this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
161 points (99.4% liked)
Asklemmy
50670 readers
773 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a line to be drawn. For one thing, some stuff has obvious sensitivity that needs to be considered (national security and such). But aside from that... I'm a software developer who works as a contractor for the government. My product is used for and exclusively by the agency I work for, and they paid for it. Its contents would bore people to tears, but aside from that, should it be open sourced when complete? I can't think of any reason why not.
Now, let's think about other software the government pays for. Stuff like Microsoft Office and other COTS (commercial off the shelf) products. The government pays for that too, should they be required to make all their source code public in order to have the government as a customer? How do you draw the line in a way that doesn't leave a loophole for people like me, if I didn't want my source to be opened?
I agree there are cases where sensitivity matters, like national security or systems tied to critical infrastructure. But when it comes to publicly funded software developed specifically for government use, the default should be open by principle. Exceptions can exist, but they must be justified β not the other way around. With COTS products like Microsoft Office, itβs different because the government is just a customer, not the owner of the development.
That's the point I'm trying to make though. I'm a contractor, and that's super common in government because they don't pay their own a whole lot. The government is my company's customer. Why can't we be the owner of the development and that would justify it being closed source? If we can, the same could apply to anyone else and the whole conversation is moot because of a contractor loophole (which you'd have to be careful in closing to avoid closing yourself off to COTS products)
The lack of understanding around open source is alarming. Open Source licenses only require someone to share the source with anyone who gets a copy of the binary. So top secret military software can still be open source because if the DoD doesn't share the binary, they don't have to share the code either. But forcing it to be open source ensures that if that software is ever declassified and distributed to 3rd parties, those third parties will have a legal right to the source.
microsoft is extremely replaceable by libreoffice.
You do understand that was one of many very relatable examples?
absolutely. that's why i think in the long run, we will see more of libreoffice and less of ms office. there's always the possibility of microsoft shenanigans, though.
public dealings should naturally have good reason to be closed or rely on private services outside democratic oversight. any citizen should be able to figure out how the public machine works and that includes the computers, whenever applicable. i can conceive of the exceptions of course.
I think you underestimate what office is now and how it is used
on most workplaces i've been in, it's a run of the mill office suite, with occasional duct tape database action.
for these migrating to libreoffice will just replace the quirks, except its not in the hands of microsoft anymore.
there is certainly more uses of course, but these gets ever more niche.
That may be true, but in larger org, things like auditable documents are critical, and believe it or not sharepoint can handle this. Outlook is used in complex ways. Powerautomate flows do a ton, and they may sound goofy at first, but having them sit in the middle of all of the orgs office tools (including email, chat, doc management, etc) makes them actually powerful.
I thought Iβd be the last person singing the praises of M$ office, but it really does do a great job in a large org catering to a WIDE range of users and abilities.
But yes, a small business can just use libreoffice for word processing and budgeting. That part is free, but then depending on the needs of the org you still have to handle things like email, document sharing, permissions, etc.
and my point is there are foss alternatives to every software you mention, with it's own complexity and workflow.
you seem convinced they are worse or not as powerful, when they are just different with their own quirks. even if they weren't, the loss of productivity is worth not relying on us software in the long run, and making our own.