Without a viable MS Office/Google Docs alternative it's all rather performative. If those get blocked the entire bureaucratic machine stops dead. Hell block just excel and entire countries might actually collapse.
I have seen transitions from MS suite at universities and I don't think what you are saying is true.
First assumption is that there are no alternatives so you can't replace Excel as a software. Obvious ones for Excel - LibreOffice, Collabora, OnlyOffice or Grist (which i highly recommend). The paradoxical problem is there is no clear THE ONE so organizations get into decision paralysis and never move anywhere.
The other assumption is that even if there were alternatives people will not adopt them. In reality this is rarely issue. Turns out users/employees/students actually don't care much what software they have to use. They just use what is available or what they are told to use. So the reason why people use MS Office is actually because it's mandated from the top. Lawyers use it because state/gov/court communication requires it. Students use it because they need to submit thesis in MS Word. It's socially locked in.
I've been at a university which switched over the summer from MS Office to LibreOffice. The results were boring. 40k people just adopted it, no drama, some liked it more (works on linux yay), took some people few weeks to learn/adjust. People are used learning new things.
So can we stop with that story that 40 year old software which barely changed in last 20 years can't be replaced?
This whole digital sovereignty is i think extremely scary proposition for Microsoft because just as they are now mandated solution by most western world... they are one law away (all state/university communication must be with libre software) to be on the other side of their current mandate / lock in.
Well I hope you're right, the transitions I've seen proposed were mostly shot down because people refused to learn anything new and due to nebulous certification requirements that Microsoft of course has.
Speaking of OnlyOffice, I've seen it crop up more and more lately and apparently it's Latvian, so maybe that will be the one eventually. Though my experience with it has been that it's not very stable (lots of crashing around embedding video anyway) and has a smaller feature set.
That's the point though: there was never a particularly compelling reason to move so no one did. 5 years ago "what if America starts making threats?" would've been a ridiculous notion.
Proton drive is fine, their docs service is usable but could use improvement. Their secure and private file and docs sharing with other Proton users could be a great feature, if you need it.
EDIT: I just re-tried Proton docs and spreadsheets - much improved docs, and I think the spreadsheets are a new feature; looks OK but I am on mobile right now so minimal testing.
Given to how many people its existence must be incredibly infuriating, it's so odd that it's not being chased down with more haste than pirate bay was. I mean I'm glad it's not, but kinda surprised.
That's roughly what we did as well. Use anything you want, but in the end you have to be able to explain the process and the projects are harder than before.
If we can do more now in a shorter time then let's teach people to get proficient at it, not arbitrarily limit them in ways they won't be when doing their job later.
Well to be the devil's advocate: One is a household name that holds most of the world's silicon wafers for ransom, and the other sounds like a crypto scam. Also estimating valuation of Chinese companies is sort of nonsense when they're all effectively state owned.
There isn't a single % that is state owned in Moonshot AI.
And don't start me with the "yeah but if the PRC" because it's gross when US can de facto ban and impose conditions even on European companies, let alone the control it has on US ones.
I'm not sure if that is accurate, most of the funding they've got is from Tencent and Alibaba, and we know what happened to Jack Ma the second he went against the party line. These two are defacto state owned enterprises. Moonshot is unlikely to be for sale in any meaningful way so its valuation is moot.
As soon as you let some Germans into your company they will turn the bureaucracy up to 12 if allowed to, tale as old as time. It's a national culture more or less.
While you are not wrong, many of the cases I observed had managers from all over the world.
I think it's just a symptom. As a manager, you contribute nothing by yourself. You are useful if you have a useful team (ICs) with a good project. To have that, you need to defend yourself against other managers who will take this from you.
If you then also want to get prompted, your task is also to vacuum in all sorts of soft power, visibility, decision rights and being-in-the-roomness. It's even efficient, in that case, to destroy efficiency with processes (under your involvement)
As an IC, you are always valuable as you can always create value.
Hence, by having enough managers, you ensure that their competition will destroy the company.
Having ICs with no organization, synchronization or shared vision creates chaos, toxicity and a lot of technical debt. You can easily create negative value. ICs need direction to be successful, and well managed people are much happier in my experience than non-managed people.
Firstly, management and leadership are not the same thing. Giving direction is the job of a leader. Managers, just like anyone else, are rarely good leaders. They are more likely to give the wrong direction and vision than ICs, given that they typically also know less.
IC's do benefit from coordination, as any team might. That is management. However, having more than the absolute minimum of managers and management attached to a product invariably means an exponential decrease in efficiency.
Any team with more managers than senior ICs such as staff engineers is in trouble. That's because staff+ engineers are the people who's ACTUAL job it is to give direction, force multiplication and avoidance of local minima.
Hence, the nature of the position of manager is that it is very often unnecessary, or only intermittently useful. Therefore, a successful manager is not one who makes the product succeed, but rather someone who creates work that they themselves can and need to solve. Typically, this happens when there is a group of managers where there should be only one.
> Well managed people are much happier in my experienced
Emphasis on the well-managed. If the management actually helps the tram achieve their goals and doesn't stifle them, then great. Otherwise, you end up with bloat.
There are many useful and successful project management companies that are an indispensable part of many industries, most notably in infrastructure projects.
Yeah as we've seen with MH370, literally nothing stops the pilot from committing mass-murder-suicide at any point. We just need to trust that they're not feeling particularly depressed that day.
reply