This is more like, I jump down from the mount Everest, and the news is I hurt myself. Which raises a bit the question of the purpose of the news.

„The EU publishes a plan“ - „oh no, Hungary blocked the plan“

„The EU publishes a plan“ - „oh no, Hungary blocked the plan“

„The EU publishes a plan“ - „oh no, Hungary blocked the plan“

What is this supposed to achieve? It just makes Hungary look important and the EU dysfunctional. In this case it also signals that „the EU wants to help, but it can’t“ which may or may not be part of the initial plan, given that outcome is already known. But it could also be a bureaucratic necessity.

Maybe it’s the title „plan in jeopardy“ which implies that the plan assumed his approval.

But why is it news, it’s completely predictable and the EU is unlikely to not assume it

Fully agree, there should be regulations, temporary at least, that require/incentivize critical companies to make a mobile Linux version of their apps, as well as strategic funding and incentives to make the platforms viable. We as citizens should contribute too, increasing pressure for this to happen, spreading the message, becoming early adopters where possible, submitting feedback, contributing to development, etc.

The political problems driving the push for independence are fairly recent, so the current state is unlikely to be extrapolable.

There are devices using these operating systems that are also gaining popularity, like Jolla, Volla and Fair phone.

Time to popularize Linux phones. I read that the security model is lacking, but especially given that Android is Linux too, it shouldn’t be too difficult to catch up. The EU is also interested in tech independence, so that could be one of the sources of funding. And there are a few viable early projects, like Ubuntu Touch and Sailfish.

Tech companies: AI will make software development obsolete in a year. Also tech companies: buy our software.

Android is Linux based

Do they understand what they mean with civilization themselves? It sometimes feels like they want to go back to the middle ages, which tends to be the opposite of what is understood as „civilization“.

A dictionary definition of civilization: „stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced“. Seems to me that we can include democracy in western civilization.

I’m just highlighting the hypocrisy of bringing up civilizational erasure when they’re actively doing exactly that. Western civilization, while associated with whites and capitalism is also associated with not being banana republics.

They might soon cause new bigger refugee waves from Iran. Which helps right wing parties.

What civilization are we talking about anyway? E.g democracy, checks and balances and human rights are hallmarks of modern western civilization, and those are being rapidly erased by those accusing us of civilizational erasure.

Open Source helps but it’s also important to fix the incentive structure and startup environment such that products are fully competitive. Doubt that merely throwing money at it (in the form of grants at least, which is what usually govs do) fixes the issue.

If we “see” like watchers of a movie, we indeed will “see” things unfold unhindered.

Part of the solution could be to realize that companies might not need those giant suites, but smaller, more focused solutions.

“30 years of development” is utterly irrelevant. It means only that the company has existed 30 years. You can write e.g. collaborative text and spreadsheet editors from scratch in months. There’s AI around now too, which has significantly accelerated development.

And using or contributing to open source is not mutually exclusive with private companies or making, at least, part of the source closed. Not in favor of one or the other here, just think that this is not overly relevant.

As to acquisitions, there seems to be a need for an incentives and/or regulatory framework as indeed it is to be avoided.

Perhaps, simultaneously, there’s also something to be done in the Open Source world to fix its various issues. It just needs new thinking, as Open Source currently tends to lag behind, and just funding is unlikely to fix it.

Are you European? I rarely see Europeans expressing themselves with that weird dramatic defeatism

“Nothing we can do to stop it” and “it won’t last”, how does that work?

I’m not sure why people reflexively always do Europe+tech = open source. IMO the problem doesn’t relate to the source code being open or closed, but the startup environment. There’s a lot to think about and innovate here, that goes way beyond the code. Open source is also often used low key as an excuse to ship poor quality software that attempts to redeem itself on an ideological basis, and that’s also how you get everyone to keep using Silicon Valley software.

I’m also concerned that there’s this push for Open Source funding coming from the many developers that have some projects dreaming of being paid to work on them, who then make great sounding arguments to politicians, who don’t understand much of the matter and you get millions or billions spent on grants, which ultimately don’t solve anything, because the output ends somewhere between abandoned and not sufficiently competitive. A real, working solution for European tech is more involved.

Obviously it’s not good at all to sell critical infrastructure to foreigners.