zlacker

>>AareyB+(OP)
It's all fun and games until there's an outage, nothing screams efficient like a state-owned tech company

>>jgbudd+Pj
Oh wow how did I not know it was state owned! The article keeps referring to "sovereign tech" which I assumed meant sovereign tech companies. I'm all for hating on teams (and sharepoint) but a state owned tech company sounds like an apocalyptically bad idea, and since it's state owned it can't really migrate to other industries/countries, and they likely won't update as quickly as they should as new technologies come around. I get the sharepoint/teams hate but I'm surprised a startup form isn't making more fun of France for this

>>guywit+ez
The first sentence of the article:

> In France, civil servants will ditch Zoom and Teams for a homegrown video conference system.

I don't see an issue with government workers using government software. They are not licencing it to businesses or consumers, although with it being open source, I'm sure some will use it.

>>NicuCa+TE
To me "homegrown video conference system" would mean like made in France by a French company, not made by the French government. I could be wrong but chat systems seem dynamic and important enough I wouldn't want it to be run and managed by the government. It will be interesting to see how it pans out though, and it's always nice to have more open source code