• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not just lobbying. The expertise to build and certify what Microsoft did for government cloud is expensive and rare. Open source still needs a third party to provide that level of support, because the documentation is more important than the technical capabilities.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tech corpo shills hate the idea of government going open source. Think of all that investment into your competition that is known to be the better approach.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly on Software. At least, not any more. Open Source is the way to go, and there are plenty of Open Source consulting firms out there. Red Hat, Nextcloud, Redpill Linpro, etc.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They have a near monopoly on compliance though which is the draw of government cloud. It’s a totally different product from their commercial offerings. The software portion isn’t really a factor, it’s the paperwork and audit results.

    • Nafeon (Lemmy, don't "@" this@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a valid mention and I agree, but I also have to say that there are companies like the nextcloud corp itself who do offer that level of expertise and are German based and would use the money to improve nextcloud, which is open source, whereas we don’t know how much of the money that Microsoft takes goes into the open source project.