~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

Later, Ash would stand out as one of the few pokemon trainers not to be targeted by the #Mewtwo movement

They aren’t including hardware capable of brute forcing WPA2 in a TV.

Good grief you’re still here downvoting? You really just can’t let this go?

Hell, you’re downvoting comments where I list the ‘web searches’ I did, and my sources, and my reasoning… This kinda feels like maybe you’re just not willing to accept that this is a complex situation?

(edit: lmfao, called it)

All I’m seeing is this:

The administration can articulate and enforce its requirements and needs vis-à-vis technology providers. This applies to product features (functions, operating options, availability, information security & data protection, etc.) as well as contract design and license models.

Maybe it’s a translation error, I’m sorry I just can’t find where they talk about that. I know this is a bit tedious but I would really like to be wrong about this - I know some of the devs involved, and mostly they are poor poor. I would very much like to know that their effort isn’t being exploited, as it so often is. So far, digging into this far more than I should (this is a cry for help) I still cannot find any actual statement that they do contribute to the source beyond maybe planning to submit pull requests? If you have a concrete example of what they’re doing I would be overjoyed to see it, but so far they’re doing the depressingly common thing of barely even paying lip service to the idea of supporting the core FOSS project devs.

If that can be done without (the only phrase I know for it is “Digital colonialism”: where a group takes effective control of another project because they have paid devs to throw at it. Descriptive but a bit dramatic.) that would be a huge help. To a degree that’s what they’re doing, releasing their in-house developments based on the LibreOffice source on their OpenCode platform, but I have yet to see anywhere that shows/says they’re supporting said original developers they’re relying on themselves (though in this process I have had my lacking german skills pushed to their limits).

I laud the effort to oust microsoft, but I have yet to see any of these efforts come to fruition in a “my friends can afford to eat now that their code is running huge parts of the government of the 3rd largest economy in the world” way.

Are they? My business german is a bit awful so I very well may have missed it, but I can’t find any mention of their contributions to the source projects on that site, or in their most recent strategy documents. Do you mean they’re actually doing that, or that they should be the ones doing it?

From their “Our Mission” page it seems clear that they develop on top of existing projects to suit the needs of their customers, which is fine:

ZenDiS builds its offerings on existing solutions, some of which have been proven millions of times over, and develops them further in collaboration with professional partners so that they permanently meet the requirements of public administration in terms of operation, performance, security, sovereignty, and user-friendliness.

But while their OpenCode platform lists their developments, I can find no evidence that they have contributed to the sources either collaboratively or monetarily. I could very well have missed it, again mein deutsch ist nicht gut, but I did look pretty hard into this and I can’t find where they’ve stated that’s what they’re doing. Is it referenced elsewhere and I simply did not find it while searching for it?

… I think I understand what you mean and that’s probably a good approach, but good grief the initial read of "governmental groups committing changes to main that enable AI for greater bureaucratic compatibility " is one of the most stressful things I can think of.

Wow, overly insulting much? I’ll just stick with Libreoffice as the example here since I don’t want to get into “cops using ubuntu”:

Tech support for FOSS solutions exists and is completely separate of the grants I mentioned.

The Document Foundation does not provide professional support services for LibreOffice. It does, however, develop and maintain a certification system for professionals of various kinds who deliver and sell services around LibreOffice.

So no, their hypothetical outlay for tech support can’t go to supporting The Document Foundation, that isn’t something offered. Instead it will go to commercial services built around that core piece of FOSS.

Why wouldn’t that be enough?

Because modern software suites aren’t static products. Security updates alone are a huge outlay of effort, and that is currently being done entirely by free volunteer labor. I know that most modern countries were developed through the exploitation of free labor, but I’m pretty sure we’ve agreed that’s a bad thing to do and in an article about how they’re saving a ridiculous amount of money, there is no mention that any of that money saved will go to supporting the people enabling their espoused ideals of sovereignty and digital independence.

If the goal truly is independence and not just cost saving, why not redirect that budget to allow some of the actual workers to survive off their labor? And why do you think it’s okay for them to take that budget and give it to commercial, non-contributing interests instead?

Hmm. Maybe I’m just cynical, but I have yet to see one of these “digital sovereignty” moves to FOSS software that appears to be anything more than a cost saving measure. It’s good to save money, sure, but shifting your government to rely on an already overbudened volunteer-run system is a recipe for disaster, and without reliable ongoing support (which one-time grants are not) this is not going to end well. By all means kick Microsoft, but where is that €15 million/year going now, and why is some portion of it not going to The Document Foundation?

I’m curious if the switch to FOSS software means they’re going to start supporting those projects, at least to some degree? I know quite a few FOSS devs for some very mainstream projects, and none of them make enough money to dedicate all their time to the projects. That lack of support really isn’t what you want in a government system. A lot of the costs from using M$ software is in the service contracts, not the site licenses, especially since it doesn’t sound like they’re moving the data infrastructure (excel integration and SQL server are m$'s other biggest money-makers besides office enterprise and azure). Even shifting a fraction of the savings over to the devs now doing the support work for your digital sovereignty would be awesome.

Is there a list of the companies involved? It’s a pretty important piece of reporting, and it’s really weird such a fundemental piece of information isn’t included in the article.

They even include a line at the end that they asked “all roundtable companies” to respond to the article, why the heck aren’t they telling us who those companies are??

jjgod is the only one I remember, jjcoin and jjfly might have been ones too? Man I played the -heck- out of that game as a kid…

I’m sorry, I’m not sure what your point is - yes it was a broadly impractical thing to do, that’s not in dispute.

That’s a tradition with gaming systems, see the Navy’s playstation supercomputer!

The FBI said the information came from a “sensitive source with excellent access” and introduced the report as a warning about “extremist actors targeting law enforcement officers and federal facilities”.

Remember kids, look into securing your phone & only add people to your group chats that you have good reason to trust.

Preanimated takedown moves, from the look if it.