And completely understandable once you understand the narratives of both system.
An autocrat is supposed to be "Powerful" beyond all else and typically aren't required to be accountable to anyone so as long as the narrative of "Powerfully competent" holds corruption is merely an part of the narrative.
In democracies the leadership is very much meant to be by and off the people and held accountable under the same legal standard they enforce on everyone else, and when that leadership start to act with the impunity of an "entrenched" aristocracy and stop following the rules the narrative breaks.
And lets not forget that the original feudal aristocracy held their position almost entirely by the mechanism of unchallengeable property rights in an zero sum economy* and we begin to understand why the accumulation of property/wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a almost unmanageable threat to the narratives of western democracy.
*We are returning to an zero sum economy as the planet have essentially run out of unowned/unused resources and that means that modern western economic solutions(grow grow grow) is simply not available anymore.
We saw how fast and decisively modern states can move doing covid, so what is being suggested here is that at the end of the day the current leadership of the EU(especially some of the more US loyal smaller states) is not really ready to believe the US wont restore that trust at the next election.
I am from Denmark and it's been interesting seeing our politicians dance around the very plausible direct invasion threats made by the current US president against Greenland, where our PM made strong declaration while her ministry of defense kept increasing it's dependency on American planes ect.
And it's the same story almost everywhere for the digital sovereignty stuff, yes they claim to want it but when the legislation arrives it's nothing and there is no urgency within the technical departments actually running government it to change anything.
Lets talk numbers, rather then just sling cheap unfounded allegations
The problem with the way they talk at the big conferences is that there is almost no link between the rhetoric of existential crisis and the bills being passed at the national level.
The last numbers from Ukraine was a army of maybe 900k uniformed troops(thats up there with America) and as a response to that army's failure to drive Russia back Germany is talking about raising their armed forces less then a 3rd of that by 2030 thats just not real mobilization and thats my point about not taking the logistics serious.
Were the EU to mobilize as if it mattered to the actual population of the EU it could raise several time the army Ukraine have but nobody is actually suggesting that because the people in charge of the actual policy making don't really believe that Russia is a threat to any of the NATO member states.
No nor does it have logistical capability to deliver even half of the equipment currently being promised/discussed within a time-frame of less then 5-10year.
It's all dependent on the national government voluntarily following the advice of Brussels, and in most cases they don't really have the resources the EU wants them to commit to "The Ukrainian nationalist Cause".
The reluctance of the EU leadership to so anything materially significant about anything they claim to care about is kind of telling.
It's either that the leadership is so caught up in their own ivory tower bubble of pure rhetoric to realize they havent really put in the logistics to actually affect reality or that they somehow don't really want the consequences of actually changing things.
For this is pretty clear what they need to do to create any real digital sovereignty and yet the seem to not really be willing to take the obvious step of just banning the use of any technology that have any dependency of foreign owned/managed cloud services or closed source products, and ordering their technical staff to start making changes even if it makes stakeholders annoyed, and yet the keep letting companies like IBM/RedHat and Microsoft pretend they can and should be a part of the digital sovereignty transformation project.
We saw the same when safe harbour collapsed and with the cookie directive where rather then doing something effective they found some way to fix it by changing a few words in an mostly unenforced set of click wrap contracts/licenses. .
Well either that or completely privatize the infrastructure needed to operate those cars like multi-lane roads and parking lots with no mandatory minimums for road width and parking lot size.
I think you underestimate what can be done with actual code because the devops industry seems entirely code averse and seem to prefer a "infrastructure as data" paradigm instead and not even using good well tested/understood formats like sql databases or even object storage but seems to lean towards more fragile formats like yaml.
yes the possix shell is not a good language which is why thinks like perl, python and even php or C got widely used but there is a intermediate layer with tools like fabric(https://www.fabfile.org/) solving a lot of the problems with the fully homegrown without locking you into the "Infrastructure as(manually edited) Data" paradigm that only really works for problems of big scale and low complexity which is exactly the opposite of what you see in many enterprise environments.
But why does it have to be the case that the leadership of an opensource project have to emulate the desperation and authoritarianism of a potentially stagnant tech sector.
I don't think it's malevolence from the mozilla leadership team but more that if you hang around people who have bet their lifesaving on the success of cloud based LLMs, being cautious and making their use "optional" might begin to sound like a really controversial position even if that's actually what the users/community want from Mozilla.
Firefox market share have been declining and it's not easy to point to any obvious technical problem, so the reason for the decline is likely that the Mozilla corporation keep messing up the narrative by acting like just another Silicon Valley tech firm.
Taking the moral argument aside the fact that the largest best funded navy run by the wealthiest country have to call in airstrikes against barely(if at all) armed fishing vessels, that may or may not be smugglers, rather then board arrest and at least make an attempt at tracing the cash flow back to the wealthy businessmen who is organizing/funding the smuggling reeks of weakness and desperation rather then being the signal of strength and competency it's intended to be.
Sure it's a widely understood and often repeated problem with especially western naval and military doctrine that the peace time buildup favors white elephants(battleships, F35s etc) that, as was the case of the British high see fleet of WWII, end up inactive while entire new(often much cheaper and less sophisticated) classes of ships like destroyer escorts or Patrol boats have to be build as replacements. But still the US haven't quite deteriorated so badly yet that it couldn't reacquire whatever boarding capacity got lost in the relentless pursuit of military industrial complex profits quite quickly.
I think a fundamental lack of understanding/humility is the core of this conflict along with Mozilla's long and storied history of creating controversies/problems out of thin air.
The Mozilla leadership seems to have a unfortunate tendency to emulate the behaviors of the tech companies that their core Firefox project is often seen as an alternative too.
Firefox is a good browser but is prevented from capitalizing on the skepticism the consumers feel toward the tech sector by Mozilla using the exact same language and dark UI pattern to promote things like pocket that the user-base never asked for, and jump on to the lets enforce the use of AI everywhere that's driving discontent within the proprietary ecosystems, and this is yet another example of this class of behavior from the Mozilla leadership.
Why would we even want that, the whole point is to break the monoculture and single vendor dependency not to create an new mostly irrelevant one to be stuffed with has-been and rejects from the national levels the way most of EU's big prestige projects end up being run.
One of the thing that sets EU apart from most federations is that it kind of enables a lot more regional independence in how things are actually implemented while still guaranteeing the rights of the individual citizens, this lead to a lot of dynamism at the local level despite the failings of the central level, and allow this kind of projects to succeed and create paths for others to follow at their own pace.
But doesn't the codeless "infrastructure as code" kind of smell like cargo cult practices, i mean there might be places where having your infrastructure defined as data is a really good thing, but at least in my work i keep hitting roadblocks where i really wish i was writing actual logic in a modern scripting language rather then trying to make data look like code and code look like data, which is what a lot of devops tutorials seem to be teaching.
Blaming crowdstikes QA might feel good but the problem is that no company in the history of the world have been good enough at QA for it not to be reckless to allow day one patching of critical systems, or for that matter to allow single vendor, single design, critical systems in the first place. and yet the cyber security guidelines required to allow the pretense that windows can be used securely all but demand that companies take that risk.
It's also fundamentally a problem of Danial, everyone knows there will not be an good solution to any issue around security and stability that does not require that the assets tied up inside fragile monopoly operated ecosystems to be eventually either extracted or written off but nobody want to blaze new trails.
Claiming powerlessness is just lazy yes it might take an decade to get out from under the yokel of an abusive vendor, we saw this with IBM, but as IBM is now an footnote in the history of computing it's pretty clear that it can be done once people start realizing there is an systematic problem and not just a serious of one-off mistakes.
And we know how to design reliable systems, it's just that doing so is completely incompatible with allowing any of America's Big IT Vendors to remain big and profitable, and thats scary to every institution involved in the current market.
The problem is that without tools and processes to systematically validate those result's people might be perfectly happy about completely inaccurate results.
I know i have had to correct one in three excel sheet i have ever gone over using pen and paper in order to validate the results but i am a paranoid sod who actually do this kind of exercise on a regular basis.
almost all of the disciplines known to rely on excel have a serous issue with repeatability of results either because nobody ever attempts it, or because it's a messy field without a well defined methodology.
If crowdsource QA department is all that stands between you and days of no operations then you chose to live with the near certainty that you will have days rather then hours of unplanned company wide downtime.
And if you cannot actually abandon someone like microsoft that consistantly screws up their QA then it's basically dishonest for you to claim that reliability is even a concern for your desktop platform.
And that's essentially what i say when i accuse the modern enterprise it's client device teams of being stuck in the 90ies as those risk were totally acceptable back when the stakes were low and outages only impacted non time critical back office clerical work. but what we saw today was that those high risk cost optimized systems got deployed into roles where the risk/consequence profile is entirely different.
So what you do is that you keep the low impact data entry clerks and spreadsheet wranglers on the windows platform but threat the customer facing workers dealing with time sensitive task something a bit less risky.
It's might not be as easy as just deploying the same old platform designed back in the 90ies to everyone but once you leave the Microsoft ecosystem dual sourcing based on open standards become totally feasible, at costs that might not be prohibitive as everything in the unix like ecosystem including web browsers have multiple independent implementations so you basically just have to standardize of 2-4 rather then one platform which again isnt unfeasible.
It's telling that an Azure region failed this news cycle without anyone noticing because companies just don't tolerate the kind of risk people takes with their wintel desktop for their backends so most critical services hosted in microsofts Iowa datacenter had and second site on standby.
The problem with the linux desktop was usually that most hardware companies were either not spending any time/effort on non-windows drivers/compatibility or when they did it was a tiny fraction of the effort that went into working around bugs in the windows driver API's.
Today with the failure of windows in both the mobile and industrial control space we now see vendors actually giving a damn about the quality of their Linux drivers.
Today the main factor keeping the enterprise marked locked on windows is the fat clients written around the turn of the millennium, and that's as much a problem for mac adaptation as it is Linux adaptation.
The macs are slick well designed devices that speaks to a huge segment of the consumer market so will eventually find the way into the high cost niches where no specific dependency on legacy software exists but they are too expensive and inflexible to replace all of the wintel system so for Microsoft and it's partners to have their license to screw over the enterprise sector revoked Linux(or FreeBSD) will have to play a role too.
All of those are product that creates huge risks when deployed to mission critical environments and this is exactly the problem.
The entire wintel ecosystem depends on people putting their heads in the sand and repeating "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft/crowdstrike/IBM" and neglecting to run even the most trivial simulation of what happens when the very well understood design flaws of those platforms gets triggered by a QA department you have no control over drops the ball.
The problem is that as long as nobody dares recognizing that the current mono culture around the "market leading providers" this kind of event will remain really likely even if nobody is trying to break it and and extremely likely once you insert well funded malicious actors(ranging from bored teenagers to criminal gangs and geopolitical rivals).
The problem is that adding fair weather product that gives the illusion of control though fancy dashboards on the days they work is not really an substitute for proper reliance testing and security hardening but far less disruptive to companies that don't really want to leave the 90ies PC metaphor behind.
Even Excel is beginning to be regarded as a dangerous piece of software that gives the illusion of power while silently bankrupting departments who depend on the idea that large spreadsheets is an accurate and reliable way to analyze large/complex datasets.
the 90ies are over but for some reason average enterprise department have a problem internalizing the fact that the demands today is different then they were 25 years ago.
The liquidation is the company being stripped of assets, who then gets sold of to highest bidder in order to pay the creditors, some of those assets might very well be fully operational business units that someone else(a competitor or the government) want to buy whole.
I known that the us chapter 11 is kind of a bad way to do bankruptcy as it don't really wipe out the whole but allows the previous executives way to much of a stake in the process where as other countries replaces the leadership with a bunch of court/creditor appointed outsiders on day one.
An autocrat is supposed to be "Powerful" beyond all else and typically aren't required to be accountable to anyone so as long as the narrative of "Powerfully competent" holds corruption is merely an part of the narrative.
In democracies the leadership is very much meant to be by and off the people and held accountable under the same legal standard they enforce on everyone else, and when that leadership start to act with the impunity of an "entrenched" aristocracy and stop following the rules the narrative breaks.
And lets not forget that the original feudal aristocracy held their position almost entirely by the mechanism of unchallengeable property rights in an zero sum economy* and we begin to understand why the accumulation of property/wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a almost unmanageable threat to the narratives of western democracy.
*We are returning to an zero sum economy as the planet have essentially run out of unowned/unused resources and that means that modern western economic solutions(grow grow grow) is simply not available anymore.