The state of Schleswig-Holstein is consistently relying on open source

2025-12-0713:21601286www.heise.de

Schleswig-Holstein saves 15 million euros in license costs by migrating from Microsoft to free software. The conversion is significantly cheaper.

The state administration of Schleswig-Holstein is making a remarkable U-turn in its IT strategy and consistently relying on open source. After the migration from proprietary Microsoft software to free solutions was initially accompanied by problems and criticism, Digitalization Minister Dirk Schrödter (CDU) can now report a significant success: According to his ministry, the state will save over 15 million euros in license costs for Windows, Microsoft Office & Co. next year alone. It is expected to be similar in the following years.

In contrast, there would be one-time investments of nine million euros in 2026, explained the Ministry of Digitalization to the Kieler Nachrichten. These would have to be made for the conversion of workplaces and the further development of solutions with free software in the next 12 months. Given the annual savings, this sum will pay for itself in less than a year. In the past, the state transferred millions to the US company Microsoft, primarily for the use of office software and other programs.

The department sees the departure from this "vendor lock-in" – the dependence on a single large provider – as a clear signal for greater independence and sustainable digitalization. The financial incentive now underscores that digital sovereignty can be not only a political buzzword but also an economic gain.

The numbers speak for themselves: outside the tax administration, almost 80 percent of workplaces in the state administration have already been switched to the open-source office software LibreOffice. Schrödter thus confirms a course that reduces technical and economic dependence on individual manufacturers. The consequence of the conversion was already evident recently, as Schrödter emphasized in an interview with c't. Regarding the status of Microsoft license cancellations, he said: "We are at almost 80, without the tax administration." For tax matters, the state finance ministers have "given themselves a clear timetable for the switch." Recently, the Christian Democrat also emphasized, according to the Südtiroler Wirtschaftszeitung, that the state has entered a marathon, not just a sprint.

The remaining 20 percent of workplaces are currently still dependent on Microsoft programs such as Word or Excel, as there is a technical dependency on these programs in certain specialized applications. According to Schrödter, however, the successive conversion of these remaining computers is the stated goal.

Despite the savings and the almost completed migration in large parts of the administration, the opposition continues to criticize the quality of the conversion. SPD state parliament member Kianusch Stender pointed out to the Kieler Nachrichten: "It may be that on paper 80 percent of workplaces have been converted. But far fewer than 80 percent of employees can now work with them properly." Errors in the migration are "still present." The initial difficulties in introducing the open-source programs have apparently led to ongoing frustration among some employees in certain areas.

The Green state parliament member Jan Kürschner also admitted in an interview with heise online that such a comprehensive conversion would not go without friction. But he emphasized the long-term nature of the project and the necessity of fundamentally rethinking administrative processes: "With the change, there is an opportunity to truly rethink the administration and free ourselves from old burdens. That is the great added value." If only a one-to-one conversion is made, it might certainly "stumble at one point or another." But those who truly optimize administrative processes will likely find in the end: "Open source is the better way."

The challenge now is to resolve the initial migration problems and acceptance difficulties and to further develop the open-source solutions so that they fully meet the requirements of a modern state administration. The savings achieved give Schleswig-Holstein more financial leeway for this.

(nie)

Don't miss any news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn or Mastodon.

This article was originally published in German. It was translated with technical assistance and editorially reviewed before publication.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By input_sh 2025-12-0714:3017 reply

    I hate when switches like these get advertised first and foremost as some huge cost-cutting measure, further solidifying open source ecosystem as some cheap knock-offs of their commercial alternatives.

    How about instead you donate the same amount of money you would've paid to Microsoft anyways to fund open source projects you rely on? At least for one year, then drop it down to some arbitrary chosen percentage of that cost. That way you can still advertise it as a cost-cutting measure, and everyone would benefit.

    • By hanshenning 2025-12-0715:282 reply

      You're not wrong, but this is actually what they're pursuing; the article just leaves it out.

      > The goal is not only to save costs, but above all to gain digital sovereignty.

      > [It's true] that open source is not necessarily cheaper, [..] it requires investment. But the money flows into internal infrastructure, into the further development of Nextcloud, LibreOffice, and other similar systems, instead of proprietary ones.

      > Schleswig-Holstein pursues an "upstream-only strategy," meaning that developments flow directly back into international projects. The state does not want to maintain its own forks, but rather contribute all improvements directly to the main projects, thereby contributing to development for the benefit of the general public.[1]

      On a side note, the real key to the project's success is that it's supported by a coalition of the conservative and green parties. They actually value digital sovereignty and longterm cost savings. Contrast that with Bavaria, where the MS lobbyist managed to get them to sign a longterm Office 365 contract…

      [1]https://www-heise-de.translate.goog/hintergrund/Interview-Wi...

      • By k1musab1 2025-12-0716:103 reply

        Thank you for providing this valuable context. I am hoping to advocate for OSS transition in my workplace and these examples go a long way to help make my case.

        • By kuerbel 2025-12-0717:543 reply

          I am thinking about opening my own shop, distinguished by digitally sovereign offerings, for instance, Stormshield over Cisco, Proxmox over VMware, Matrix/Element over Microsoft Teams, Nextcloud over SharePoint...

          I've been doing m365 and azure for more than three years by now and I just feel terrible. Especially regarding some of our customers, which are small gGmbH (kind of NGO). Instead of making a secure, privacy focused offering we just sell them the usual m365 package. We basically push them into the data industrial complex just to get some collab tools and mail.

          • By lormayna 2025-12-0719:091 reply

            > Stormshield over Cisco

            Stormshield is a very good product but it's mainly designed for industrial scenarios and lacks some features that are essential for an enterprise NGFW (i.e. the protocol inspection covers very few protocols compared to PA/Checkpoint/etc). Unfortunately the enterprise NGFW scenario is dominated by US or Israeli companies, even if some niches brands like Stormshield for OT and Clavister for telcos are Europeans

            • By w34 2025-12-0812:25

              Stormshield firewalls offer a plethora of IPS protections and signatures, not just OT related ones. There are different licenses, offering varying protections and signatures.

              Stormshield firewalls can certainly be used in enterprise settings. OT environments are an added bonus where Stormshield firewalls can be used as a protective layer.

              Stormshield's IPS is its major strength, being very well integrated in the overall firewall design. The whole firewall rulebase is designed in terms of its IPS; I am not aware of any firewall on the market that has such a nicely integrated IPS.

              Also, at the point where one runs out of IPS options to configure, whereby I'm not referring to signatures in the general sense of the term, and one also has adapted all of Stormshield's available signatures to the needs of the particular environment, the real fun of creating new custom IPS signatures begins.

              Stormshield's roots date back to 1998's NETASQ, and so I would say they are of a similar pedigree as Check Point, in terms of their history.

              Disclaimer: I'm a Stormshield Platinum Partner and hold a CSNTS.

          • By candu 2025-12-088:06

            TBH there will likely be a _huge_ demand for "digital sovereignty consulting" over the next while, especially in the EU (and maybe also Canada).

            Here in Denmark, the previously unthinkable is happening: because of Schleswig-Holstein's leadership in moving to OSS, the Danes are now seeking to learn from the Germans (or at least, that particular set of Germans) about digitalisation! That trend, plus the Danish government's all-in-on-vendors/consultants approach to digitalisation, will likely open a sizeable market - and the traditional vendors like Netcompany have taken a large beating in public opinion themselves, so it's a good time to start something in this direction.

            And at the Digital Tech Summit in Copenhagen this year, digital sovereignty (and the lack thereof) was a very prominent theme across both public and private sector talks. As was the comparative advantage the EU has in _trust_, and how that helps e.g. businesses around cybersecurity, privacy-oriented SaaS, and data management expand even outside the EU - which makes it extra infuriating to see continued political interest in things like Chat Control and cracking down on GrapheneOS. This trust is IMHO pretty much the only advantage the EU has in the global tech marketplace, and we're busy throwing it away.

          • By limagnolia 2025-12-080:481 reply

            What makes StormShield "digitally sovereign"? The other names you mention are open source- but from what I can tell, StormShield is not?

            • By w34 2025-12-0812:32

              StormShield are a French company, and a subsidiary of Airbus.

              So I guess "digitally sovereign" in the European Union could mean using a combination of GPL style free, open source (BSD and other similar licences), proprietary European "homegrown" products.

              I guess Genua is another good contender in this market.

        • By cookiengineer 2025-12-088:301 reply

          Check out "Europe as a Software Colony" [1], it's an excellent documentary including about the Munich case specifically.

          Then watch the Scale 22x talk of the former Mexican CTO, because those stories are so close to industrial espionage it's absurd what kind of influence Microsoft has over diplomats and ambassadors. [2]

          [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=duaYLW7LQvg

          [2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=kLSHtx3Wi_M

          • By cies 2025-12-089:30

            Let's not forget that since Snowden we know former German Chancellor Angela Merkel was spied on by the NSA.

            German govt has been a bit embarrassed by this.

        • By Terr_ 2025-12-0720:031 reply

          I wonder if there is some particular MBA/managerial jargon (in the sense it grabs their attention) to use when talking about this stuff.

          Power differences, contractual leverage, vendor lock-in, motivation versus costs to make changes, etc.

          • By toomuchtodo 2025-12-0720:11

            Vendor risk management. It's the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks associated with engaging third-party vendors or suppliers.

      • By luc_ 2025-12-0716:13

        ++ When an EU outlet says, "Given the annual savings, this sum will pay for itself in less than a year. In the past, the state transferred millions to the US company Microsoft, primarily for the use of office software and other programs."

        You know they want sovereignty.

        WRT the criticism on this move by "the opposition" saying, ""It may be that on paper 80 percent of workplaces have been converted. But far fewer than 80 percent of employees can now work with them properly.""

        I think this natural pressure will also be helpful for re-tooling IT infra and support companies to being more sovereign.

    • By nyankas 2025-12-0717:321 reply

      The German government actually started and funded quite a few projects supporting FOSS development over the past few years. For example, ZenDis was founded in 2022 to develop open-source software for the public administration. They are the driving force behind openDesk, which is shaping up to be a great office- and collaboration suite. Also, there's the Sovereign Tech Agency, where open-source projects can apply for direct funding. The available funds aren't as big as I'd like them to be, but it's not as if there's no funding coming from the German government.

      • By VerifiedReports 2025-12-0717:391 reply

        This is the first I've heard of OpenDesk. What makes it specific to "public administration," vs. regular business?

        • By nyankas 2025-12-0718:091 reply

          ZenDis has the specific task of improving FOSS software for use by government agencies, so Germany's public administration is simply their primary focus in their development work. I honestly don't have enough experience with different collaboration suites to pinpoint any major feature differences.

          • By VerifiedReports 2025-12-0719:40

            Thanks. The software's homepage also cites its target of "public administration," so I'm curious as to what it might lack for private companies or projects.

    • By eloeffler 2025-12-0714:461 reply

      An alternative would be to create jobs for people that take on part of the development of used software. They would be a close connection between their organization and the Open Source project in question. Paying money to the project would be one way to go. Providing development resources another. Both would be best :)

      • By ghaff 2025-12-0715:541 reply

        That's very true in the case of private companies. I'm not sure to what degree employing developers who contribute to open source projects (probably for lower than private sector wages) works in the case of a lot of public sector entities.

        • By onion2k 2025-12-0716:031 reply

          Why would it make a difference? Offering developers a salary to contribute to an open source project is a good thing. Leave the developers to be free if they want to work for the offered amount.

          • By ghaff 2025-12-0716:061 reply

            There are often different incentives, constraints, and pay scales. Nothing against public organizations doing this obviously. Just don't see a lot of evidence that it works well in general.

            • By onraglanroad 2025-12-0719:041 reply

              Might work as part of a job guarantee scheme. Rather than being paid welfare benefits you can get more money by working on open source.

              Edit: I mean from a society perspective you pay a tiny bit more for a real gain, without reducing labour from the private sector.

              • By hvb2 2025-12-089:001 reply

                The problem is that most of that work is not something anyone can pick up.

                Regardless of the coding, one would first need to be familiar with git or VCS in general.

                Also, you would want people to go back to normal jobs when they can. This would lead to short stints for all employees which I've always found to be one of the best predictors of bad outcomes

                • By onraglanroad 2025-12-0815:53

                  Obviously it wouldn't work for everyone but for those who have an interest in computers it would be a nice option.

                  I was unemployed for a while in 2008 and I'd have loved it if I could have got paid minimum wage for working on open source rather than just getting jobseekers allowance and searching for jobs that didn't exist.

                  Plus I'd have learned some valuable skills that would help me find work anyway. And it would have increased the numbers of IT savvy workers. Seems like a win-win-win.

    • By atonse 2025-12-0715:34

      This has been my view too... all these years, all these organizations with collective billions, and didn't anyone have the vision to say, let's all pool some money together and actually get these open source alternatives to shed some of the papercuts, and maybe hire some UX/designers to make them look more polished?

    • By ho_schi 2025-12-0716:452 reply

      True. Software and computers don’t even exist to save money. A lot of problems stem from the weird idea of MBAs that a computer, digitalization or even cloud are there to save money.

      I hope Holstein prepared the switch well and kill off any Microsoft stuff as quick as possible. Nothing is worse than co-existence with something hostile which doesn’t want to be compatible.

         * No Dual-Booting
         * No VM
         * Especially no WINE (your ducked with every odd update)
         * And by the love of god, hit everyone with a bat which tries to ship incompatible files (MS-Office, ppt, xls, pst…) to you. Links to “Microsoft Teams”? Hit harder and show no mercy :)
      
      What to do, minimal list:

          * Make plan.
          * Used standards wherever possible.
          * Switch file-formats and external platforms before. Use a standard distribution and DO NOT MAKE YOUR OWN DISTRIBUTION. If you have a big IT department with hundreds of employees, maybe an own repository with your custom software.
          * Enforce all suppliers hard to support Linux natively! If not? Drop them. Search a honest company which gives you also the source.
          * Avoid the usual mistake like “this a local support company” or “their offer is cheaper”
          * Don’t purchase shitty hardware. ThinkPads are a good start, but we speak about printers, NFC, label writers, scanners and so on.
      
      If your answer doesn’t include either Debian, Red Hat, Canonical or Suse it is probably the wrong choice. You need support.

          The remaining 20 percent of workplaces are currently still dependent on Microsoft programs such as Word or Excel, as there is a technical dependency on these programs in certain specialized applications. According to Schrödter, however, the successive conversion of these remaining computers is the stated goal.
      
      A red flag. Soft migrations work only, if both side cooperate. If not, hard migration. Short pain is better than long suffering.

      PS: And don’t repeat Munich! Munich is “HOW NOT”. Three distinct IT-Departments. And the next major was “convinced ” with tax money and a Microsoft Headquarters. Result, it is worse than before.

      • By jimnotgym 2025-12-0717:291 reply

        >dependent on Microsoft programs such as Word or Excel

        This kind of suggests that they have a bunch of VBA scripts in the tax department and the legal team are dependent on sharing 'track changes' in contracts. It will do the world a favour if the VBA is forced out. Don't know what they will do about 'track changes', it is ubiquitous in the contract world. Hopefully they will force government suppliers onto the libre alternative.

        • By ho_schi 2025-12-089:59

          Yep. That’s a hell. A hell to maintain.

          And searching the web for “Excel government failure…” is an adventure.

          Excel is a shell script containing data. Minus well defined syntax and a proper change log. I see the nice point behind using Excel, it is a “visual” shell script containing data.

      • By GoblinSlayer 2025-12-0717:23

        Apparently their tax administration has some extensive automation with Excel spreadsheets and VBA.

    • By ryukoposting 2025-12-0716:17

      There are plenty of decision makers who will not be sold on an abstract concept like software sovereignty, especially when it requires them to change. Tell the same crowd "$15 million saved" and more of them will listen.

      They're out of their minds if they're donating nothing to Libreoffice, though.

    • By MrDarcy 2025-12-0714:431 reply

      The idea is sound but the feeling of hate is perhaps strong. It’s understandable there’s no incentive to pay for open source software, and doing so would be seen as an unnecessary allocation of resources that could better be allocated elsewhere.

      Given this understanding, the best away to achieve the desired outcome is to get creative about aligning incentives at the top of org structures where resources are allocated.

      • By nickff 2025-12-0715:333 reply

        >”Given this understanding, the best away to achieve the desired outcome is to get creative about aligning incentives at the top of org structures where resources are allocated.”

        I really don’t understand what this means; could you please explain it? It comes off as ‘mushy’ consulting-speak to me.

        • By shermantanktop 2025-12-0717:231 reply

          It’s a mini-language that you don’t have to learn unless you work with executive types. But it does mean something. In particular it means “activity at the grassroots is wasted effort when the real decision maker with the money is not aware or in agreement with the direction.”

          • By MrDarcy 2025-12-0718:28

            “Show me the incentive, I’ll show you the outcome.” -Charlie Munger

        • By manphone 2025-12-0715:54

          Make the execs bonus based on open source success and then it will be the most funded thing of all time.

        • By Terr_ 2025-12-0720:06

          Cynical read: "Executives are short-sighted and won't care unless the right thing somehow personally makes them money."

    • By alecco 2025-12-0715:332 reply

      Many years ago some people proposed to move open source to paid licensing to guarantee income for core open source developers. But the self-righteous community attacked them like it was the end of the world.

      In the current cancel culture even if you use *GPL licenses you get attacked for not being MIT or similar. But mysteriously never a peep about Big Tech making billions off open source without giving back even a tiny 1% to the projects. Insanity.

      • By ThrowawayR2 2025-12-0717:151 reply

        The sales pitch for FOSS to corporations in the 1990s and 2000s was "free as in speech and free as in beer". Reneging on that is a straight-up rug pull on the adopters.

        • By alecco 2025-12-0719:452 reply

          Pretty sure it was "free as in libre and not as in beer". Source: I was there.

          • By ThrowawayR2 2025-12-0720:33

            Both gratis and libre were talking points for FOSS advocates, with gratis being leaned on heavily to persuade businesses who didn't give a hoot about libre, which turned out to be almost everybody. Source: I was there too.

      • By LexiMax 2025-12-0715:52

        "Open Source" has always been a play for Free Software from a pragmatic and business-focused point of view, as opposed to a community-focused and moralistic one.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso...

    • By NeutralForest 2025-12-0714:36

      That's a really good point actually. If you're self hosting, you're already eating some cost by having people, probably in-house, doing the work but the price difference must be quite large and they should use it to support the project.

    • By croes 2025-12-0715:19

      Because in Germany the price is the only thing that counts.

      Building a new street? The cheapest bidder wins.

      Cuts to social security? As long it saves money in the short term in doesn’t matter if the long term costs will be higher or if the cuts don’t make sense.

    • By ninth_ant 2025-12-0717:052 reply

      You hate that, but what I hate that so many of my tax dollars are funnelled into bloated software run by awful foreign companies with massive lock-in scams, when better free software is available. I hate that lobbyists and consultants get these systems into place and can’t be unseated despite its utter unreasonableness.

      It’s a tremendous mis-allocation of public resources. Hiring local people to tailor the free software which already exists and contributing those changes back to the world would spend fewer of those dollars and spend them locally, and be pro-social at the same time.

      So I don’t hate this story. I love it and see it as a massive win.

      • By 9dev 2025-12-0717:222 reply

        That's a double-edged sword, though. Those tax dollars don't just pay for the license, but for ongoing development, responsibility for security issues, support contracts, emergency personnel, and so on. With a purely Open Source strategy, you'll have to pay multiple external consultants to take care of part of this, and/or cover these roles in-house. And suddenly, you've taken up a lot of tasks completely foreign to your business domain, such as new infrastructure and its maintenance, documentation requirements, software development, and so on. And we haven't even talked about the massive effort of educating your entire workforce on new tools and workflows.

        Assuming you just replace a proprietary software ecosystem with an Open Source one and immediately get the same thing for free is a very naive view that will get you in trouble.

        Having said that, as a German, I am very happy this switch happens and seems to have some backing in the local administration at least. But it's still a high-risk wager and I'm afraid it'll turn out like the LiMux project in Munich, which was eventually (and cleverly so) framed as the origin of all problems in the municipal digital infrastructure. In the end, it got swapped out for a new Microsoft contract in a wonderful example of lobbyism and bribery, and Open Source and Linux have been discredited, to the point no winning mayor candidate can ever bring it up again as a viable alternative.

        • By ninth_ant 2025-12-0719:52

          > With a purely Open Source strategy, you'll have to pay multiple external consultants to take care of part of this, and/or cover these roles in-house. And suddenly, you've taken up a lot of tasks completely foreign to your business domain, such as new infrastructure and its maintenance, documentation requirements, software development, and so on.

          Yes, this is what I’m talking about. Hiring people and developing expertise instead of paying expensive consultants is a preferred use of my tax dollars.

          > But it's still a high-risk wager and I'm afraid it'll turn out like the LiMux project in Munich, which was eventually (and cleverly so) framed as the origin of all problems in the municipal digital infrastructure.

          While this may be true, there are also quite prominent cases where the massively expensive foreign consultant solutions have also lead to disastrous project overruns.

        • By lenkite 2025-12-0717:531 reply

          > Those tax dollars don't just pay for the license, but for ongoing development, responsibility for security issues, support contracts, emergency personnel, and so on.

          Maybe this was true at one point in time. But now, it just pays for AI/Copilot and your latest support chatbot.

          • By notpushkin 2025-12-0718:17

            This. Also, with FOSS, you choose who you hire for support. From the article, it seems they’re hiring developers locally, so it’s also creating jobs in the region instead of outsourcing to MSFT. But I hope they donate a bit to the maintainers, too.

      • By sjamaan 2025-12-087:59

        Then you should support the Free Software Europe's "Public Money, Public Code" campaign: https://publiccode.eu/en/

    • By Bengalilol 2025-12-0714:37

      I hope those are not mutually exclusive actions. Switching and contributing may be on the Schleswig-Holstein Administration's agenda.

    • By bell-cot 2025-12-0714:44

      Yes. But budget decisions are made by politicians. Who know that one euro spent on things they could get for free is one euro less for things that voters and other interests are endlessly asking them to spend more on.

    • By Jean-Papoulos 2025-12-087:271 reply

      >In contrast, there would be one-time investments of nine million euros in 2026 [...] and the further development of solutions with free software.

      They are contributing actively it seems, so even better.

      • By input_sh 2025-12-0810:44

        And in the sentence above that, they're "saving" 15 million in Microsoft licenses. So either they've paid 24 million to Microsoft this year, in which case their next year's expenses are dropping by over 60%, or it's the same pot of money, in which case their yearly bill dropped by 40%.

        I get that 9 million sounds like a lot, but it's much, much lower than what they would've paid to Microsoft anyways. And those 9 million are advertised as a "one-off investment", while their contract with Microsoft was perpetual.

    • By immibis 2025-12-0721:14

      Why would a budget-conscious institution give away money for free?

    • By PeterStuer 2025-12-0716:46

      It should be what the kids these days call 'sovereignty', but ain't nobody got budget for that.

  • By GnarfGnarf 2025-12-0713:4813 reply

    I'm a Windows/macOS developer, but I strongly feel that all national governments need to convert to Linux, for strategic sovereignty. I'm sure Microsoft, under orders from the U.S. government, could disable all computers in any country or organization, at the flick of a switch.

    Imagine how Open Source Software could improve if a consortium of nations put their money and resources into commissioning bug fixes and enhancements, which would be of collective benefit.

    Apart from a few niche cases, the needs of most government bureaucracies would be well served by currently available OSS word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and graphics software.

    • By jll29 2025-12-0714:002 reply

      The sabotage scenario is perhaps less likely than the alternative scenario of industrial and political espionage.

      There are also practical advantages: the ability to fix a bug in-house instead of waiting for a technology giant from another continent.

      • By whstl 2025-12-0715:361 reply

        Less likely? This is exactly what happened earlier this year.

        Here's an article from the same newspaper that showed up to me as "related" when browsing TFA:

        https://www.heise.de/en/news/Criminal-Court-Microsoft-s-emai...

        • By nroets 2025-12-0718:39

          So you point to one instance of highly targeted sabotage aka sanctions. But Snowden and others exposed many instances of espionage dragnets.

      • By lo_zamoyski 2025-12-0714:046 reply

        > the ability to fix a bug in-house

        Yes, but bureaucracies make this impossible. If you have worked at a bank before, you'll know how difficult it is to make a change to some in-house piece of software. And that's a bank, not a gov't institution. Think how much more friction there will be in the latter.

        • By Terr_ 2025-12-0720:13

          It's funny, I was doing some budgeting stuff, and I ran into some corruption of payee-data in my bank's export files.

          Good: I already wrote a script to fix the exact same issue.

          Bad: It was in a pile of old stuff from 10+ years ago.

          Good: It worked anyway.

          Bad: The bank still has the same bug.

        • By grim_io 2025-12-0714:191 reply

          The culture can only change when it actually becomes possible to make any changes to the systems.

          If all the software one institution uses comes in the form of proprietary binaries, there is simply no need to even think about making policies about fixing those systems in-house.

          • By nickff 2025-12-0715:361 reply

            These institutions don’t bother making fixes where they can, so it seems unlikely that giving them more options will change much. Ironically, things like windows auto-update being the default probably actually help their IT departments maintain some level of security

            • By grim_io 2025-12-0715:381 reply

              Auto update is not rocket science. Linux distributions have it too.

              • By 1718627440 2025-12-0717:17

                Yeah and it is better. Most things can be updated without a reboot and even for the kernel, you can either live-patch it (not always possible) or reboot only the kernel.

        • By __d 2025-12-0723:20

          At a certain size (and government departments are absolutely large enough) it makes sense to manage software deployment centrally, from an internal package repository/cache.

          Once that’s in place, the process for populating that repository can easily adopt locally modified versions of upstream software: defaults changed, bugs removed, features added, etc.

          No one in a big business/government blinks at changing group policies for internal deployment. Changing the code is really very little different once the ability to do so is internalized.

        • By jimnotgym 2025-12-0717:37

          I wonder if it is in fact easier in a German region than a bank though. A bank has massive compliance complications, where the state insists on rules being met, so their are teams of people trying to make sure no rules being broken, and therefore anti-change. Germany is a Federal system, and the region has law making powers, a bit like a US state. Therefore it can set the rules to make sure migration to a new system happens. If big fixes are not allowed, they have themselves to blame. At a bank it is the state causing the friction.

        • By petcat 2025-12-0714:19

          EU bureaucracy is where optimism goes to die

    • By graemep 2025-12-0715:33

      Governments have more to gain from being able to work with a few big companies on things like surveillance than they do from sovereignty - which many of them regard as an out of date idea anyway.

      Despite all the talk about sovereign cloud the actual governments are actually going the other way.

      1. The Online Safety Act in the UK pushes people to use big tech more rather than run stuff independently - the forums that moved to social media. 2. EU regulatory requirements that help the incumbents:https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/27/cispe_eu_sovereignty_... 3. ID apps in multiple countries that require installs from Google or Apple stores, and only run on their platforms. 4. The push to cashless which means increased reliance on Visa, Mastercard, Apple and Google.

      To be clear I do not not think that any of these things are in the public interest. However the government is not the public, and the public (and probably a lot of the government) has deeply ingrained learned helplessness about technology.

    • By al_borland 2025-12-0714:304 reply

      Today when a government pushes for a backdoor we often see companies push back. The FBI publicly complained about iMessage encryption a lot, and currently Apple is also telling the government of India they aren’t going to install their “security” software… those are just a couple examples.

      What happens when major OSS projects are controlled by the governments themselves? Will David still beat Goliath?

      • By lucianbr 2025-12-0714:573 reply

        How does anyone "control" an OSS project in the sense that you are talking about, so the ability to insert backdoors or activate kill-switches? Maybe Linus controls Linux, but can he "flick a switch and kill" any running kernels? He might be able to insert backdoors, but will they go unnoticed? Would anyone be forced to install them? Just patch the code to remove the backdoor.

        I feel that you wrote some words that only seem to make sense if we don't think about them too much.

        • By LexiMax 2025-12-0716:081 reply

          > How does anyone "control" an OSS project in the sense that you are talking about, so the ability to insert backdoors or activate kill-switches?

          A government can control a piece of open source software the same way a big tech company does - with economies of scale. In other words, by throwing more money, resources, and warm bodies at their open source projects than anybody else.

          The code itself might be under an open license, but project governance is free to remain self-interested and ignorant of the needs of the "community."

          Any pull request accepted from outside isn't a mutual exchange of developer labor for the benefit of all, but the company successfully tricking an outside developer into doing free work for them.

          Any pull request that runs counter to the interests of the company can and will be ignored or rejected, no matter how much effort was put into it or how much it would benefit other users.

          Any hostile forks are going to be playing a catch-up game, as community efforts cannot outpace the resources of most large companies.

          • By notpushkin 2025-12-0718:331 reply

            As long as upstream is open source, forks can just keep syncing. At some point, the upstream will then usually switch to open core, or some sort of delayed open source, but often that leads to people leaving for the open forks, hopefully donating to them, too.

            (Gentle reminder to subscribe to donate to a FOSS project or two that you use.)

            • By LexiMax 2025-12-084:151 reply

              Which projects are you referring to here?

              Because in my experience, the projects that I can think of that switch to open core are those that are started by smaller businesses when a large multinational tech company starts to mess with their revenue streams.

              In that case, I don't fault them in the slightest. As a matter of fact, I think these days it's now a sucker's bet to build a company around an open source product. Free software? Maybe. Source available or open core from the start? Possibly. A fully permissive license that in the outside chance my product is successful, suddenly puts me in competition with Amazon and Microsoft, so they can kill my business with my own software? Forget about it.

              • By notpushkin 2025-12-085:19

                Yeah, I don’t fault them either. It’s a shitty situation to find yourself in. That said... they went with a permissive license, so they knew what they’re getting into.

                I think the main reason they do that is because AGPL is a turnoff for a noticeable chunk of corporate users, and you do want those users. Dual licensing should work here in theory, and does work in practice for some – no idea why we don’t see it more often. (I have a project-not-quite-startup-anymore [1] under AGPL, but I do keep around a CLA for outside contributors just in case.)

                [1]: https://lunni.dev/

        • By rocqua 2025-12-0715:14

          Linux is not a smart target. But OpenOffice, nextcloud, postfix, those are much easier targets for developer coercion to compromise widely installed software that is important for "linux on the desktop". Ah and ofcourse also the desktop environments, and perhaps systemD are all in a privileged position with much less eyes on.

        • By al_borland 2025-12-0715:163 reply

          The thought was that the government would effectively become the largest employer of OSS developers who would then be compelled to follow directions or be out of a job. Would there be enough independent developers to review millions of lines of code, patch out any back doors, or fork and maintain an entirely separate projects, since none of the government protects can be trusted?

          Could the government also dictate the operating system and software people use to make sure it is the state sponsored one? If I’m not mistaken some similar actions have happened in N Korea and China.

          I’m not saying this is an inevitable outcome, but just trying to think of worst case scenarios. A lot of terrible things have started with good intentions.

          • By p2detar 2025-12-0716:20

            > Would there be enough independent developers to review millions of lines of code, patch out any back doors, or fork and maintain an entirely separate projects, since none of the government protects can be trusted

            That’s not far from how it is right now in OSS, even without governments in the chain. For example: how the xz back door was found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor

          • By lolc 2025-12-0717:41

            You're saying that a state can upstream patches with planted backdoors. Thruth is, this is possible in all software. It's not specific to state-sponsored open source software. So your scenario is a reality whether you want it or not. And open source is not particularily vulnerable either. People forget this.

            Now a lot of people would be angry if my state decided to spend money on security flaws. I imagine an elected representative try to explain how they wanted to misspend funds allocated to improve software and plant flaws instead. That would not go down well here or in Germany. Try to hire people for this in Germany and see how long you last till your little op is public.

          • By cindyllm 2025-12-0715:19

            [dead]

      • By Spooky23 2025-12-0714:57

        Maybe. I highly doubt Apple or any other company isn’t complying in some way.

        It’s been widely speculated that there are gentleman’s agreements where strategic bugs do not get fixed. To apple’s credit, unlike say BlackBerry, they designed iMessage where many of the intercept methods are tamper evident.

      • By hamdouni 2025-12-0714:33

        Fork the project.

      • By belter 2025-12-0716:27

        Apple sit behind the most corrupt US President in history at its inauguration, donated to a ball room and millions of dollars for other unspecified purposes. Is your argument that they will not fold...or that the backdoor is already in place ? :-)

    • By switknee 2025-12-0911:21

      Flicking that switch would be pretty much a one time deal. Not likely.

      What would happen instead, and has happened in the past, is Microsoft (or juniper, etc) leaving a remote vulnerability unpatched while certain groups use that exploit. It's much more deniable. So deniable, that it's impossible to say for certain that it was intentional.

      It's more practical to audit FOSS systems for bugs than a Microsoft solution, and the tools for doing so are open source and getting even better every day. Like you said, sharing the burden helps with cost: It also helps with the trust issue. Going one step further, formally verified software solutions are possible (and exist!). Good luck getting that from Microsoft, they ship a calculator that needs updates and internet access to run.

    • By rocqua 2025-12-0715:114 reply

      I doubt that Microsoft has a kill switch. Though through automatic updates they still have pretty strong sabotage capabilities.

      But the OS is not where Microsofts power lies. Its in exchange (almost everywhere cloud managed, including for many governments) and SharePoint, with a small amount of teams, where Microsoft is truly a scary prospect for sovereignty.

      • By codedokode 2025-12-0715:161 reply

        They have the kill switch, it is called a "cloud account". Nowadays you need a valid cloud (MS-controlled) account to log into your computer.

        • By Aperocky 2025-12-0719:162 reply

          Haven't used Windows in almost a decade, has it gotten that bad?

          I can't log on to a windows computer if the cloud account don't exist? What if there's no internet?

          • By d3Xt3r 2025-12-0719:371 reply

            It caches your credentials so you can still login offline. But you do need to be online when you're logging into your PC for the first time, post-install.

            There are some unofficial hacks to bypass the online account requirement, but MS have been actively stamping these out. Now the current situation isn't like it's impossible to bypass this, mind you (as far as I'm aware there's at least a couple of workarounds), but normal users won't know/care and will end up just creating an online account.

            • By sirjaz 2025-12-0722:07

              If you have pro or enterprise you can still setup a local account. It is home edition that is the issue

          • By 1718627440 2025-12-0719:31

            > What if there's no internet?

            Surely that is something only criminal would say.

      • By smodo 2025-12-0715:15

        The kill switch is M365 account management. You take that offline, many SME’s and local governments just stop working. At least for a while.

      • By karussell 2025-12-0717:181 reply

        > pretty strong sabotage capabilities

        Via updates they can install and run anything they want ... aka 'kill switch'.

        • By rocqua 2025-12-0813:13

          Not quite. Because that requires pushing an update and only hits those who have windows automatic updates enabled. A lot of companies run those updates on a slight delay, which means they have a decent enough window to block such an update. Microsoft is a big thing to worry about when it comes to independence from the emerging fascist government of the US. But not because 'they can shut off windows'.

          The short-term fear should be in enterprise cloud (See ICC judges). The long-term pain lies in blocking security updates (As happened to Russia). One might worry about malicious updates being pushed, but the legal grounds for that are flimsy to non-existent, and Microsoft has very strong business reasons to push back. So even the trump administration would be smart enough to instead target the cloud solutions. Since the legal precedent is very clear and well lubricated "providing services to sanctioned entities", and the business impact is equally crippling.

      • By 1718627440 2025-12-0717:22

        They absolutely have. They force upgrade computers to Windows 11, which then won't boot, because the system doesn't actually support it. I guess they also have a smoother way to achieve that. They are also cases where an update broke the booting process, so the bitlocker key was lost. Everything is encrypted with it by default, and the only copy sits on a MS server connected with you MS account. Guess what happens when they say sorry, we can't just give you that key...

    • By pjmlp 2025-12-0719:20

      Similar opinion and source of income.

      Linux for starters, however even that has too many US contributions.

      In general, we need to go back to the cold war days, multiple OSes and programming languages governed by international standards, with local vendors.

      If sovereignty is desired, it can't stop at Office packages.

    • By mattip 2025-12-086:29

      > Imagine how Open Source Software could improve if a consortium of nations put their money and resources into commissioning bug fixes and enhancements, which would be of collective benefit.

      This is the business model of Quansight Labs, whose employees help maintain much of the scientific python stack. Mostly tech companies, not governments, sponsoring the work

    • By newsclues 2025-12-0714:55

      I feel like there should be an open project to manage and support this.

      I think governance (both public and private) would benefit from open tools to manage communities at scale via technology.

    • By consumer451 2025-12-0715:19

      I have a possibly strange take.

      Isn't the code of law the original open source, for very good reason?

      As law becomes more and more enforced by software, should it not all be required to be open source?

    • By tonyhart7 2025-12-0714:422 reply

      "the needs of most government bureaucracies would be well served by currently available OSS word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and graphics software."

      wait until they found out that there is no "customer service" in OSS, sometimes the project is fine but people need "someone" to be held accountable in some ways

      that's why a lot of OSS project never take flight

      • By TRiG_Ireland 2025-12-0715:11

        There absolutely can be "customer service" in OSS. You can usually find someone to pay for it.

      • By 1718627440 2025-12-0717:23

        Customer service is how OSS companies make money.

    • By crazygringo 2025-12-0714:323 reply

      [flagged]

      • By homarp 2025-12-0714:401 reply

        indeed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44336915 - Microsoft suspended the email account of an ICC prosecutor at The Hague

        then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45837342 - ICC ditches Microsoft 365 for openDesk

        • By crazygringo 2025-12-0714:455 reply

          Yup.

          Microsoft pledged not to intervene like that again, reclassifying its legal interpretation of its own services, and added language to its contracts to guarantee that it would fight future US attempts to do so:

          https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-did-not-cut-servic...

          When the US manages to force Microsoft to do something, it responds by trying to protect itself from the same scenario in the future. Because it wants profits. The ICC leaving Microsoft is the last thing Microsoft wanted.

          • By graemep 2025-12-0715:251 reply

            That does not really much much difference. The US can still sanction people working for the ICC very effectively:

            https://www.heise.de/en/news/How-a-French-judge-was-digitall...

            and it can demand access do data:

            https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/25/microsoft_admits_it_c...

            • By crazygringo 2025-12-0717:061 reply

              None of that has anything to do with whether Microsoft is trying to assist the government. The cloud companies are doing what they can to protect themselves against these government actions.

              • By graemep 2025-12-0811:12

                > The cloud companies are doing what they can to protect themselves against these government actions.

                No, they are doing what they can to convince customers that they are trying to protect themselves against government actions.

                In fact its all smoke and mirrors. See the second link. AWS have admitted that the Cloud Act does allow the US government to compel access to French data.

          • By dietr1ch 2025-12-0714:501 reply

            oh, pinky promise? sure, let's keep sovereignty at stake then, all good.

            • By crazygringo 2025-12-0714:521 reply

              Lengthy contracts between nation-states and corporations, developed and reviewed by teams of lawyers, and enforced by judges, are not exactly "pinky promises."

              • By zelphirkalt 2025-12-0715:241 reply

                They will become pinky promises, once Microsoft gets ordered to do something by orange man or some three letters. There isn't really anything Microsoft can do about that, unless they decide to move headquarters and lots of employees out of the US. It basically doesn't matter what they have in contracts, as US law or just political power with access to enforce that power trumps (ha) any contracts they can sign.

                • By crazygringo 2025-12-0717:073 reply

                  > There isn't really anything Microsoft can do about that, unless they decide to move headquarters and lots of employees out of the US.

                  Actually there is, that's what the entire point of the sovereign clouds are. They reside physically in Europe, with legal control by Europeans, and European employees that can't be bossed around by the US. If the US orders Amazon to retrieve data from S3 servers located in a European sovereign cloud, Amazon employees in the US don't have the technical capability to do so, and the European data center employees are legally bound not to.

                  • By zelphirkalt 2025-12-0721:18

                    If those employees were working in a vacuum, then sure, but in reality they are not.

                    Employees have bosses and those bosses have bosses, and those bosses have bosses in the US. If not direct bosses, then at least people higher up in the context of all of Microsoft, who can pull strings, criticize them, categorize them as unreliable, and make their life hard, or even bring into motion that they are made to give up their position or are let go. Most people don't want a hard life at the job and be bullied. It is likely, that people joining Microsoft don't have the strongest moral compass anyway, so them sticking their neck out for European data protection, and losing what comfy life they have, including probably exceptional ...

                    Company politics are not to be underestimated. The question becomes who selects and vetoes higher ups in those sovereign clouds.

                    European governments cannot trust US companies, even when they have inner-EU parts, because influence from the US cannot be rules out.

                  • By homarp 2025-12-0719:55

                    https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/25/microsoft_admits_it_c...

                    "Microsoft admits it 'cannot guarantee' data sovereignty: Under oath in French Senate, exec says it would be compelled – however unlikely – to pass local customer info to US admin"

          • By rusk 2025-12-0715:131 reply

            You said

            > Where does this kind of conspiracy thinking come from?

            Now you say

            > Microsoft pledged not to intervene like that again

            You are full of it

            • By crazygringo 2025-12-0715:201 reply

              > You are full of it

              Not appropriate for HN:

              https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

              • By whstl 2025-12-0715:451 reply

                You’re dismissing the idea of interference one second and then excusing an example of such interference in the next.

                People don't want political interference between countries to happen again and you're calling it "conspiracy thinking".

                The snark of the above poster is the least problematic thing here.

                • By crazygringo 2025-12-0717:031 reply

                  No, you have it 100% backwards. I'm saying Microsoft is incentivized to not allow interference, and this is strengthened by the fact that when a government forced interference, it took steps to strengthen itself against future interference.

                  So in light of that actual evidence, yes I am calling it conspiracy thinking to suggest that Microsoft has built in some kind of kill switch to make it easier for the government to do things that are against its corporate interest. Because that's literally what it is -- imagining some kind of conspiracy where Microsoft wants to help the US government, instead of its own bottom line.

                  Explain to me what's problematic about that?

                  And whatever you think about the arguments on either side, snark is absolutely a problem on HN. We can't have civil, productive discussions with it, and if you say it's "the least problematic thing here", then that's part of the problem too. Let's be better than that, how about?

                  • By whstl 2025-12-0717:582 reply

                    Sorry but I still disagree. Calling other people's legitimate concerns "conspiracy thinking" is worse than the snark.

                    IMO that's what we should be better than.

                    And I get what you're arguing for, I just don't see it as plausible or realistic.

                    • By crazygringo 2025-12-084:461 reply

                      There's zero evidence that Microsoft could shut down computers across a nation. Zilch. Nada. None.

                      Meanwhile, OP asserted they are "sure" Microsoft could do it at the "flick of a switch". Under orders from the US government.

                      That's absurd. If that's not conspiracy thinking, I don't know what is. A literal conspiracy between the two entities. When something is actually conspiracy thinking, you're allowed to label it as such, you know? You're trying to police ideas here, and that's entirely inappropriate. Be better.

                      • By whstl 2025-12-088:551 reply

                        This is a strawman.

                        They can (and will) switch off individual accounts from the US if the government asks them, and this has been demonstrated earlier this year.

                        No, they haven’t coded a “country-wide kill kill-switch” but having the ability to kill individual accounts, and being in a jurisdiction that demands accounts to be disabled from time to time is equivalent to having such a thing.

                        Also: Remember that several US organizations, including Github, have disabled thousands of accounts from eg Iran in the past is such maneuvers.

                        So: definitely feasible and has definitely happened in the past, with or without the mythical kill switch you talk of.

                        • By crazygringo 2025-12-0914:251 reply

                          It's not a strawman.

                          > No, they haven’t coded a “country-wide kill kill-switch” but having the ability to kill individual accounts, and being in a jurisdiction that demands accounts to be disabled from time to time is equivalent to having such a thing.

                          That's preposterous. Disabling a couple of online accounts, versus disabling the computers of an entire nation, you think are the same thing?

                          I don't understand how you can make that argument in good faith. What are you even trying to achieve?

                          • By whstl 2025-12-111:05

                            I am not trying to achieve anything.

                            I just don't agree with you, or with your framing that this is "conspiracy thinking" from other posters.

                            That's it.

                    • By rusk 2025-12-0718:31

                      Ignore the fool

      • By rusk 2025-12-0715:111 reply

        > Where does this kind of conspiracy thinking come from?

        The news in your jurisdiction might not cover these matters

        https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/trump-sanctions-on-interna...

    • By SoftTalker 2025-12-0717:11

      Prudent to assume that the same is possible with Linux.

    • By myaccountonhn 2025-12-0714:224 reply

      I agree, but it also feels like it would be so difficult. It requires a ton of training, the UIs are not flashy so people are going to feel repulsed (I unironically found looks to be a big blocker when adopting open source tech) and finally Microsoft is going to lobby incredibly hard against it. I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to actively sabotage any adoption.

      • By whstl 2025-12-0714:36

        This excuse is as old as the hills and I've been hearing it since the late 90s, but historically there has been exactly zero training between versions of Office or Windows that changed a lot of the interface overnight. Office workers just kept using them like the rest of the planet.

        Not to mention companies who moved on to Google Docs or the web version of Office. Or companies who moved to MacOS 15-10 years ago.

        In my state back home the entire workforce moved to LibreOffice and, according to my sister (a government worker), everyone is doing fine. Recently I saw a German government worker using Office to produce a document and she mentioned that she "barely knows how to use it" and "just knows how to load templates, fill and print".

        This hypothetical problem of "needs training" only seems to exist when you mention the words "open source".

      • By dietr1ch 2025-12-0715:00

        > - It requires a ton of training, the UIs are not flashy so people are going to feel repulsed (I unironically found looks to be a big blocker when adopting open source tech), and finally Microsoft is going to lobby incredibly hard against it.

        I think everyone agrees the costs are high, especially beyond monetary ones, but this stance on avoiding these costs is slowly pushing everyone into finding out how expensive is not having sovereignty.

        Through its tech industry the US has over time acquired too much power over critical digital infrastructure that has already compromised governments. We know of Presidents/PMs/Legislators spied upon through their phones and computers, and also Microsoft itself involved in revoking email access to the ICC's chief prosecutor as retaliation/defense against investigations.

        Sovereignty is too important for government, and since everyone needs to do it and get security right going for open-source with funded development and constant auditing is in my mind the only way.

      • By GoblinSlayer 2025-12-0717:27

        >UIs are not flashy

        Where did you see flashy UIs? Modern UIs are boring flat geometric monochrome shit and Microsoft is one of the worst there.

      • By blibble 2025-12-0717:091 reply

        not being able to be coerced by the US regime is a huge strategic requirement that no amout of lobbying by microsoft will be able to overcome

        • By ThrowawayR2 2025-12-0717:291 reply

          The employees don't care about software sovereignty. They just want to do their jobs and get their paychecks. Fail to win them over and the transition will fail as well.

          • By blibble 2025-12-0717:50

            you might be right if it was american employees

            germans have been quite riled up by US escapades

  • By concinds 2025-12-0714:375 reply

    "Saves 15 million" on license costs, but how much will be wasted on the contractors involved, the lost productivity for state employees (especially the ones who depend on Excel, who will be converted too per the announcement)? And how much do you really save if you keep switching back and forth between M$ and Linux every decade, as state governments seem to enjoy doing?

    They should switch to open-source for sovereignty. Not "cost". The fact that they mention "cost" as motivation and to secure buy-in is very worrisome. If you really want to switch to open source permanently and secure your sovereignty, you should invest more (making LibreOffice Calc as good as Excel? One can dream, but it's not cheap). Cost-savings show a lack of seriousness. How long until another government switches back?

    How to know when they're serious: when the federal government hires an in-house team of (well-paid) programmers, and sysadmins. Not consultants. Put them in charge of public-facing and internal-use digital infrastructure, serving both the federal and state governments. Make them work to tailor a distro, or LibreOffice, to government needs. Invest in workforce training to keep their productivity up despite the switch.

    And then, one day (let's dream for a second), that team could also pick new projects that serve the public interest, like a vulnerability research team (like Google Project Zero), or helping out with all those underfunded core pieces of digital infrastructure out there with only a single maintainer. Creating public goods is the point of a government.

    • By juliusceasar 2025-12-0714:531 reply

      It is better to spend 20milion on German contractors, then spending just 15m on licenses to foreign company.

      • By Cockbrand 2025-12-0715:211 reply

        At least the federal government loves to contract McKinsey, so a lot of the profit still ends up outside of the country. I didn't find any quickly accessible data on the state government in Schleswig-Holstein, though.

        • By baxtr 2025-12-099:00

          >so a lot of the profit still ends up outside of the country.

          I have no idea how you come up with that corollary. All big traditional consultancies are partnerships and any profit is distributed among the partners. If a country (e.g. Germany) makes a loss, then profits from other countries will flow into the country to make up for this.

    • By bogwog 2025-12-0715:372 reply

      > Saves 15 million" on license costs, but how much will be wasted on the contractors...

      Approximately 9 million, according to the article:

      > In contrast, there would be one-time investments of nine million euros in 2026, explained the Ministry of Digitalization to the Kieler Nachrichten. These would have to be made for the conversion of workplaces and the further development of solutions with free software in the next 12 months. Given the annual savings, this sum will pay for itself in less than a year.

      • By concinds 2025-12-0715:531 reply

        Yeah. Notice how they emphasize how the "one-time" spend on contractors will save them money. Never includes the cost of the lack of institutional knowledge, or the impact on quality, maintainability, etc. Money brain.

        For a transition to open-source to be successful and permanent, manage it well. Not like this.

        • By whstl 2025-12-0717:06

          IMO they should also emphasize that this money can go into German (or at least European) consultants, rather than dumping 15 million on licensing costs that will go straight to Redmond, Seattle.

          Of course no guarantee that it will be the case for 100% but still better. Even if there were no savings it would be better spent money.

    • By DanOpcode 2025-12-0714:541 reply

      True, regardless of the cost, it feels like money spent on open source software is more ethical and a better way to spend tax money. Why pay $15 million to Microsoft that will only benefit their shareholders, when spending the same amount of money on open source software would benefit everybody (the citizens as well).

      • By p2detar 2025-12-0716:32

        This resonates with me as well. This money will increase attention and expectedly contributions to OSS, which will also be of benefit to other entities implementing the same model later on. That’s the way to go towards sovereignty in software.

    • By zelphirkalt 2025-12-0715:15

      A not to be easily dismissed factor is privacy and data protection. A company that has 700+ "partners" that they sent who knows what data to from inside their e-mail client is not to be trusted. I don't want my data in the hands of these crooks.

    • By tirant 2025-12-0714:38

      This is the situation. And knowing how inefficient the German administration is, this would en up costing more in taxes and slower processes.

HackerNews