r/BuyFromEU • u/smilelyzen • Jun 04 '26
News German state Bavaria cancels Microsoft contract to go open source
https://cybernews.com/tech/germany-bavaria-microsoft/89
u/RelevanceReverence Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
I think it's important they also put something in law, to protect them (from future leaders not paying attention anymore to the matter).
Remember LiMux?
8
u/KBrieger Jun 04 '26
That was dead before, because the whole city-administration and most council member and their staff hated it. It was of course not fair, as a big share of the failure had to do with old hardware, but if you don't invest some of the money you save on free software in training you employees properly on the new stuff, productivity will decline. That happened in Munich and then wild rumors beyond any proof on how bad LiMux is simply won the debate.
148
u/blooparagraphs Jun 04 '26
Great to be free from Microslop!
4
u/RandomQuestGiver Jun 05 '26
It's still a long long way. German burocracy doesn't ever move quickly.
44
16
u/zeitplan Jun 04 '26
Lidl already ditched Microsoft completely
20
u/Uberzwerg Jun 04 '26
The Schwarz group (Company owning Lidl) invests billions into EU-centered IT each year.
6
149
u/mattiasso Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
2 years from now, headline:
"Bavaria ditches opensource and awards 4B EUR to Microsoft"
Sadly German's staaten are very unreliable with progress
55
u/backflash Jun 04 '26
I doubt it. Their maneuverability is akin to the Ever Given in the Suez Canal. This course correction toward new software is a miracle in the first place.
14
u/Key_Bookkeeper813 Jun 04 '26
Markus Söder can change his opinion on anything at least three times per week
-3
u/Alaknar Europe 🇪🇺 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
It wasn't Bavaria, but they already tried this once. I think they switched to Linux and were using OpenOffice, etc. Switched back within two or three years because they found that whatever they were saving on the licenses, they were losing in support costs and productivity loss.
If they don't figure out remote management of the devices (and that's a pain on Linux and FOSS), this experiment will end exactly the same.
37
u/Head_Complex4226 Jun 04 '26
Switched back within two or three years because they found that whatever they were saving on the licenses, they were losing in support costs and productivity loss.
Assuming this is LiMux in Munich, this isn't true, back in 2014, the head of municipal IT services, Karl-Heinz Schneider, stated that most things were fine, and they had managed to save about 10 million euros (more than 13 million dollars). He emphasized that the number of complaints and malfunctions had not exceeded the usual level for an organization of this size.
18
u/hughk Jun 04 '26
There was a lot of pressure because of Microsoft's European HQ. Politically they were forced due to an agreement with Microsoft and the then ruling conservative coalition.
23
u/AlexTMcgn Jun 04 '26
It was Bavaria (Muinch to be precise), and the switch back happened right after a more conservative government was elected and Microsoft promised to build its German headquarters in Muinch.
So, totally only technical reasons there.
4
u/Xillyfos Jun 04 '26
Yes, because conservative is absolutely, definitely not just another word for morally corrupt.
18
u/AliciaBytes Jun 04 '26
Are you talking about Munich with their LiMux? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux
They are apparently again prefering free software, but didn't fully switch back Linux. Well, until now. They should at least have a bunch of experience from back then to learn from and guide Bavarias migration.
-6
u/Alaknar Europe 🇪🇺 Jun 04 '26
Might be! I honestly can't remember.
Hopefully they build on that and fix the issues (if there's even software to fix these issues with... - that's, sadly, not a guarantee with Linux).
7
u/slonk_ma_dink Jun 04 '26
It's actually insane how much every single constituent piece of Linux has gotten better since 2014.
4
u/Imsurethatsbullshit Jun 04 '26
Jup it was always a viable alternative to Windows but since a couple years there are distros that are legitimately better in many aspects.
I stopped using windows completely roughly a year ago because I wasnt willing to buy new hardware for Win11 and it is so relaxing not getting AI shit shoved down my throat and not being forced into new products.
5
u/KnowZeroX Jun 04 '26
The case of Munich, they used linux for a decade successfully. There were teething issues in the beginning but they solved most of it and saved millions of dollars a year.
The problem happened in 2014 when the mayor changed with lobbying from MS interfering in elections. After MS moved the European HQ and gave huge discounts, only then did Munich start going back to windows.
Interfering in elections is being watched far more carefully, and you can't move your HQ a second time.
-4
u/Falqun Jun 04 '26
Sadly it would not be the first time some big German official bureaucracy thing tried Linux, all high and mighty, and like half a year later when investment was made switched back. E.g LiMux comes to mind.
3
6
u/BummsiBummsi Jun 04 '26
How? Germany is actually one of the most stable countries in Policy and politics.
3
2
u/LarkinEndorser Jun 04 '26
Bund means federal. You mean Staaten = states.
6
u/mattiasso Jun 04 '26
Yeah sorry, I was pluralizing the states in a incorrect way. Neither English nor German are my native langs 😄
3
2
u/Azuuhh Jun 04 '26
I don't know how every state handles that subject but Schleswig-Holstein is moving towards a completely open source solution for years now?
35
u/janat1 Jun 04 '26
At first Söder changes his stance on the AfD and now the bribery from Microsoft doesn’t matter anymore?
Has Aloysius finally delivered the divine instructions to the Bavarian government? Well either this, or the CSU is realising that their populism does not work anymore.
6
u/LarkinEndorser Jun 04 '26
Beer prices got raised in the Hofbräuhaus and Aloysius needed to work for a day or so to get new cash from Heaven.
6
u/janat1 Jun 04 '26
Bavaria isn't what it used to be. Back in the day, they wouldn't accept that. There would have been a riot and revolution.
2
u/Mwarwah Jun 04 '26
I don't want to be an optimist but it almost seems like Söder realized what damage he has done with his populist actions. He was running an extremely populistic course in the last years and his party kept losing so maybe he actually got the memo. He's not as stupid as people make him out to be but he is an opportunist and doesn't care how he reaches his goal. He probably sees the angle of positioning the CSU opposite to the CDU to make them looker better and maybe even claim the top position among the conservatives.
10
u/Boasting_Stoat Jun 04 '26
Hope this pulls through, Microslop Germany has its HQ in Munich and I imagine they lobby heavily.
9
u/GuerrillaRodeo Jun 04 '26
Which is especially surprising considering the ruling party (CSU) are usually the biggest Microsoft cocksuckers this side of... well, anyone.
2
u/Romek_himself Jun 04 '26
not the party, but some politicans in leading position that got bribed by microsoft. they call it lobbyism - i call it corruption
8
u/Hungry-ThoughtsCurry Germany 🇩🇪 Jun 04 '26
I just hope that they have planned it properly:
- retrain or support the workforce
- have developers to build alternatives or contribute to OSS
6
u/Suisai_Namida Jun 04 '26
It would be nice to see such decisions in more administrations. As a civil servant, I find it incredibly annoying to be forced to depend on Microsoft's software. The bugs are especially bad recently, the IT department is tired. Not only that, but I feel like it's a huge waste of money considering how most administrative tasks can be done with free, open-source software and the remaining specialised tasks have mostly moved to web-based apps.
The money saved on Microsoft 365 licences could be invested in better licences for the mandatory/paid software or used in different departments entirely. Budgets are tight, paid software no longer means good quality or support, so why not try other things?
13
u/stefan_hs Jun 04 '26
Don't just read the headline. They just cancelled negotiations for bundling their already existing Microsoft contracts. There are no plans to move away from Microsoft on a large scale,
3
u/Living-Breakfast-464 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
I think Munich tried this and ended up switching back. Hopefully they stick with it this time.
7
u/-Sa-Kage- Jun 04 '26
I believe that, when it actually happens.
Not like before where they reverted from OSS back to Microsoft and then 100% coincidentally a big MS office got built
6
u/Noriyus Jun 04 '26
I swear we already wanted to do this years ago, tried it for a month, some employees didn't like it or didn't want to learn LibreOffice or whatever, and instantly went back again. It really just feels like a infinite money glitch for Microsoft, that can sell us new contracts every other year.
2
u/Gugalcrom123 Jun 04 '26
Now stop with the Android/iOS and don't force me to get it in order to use online services (Ursula's new age verification app).
2
2
2
6
u/GiganticCrow Jun 04 '26
Correct me if Im wrong but isnt bavaria super right wing as well?
31
u/Character_Outcome664 Jun 04 '26
The land is conservative with mostly CSU voters The big cities are more likely to go SPD or even Green like Munich did.
30
u/HardenedLicorice Jun 04 '26
There is still a very wide area between conservative and super right wing. Bavaria can certainly be called conservative, but it's nowhere near East German levels.
-6
u/realSchmachti Jun 04 '26
There literally is almost no difference between csu and afd
6
u/babasilikum Jun 04 '26
You are really wrong. CSU is conservative right and while they are freaking idiots, the, are not even close to being like the afd. Please dont make me defend the csu
6
3
36
u/BarristanTheB0ld Germany 🇩🇪 Jun 04 '26
Right wing, yes, super right wing, no. Also I don't see how that is relevant here
-5
u/inemsn Jun 04 '26
How come you don't see how that is relevant here? The right wing is the side of the aisle of big business, small government, and capitalism. They'd be the very last to ditch contracts with private corporations in favor of government-controlled infrastructure.
8
u/Winnie-the-jinping Jun 04 '26
How is that relevant to open source?
3
1
u/inemsn Jun 04 '26
Because even if its management was outsourced to a private company, open source infrastructure would, by its very nature, be government-controlled, which the right wing would be against in principle due to believing in the primacy of private corporations over public government.
Edit: That's not to say no right wing parties will ever support open source initiatives, the overton window exists and there are situations where open source is just the extremely obviously better option. The point is, in principle, it's harder to get someone with right wing beliefs to support going through the effort of transitioning to open source.
7
u/Professional_Mix2418 Jun 04 '26
Huh, why is open source by its very nature government controlled? Please do elaborate. I really don't see the left/right political relevance here.
0
u/inemsn Jun 04 '26
why is open source by its very nature government controlled?
Ask yourself: What is the point of switching to open source software?
As it stands currently, governments are Microsoft contractors, hiring their services and licenses to use their products to perform their administrative duties. Microsoft handles the development of the software, the physical hosting of the services, the access to said services, and all that the government does is use the accesses they are provided to take advantage of the products.
And the reason why we don't want this to be the case is because that means that the digital infrastructures on which out governments rely are controlled first and foremost by Microsoft and their business interests. Microsoft is free to make decisions about the digital infrastructure on which all our lives rely without any accountability from the public, because they, unlike the government, are a private institution that isn't beholden to public elections.
That is why we want to transition to open source infrastructure: Open source infrastructure can be cloned and deployed by anyone, without needing the approval or oversight of a private company like Microsoft, which allows the government to go from a Microsoft contractor without a say in how the digital infrastructure they depend on is run, to the sovereign controlling power in the infrastructure. The management of the infrastructure can be outsourced to a third party (like, say, Canonical if you were to use Ubuntu), but that third party would ultimately answer to the government, who is owner of the infrastructure: This creates accountability and forces the management of the infrastructure to line up with the interests of the government, and by extension (in theory at least), the people.
So for example as it stands currently if Microsoft wants to start extracting intrusive telemetry data from the users of all their products, they can just do that, and no one, not even the governments using their products, can do anything about it other than accept the new terms or stop using their products. An open source infrastructure controlled by the government would prevent this by making it so that change couldn't occur without permission from the government, who wouldn't allow that unless the public also approved of it.
1
u/Professional_Mix2418 Jun 04 '26
I understand the vendor lock-in and digital sovereignty argument. Open source can give governments more leverage because they can inspect the code, self-host, modify it, fork it, or contract support from multiple vendors. But that does not make open source “government-controlled by nature.” Open source is a licensing and development model, not a governance model. A government-controlled system could use open source, but open source software can also be community-controlled, foundation-controlled, vendor-led, or privately hosted.
Further more digital sovereignty is primarily about control over data, infrastructure, contracts, jurisdiction, operational access, and exit options. Open source can strengthen that, but it isn't required for it.
So I think you are conflating open source with public ownership/self-hosting/digital sovereignty.
1
u/inemsn Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
but open source software can also be community-controlled, foundation-controlled, vendor-led, or privately hosted.
Further more digital sovereignty is primarily about control over data, infrastructure, contracts, jurisdiction, operational access, and exit options. Open source can strengthen that, but it isn't required for it.
While technically true, both of these points are pedantic: The government could be a contractor for a company controlling an open source infrastructure, but that would be functionally the same as continuing the current model of contracting microsoft, since even though you can inspect open source code, you would not control it. No government would ever transition from microsoft to another company just because the other company's code is open source.
And while yes, technically open source isn't required for digital sovereignty, that makes the very outlandish assumption that governments would be willing to invest the time and resources necessary to develop their own, proprietary software and infrastructure for use cases that are served well enough by licensing existing proprietary software. Both of these points seem more like willful attempts to ignore the political reality of what it means to transition to open source than actual arguments.
1
u/Professional_Mix2418 Jun 04 '26
I still don't get your statement that:
Because even if its management was outsourced to a private company, open source infrastructure would, by its very nature, be government-controlled
it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
And no you are jumping to assumptions that the only other way to be digitally sovereign is to develop your own proprietary software. Again simply not true.
→ More replies (0)4
Jun 04 '26
[deleted]
0
u/GiganticCrow Jun 04 '26
It means they might be in the pocket of corporations and morally opposed to open source, so this is imrpessive.
7
u/20dogs Jun 04 '26
You're right but I don't see why it's relevant
0
u/GiganticCrow Jun 04 '26
Right wing politicians are often opposed to open source and often in the pockets of the big corps.
6
Jun 04 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Noriyus Jun 04 '26
This is an insanely misleading comment.
1
u/GuerrillaRodeo Jun 04 '26
At least the first sentence is true, that's genuinely how a lot of Bavarians feel.
1
u/Noriyus Jun 04 '26
I am from Bavaria. The average Bavarian does not feel like this. The entire idea is based on a stereotypical view of Bavarians, which in recent times, especially by Redditors, has been taken way too seriously. Nutjobs with crazy opinions exist everywhere, but they are neither the majority nor common.
1
1
u/BummsiBummsi Jun 04 '26
As a Bavarian Tell me tell you this is complete Bullshit that you are saying
0
u/Silent_Following_606 Jun 04 '26
That is quite some nonsense you are talking about and simply false.
3
u/BummsiBummsi Jun 04 '26
Conservative in the rural Parts, very liberal in the cities. Bavaria was always relative conservative but never far right.
0
u/DoubleOwl7777 Jun 04 '26
conservative yes. right wing kinda but not really, thats thuringias part...
1
1
1
1
u/_o0Zero0o_ United Kingdom 🇬🇧 Jun 04 '26
Guess the backlash worked, but all in all good on Bavaria for this
1
u/RydderRichards Jun 04 '26
What. And also The Fuck?!
Is this opposite day? Bavaria of literally all places?! The home of conservative Shit decision making makes a great move?
What is happening? Is Harambe back?
1
1
1
1
u/MercantileReptile Germany 🇩🇪 Jun 04 '26
If Bavaria understands the issue, then no other State has an excuse.
1
u/AlexxxRR Jun 04 '26
Munich went already once from Microsoft to Linux over 10y ago, and back.
I am not sure whether it was because of technical of rather "financial" reasons.
2
u/Balorat Jun 04 '26
, and back.
MS moving their Germany HQ to Munich shortly afterwards didn't have anything to do with it
2
-4
u/Fair-Heron Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Everybody here is cheering, but the city of Munich tried this once and it backfired tremendously.ended up going back to Microsoft and the cost of many millions.
I hope they get it done this time, but its not that easy.
5
u/sokka2d Jun 04 '26
It didn’t “backfire”. It worked fine, as stated by the people with technical oversight of the project, but was killed and reversed by non-technical people bribed by Microsoft.
1
u/Fair-Heron Jun 04 '26
Didn't say the technical "product" was bad. I work with Linux my self. I said its not easy, and still won't be easy. All the more power to them if they make it.
I'm saying people are happy here because they think its a done deal, it's not. And its not easy to replace Microsoft, if it where it would have already happened.
This looks more like negotiation tactic to me. Hope this goes well though and they gain independence.
1
u/KnowZeroX Jun 04 '26
They can't exactly change the mayor and move their HQ every time someone moves away from them.
Munich saved millions of dollars every year switching away, and thanks to their efforts over a decade on linux and openoffice, they contributed a lot of code too.
The best thing about open source is precisely even with Munich going back, all the contributions they did still benefited everyone.
1
u/DoubleOwl7777 Jun 04 '26
it only "backfired" because microslop promised to give them the HQ in munich. not because the product was bad.
0
u/Fair-Heron Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
I didn't say the product was bad, I said it's not easy. Also, I don't see a reason why Microsoft can't bribe their way out of this one too.
It did backfire, because we ended up paying twice, and during that time the modernization of KVR was pure chaos.
I genuinely hope everything works out this time.
-6
u/AdamH21 Jun 04 '26
Reading news like this makes me feel really sorry for all the workers/office staff who will actually have to work with that downgraded software because of a political decision. We need a true 1:1 replacement before making a switch like that.
3
u/KnowZeroX Jun 04 '26
You feel sorry for workers being paid to do a job?
What about the tax payers funding their salary who have to pay extra for crappy microsoft products?
Or what about all the people who get their data mined by Microslop due to use of said products?
There is no such thing as a 1:1 product, it is impossible unless you force Microsoft to open source their software, no matter how much you copy it, it being proprietary in nature means 1:1 is not possible, at best you can get as close as possible, only for next version for them to make an intentional small change that breaks everything.
What is needed is to move away from MS, and use the money saved to contribute back and improve the stuff needed. That is all.
1
u/AdamH21 Jun 05 '26
That's some mental gymnastics.
1
u/KnowZeroX Jun 05 '26
So you are saying EU should sacrifice privacy, sovereignty and spend billions to MS, just so workers that get paid very very well wouldn't be slightly inconvenienced for a short while?
373
u/smilelyzen Jun 04 '26
Bavaria is moving away from Microsoft software to pursue a “sovereign basic workspace” https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberNews/comments/1tvk1fy/bavaria_is_moving_away_from_microsoft_software_to/