the MS/Goog options remain entrenched.
The path taken by Blender(propreiety initially to open source) to reach industry lead would to me seem the most viable to make a dent.
In that i think best cost effective options like WPSOffice or Corel Suite , would be a good option.They have the professional usability in the interface and functionality.
Corel is basically leaving the market wide , by mostly collecting rent from lawfirms as they are well taken care of there.Considering they used to have viable Linux options , seems a lack of vision theer to pick up marketshare.
If UI is your concern, check out Collabora and OnlyOffice, both have a modern ribbon-like interface and looks similar to MO.
Not just the UI ,as you can see with Blender it goes toe-to-toe with the paying big suites like Maya and Autodesk, a legacy of its dvelopment being proprietary.Comparad to GIMP et al difference is stark.
Most of those UI/usability changes are market specific, like in my post Corel has speciaized to cater to lawyers so their workflow reflets that. LibrOffice and the others are highlygeneric , even MO as bloated as it is has specific workflows that hook their respective nicehe business verticals.
You're talking about business workflows, and that makes sense. But this article is about universities, they have far less Microsoft-specific document editing workflows, compared to established enterprises. At least, that was my experience when I was a part-time teacher at a university - LibreOffice did the job just fine for me. And although other professors used MS Office, none of them did anything fancy (they didn't have any custom VBAs/macros, no disgusting database-like Excel spreadsheets etc) - I can see these people easily switching to the oss options we have today.
Of course, every university and every person is different, but it's not an impossibility unlike businesses.
Yeah for faculty i guess the basic featureset would suffice. For the students however its basically a immersion in the tools/workflows that they would encounter post graduation. Knda the way the propreity software is heavily subsidised to get it into schools , and even allowing to some extent piracy.
I have found daily-driving Ubuntu at Delft shocking pleasant. Chrome, zotero, obsidian, zoom, and so on all work great. Outlook, teams, and the office suite, and signing pdfs are all the sharpest edges by far.
I feel if the TUs were required to dogfood this, especially if generously funded such that startups could come along and provide the same service and support, that it could be a great positive externality
Why would you need Outlook? Can't you use it in a browser?
Yes, chrome gives me a little “PWA” so I can even have an icon in my dock, but it’s not as nice
Yes, and the same can be done with Teams. That's what I do on my Linux laptop.
My university uses Teams and the browser version is missing some features. For example, I can't see the files uploaded by the professor. That tab won't load.
PDF signing is the bane of my existence, luckily I can get by with a cloud solution but it's nowhere near how easy I wish it would be. Sadly I'm still forced to use a Windows VM or dual-boot because the tax authority in my country requires a root/digital certificate for login to their web system, at least for incorporated entities.
I can find a dozen solutions to sign a PDF on linux without much trouble. Now redacting seems a whole nother story.
I've failed to find even a single option on linux that does real PDF redaction like adobe acrobat. Most don't do redaction at all or worse they say they redact but it's actually just black highlighter on black text or some other kind of overlay that leaves the underlying text data intact.
Would this procedure work with the certificates you need to use?
https://enterpriseadmins.org/blog/lab-infrastructure/install...
Thanks for the tip, it might work if I can figure out where the certificate is stored on Windows because I am forced to go through an application first.
The application I mentioned: https://www.certsign.ro/en/products/eidas-trust-services/pap...
Also back on Windows the website I needed to access didn't work with Firefox so I had to resort to Chrome sadly but maybe I'll have better luck now.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
You're welcome. This article is from Microsoft itself and may help more: https://woshub.com/add-certificate-to-trusted-on-linux/
Vivaldi is a nice chromium-based browser that I use on Linux for sites that don't work on Firefox. The certutil commands for it are apparently these: https://labs.gwendragon.de/blog/Web/Browser/Vivaldi/linux-ad...
I completely support not being dependant on a foreign company (or any company at all, standards FTW) and I don't think there should even be a shadow of possibility that an organization like the ICC could be cut off from services due to a foreign directive, but while I have seen it repeated many times, I think the article's opening assertion is not true; https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...
It is very distressing how many organizations have become dependant on Microsoft and the US cloud for core services. I hope that an unintended consequence of the current US administration's approach is that this becomes less so.
It's not strictly true, but the distinction between the truth and the assertion is small enough that the ICC itself draws the conclusion that Microsoft didn't yet:
https://www.techradar.com/pro/the-international-criminal-cou...
> I think the article's opening assertion is not true
The link you provided does not appear to contradict the assertion in any way. "We have not cut off services to the ICC" != "We have not cut off services to one specific sanctioned individual who just so happened to coincidentally be on the ICC". The linked article even mentions Microsoft were pressed on the specific subject of the individual rather than the ICC as a whole, but declined to comment, so it looks like a regular case of weasel wording to distort the truth.
Difficult to say exactly, and that's part of the problem, which is why my comment is about not being dependant on closed foreign companies.
> for example, by using its own mail server.
I was one of the people fighting for keeping Unix when the UU went to Exchange. It was a drama: instable af, the MS consultants could not keep it running even for 24 hours at a time while unix had 0 issues and kept chugging along (I don't remember what Unix: I think it was SunOS/Solaris). It was forced through at great cost and effort but of course sponsored by MS. It sucked for years to come.
I was at the UvA too when they moved to, equally instable MS stuff too: I worked behind some of the last Sun machines and got to take a palet of sparcstations, ultras and an e450 home when they got phased out (I still have them and they are still working, of course). Could have all been Linux now but MS was so aggressive and no one listened to profs or students, even in all tech deps who were all vehemently against the move.
Is it really that hard to switch to [google|libre|apache|free|etc.|etc.]? It seems like at the university level the ideas are the important part, and the need to write/spreadsheet at the bleeding edge of functionality much less so?
Short answer: to Google it's not so bad but it's not like the legal risks are any different from Microsoft. And to the rest -- yes it is very hard.
Universities need cloud storage with online collaboration and a fully functioning office suite.
LibreOffice doesn't work because it's desktop-only and has no collaboration. However, there's an online-collaboration fork called Collabora Online, and you can use something like Nextcloud to provide your own privately hosted cloud backend. But obviously this is a gigantic effort for the university's IT department to provide and maintain with reliable redundancies and backups.
Also, LibreOffice/Collabora is pretty good if you stick to its native formats, but its interoperability with MS Office files has a lot of bugs.
In the end, it's just cheaper and more reliable to use MS or Google like everyone else. Students, professors and administrators wind up having basically the same needs around office software as businesses do.
At 4 european universities i studied/taught this has never been the case. Most universities are used to run their infra, they ran their email servers way before google existed and they run big fleets of servers for thin clients. Afaik they still kept their own internal messaging as backup but it was still email servers hidden behind web gui.
What happened was that the big tech came in and made everything for them free. It is really hard to compete with free. They get windows for free, they get gmail for free at some point even unlimited google drive for free.
Now the situation is changing as the corps are tightening. I've seen 40k student university switch from gmail to office360 in two months because google suddenly wanted money and microsoft didn't. Now Microsoft also wants money. And it's not small money. So the school is doing cost assesment - you can give it to european third party provider that will be way cheaper tham microsoft. Or you go back to your own infra.
Turns out that what to be really expensive when google was giving people 30gb of free space to everyone in 2012 now is actually not that bad and you own your future. My guess is they will pay Microsoft for a year while they transition their email to their infra. The other parts gonna come later. But the students are required to use libre office (or latex) for writing their thesis so i don't think they see google docs as big blocker.
There's a huge difference between running an email server and some additional servers for thin clients -- all traditional stuff -- versus running an entire private cloud that redundantly stores the many many petabytes for your 40,000-person university, and all the web servers for the office software. Keeping it secure, keeping it updated, and having a live failover site if there's a fire or flood in your main data center that takes it out for weeks or months.
If it were that easy and cost-effective to do, large corporations would be doing it too. But there's a reason they're not.
Unis are more suited to do this than most corporations. For example at school i am at
1. They already self host many apps in production. Including their own complex homegrown app that manages the school. All of the students have 30 gigs of “network drive” for their virtual computer. That means lot of the infra is already there - including unified oauth/ldap.
2. There are already experts there teaching programming/devops. So these people can both administer and teach. I wouldn't underestimate inhouse capabilities.
3. It is quite easy to get grants for infrastructure modernization. These funds wouldn't be possible to use on paying third party services.
Overall I think its simply matter of costs and once googles/microsoft is not free they might not be the cheapest option anymore.
How much is the typical dutch university paying MS/Google? Maybe 10k students x 200EUR/year = 2 million EUR/year.
Twenty universities come together to move to make Collabora+NextCloud work for them. That's 40 million EUR/year. How much do they need to actually spend on developers + infrastructure to make it happen?
They probably paying a tenth of that as big edu users. What you quote are the commercial starting price for a basic-ish license.
If you look at the numbers that way, open source usually looks like a slam dunk.
The problem is coordination issues: actually getting people and orgs to look at it that way and spend the money that way, rather than just waiting for someone else to fix the problem.
they already do that, it's called SURF, and they host a nextcloud instance called surfdrive.
Yes. Because sometimes even the fundamental sign-in is through Microsoft.
Word and excel are not the difficult part. Mail, calendars, management, storage, security measures, etc are hard.
IIRC, Dutch unis have another account managing system, run by SURFnet. OAuth2, I think.
I can guarantee some dutch banks are also locked into MS. Maybe not the big ones that actually need to care about tech, but the ones that don't care about tech went head-first into Microsoft Suite these last few years.
Its' an awful sight. What's worse is that there's no argument for this extra cost (apart from maybe vendor lock-in), and now no one knows who to blame for the big bill that comes in every month.
We switched completely to Microsoft/Azure a couple of years ago. My previous employer as well.
There was no stopping it, I'd tried and they looked at me like I'm crazy. "Everybody else is doing it" is a very strong argument.
At the same time, a very popular open source security package that I wanted to use was deemed a security risk because the maintainer has placed Ukrainian and Palestinian flags in the readme.
I worked on the migration to Azure for the big orange one. They absolutely went all-in on it.
The big green one absolutely is ms heavy place.
Microsoft is destroying their monopoly from within. Office 365 was a staple of the global business landscape.
By injecting CoPilot into it without customer validation is going to be very costly.
I am sure UK universities cannot go without Microsoft. I believe the absolute majority rely on it. And I can see how they rely more and more on it, by stopping using non-Microsoft/local solutions and switching to Microsoft's ones.
step 1. have syadmins run your stuff, recruit ITSM kids to help run it! We all learn and maintain our own hardware, software and get to poke at the fun internals of email, storage, etc.
step 2. cost savings by firing them all
step 3. we get locked in
step 4. oh no how did this happen
Dependence on Redmond and Washington (for high-complexity software, national security, and any other "really hard" stuff) is a very easy, comfy local optimum.
Actual independence would require a great deal of competence, expenditure, hard work, long-range planning, and time living unhappily far from any optimum.
While the Dutch obviously know how to do that - nobody in America is keeping the North Sea at bay for them - I would not bet that they'll actually do it here.
at work I don't need MS at all. It's just used because the IT department prefers it to manage things. I wish we could just use Fedora or Ubuntu.
IT has to cover much less technical users than someone who would prefer to use Linux
Most people barely know what OS they are using. its just a way to start apps.
As long as they have an obvious way of opening a web browser, an office suite, and maybe an email and calendering client, the average office worker will barely notice the OS.
Nah it's a skill issue. They don't know how and don't want to learn.
If a viable Office 365 alternative appears, it won't be a big top-down bureaucratic initiative from the government, or even the universities. It'll be a nimble EU-based startup company building a full office suite and making it available not just to government organizations via a "contact sales" link (you hear that, NextCloud and OpenDesk?), but via one-click deploy to AWS EU region, docker/k8s, and whatever EU-based cloud hosts exist, so you and your friends can test it out at home.
(If the EU never figures out how to allow nimble startups companies to exist, then forget about it)
In my 5 years I was basically only allowed to use Microsoft tools. It's one of the most stupid things I've ever seen.
I think a better question is if there is an operating framework that would remove Microsoft's ability to sanction individuals on the whim of the current US administration in lieu of the appropriate EU institutions.
Microsoft's partnership/JV with 21Vianet in China shows that it can be done (with limitations on features) and this is probably the right direction to go.
In my experience it went something like this: Before covid it seemed to be run mainly locally, during covid there was a massive lobby by MS to push teams and most Unis caved and thats how most unis ended up in the MS eco system.
Yes, this is what happened. 'The only way' to scale up Teams video conferencing such that everybody could use it, was to move everything to the cloud. Never waste a good crisis!
Oh it's not only Dutch universities.
Yes, of course, when their teachers learn to use a FLOSS desktop for all tasks, starting with writing theses and papers in LaTeX... In other words, when they run courses for students to recover what they didn't learn in high schools.
Today, a desktop is the primary epistemological tool; only a FLOSS one is suitable for study, as it reveals what it does and is, or at least can be, shaped according to need. Most are simply IT illiterate, like professors from the 1950s unable to read and write fluently, except they still haven't realised it...
Not just in education, but even at work, companies or even governments would rather have MS, for example, paying them hefty contracts, while hiring borderline minimum wage workers to run such systems. I remember I had similar arguments with an executive before, and I recommended hiring competent people and using alternative tools. The answer was simple: "We don't want to have XYZ department relying on this person/group, but rather on this big popular company." They thought they were mitigating the risk, only to put all their eggs in one basket!
AWS had announced a sovereign European cloud, probably to avoid a loss of business in the long term due to these initiatives. But it's questionable whether this would survive strong political pressure from the US government.
As long as there's any American ownership in the chain, this is not to be trusted.
I'm assuming AWS wouldn't fully divest from this European business unit and split it off as a completely separate entity?
The US CLOUD Act says that if Amazon has the technical ability to access those machines, they must do so if the US government asks them to.
So, unless it’s a separate legal entity, and also shares no authentication, software deployment, or related infrastructure with the US part of Amazon, it’s either not providing sovereignty or is being offered in violation of US law.
It’s unclear to me if they’d have to comply with requests to (for example) backdoor their IAM service backend and push the binaries to Europe, or not. (I’m not a lawyer.)
I'm not sure I understand how an American company would be able to provide any service that could be "sovereign European".
How I can imagine it works: Amazon only provides the packaged software, the infra and the ops are officially driven by a 100% European company. AWS probably provides support, but they don't have the encryption keys not any access to the installation.
In theory Amazon could license the stack to a European Operator while having no operative access themselves.
I think this is already done in some cases altough the political reliability has not yet been tested.
I guess the question then becomes: what happens if some future US government pressures Amazon to revoke the license. Unless and until there's a good answer to that, it'd still be better to develop something locally.
If I run your software, you can have no operational control, but you can sneak a root kit or some kind of stuff I dont want to have there
They must have something like this for China, right?
Sort of. AWS operates the China regions more or less like any other region, with oversight by the Chinese holding companies.
The EUSC will be more restricted, similar to GovCloud. Only EU citizens can access/operate it.
Specific example: an alarm fires for your service. If it’s in China, anyone on the team can go look at the logs. If it’s in GovCloud, only teammates who are American can look at the logs. In the EUSC, only Europeans can.
By providing the software to be installed in clusters owned and operated by European companies.
The sovereign cloud spec designed by the folks at France's ANSSI agency is tight.
Whoops, the European company just got bought out by a US entity. Tough luck! [1]
Is this part of the spec? If not, it's as loose as a tent. And by "part of the spec" I mean "all your assets will be forcefully nationalized the second you or a parent company of yours becomes less than X% European owned", where X is well above 50.
[1] https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/11/dutch-looking-into-conseque...
As a rule of thumb, I wouldn't assume that any scenario you came up with on the spot was overlooked by an agency whose job it is to not overlook complex scenarios, let alone trivially simple ones.
To start with... states can and will absolutely block the sale of strategic national companies to foreign actors. But I'm sure you knew that.
The Microsoft effort was not terrible - run by EU nationals etc but yeah calling it sovereign is optimistic.
And it certainly would not survive strong political pressure from the EU and US governments. Local governments still can be adversely impacted.
Is this new? Microsoft already offer that and I think already for quite a while.
Anyone knowledgeable of history knows the Dutch universities existed for four centuries before Microsoft even existed. With that knowledge the question becomes farcical.
> Can they do without Microsoft, however? Can they work without Office, Outlook, Teams and OneDrive?
FOSS to the rescue:
* LibreOffice, instead of MS Office.
* Thunderbird, instead of Outlook (even though I don't like the direction Thunderbird has been going).
* NextCloud, instead of one drive (and there are other alternatives, more FOSS-friendly or less so)
* Matrix/IRC client plus Jitsi, instead of Teams.
and they will do just fine - on Windows or on Linux.
What email server are they going to use? what about anti-spam / anti-malware in there. and compliance... oh my compliance
> What email server are they going to use?
Same one they were using before I would think. Nobody said they were using MS Exchange server.
> and compliance... oh my compliance
Is that a magic word? :-) ... Compliance with what?
I read quite a lot of bashing of various national and transnational European institutions for relying so much on US tech. But what about YOU, european? gmail, facebook, instagram, twitter, whatsapp, macbook, iphone, uber, steam etc etc are all working fine for you?
yep, but for most of those its not very good for us.
Like fast food, it makes satiates a short term desire for a long term problem.
At least, facebook, instagram and an argument can be made for gmail.
I think goods are a different thing altogether though, nobody tells you what to do with your washing machine after you buy it, but social media engines use your data against you and change the rules/system on a whim.
European from Antwerp here. I only use two of those, and see more and more of my friends migrate away from some, albeit slowly.
I (also European), for one, find it virtually impossible to convince people to give up on most of those.
Not exactly a sales pitch but TFW north korea has more of a soveign software ecosystem than EU.
Can Dutch universities do with Microsoft? Genuinely how far gone are we that this is a question?
Obviously terrible seeing the US government harm its own international standing for no real gain, but if it results in Europe developing viable alternatives to American big tech services, that'd be fantastic.
The problem is that we already can provide an alternative, but we don't switch to them. Which might be even worse.
I have time so I tried to study one or two things. The harsh reality is that every university that supports remote studies I have looked at explicitly or implicitly required apple or even worse windows hardware.
Functionally, they can easily do without Microsoft... I'm more worried about the implications in terms of PsyOps and repercussions... Like they pulled with that ICC judge.
>to be honest, Microsoft is making it increasingly attractive to switch. Now that the company is putting AI in everything, everything is becoming more annoying to use."
Germany's ZenDIS with OpenDesk is actively working on the issue too
In the 90s I used to sort of tease/banter our sysadmin guy at a small, developer-centric company in Europe (SunOS/Linux/etc-focused) in a friendly way with something like:
"It seems to me like all the things you're doing can and should be automated at a larger scale."
Ten years ago when I recalled this I felt sort of good about the prediction. What I predicted pretty much happened.
That sysadmin guy has become some sort of CIO and seems to be doing well.
I did not anticipate the loss of data sovereignty.
.... and now I'm doing like 50% SRE/devops. Who's the sysadmin now, but without physical control of our data?
Europe can do without Microsoft, however it will require a kick in the rear to get there.
I was kind of hoping that the GDPR would be that kick, as it's clear to anyone that Microsoft, or really any other major US corporation, can't actually satisfy that completely as long as they have their tendrils in its European subsidiaries and that the US can compel them give up the information they care about. But this is a rather large elephant the EU has elected to ignore since that's the path of least resistance.
The EU actually realising the using Microsoft as your foundation does break the GDPR and fining the relevant institutions (and fixing itself on that same front!), or relevant institutions being embargoed to the point of not being able to use Microsoft products, as is apparently now the case with the ICC, will probably kick Europe into gear, but it needs to be a solid kick, and not just an institution here and there.
But what's the alternative? Most people use either O365 or Google Docs.
I hate that people are incapable of using Libreoffice and mailing documents around, but modern users are addicted to "the cloud", and it's my understanding there's no EU centric competitor to those two giants.
tangentially, US (and other) universities are massively dependent on/hamstrung by a Dutch company, Elsevier
Hello, this is my second comment I will answer any question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Apparently the answer is "No." =3
An exception to Betteridge's Law! I would love to see more universities move away from proprietary software and opting for open source equivalents.
I mean, what did they do before Microsoft? The Netherlands is a bit older than Microsoft, and so, presumably, is its universities.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
The lock-in is around identity services, right?
Servicing the jobs-to-be-done of the core applications is pretty straightforward I think.
I'm not sure what keeps people locked in besides identity. Article doesn't really specify.
Familiarity, convenience and habit.
Familiarity: "I've used MS Word/Excel/Teams before so I can use it here"
Convenience: "We have MS Entra, might as well go all-in"
Habit: "We never really investigated alternatives, this is just what 'everyone' uses."
Depends.
Can they get rid of Typescript, npm, Github, VS, VSCode, .NET, C#, F#, C++ / DirectX, Next.js, vcpkg, Microsoft contributions to Java, Rust, and Linux kernel, on their students teaching materials?
If they can switch to UNIX FOSS technologies with zero trace of Microsoft's money sponsorship, and hinder the students careers in specific job markets, then surely.
People usually never look beyond getting rid of Office and Windows.
The problem is described in the first two sentences of the article:
> "The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court suddenly couldn't access his email. According to Microsoft, that's because of US sanctions against the court's employees."
Nothing you've listed relates to that.
If American services and platforms have become unreliable and untrustworthy because the American government is erratic, then it's only natural that European organisations will look for alternatives.
DirectX is a funny one to list because 90% of Windows games run on Linux. WINE and Proton solve that problem for you:
https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/nearly-90-percen...
Yes it is, see my last sentence.
Without Windows developers, game studios using Windows, Visual Studio and DirectX, SteamOS would have no games.
Proton represents Valve's failure to make a business out of Steam OS native games.
Funny will be when Microsoft decides Proton is a relevant target to aim for, and shot down by all means necessary.
> Proton represents Valve's failure
No, it represents a market opportunity. WINE (a European led project) effectively makes Win32 and DirectX into Linux APIs. It works well for games. You can bring those games to Linux with less effort. And Valve can offer SteamOS (based on Arch Linux, also a European led project) for less cost.
You don't need Visual Studio. JetBrains has nice, cross-platform IDEs and they're a European company to boot:
https://www.jetbrains.com/
Now go see how many game studios use JetBrains.
As for Proton, don't build castles on foreign kingdoms => OS/2 "runs Windows better", Netbooks.
Lets see how long Valve manages to keep their castle up.
> don't build castles on foreign kingdoms
Microsoft is a foreign kingdom to Europe. That's part of the problem.
Which is why I listed several Microsoft dependent technologies that Europe kingdom guards have to stop the merchants from Microsoft kingdom trade at the borders.
Without wagons carrying Windows game boxes, there is nothing at the SteamOS theater to play, and then the actors have to actually come up with their own original plays.
What do you believe will happen? Wine exists. It will continue to exist.
You can do development with Wine without a copy of Windows:
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Winelib-User's-G...
Why should they get rid of the Linux kernel?
Because Microsoft contributions, including being one of the Rust on the kernel sponsors.
How will Microsoft or the US government stop anyone from using those Linux contributions now that they've been contributed?
They're GPL licenced. They're open source. They're freely available.
They're sanction proof.
The point is using Microsoft stuff, instead of alternatives, not what Microsoft can do.
No, the point is precisely what Microsoft can do. This is all about sovereignty of the computers you use, the software you use, and control of your data.
But I'm glad to see you concede the point.
As long as we depends on any Microsoft technology, the dependency won't go away, thinking the problem is only Windows and Office is throwing to the eyes of the public.
To achieve Microsoft freedom, you have to have 100% Microsoft free technology, from computer, operating systems, programming languages, hosting services, communication platform, social media, job platforms, the whole deal.
You've already conceded the point that once it's contributed to Linux Microsoft can't yank it away again.
If Microsoft wants to stop contributing that's perfectly fine. Others will maintain it.
That's what's great about big open source projects like Linux. It's another great project originating in Europe.