• bloodfart
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I actually agree with you, under communism we could run public services on open source software no problem.

    When the externalities of training people to use that software, integrating with outside systems, using state power to influence standards&norms and contributing back to the development only exist on the balance sheet of the switch though, it’s not possible.

    • oo1@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      The problem from my pov is, who is getting what support for ms? I just don’t see it.

      I used to be okay at using their stuff,
      most of the people i’ve every worked with (in the public sector) did a less-than-average job of using the software.
      They got by, now it’s worse with office365 and sharrepoint and web-apps and shit like that everything has become extremely infuriating.

      Whenever we have issues it seems that more money gets earmarked for more new microsoft products, the new shit will solve our problems.
      Oh, except the budget for “developers” on that new thing is spent so we’re perpetually “waiting until next development cycle”.

      The only things we have that are reliable are tools we build ourselves in python, SQL and so on - and we just have to support thm ourselves. We’re not “developers” or anything mystical like that, but it’s the only way to actually get stuff done that helps us work better.

      Who is out there having a good experience with MS and where does all this support go? I’m genuinely curious.

      • Urist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Ultimately none of this matters once MS based software has won some sort of auction for a contract (thanks Thatcher). Vendor lock-in is problematic in a lot of cases with a multiplier of damage based on the size of the entity wrapped in it’s web.