Having worked for the French state and wrestled a few times with its IT services, I can tell you that the reason for choosing Microsoft isn't cost, or "efficiency".
It's that they only know Microsoft, they don't want to learn something else, and if there's a problem, it's Microsoft's fault, no theirs, so they don't have to deal with their own incompetence.
If you want an anecdote, we were working with SAS, a statistical software which required costly licences (more than a million € for a few dozens of workers). I suggested to switch to R or Python to the top director, who agreed.
First meeting with the service in charge, the chief opens with "ok, we are asked to change, but the goal here is to show that we tried, and found that it's not possible."
I resigned a few months after, as everything was in the same vein.
Sounds like Germany, and it's not just public services.
I used to work part-time in 1st level IT support in a local hospital when I was younger.
The main "theme" of my superior's work subjects there (2009-2016) was the migration from XP to 7. You heard that right.
And apart from the usual Office- and AD-Lock-In, the most problematic workstations of course were always ones with very specialized software. Virtualization and terminal services were in use, but the whole selling point of Windows was mostly put ad absurdum already, because they needed Windows licenses for dedicated machines running e.g. specialized MRT software, but those weren't even part of the main network anyway. They needed arcane syncing procedures anyway and Windows provided no value whatsoever on these devices. Same for the patient monitoring systems on ICU beds. These were using some "embedded" Windows and were rarely working in a stable way at all, nor way they connected to the networks running AD or the CIS (edit: seems it's called HIS in English)
CAD and stuff in the office divisions was similar, but with less integration needs (apart from network printing)
What I'm trying to say is: like in many offices, any slight change made users hostile, updates cost obscene amounts of work and money, and Windows didn't provide much more value compared to SAMBA. That is dated experience, I know.
But MS has not shown to be a trustworthy company in any of my work experience so far.
It was impossible to create working solutions without MS, yes, but the reasons for that never seemed to be grounded in actual value provided by an MS-centric software and networking structure.
It was just the one available commercial solution with enough adoption, and MS has been milking their target markets with these strategies for a very long time.
Making themselves "indispensable", even in machines where their software was used to run a terminal server, basically.
Hell, in my town, 3 years ago, they started to replace subway train LED signals with crappy Windows-CE-based software.
The effects are still noticeable... the whole infrastructure is still 80% worse compared to 10 years ago.
You recognize the useless Windows licenses by the occasional Desktop (seriously, google "cologne KVB windows trashcan"....), 90deg-tilted display, and of course 20% of the signage is out of operation on average now.
>What I'm trying to say is: like in many offices, any slight change made users hostile,
I remember doing a Windows 7 deployment for a customer, and one of their staff had 3 A4 binders. Probably 1000 pages, of typed notes about how Windows XP works.
The second she sat down at her new Windows 7 machine it was like she had lost her memory. She was instantly aggravated and couldnt find the start menu. Dropped her windows xp binders in the bin and told me to effectively "get lost" so she can relearn it from scratch.
I was thrown. Like its basically the same system with some UI tweaks but she was acting like I had pushed her onto debian or something.
I’ve had a few family relations approach technology this way. I think it’s like they are missing a “theory of mind” for how software works. We have developed this intuition by either using or creating software for a long time.
Like often people are scared to click random buttons or explore menus. We have used software for a long time, so we know that any destructive act would be proceeded by an “are you sure?” dialog box.
I think I would be in their shoes if I ever tried to change the oil on my car. I may be able to follow a procedure. But I would not deviate from it. It would not try to pop the covers off unrelated parts to peek into the alternator, for fear of electric shock.
Anyways, my rambling point is ideally we people would make themselves more familiar with how to understand the technology they work with everyday. But we should have empathy for people who have not contorted their minds to understand the peculiar behavior of software.
I also had an encounter with government software...
I think the long-lasting solution will be to move to a web-based application system, instead of depending on Desktop applications made for Windows or Linux. Using a web app system, the government only has to concern itself with proper development and maintenance of servers and web apps, and the public workers can use any operating system with a web browser.
I agree with this. When it comes to domain-specific b2b software, pretty much everything that doesn't require native resources or performance inaccessible from the web platform should provide a web-based frontend (even if just as a minimum).
And that would be better why exactly? Bloated browsers trying to phone home, even if only to search for updates, or denying access because of overblocking DNS, false software security signatures, whatever? Ja. Klasse! I fucking know about Electron & Tauri. And V8, Node, Bun, TS. Hmmm so geil. Da steht mir der Schwanz steil. Oder auch einfach nur die Haare zu Berge.
The French state is one thing, the Polytéchnique is another. My impression is the old-school network administrators at French universities are fiercely protective of their de facto right to make technical decisions regarding equipment and software. So this part surprises me.
Even when I see "so and so place is switching to X" I always think "uh, do your current Microsoft people ... know how to do that?"
I'm all for training and making the switch, but you gotta get your teams motivated / what they need to do the job. If not IT can resist like few other orgs.
> Having worked for the French state and wrestled a few times with its IT services, I can tell you that the reason for choosing Microsoft isn't cost, or "efficiency
While this is generally not wrong, the French state still uses and creates open source software extensively. Gendermerie Nationale have their own Linux distribution ; Ministry of Foreign Affairs runs Debian for diplomatic personnel. Multiple pieces of public software was developed out in the open (including the government SSO and the COVID tracking app).
So while there is definitely bad, it has been getting progressively better over the past ~10 years.
Sounds like they were honest about lying, less confusion than lying about lying and helps prevent the unwanted outcome of accidentally succeeding. Not succeeding helps with job security, the problem justifying your job will continue to exist. Since such skills are in demand at all levels of bureaucracy successfully failing to deliver at a lower level will open up opportunities to fail at a higher level.
ok so "funny" but historically, it has been worse. Like the legend of a warrior King in a region towards modern Hungary.. the school teachers would be ordered to stop work when the King and his military advisors rode on the main road for inspection. All the teachers were required to stop and clean the litter by the road as the King passed by. Perhaps the implication is -- if you do not have my military protection, then your school would be burned by invaders? actually not wrong in some places, but can you blame that scene on "capitalism" ? Want to guess the expenses of the armor and servants for the King and their party? probably more coins than were spent on teachers, who were paid in farm produce and exchange services?
This addiction to Microsoft is everywhere and it's terrible for everyone involved. So many small orgs and NGOs paying through the nose for what can be done for free with Google Docs & Sheets.
Using proprietary software that is given away for free is even worse than paying for proprietary software - at least you have a contract in the latter case.
Governments should pay software engineers and system administrators (or infrastructure engineers if you like) to build and run their systems, ideally open sourcing whatever makes sense
Time[1] and time[2] again, the CJEU has ruled that the US stance of noncitizens having no standing on privacy issues is incompatible with EU law. Time[3] and time[4] again, the European Commission has negotiated a functionally identical agreement codified in executive orders and declared it “adequate” until the court could decide otherwise. Not even the Congress explicitly giving[5] the US government powers to compel (among others) EU subsidiaries of US multinationals, regardless of what EU law says, has changed the equation. Now there’s been a presidential election in the US that many in the EU are unhappy about. *Shocked Pikachu*
> [French MP Philippe] Latombe criticised the US-EU Data Privacy Framework (DPF) deal, saying it no longer served EU interests due to the US president’s “impulsive” nature.
Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?
All you need to know is that the EU Commission sues their own data protection commissioner because he ruled that the usage of MS365 in the Commission is illegal. So the EU Commission happily works together with Microsoft: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-365-EU-Commission-tak...
>saying it no longer served EU interests due to the US president’s “impulsive” nature.
I'd say that if whether or not an agreement serves the EU's interests entirely depends on who the US president is, then it's not an agreement that serves the EU's interests.
> Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?
Why do you think that? The agreement was negotiated under certain conditions, it’s not really surprising that a change in circumstances would make it unfit for purpose.
> Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?
No. The laws are applied as long as they serve the rulling elite. See GDPR for examples. Or the copyright law for examples at the other end of the pond.
I don't see enough talk about reducing the amount of data collected in the first place. Even if it's kept within one jurisdiction, it can still be the target of a breach by a local criminal, a foreign spy, or a new government agency... Cameras on every street, cellular antenas on every car, biometrics for everything... It may vary from country to country, but an expansion on citizen data collection (in one area or another) seems commonplace across most governments, and usually with zero opposition in "the real world". And unlike products or platforms that you can chose to not use, there's hardly any escape from those.
The EU majorly screwed up by not focusing on a homegrown software ecosystem. The Chinese, due to either luck or competence or both, have a parallel big tech ecosystem compared to America and that is a huge advantage.
Mr. Dany Wattebled , rapporteur . - Mr. Carniaux, as Director of Public and Legal Affairs, you represent Microsoft France before public decision-makers. Can you guarantee before our committee, under oath, that the data of French citizens entrusted to Microsoft via UGAP will never be transmitted, following an injunction from the American government, without the explicit agreement of the French authorities?
Mr. Anton Carniaux . - No, I cannot guarantee that, but, again, it has never happened before.
M. Dany Wattebled, rapporteur. - Monsieur Carniaux, en tant que directeur des affaires publiques et juridiques, vous représentez Microsoft France auprès des décideurs publics. Pouvez-vous garantir devant notre commission, sous serment, que les données des citoyens français confiées à Microsoft via l'Ugap ne seront jamais transmises, à la suite d'une injonction du gouvernement américain, sans l'accord explicite des autorités françaises ?
M. Anton Carniaux. - Non, je ne peux pas le garantir, mais, encore une fois, cela ne s'est encore jamais produit.
> Mr. Anton Carniaux . - No, I cannot guarantee that
He's smart, he doesn't want to go to jail. But all the governments and current and/or past administrations are guilty of pretended to be retarded since we all knew for the past 30 years that Microsoft was not to be trusted.
It's interesting that there at least starts to be two opposing camp in the executive (some people in French government start to push for more sovereignty, some EU governments too, some MEPs, etc...)
Of course the rest of the administrations are not there yet, there are contracts to abide to, habits, etc... But there is the start of a general recognition that overdependence on the US is a liability at some level.
Also, it would incredibly more feasible to move IT infrastructure back and have some reign on data, then it would be to recover from our overdependence on China in terms of... Well, in terms of everything physical.
Which means that the first milestone would be to host pour data on "sovereign" data centers... Using East-Asian made hardware.
Most DCs are already using "Asian made" hardware such as Korean memory chips, Taiwanese power supplies and fabricated chips, and Japanese designed storage.
Unless you mean Chinese-made hardware, which would put much of Europe in the exact same position, with the added downside of supporting a nation that is cooperating with Russia, and is strongly in support of a Russian victory [0] in Ukraine. China has also begun leveraging export controls on tech transfers and outbound FDI as well, so dependency on an external nation would remain.
The reality is there is no choice other than America+ or Chinese made hardware for EU member states, and as long as Russia continues to leverage Chinese dual-use technology, it will be a no-go. And the European (in reality German+Dutch) ecosystem has largely been stagnant since the 2000s, and critical technology like EUV is nominally owned by EU companies but developed and manufactured by autonomous JVs within the US.
Either the EU supports Ukraine, in which case there is no choice but to deal with America+ or the EU leverages China, in which case support for Ukraine would have to stop.
I think we need a lot more accessible disclosure on the subject for the public. Even beyond government services, products exposing one to the US should come with a big fat warning.
> products exposing one to the US should come with a big fat warning
You mean products like Microsoft Windows, Apple's iOS and MacOS, Google's Android, Chrome and ChromeOS, Cisco, Fortinet, HP, Dell, AWS, Linux, Meta's Whatsapp Facebook and Instagram and so on and so forth.
Turns out it was founded by an American, who was arrested on suspicion of bias-motivated crimes, second-degree assault and harassment after attacking a reporter in the USA but currently living in Hungary and running some media org there, with ties to the right wing Fidesz party. And he is on paper as being the founded of brusselssignal.eu
His organization received a big loan from an undisclosed source to set up the Brussels organisation and it seems to made up of or advised by a rag tag of European right wing politicians.
The whole thing stinks of Russian meddling in Europe.
One of these days Europeans will realize they are also part of the American empire just in a bit of a dominion status. If you host an American military installation, you are part of the empire with a fig leaf of domestic policy control that keep the bulk of the populace from realizing this. Take a look at a map of American military installations. The sun never sets on this latest roman empire.
It took Trump for the Europeans to realize that De Gaulle was right.
The consequences of the European Union realizing the were the USA's protectorate are not going to please the USA though... Buy ITAR-free, buy European !
I think given the NSA's capacity they'll find a way to listen to us regardless which devices we use. But we're certainly going out of our way to make it easy for them.
There's simply no option for digital sovereignty other than cultivating a strong domestic software industry. As the source details, much of this exposure is being done with full understanding of the risks and costs.
The article also refers to some report claiming that European solutions are "wrongly judged to be too costly or inefficient". I'd be interested to read it if anyone has a translation. Even for something as basic as word processing software, every case I've seen so for the alternatives quickly lands on "you have to accept rough edges because that's the cost of data sovereignty" - much easier for a hobbyist or politician to say than an IT director charged with making sure your organization runs well.
The sad part is, both the EU and the UK (which has the same issue) have the capacity to do this as we have enough software engineers. But most software companies end up being bought out by US ones at some point.
> There's simply no option for digital sovereignty other than cultivating a strong domestic software industry.
Yes, but they tried and can't.
Those ideas of domestic computer industry and digital sovereignty have been around since the 60s.
The French had Bull which is now Atos and they failed miserably.
France was very impressive after WW2, they build almost on their own a nuclear weapons, a nuclear energy, aeronautic, military industry and impressive space capabilities.
After that you would expect them to have built a serious competitor to Intel and Microsoft but they didn't. They can't even built basic digital capabilities to support a bureaucracy.
My guess is a very different generation arrived in the 60s-70s in the workplace and in charge: the Silent Generation and the Boomers.
Those generations were not about building anything but more about entitlements and collecting dividends. But of course it takes quite some time for things to get really bad. Information technologies slowly took over many aspects over our societies over the last 50 years and now they find out they do not have sovereignty anymore.
Just search for Azure on wiz.io's blog, the amount of terrible yet easy to exploit security vulnerabilities, often with shit responses from Microsoft, is terrifying. It clearly demonstrates nobody with power within the Azure org cares about security. How can anyone trust them with anything remotely critical? Let alone the terrible UX and absurdly eventual consistency.
Yeah, yeah, I know, the people who know and understand this aren't the ones getting wined and dined to buy it. But still..
Honestly how hard can it be given Microsoft size (and AWS, and Google's) to mandate the intervention of a EU corporate entity to manage their IP in the region, full source code, EU cloud assets, encryption keys, EU-only support access, collect their royalties etc., but essentially act as a privacy buffer wholly unanswerable to any US head office or any obligations US law holds the company to wrt any EU person, its just a black hole that grants them the right to earn money and hold a large market share in the EU. The Chinese aren't afraid to do it.
> Honestly how hard can it be given Microsoft size (and AWS, and Google's) to mandate the intervention of a EU corporate entity to manage
Very difficult.
Countries like Ireland, Poland, Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria are heavily dependent on American FDI in their tech industry, and the European Council has final say and requires unanimity. A rule such as the one you mentioned would smother VC/PE in much of the EU, as European funds like Index Ventures and Munich Re Ventures are heavily dependent on the US to raise capital and build dealflow.
Major European employers like Volkswagen AG, Siemens AG, NXP, Phillips, Infineon, and others would also face severe retaliation as a result.
It would also set a precedent that would make an alternative like China extremely hesitant to invest, as the Chinese government heavily utilizes export controls on tech transfers. For example, BYD investment in Hungary is largely CDK with the core high value components like Batteries being manufactured in China. Biren, Huawei, and SMIC would face similar export controls.
Major Cloud providers would still need to invest eu-customer money in providing eu IT services, this is more a legal, security and privacy isolation for big tech players in order to maintain their share, extract royalties etc.
Startups that are not in a large marketshare situation wouldn't trigger the need for intermediary/isolation so the effect on FDI would be limited, and anyway, the tides are turning on US capital in general.
Retaliation: I'm not sure the US fiscal and legal overreach isn't already in place, e.g. VW dieselgate, export controls etc. The US looks after its interests (fair enough), but its time the EU levelled the field to protect its citizens, a small loss of regional sovereignty for those companies in exchange for the EU revenue they continue to make.
> Major Cloud providers would still need to invest eu-customer money in providing eu IT services, this is more a legal, security and privacy isolation for big tech players in order to maintain their share, extract royalties etc.
That's already done today with little-to-no acrimony, and none of the regulations you mentioned. Where do you think much of that FDI in Ireland, Poland, Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria is coming from?
> Startups that are not in a large marketshare situation wouldn't trigger the need for intermediary/isolation so the effect on FDI would be limited, and anyway, the tides are turning on US capital in general
It's not just startups. American BigTech GCCs represent the bulk of tech related FDI in Czechia, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria, and Ireland's US-friendly business law has lead to a severe dependency on the US for capital [1].
> the tides are turning on US capital in general.
American Capital markets continue to remain larger in size than the entire EU's combined [0]. And China's is roughly in size to the entire EU. An the reality is, European capital markets are nowhere near as unified as either the US or China's.
> its time the EU levelled the field to protect its citizens, a small loss of regional sovereignty for those companies in exchange for the EU revenue they continue to make
But how?
The EU isn't significantly unified, and depends on unanimity within the European Council. As I mentioned before, Ireland, Czechia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland would be a significant veto to any shift against the US.
Furthermore, French and German domestic giants continue to compete against each other in every industry, which has lead to cooperation failures such as the FCAS snafu recently [2].
There is no "EU grand strategy", as major member states like Germany, France, and others push back or compete with each other internally.
And given the fact that the Chinese players are cannibalizing European competitors within China, major European companies like Volkswagen and Siemens are now heavily dependent on the US as an alternative market.
EU obviously needs a Great Firewall - this would force foreign big tech to host data within the EU and subject these companies to ironclad EU legal jurisdiction. Naturally, some companies will not comply and withdraw services, clearing the way for domestic EU operators to emerge. This may seem like an unpalatable choice but it really is the only way back toward digital sovereignty - right now, the EU has been in 'trust me bro' situation with US big tech - a huge and accumulative risk
If you want to move away from <insert US tech giant>, you either need to embrace Linux and open source software which requires the state's employees to learn a new "stack" of applications which means they need to be given appropriate training or you need to have you home grown solutions that are as easy to use as their US counterparts and were developed within the EU by the EU's member countries with the EU's values embedded in them.
The first solution is not going to happen, as Linux is still relatively unknown all things considered and I don't see the French government employees learning how to use this OS and/or the applications running on it by themselves.
Secondly in times of budget cuts like in France currently, the government is not about to rip all the Microsoft products off and replace them with something that would take years to transition to and cost a fortune to implement.
So that leaves the homegrown solution. Unfortunately the work to move off of Microsoft et al should have started 10 years ago but it hasn't. Europe has completely dropped the ball on tech and now it's coming back to bit it in the ass.
The Draghi report from last year was supposed to kick things into gear but we will be lucky to see anything coming through within the next 5 years and by this stage the US tech giants will have entrenched themselves even more in the EU.
I am sorry to say but this is a failure that will resonate for the many decades to come.
I doubt that the average employee could tell Linux and Windows apart if you applied a Window-style skin to Linux.
But at least in Germany, I've seen Windows being written into agreements between state governments and trade unions representing clerks and employees. Good luck changing those without a negotiation running 3 years.
Lots of people would be disrupted by having to move off MS Office. Not insurmountably so, and MS ironically helps make the case that people can learn new things by often changing their own product interfaces.
If you really want to smooth out the transition, there's also companies which would be happy to help you setup and maintain your office environnement on Linux.
these seem like solved problems. in canada, many govt depts have procurement rules that state all data must be hosted nationally by a custodian subject to national or even provincial law, and this has been standard for decades. the firm I work for also doesn't use google or microsoft clouds for similar reasons.
the deeper problem is governments are not technology builders and cannot produce tech products because they have no unique ability to deliver anything anyone subject to them actually wants.
Having worked for the French state and wrestled a few times with its IT services, I can tell you that the reason for choosing Microsoft isn't cost, or "efficiency".
It's that they only know Microsoft, they don't want to learn something else, and if there's a problem, it's Microsoft's fault, no theirs, so they don't have to deal with their own incompetence.
If you want an anecdote, we were working with SAS, a statistical software which required costly licences (more than a million € for a few dozens of workers). I suggested to switch to R or Python to the top director, who agreed.
First meeting with the service in charge, the chief opens with "ok, we are asked to change, but the goal here is to show that we tried, and found that it's not possible."
I resigned a few months after, as everything was in the same vein.
Sounds like Germany, and it's not just public services.
I used to work part-time in 1st level IT support in a local hospital when I was younger.
The main "theme" of my superior's work subjects there (2009-2016) was the migration from XP to 7. You heard that right.
And apart from the usual Office- and AD-Lock-In, the most problematic workstations of course were always ones with very specialized software. Virtualization and terminal services were in use, but the whole selling point of Windows was mostly put ad absurdum already, because they needed Windows licenses for dedicated machines running e.g. specialized MRT software, but those weren't even part of the main network anyway. They needed arcane syncing procedures anyway and Windows provided no value whatsoever on these devices. Same for the patient monitoring systems on ICU beds. These were using some "embedded" Windows and were rarely working in a stable way at all, nor way they connected to the networks running AD or the CIS (edit: seems it's called HIS in English)
CAD and stuff in the office divisions was similar, but with less integration needs (apart from network printing)
What I'm trying to say is: like in many offices, any slight change made users hostile, updates cost obscene amounts of work and money, and Windows didn't provide much more value compared to SAMBA. That is dated experience, I know.
But MS has not shown to be a trustworthy company in any of my work experience so far.
It was impossible to create working solutions without MS, yes, but the reasons for that never seemed to be grounded in actual value provided by an MS-centric software and networking structure.
It was just the one available commercial solution with enough adoption, and MS has been milking their target markets with these strategies for a very long time.
Making themselves "indispensable", even in machines where their software was used to run a terminal server, basically.
Hell, in my town, 3 years ago, they started to replace subway train LED signals with crappy Windows-CE-based software.
The effects are still noticeable... the whole infrastructure is still 80% worse compared to 10 years ago.
You recognize the useless Windows licenses by the occasional Desktop (seriously, google "cologne KVB windows trashcan"....), 90deg-tilted display, and of course 20% of the signage is out of operation on average now.
>What I'm trying to say is: like in many offices, any slight change made users hostile,
I remember doing a Windows 7 deployment for a customer, and one of their staff had 3 A4 binders. Probably 1000 pages, of typed notes about how Windows XP works.
The second she sat down at her new Windows 7 machine it was like she had lost her memory. She was instantly aggravated and couldnt find the start menu. Dropped her windows xp binders in the bin and told me to effectively "get lost" so she can relearn it from scratch.
I was thrown. Like its basically the same system with some UI tweaks but she was acting like I had pushed her onto debian or something.
I’ve had a few family relations approach technology this way. I think it’s like they are missing a “theory of mind” for how software works. We have developed this intuition by either using or creating software for a long time.
Like often people are scared to click random buttons or explore menus. We have used software for a long time, so we know that any destructive act would be proceeded by an “are you sure?” dialog box.
I think I would be in their shoes if I ever tried to change the oil on my car. I may be able to follow a procedure. But I would not deviate from it. It would not try to pop the covers off unrelated parts to peek into the alternator, for fear of electric shock.
Anyways, my rambling point is ideally we people would make themselves more familiar with how to understand the technology they work with everyday. But we should have empathy for people who have not contorted their minds to understand the peculiar behavior of software.
I also had an encounter with government software...
I think the long-lasting solution will be to move to a web-based application system, instead of depending on Desktop applications made for Windows or Linux. Using a web app system, the government only has to concern itself with proper development and maintenance of servers and web apps, and the public workers can use any operating system with a web browser.
I agree with this. When it comes to domain-specific b2b software, pretty much everything that doesn't require native resources or performance inaccessible from the web platform should provide a web-based frontend (even if just as a minimum).
And that would be better why exactly? Bloated browsers trying to phone home, even if only to search for updates, or denying access because of overblocking DNS, false software security signatures, whatever? Ja. Klasse! I fucking know about Electron & Tauri. And V8, Node, Bun, TS. Hmmm so geil. Da steht mir der Schwanz steil. Oder auch einfach nur die Haare zu Berge.
Waldmeisterlicher Wackelpudding. Ahoi.
> the public workers can use any operating system with a web browser
With IE6^W Chrome, you mean. Nobody’s going to bother testing on anything else.
Go SWB, paint it green. Kölle Alaaf!
Just kidding. Triggered some memories.
The French state is one thing, the Polytéchnique is another. My impression is the old-school network administrators at French universities are fiercely protective of their de facto right to make technical decisions regarding equipment and software. So this part surprises me.
Even when I see "so and so place is switching to X" I always think "uh, do your current Microsoft people ... know how to do that?"
I'm all for training and making the switch, but you gotta get your teams motivated / what they need to do the job. If not IT can resist like few other orgs.
I've lived the exact same scenario in a large public company. Large orgs and misaligned incentives are not exclusive to the public sector.
> Having worked for the French state and wrestled a few times with its IT services, I can tell you that the reason for choosing Microsoft isn't cost, or "efficiency
While this is generally not wrong, the French state still uses and creates open source software extensively. Gendermerie Nationale have their own Linux distribution ; Ministry of Foreign Affairs runs Debian for diplomatic personnel. Multiple pieces of public software was developed out in the open (including the government SSO and the COVID tracking app).
So while there is definitely bad, it has been getting progressively better over the past ~10 years.
When you say first meeting, is the implication that they were lying about even trying?
Sounds like they were honest about lying, less confusion than lying about lying and helps prevent the unwanted outcome of accidentally succeeding. Not succeeding helps with job security, the problem justifying your job will continue to exist. Since such skills are in demand at all levels of bureaucracy successfully failing to deliver at a lower level will open up opportunities to fail at a higher level.
This is fairly normal. I’ve seen it in every corporate job I’ve had.
Most people seemed to have a retirement clock running and wanted to avoid doing anything they don’t give a crap about until then.
Giving a crap about your job is an outlier.
It's funny that capitalism rewards jobs that have meaning- healthcare, education- the least.
> capitalism rewards jobs that have meaning- healthcare, education- the least
Doctors and researchers do quite well when they're effective.
ok so "funny" but historically, it has been worse. Like the legend of a warrior King in a region towards modern Hungary.. the school teachers would be ordered to stop work when the King and his military advisors rode on the main road for inspection. All the teachers were required to stop and clean the litter by the road as the King passed by. Perhaps the implication is -- if you do not have my military protection, then your school would be burned by invaders? actually not wrong in some places, but can you blame that scene on "capitalism" ? Want to guess the expenses of the armor and servants for the King and their party? probably more coins than were spent on teachers, who were paid in farm produce and exchange services?
He outright said their goal was to lie about trying.
This addiction to Microsoft is everywhere and it's terrible for everyone involved. So many small orgs and NGOs paying through the nose for what can be done for free with Google Docs & Sheets.
Using proprietary software that is given away for free is even worse than paying for proprietary software - at least you have a contract in the latter case.
Governments should pay software engineers and system administrators (or infrastructure engineers if you like) to build and run their systems, ideally open sourcing whatever makes sense
Google isn't free for non-personal use.
^foss alternatives like onlyoffice, nextcloud...
NGOs pay little compared to businesses, AFAIR.
Relying on yet another American mega corp instead of Microsoft doesn't seem very wise.
Time[1] and time[2] again, the CJEU has ruled that the US stance of noncitizens having no standing on privacy issues is incompatible with EU law. Time[3] and time[4] again, the European Commission has negotiated a functionally identical agreement codified in executive orders and declared it “adequate” until the court could decide otherwise. Not even the Congress explicitly giving[5] the US government powers to compel (among others) EU subsidiaries of US multinationals, regardless of what EU law says, has changed the equation. Now there’s been a presidential election in the US that many in the EU are unhappy about. *Shocked Pikachu*
> [French MP Philippe] Latombe criticised the US-EU Data Privacy Framework (DPF) deal, saying it no longer served EU interests due to the US president’s “impulsive” nature.
Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_I
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_II
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Privacy_Shield
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Data_Privacy_Fra...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act
All you need to know is that the EU Commission sues their own data protection commissioner because he ruled that the usage of MS365 in the Commission is illegal. So the EU Commission happily works together with Microsoft: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Microsoft-365-EU-Commission-tak...
>saying it no longer served EU interests due to the US president’s “impulsive” nature.
I'd say that if whether or not an agreement serves the EU's interests entirely depends on who the US president is, then it's not an agreement that serves the EU's interests.
> Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?
Why do you think that? The agreement was negotiated under certain conditions, it’s not really surprising that a change in circumstances would make it unfit for purpose.
If migrating off Microsoft would effectively shut down the government for a period of time they don't really have any choice.
> Am I wrong to say that there’s something profoundly rotten in that statement with regards to the rule of law?
No. The laws are applied as long as they serve the rulling elite. See GDPR for examples. Or the copyright law for examples at the other end of the pond.
I don't see enough talk about reducing the amount of data collected in the first place. Even if it's kept within one jurisdiction, it can still be the target of a breach by a local criminal, a foreign spy, or a new government agency... Cameras on every street, cellular antenas on every car, biometrics for everything... It may vary from country to country, but an expansion on citizen data collection (in one area or another) seems commonplace across most governments, and usually with zero opposition in "the real world". And unlike products or platforms that you can chose to not use, there's hardly any escape from those.
The EU majorly screwed up by not focusing on a homegrown software ecosystem. The Chinese, due to either luck or competence or both, have a parallel big tech ecosystem compared to America and that is a huge advantage.
Seen here:
https://www-senat-fr.translate.goog/compte-rendu-commissions...
================================================================
Quoting the translation:
Mr. Dany Wattebled , rapporteur . - Mr. Carniaux, as Director of Public and Legal Affairs, you represent Microsoft France before public decision-makers. Can you guarantee before our committee, under oath, that the data of French citizens entrusted to Microsoft via UGAP will never be transmitted, following an injunction from the American government, without the explicit agreement of the French authorities?
Mr. Anton Carniaux . - No, I cannot guarantee that, but, again, it has never happened before.
================================================================
Original:
M. Dany Wattebled, rapporteur. - Monsieur Carniaux, en tant que directeur des affaires publiques et juridiques, vous représentez Microsoft France auprès des décideurs publics. Pouvez-vous garantir devant notre commission, sous serment, que les données des citoyens français confiées à Microsoft via l'Ugap ne seront jamais transmises, à la suite d'une injonction du gouvernement américain, sans l'accord explicite des autorités françaises ?
M. Anton Carniaux. - Non, je ne peux pas le garantir, mais, encore une fois, cela ne s'est encore jamais produit.
================================================================
Thread on Mastodon:
https://toot.cat/@devopscats/114879479938557566
> Mr. Anton Carniaux . - No, I cannot guarantee that
He's smart, he doesn't want to go to jail. But all the governments and current and/or past administrations are guilty of pretended to be retarded since we all knew for the past 30 years that Microsoft was not to be trusted.
It's interesting that there at least starts to be two opposing camp in the executive (some people in French government start to push for more sovereignty, some EU governments too, some MEPs, etc...)
Of course the rest of the administrations are not there yet, there are contracts to abide to, habits, etc... But there is the start of a general recognition that overdependence on the US is a liability at some level.
Also, it would incredibly more feasible to move IT infrastructure back and have some reign on data, then it would be to recover from our overdependence on China in terms of... Well, in terms of everything physical.
Which means that the first milestone would be to host pour data on "sovereign" data centers... Using East-Asian made hardware.
One thing at a time, I guess ?
> Using East-Asian made hardware.
Most DCs are already using "Asian made" hardware such as Korean memory chips, Taiwanese power supplies and fabricated chips, and Japanese designed storage.
Unless you mean Chinese-made hardware, which would put much of Europe in the exact same position, with the added downside of supporting a nation that is cooperating with Russia, and is strongly in support of a Russian victory [0] in Ukraine. China has also begun leveraging export controls on tech transfers and outbound FDI as well, so dependency on an external nation would remain.
The reality is there is no choice other than America+ or Chinese made hardware for EU member states, and as long as Russia continues to leverage Chinese dual-use technology, it will be a no-go. And the European (in reality German+Dutch) ecosystem has largely been stagnant since the 2000s, and critical technology like EUV is nominally owned by EU companies but developed and manufactured by autonomous JVs within the US.
Either the EU supports Ukraine, in which case there is no choice but to deal with America+ or the EU leverages China, in which case support for Ukraine would have to stop.
[0] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...
I think we need a lot more accessible disclosure on the subject for the public. Even beyond government services, products exposing one to the US should come with a big fat warning.
> products exposing one to the US should come with a big fat warning
You mean products like Microsoft Windows, Apple's iOS and MacOS, Google's Android, Chrome and ChromeOS, Cisco, Fortinet, HP, Dell, AWS, Linux, Meta's Whatsapp Facebook and Instagram and so on and so forth.
Yes
> Linux
Citation needed.
Systemd's default dns settings, depending on distro defaults.
Yes, it's not the kernel you are probably starting to nitpick about, but it doesn't run anywhere else, so far.
So it's not Linux but certain privacy-unfriendly distros.
This site has a heavy pro Russian bias, see for example https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/07/europe-still-has-the-power...
Turns out it was founded by an American, who was arrested on suspicion of bias-motivated crimes, second-degree assault and harassment after attacking a reporter in the USA but currently living in Hungary and running some media org there, with ties to the right wing Fidesz party. And he is on paper as being the founded of brusselssignal.eu
His organization received a big loan from an undisclosed source to set up the Brussels organisation and it seems to made up of or advised by a rag tag of European right wing politicians.
The whole thing stinks of Russian meddling in Europe.
Sources https://www.szabadeuropa.hu/a/szazhetvennegy-millios-kolcson...
https://www.companyweb.be/company/0793608171/free-pub/231068...
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/28/us/patrick-thomas-egan-ac...
Yeah, anyone who wants Europe to move away from Our Holy American Benefactors, are, uh, uhhh, yeah, russian plants!
One of these days Europeans will realize they are also part of the American empire just in a bit of a dominion status. If you host an American military installation, you are part of the empire with a fig leaf of domestic policy control that keep the bulk of the populace from realizing this. Take a look at a map of American military installations. The sun never sets on this latest roman empire.
It took Trump for the Europeans to realize that De Gaulle was right.
The consequences of the European Union realizing the were the USA's protectorate are not going to please the USA though... Buy ITAR-free, buy European !
Good catch. The OP article is mostly transcript from a Senate hearing, so the bias is limited.
I many time heard here in Europe not to trust Chinese appliances as these devices do listen to us… is #USA any different?
I think given the NSA's capacity they'll find a way to listen to us regardless which devices we use. But we're certainly going out of our way to make it easy for them.
There's simply no option for digital sovereignty other than cultivating a strong domestic software industry. As the source details, much of this exposure is being done with full understanding of the risks and costs.
The article also refers to some report claiming that European solutions are "wrongly judged to be too costly or inefficient". I'd be interested to read it if anyone has a translation. Even for something as basic as word processing software, every case I've seen so for the alternatives quickly lands on "you have to accept rough edges because that's the cost of data sovereignty" - much easier for a hobbyist or politician to say than an IT director charged with making sure your organization runs well.
The French state is working on a google-docs open source alternative: https://docs.numerique.gouv.fr/home/
The sad part is, both the EU and the UK (which has the same issue) have the capacity to do this as we have enough software engineers. But most software companies end up being bought out by US ones at some point.
> There's simply no option for digital sovereignty other than cultivating a strong domestic software industry.
Yes, but they tried and can't.
Those ideas of domestic computer industry and digital sovereignty have been around since the 60s.
The French had Bull which is now Atos and they failed miserably.
France was very impressive after WW2, they build almost on their own a nuclear weapons, a nuclear energy, aeronautic, military industry and impressive space capabilities.
After that you would expect them to have built a serious competitor to Intel and Microsoft but they didn't. They can't even built basic digital capabilities to support a bureaucracy.
My guess is a very different generation arrived in the 60s-70s in the workplace and in charge: the Silent Generation and the Boomers.
Those generations were not about building anything but more about entitlements and collecting dividends. But of course it takes quite some time for things to get really bad. Information technologies slowly took over many aspects over our societies over the last 50 years and now they find out they do not have sovereignty anymore.
Europe is in love with azure too bizarrely.
Anyone using Azure is bizarre.
Just search for Azure on wiz.io's blog, the amount of terrible yet easy to exploit security vulnerabilities, often with shit responses from Microsoft, is terrifying. It clearly demonstrates nobody with power within the Azure org cares about security. How can anyone trust them with anything remotely critical? Let alone the terrible UX and absurdly eventual consistency.
Yeah, yeah, I know, the people who know and understand this aren't the ones getting wined and dined to buy it. But still..
wait, do they (at least attempt to) spearhead it with Mistral and La Suite? La Suite works good...
regard français perplexe
Honestly how hard can it be given Microsoft size (and AWS, and Google's) to mandate the intervention of a EU corporate entity to manage their IP in the region, full source code, EU cloud assets, encryption keys, EU-only support access, collect their royalties etc., but essentially act as a privacy buffer wholly unanswerable to any US head office or any obligations US law holds the company to wrt any EU person, its just a black hole that grants them the right to earn money and hold a large market share in the EU. The Chinese aren't afraid to do it.
AWS is doing that: https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/aws/built-operated-controlle...
> Honestly how hard can it be given Microsoft size (and AWS, and Google's) to mandate the intervention of a EU corporate entity to manage
Very difficult.
Countries like Ireland, Poland, Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria are heavily dependent on American FDI in their tech industry, and the European Council has final say and requires unanimity. A rule such as the one you mentioned would smother VC/PE in much of the EU, as European funds like Index Ventures and Munich Re Ventures are heavily dependent on the US to raise capital and build dealflow.
Major European employers like Volkswagen AG, Siemens AG, NXP, Phillips, Infineon, and others would also face severe retaliation as a result.
It would also set a precedent that would make an alternative like China extremely hesitant to invest, as the Chinese government heavily utilizes export controls on tech transfers. For example, BYD investment in Hungary is largely CDK with the core high value components like Batteries being manufactured in China. Biren, Huawei, and SMIC would face similar export controls.
Major Cloud providers would still need to invest eu-customer money in providing eu IT services, this is more a legal, security and privacy isolation for big tech players in order to maintain their share, extract royalties etc.
Startups that are not in a large marketshare situation wouldn't trigger the need for intermediary/isolation so the effect on FDI would be limited, and anyway, the tides are turning on US capital in general.
Retaliation: I'm not sure the US fiscal and legal overreach isn't already in place, e.g. VW dieselgate, export controls etc. The US looks after its interests (fair enough), but its time the EU levelled the field to protect its citizens, a small loss of regional sovereignty for those companies in exchange for the EU revenue they continue to make.
> Major Cloud providers would still need to invest eu-customer money in providing eu IT services, this is more a legal, security and privacy isolation for big tech players in order to maintain their share, extract royalties etc.
That's already done today with little-to-no acrimony, and none of the regulations you mentioned. Where do you think much of that FDI in Ireland, Poland, Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria is coming from?
> Startups that are not in a large marketshare situation wouldn't trigger the need for intermediary/isolation so the effect on FDI would be limited, and anyway, the tides are turning on US capital in general
It's not just startups. American BigTech GCCs represent the bulk of tech related FDI in Czechia, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria, and Ireland's US-friendly business law has lead to a severe dependency on the US for capital [1].
> the tides are turning on US capital in general.
American Capital markets continue to remain larger in size than the entire EU's combined [0]. And China's is roughly in size to the entire EU. An the reality is, European capital markets are nowhere near as unified as either the US or China's.
> its time the EU levelled the field to protect its citizens, a small loss of regional sovereignty for those companies in exchange for the EU revenue they continue to make
But how?
The EU isn't significantly unified, and depends on unanimity within the European Council. As I mentioned before, Ireland, Czechia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland would be a significant veto to any shift against the US.
Furthermore, French and German domestic giants continue to compete against each other in every industry, which has lead to cooperation failures such as the FCAS snafu recently [2].
There is no "EU grand strategy", as major member states like Germany, France, and others push back or compete with each other internally.
And given the fact that the Chinese players are cannibalizing European competitors within China, major European companies like Volkswagen and Siemens are now heavily dependent on the US as an alternative market.
[0] - https://www.sifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2024-SIFMA-...
[1] - https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-fdi/forei...
[2] - https://on.ft.com/4n77YpQ
EU obviously needs a Great Firewall - this would force foreign big tech to host data within the EU and subject these companies to ironclad EU legal jurisdiction. Naturally, some companies will not comply and withdraw services, clearing the way for domestic EU operators to emerge. This may seem like an unpalatable choice but it really is the only way back toward digital sovereignty - right now, the EU has been in 'trust me bro' situation with US big tech - a huge and accumulative risk
It's always the same issue.
If you want to move away from <insert US tech giant>, you either need to embrace Linux and open source software which requires the state's employees to learn a new "stack" of applications which means they need to be given appropriate training or you need to have you home grown solutions that are as easy to use as their US counterparts and were developed within the EU by the EU's member countries with the EU's values embedded in them.
The first solution is not going to happen, as Linux is still relatively unknown all things considered and I don't see the French government employees learning how to use this OS and/or the applications running on it by themselves.
Secondly in times of budget cuts like in France currently, the government is not about to rip all the Microsoft products off and replace them with something that would take years to transition to and cost a fortune to implement.
So that leaves the homegrown solution. Unfortunately the work to move off of Microsoft et al should have started 10 years ago but it hasn't. Europe has completely dropped the ball on tech and now it's coming back to bit it in the ass.
The Draghi report from last year was supposed to kick things into gear but we will be lucky to see anything coming through within the next 5 years and by this stage the US tech giants will have entrenched themselves even more in the EU.
I am sorry to say but this is a failure that will resonate for the many decades to come.
I doubt that the average employee could tell Linux and Windows apart if you applied a Window-style skin to Linux.
But at least in Germany, I've seen Windows being written into agreements between state governments and trade unions representing clerks and employees. Good luck changing those without a negotiation running 3 years.
Lots of people would be disrupted by having to move off MS Office. Not insurmountably so, and MS ironically helps make the case that people can learn new things by often changing their own product interfaces.
If you really want to smooth out the transition, there's also companies which would be happy to help you setup and maintain your office environnement on Linux.
A cool idea could be to build a replica of Windows, but running Linux and market it to municipalities, NGOs and State entities.
these seem like solved problems. in canada, many govt depts have procurement rules that state all data must be hosted nationally by a custodian subject to national or even provincial law, and this has been standard for decades. the firm I work for also doesn't use google or microsoft clouds for similar reasons.
the deeper problem is governments are not technology builders and cannot produce tech products because they have no unique ability to deliver anything anyone subject to them actually wants.