If we “see” like watchers of a movie, we indeed will “see” things unfold unhindered.

Part of the solution could be to realize that companies might not need those giant suites, but smaller, more focused solutions.

“30 years of development” is utterly irrelevant. It means only that the company has existed 30 years. You can write e.g. collaborative text and spreadsheet editors from scratch in months. There’s AI around now too, which has significantly accelerated development.

And using or contributing to open source is not mutually exclusive with private companies or making, at least, part of the source closed. Not in favor of one or the other here, just think that this is not overly relevant.

As to acquisitions, there seems to be a need for an incentives and/or regulatory framework as indeed it is to be avoided.

Perhaps, simultaneously, there’s also something to be done in the Open Source world to fix its various issues. It just needs new thinking, as Open Source currently tends to lag behind, and just funding is unlikely to fix it.

Are you European? I rarely see Europeans expressing themselves with that weird dramatic defeatism

“Nothing we can do to stop it” and “it won’t last”, how does that work?

I’m not sure why people reflexively always do Europe+tech = open source. IMO the problem doesn’t relate to the source code being open or closed, but the startup environment. There’s a lot to think about and innovate here, that goes way beyond the code. Open source is also often used low key as an excuse to ship poor quality software that attempts to redeem itself on an ideological basis, and that’s also how you get everyone to keep using Silicon Valley software.

I’m also concerned that there’s this push for Open Source funding coming from the many developers that have some projects dreaming of being paid to work on them, who then make great sounding arguments to politicians, who don’t understand much of the matter and you get millions or billions spent on grants, which ultimately don’t solve anything, because the output ends somewhere between abandoned and not sufficiently competitive. A real, working solution for European tech is more involved.

Obviously it’s not good at all to sell critical infrastructure to foreigners.

You can use multiple sites. Copy post and browse multiple in sequence, thereby allowing new ones to grow. So not missing out, just a little extra effort.

It is indeed concerning that people are missing this minimum of awareness. But it’s fixable. It’s not difficult to understand, if communicated properly.

I don’t understand why with such a climate Europeans continue refusing to use European alternatives. Acting like babies, incapable of thought, reaching always for the immediately shiniest object (in this case, „the place where everyone already is“). E.g. the additional use of alternative accounts is „too much effort“.

The true „globalists“ and „new world order (NWO)“. Now what will the right wing do about it?

What’s deeply ironic about this situation is that one of the main reasons the EU has remained distant to Russia is the US. Cold war was between US and Russia. More recently US opposed Nord Stream 2. Now US suddenly is friendly to Russia and EU are running around like headless chicken because they made it their own identity to be hostile to Russia. There haven been people suggesting that while indeed Russia is antidemocratic etc. one can still try to carefully cooperate, because it happens to be a neighbor and it makes sense strategically. Who knows, maybe in the process one could positively influence Russia, it doesn’t have to be always the other way. But these people are instantly called Russian assets and demonized. And it’s not like this kind of reasoning was the real issue anyway, as in the meantime you see western democracies happily collaborating e.g. with Turkey or Saudi Arabia. The Ukraine war complicates things though. Aside of the humanitarian and economic tragedy, it’s a diplomatic disaster, as it makes Russia look quite hostile to Europe, whether they actually „want to continue“ beyond Ukraine or not.

Literally just copy paste mechanically to the new site(s). When consuming, read and interact with the little content there is and once done go to big site. It’s just a few more taps/clicks.

No? Form a habit

You don’t have to be on a single site. Keep using old, but copy post and interact with others too. This allows new sites to grow, while not losing benefits. It’s not a marriage.

They just have to open new accounts, not necessarily leave the old ones. Just copy post to multiple sites. This allows new sites to grow, while keeping benefits of old, with minimal extra effort.

IDK why people simply don’t use European platforms. It takes 2 minutes to create an account. This problem is so stupid. If people use the „tech giants“ less, it fades away on its own, without any need for big regulatory battles. There are politicians writing books about „digital feudalism“ as if everyone didn’t have the choice to open an account on a different platform in 2 minutes. Come on.

Oh, that’s how you mean agile, as in opposed to rigidity, long term planning, bureaucracy, etc. in that sense you’re fully right. Though I imagine that much of it fades away if the incentives are right (e.g high pressure tends to weaken bureaucracy).

There are other rapid/flexible methods without sprint planning, dailies, etc. but this might be a bit too detailed for the general idea here.

And develop our own software importantly

Why exactly do you think that Europe‘s failure relates to agile? To me it seems more an incentive problem, which would be completely outside of software specific methodology

Agile is just one possible way to organize things and many developers don’t even like it or think that it improves productivity.