• The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hope they do not try to save that money but rather take the opportunity to invest some of it into the open source ecosystem that are now relying on.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        Why not both?

        Let’s say MS charges $5M a year.

        Their support contract, assuming they get one, for libre office might be $1M.

        They could still invest another $1M in OSS and still save $3M

        A $1M net gain for OSS and a $3M savings for the govt.

        • bort@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s still not how governments work

          It would be nice if it worked like that, but we both know it doesn’t

        • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          In reality it’s gonna be something like:

          M$ charges 5M €. Libreoffice might be 1M € so they will give 1M € to OSS and waste the remaining 3M € on some overly expensive one-time crap like car infrastructure. Later they will realize that they had understaffed their IT department and will need extra 5M € paid by more state debt.

        • Norgur@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That, again, is not how governments work.
          What you depict is how companies work: You save amount X on something, so there are X moneys left to invest in something.
          Governments work with separated and highly regulated budgets. That is sometimes bullremoved, but sometimes necessary to make sure government aids are spent fairly, for example. So: You save amount X on something, you aren’t allowed to just give this amount to someone. There has to be either a program, a law, or (most often) an entirely different budget somewhere else that this someone is allowed to receive.

          So the “trade-off” logic cannot be fulfilled by governments, and it shouldn’t be. Think about the myriad of bullremoved, money would just be dumped into by the government if this wasn’t the case. On top of the myriad of bullremoved that already made it through the nets, that is.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        And having a government as a significant backer for an open source project is a great recipe for conflicts of interest and general trust erosion.

        • bort@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          who else should be a significant backer for an open source project? google? microsoft?

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            Things get weird as corporations increasingly have power comparable to nation states.

            But, generally, I would rather a megacorporation than a government. Because megacorps are at least “smart enough” to pretend they aren’t trying to take over the world. Whereas governments have a tendency to justify a lot of horrible removed for righteous reasons.

            But, in a perfect world? I would rather a wide range of different donors and backers but mostly clustering around maybe fortune 500 companies instead of fortune 10?

            • bort@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Because megacorps are at least “smart enough” to pretend they aren’t trying to take over the world.

              there are enough examples for corps doing evil things. You hear about them less often, because they cover their tracks and the outcry is generally smaller than when governments do similar things.

              Whereas governments have a tendency to justify a lot of horrible removed for righteous reasons.

              corps justify a lot of horribble removed for financial reasons. Is that better?

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Corporations can also act on behalf, or on the orders of nation states. So you don’t solve anything, if a state wants to get involved, it will. You have the additional cons that corporations tend to cater to their financial interests anyway, while a public institution might not always have ulterior motives.