8 ms·

Personally, even if this software wouldn't be 1:1 capable of replacing the established players, it still feels like a good idea. With how much people (rightfull

Personally, even if this software wouldn't be 1:1 capable of replacing the established players, it still feels like a good idea. With how much people (rightfully) complain about how open source is underfunded and with how often we're forced into borderline exploitative dealings with the established players in the market (the likes of MS Office, Adobe products, Atlassian products, even some Oracle stuff), funding the development of open alternatives (even if done with some comparatively small amount of taxes) seems like a good idea, as long as everyone in the government isn't incompetent. For example, if we had governments with strong tech departments that could fund helping the development of LibreOffice, then suddenly even if someone wants to use MS Office, that's still a bargaining chip to get a better deal because there's a viable alternative. Or to develop something like OpenProject, Kanboard etc., alternatives to the likes of Jira, that might be enough for many out there, while also possibly benefitting from community contributions. People love to complain about how Jira supposedly sucks, so that'd be a good opportunity to step up and make something "better". Or using open source technologies like PostgreSQL or MariaDB/MySQL for developing their own internal systems instead of always forking over a bunch of cash for Oracle or MS SQL by default. If you want a government that's cost efficient, then invest in making it be so, treat the software landscape as an investment opportunity - spend some money now to save a bunch of money later. The same way how an app can be a home cooked meal, some software could be a public utility.

afavour 2y ago
Germany has an interesting history with Open/LibreOffice. Multiple attempts that ended up going back to Windows, but with fresh attempts that are ongoing: https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/04/germanys_northernmost_state_ditches_windows/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/04/germanys_northernmost...
- KronisLV 2y ago
  There have been some similar attempts over the years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Mass_deployments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Mass_deployments Some larger than others, some attempts at having more negotiating power, others as a cost cutting measure, others yet as just exploration of what's doable. I'd say that LibreOffice is fine for my needs - not great in all respects, but functional. I don't even have MS Office or use Google Docs on any of my devices right now.
  - wvh 2y ago
    Maybe we're beyond native software for things like Office suites already. I can see the benefit for always-online multi-user applications that combine text editing with project planning, wiki-like functionality, documentation base and whatnot. Few write office documents to just have them sit on the local hard drive. The few times I need to use LibreOffice, it's just to export as PDF and send somewhere. That doesn't seem to be the workflow of the future.
slowtrek 2y ago
Notion is not an example of delightful software and it is very much one of the most reproducible apps ever. I don't know how they managed to make it fashionable amongst startups, but it's certainly not because it's an innovative product.
- huslage 2y ago
  Y Combinator. They gave it away to all of them. This is how you become popular with startups.
  - slowtrek 2y ago
    That's really gross. I guess then everyone thinks they need to use it because all these startups use it, but it's really just a simple notepad app with many alternatives.
    - virgil_disgr4ce 2y ago
      I have no interest in defending Notion or anything but... have you actually used it? It's not even close to a "simple notepad app." I mean, that's what it started off as, and you can use it that way, but "simple notepad app" is ludicrously wrong.
      - pimeys 2y ago
        Yep. And I've hated every second when I needed to write something with it. The editor of Notion is horrible, compared to Zed, Vim, Emacs et.al. The markdown import has been broken for years, and it is not easy to export your writeups for storage outside Notion I'm really happy I got our company out from using Notion. We just do markdown in Linear, which you can copy and paste from an editor easily.
    - TheRealPomax 2y ago
      No, they use it because it was cheap and useful, and switching tools to something newer that's actually better has to not just be better, it has to be so much better as to justify the time and costs required to port a bulky knowledge base from one platform to another. It's really just standard "voluntary lock-in": any knowledge system you decide to use locks you into that knowledge system simply because you're going to be generating tons of content in it, which may at some point need to be migrated, and the longer you use it the more of a hassle that'll be. And if it feels a bit gross (it's not, really, it's just what happens when someone has a good sales pitch) they're not holding your content hostage like some other platforms *cough*zendesk*cough*.
daveguy 2y ago
> ... seems like a good idea, as long as everyone in the government isn't incompetent. For example, if we had governments with strong tech departments that could fund helping the development of... The US had two very strong and competent tech departments -- 18F and USDS. They got doge'd -- dismantled and coopted, respectively.
- rapnie 2y ago
  All those competent departments. Dismantled on a whim. It is unbelievable. How many billions of investment dollars are wasted that way, spent during many years to organize such departments efficiently?
  - datadrivenangel 2y ago
    18F and USDS were actually relatively cheap in the grand scale of government software procurement.
throwaway2037 2y ago
This will be a controversial take here on HN: I'm not too excited about governments getting directly involved in the development of software, let alone open source. With possibly a few exceptions (internal software for national agencies, etc.), it is way outside their area of expertise. I think it would be better to pay a vendor like Redhat or SuSE or Cannonical to do it. And, the gov't can write the support contract such that for X EUR per year they get Y competent developers to work on LibreOffice, or whatever they like.
- bootsmann 2y ago
  Why do you think software is outside the area of expertise of government?
- stephenr 2y ago
  > it is way outside their area of expertise You realise that when governments write software, they just hire software developers, and designers, and project managers like any other organisation does, right? They're not just asking around in parliament "so who has dabbled in python?" or what have you.
- davedx 2y ago
  Not controversial just ignorant. Various governments have been participating or creating open source for many years now
- wvh 2y ago
  I have worked on open-source software that was government/university funded. It's not uncommon in Europe. And yes, typical death-by-committee issues exist, but there is something to be said for a piece of software that holds people's data and is not outright owned by one government, corporation or random group of cats. I don't know about the US, but I can see some crucial user data software suites moving to an open-source model where nobody has absolute power over or ownership of the data. How to get such a multi-player project organised efficiently without burning through a load of money and time is another matter...
- regularjack 2y ago
artur_makly 2y ago
But wouldn't a DAPP solution would solve even more problems.. faster? What am I missing?

afavour 2y ago

Germany has an interesting history with Open/LibreOffice. Multiple attempts that ended up going back to Windows, but with fresh attempts that are ongoing: https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/04/germanys_northernmost_state_ditches_windows/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/04/germanys_northernmost...

KronisLV 2y ago
There have been some similar attempts over the years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Mass_deployments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Mass_deployments Some larger than others, some attempts at having more negotiating power, others as a cost cutting measure, others yet as just exploration of what's doable. I'd say that LibreOffice is fine for my needs - not great in all respects, but functional. I don't even have MS Office or use Google Docs on any of my devices right now.
- wvh 2y ago
  Maybe we're beyond native software for things like Office suites already. I can see the benefit for always-online multi-user applications that combine text editing with project planning, wiki-like functionality, documentation base and whatnot. Few write office documents to just have them sit on the local hard drive. The few times I need to use LibreOffice, it's just to export as PDF and send somewhere. That doesn't seem to be the workflow of the future.

slowtrek 2y ago

Notion is not an example of delightful software and it is very much one of the most reproducible apps ever. I don't know how they managed to make it fashionable amongst startups, but it's certainly not because it's an innovative product.

huslage 2y ago
Y Combinator. They gave it away to all of them. This is how you become popular with startups.
- slowtrek 2y ago
  That's really gross. I guess then everyone thinks they need to use it because all these startups use it, but it's really just a simple notepad app with many alternatives.
  - virgil_disgr4ce 2y ago
    I have no interest in defending Notion or anything but... have you actually used it? It's not even close to a "simple notepad app." I mean, that's what it started off as, and you can use it that way, but "simple notepad app" is ludicrously wrong.
    - pimeys 2y ago
      Yep. And I've hated every second when I needed to write something with it. The editor of Notion is horrible, compared to Zed, Vim, Emacs et.al. The markdown import has been broken for years, and it is not easy to export your writeups for storage outside Notion I'm really happy I got our company out from using Notion. We just do markdown in Linear, which you can copy and paste from an editor easily.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    No, they use it because it was cheap and useful, and switching tools to something newer that's actually better has to not just be better, it has to be so much better as to justify the time and costs required to port a bulky knowledge base from one platform to another. It's really just standard "voluntary lock-in": any knowledge system you decide to use locks you into that knowledge system simply because you're going to be generating tons of content in it, which may at some point need to be migrated, and the longer you use it the more of a hassle that'll be. And if it feels a bit gross (it's not, really, it's just what happens when someone has a good sales pitch) they're not holding your content hostage like some other platforms *cough*zendesk*cough*.

daveguy 2y ago

> ... seems like a good idea, as long as everyone in the government isn't incompetent. For example, if we had governments with strong tech departments that could fund helping the development of... The US had two very strong and competent tech departments -- 18F and USDS. They got doge'd -- dismantled and coopted, respectively.

rapnie 2y ago
All those competent departments. Dismantled on a whim. It is unbelievable. How many billions of investment dollars are wasted that way, spent during many years to organize such departments efficiently?
- datadrivenangel 2y ago
  18F and USDS were actually relatively cheap in the grand scale of government software procurement.

throwaway2037 2y ago

This will be a controversial take here on HN: I'm not too excited about governments getting directly involved in the development of software, let alone open source. With possibly a few exceptions (internal software for national agencies, etc.), it is way outside their area of expertise. I think it would be better to pay a vendor like Redhat or SuSE or Cannonical to do it. And, the gov't can write the support contract such that for X EUR per year they get Y competent developers to work on LibreOffice, or whatever they like.

bootsmann 2y ago
Why do you think software is outside the area of expertise of government?
stephenr 2y ago
> it is way outside their area of expertise You realise that when governments write software, they just hire software developers, and designers, and project managers like any other organisation does, right? They're not just asking around in parliament "so who has dabbled in python?" or what have you.
davedx 2y ago
Not controversial just ignorant. Various governments have been participating or creating open source for many years now
wvh 2y ago
I have worked on open-source software that was government/university funded. It's not uncommon in Europe. And yes, typical death-by-committee issues exist, but there is something to be said for a piece of software that holds people's data and is not outright owned by one government, corporation or random group of cats. I don't know about the US, but I can see some crucial user data software suites moving to an open-source model where nobody has absolute power over or ownership of the data. How to get such a multi-player project organised efficiently without burning through a load of money and time is another matter...
regularjack 2y ago

artur_makly 2y ago

But wouldn't a DAPP solution would solve even more problems.. faster? What am I missing?