5
points
draga79
Joined 277 karma
- draga79 parentI like it. It's not perfect, but it's a good way to make sure that platforms will continue to be able to federate. They're evolving and things will improve. The experience is much better today, compared to some years ago.
- I've explained it here, even if it's a bit long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnVp25-6Qao
- This is a bit long, but I replied here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnVp25-6Qao
- Of course, you're free to think that. Sometimes dynamics aren't very linear and people are more inclined to avoid problems rather than create more. The concern about this company was obviously well-founded and valid, and the people involved didn't like it. Some of the choices they made were undoubtedly questionable, and I admit I was disappointed. Of course, I couldn't tell the whole story or all the details, but in the end, the company didn't get away with it completely. This event gained some traction through word-of-mouth among colleagues, and their user base plummeted in a short time.
- I've modified this sentence, I hope it's clearer now:
They had already received a proposal - expensive but, when compared to similar offers made to other organizations, apparently reasonable — for a managed service hosted by an external provider and based on an open source mail stack. The company offered a managed version with its own proprietary additions and enterprise support.
The catch? While such pricing had become almost "normal" in the market, it was still wildly inflated considering what was actually being delivered. Agency A already had solid infrastructure - reputable IP classes, redundant datacenters, everything running smoothly. We had built and maintained that environment for years, and it was still performing perfectly.
- The price was reasonable given the average quotes received by similar entities and the prices on the market, but it was absurd when considering the service provided. Perhaps I didn't make that point clear, and I'll likely modify it slightly. The concept is that the price, which was initially acceptable to them, was in fact absurd when viewed in terms of what was being provided.
- Updating Exchange would have meant spending a lot on new licenses to upgrade to a new release, and public administrations were encouraged to seek open-source solutions. The underlying server infrastructure was solid, but the VM with Exchange was now old. The entire setup would have needed to be redone. The second paragraph, on the other hand, says that the quote was "acceptable" for them, knowing the average costs for that service. But it was also very high, even in the opinion of the IT manager.
This isn't AI slop. These are real-life experiences. The goal is to raise awareness that open source doesn't always and necessarily mean freedom: lock-in exists.