The "local" company is already UK owned though, so at most "European", not national or EU.
What I find strange is that the Dutch government does have its own datacenters, e.g. ODC-Noord (1), but they're still looking to outsource the hosting even after the current contract ends in 2027.
I suspect that most government departments see data centers as a liability and are very happy to outsource to the big providers, apart perhaps from the ones hosting stuff they don't really want you to know about.
It's always better to be able to blame a supplier for something going wrong if you're a senior leader or politician. For some reason, if it does happen no one has to resign.
There is loads of UK Critical National Infrastructure on AWS, probably Azure too. And the Home Office put up £10 million tender to shut down an old data centre not that long ago without a confirmed replacement - https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/018193-2024
Seems like governments, at least ones of the size under discussion here, are big enough to have a general services agency run a consolidated data center for the rest of the government, allowing individual agencies/departments get similar benefits of outsourcing to a commercial entity.
I'd suggest getting them money through patreon, kofi or whatever patrons system they use instead. That's much safer for them than YT ad money and helps them feel less pressure when they get demonetized or whatnot.
I probably watch too many channels to pay them each outside youtube, it will become quickly logistically unmanageable, if not unaffordable. The maximum I can do is probably 5 channels or so.
If there are that many channels you watch regularly, what slice of the pie does each one get from your youtube subscription, a few cents?
You could possibly pick one channel you like each month and give it a one-time $5 donation, which would be equivalent to years of ad revenue from a single viewer.
This also involves a significantly larger number of people getting my payment details, actual proper name, etc. Even if I wanted to pay individual channels, I'd probably still do it through the YouTube channel membership feature.
> I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing.
Did you need to come to that conclusion?
Marketing has always been a significant part of new technology adoption. Whether it's for cloud adoption, for new programming languages, for new software development techniques, etc...
The countries you cite all exited communism ruined but with an educated workforce and a working education system, and benefited tremendously from EU access.
It is not that Japan has fallen to their level, it’s that they have experienced an economic boom in the last decades, and are not that far behind western Europe now.
> This really does read as "Go is my favourite language".
Because it always is that.
People advocating for boring languages always advocate for their boring language. For instance, if you tell a gopher that you agree with the point, and therefore the project is going to use java, they won’t be happy about it.
> Most people didn't need their standard of quality (but customers had no choice.)
Customers don't really have a choice either way. Good luck finding quality clothing, services with decent customer support, etc.
Supply chains supporting quality work are destroyed when an industry gets commoditized, and whenever a company doing quality stuff emerges, it eventually gets bought out and the product gets watered down in order to milk its reputation with inferior product.
More like the notion of seeing different treatment between OSes. No one likes being punished for a choice that shouldn't be any of the selling party's business. That's especially true in the Linux community, which was the target of Microsoft's anticompetitive policies for decades.
That's just like when macOS users got mad when they learned they were targeted by marketing schemes to sell them more expensive stuff [1].
AMD is making more than enough money from hardware sales to fund the software that actually makes is usable.
Even Apple doesn't charge you for the software needed to actually be able to use their devices (well since around Snow Leopard or so, at least).
But I suppose the idea of not being as greedy as possible really "pisses off" AMD's executives (and presumably some of the people shilling for them here).
And presumably you didn't read the article since AMD will continue to support this on Linux anyway.
They did, and they moved to block the acquisition of the local company handling it. What's unclear in the article?
reply