Google has criticized the European Union’s intentions to achieve digital sovereignty through open-source software. The company warned that Brussels’ policies aimed at reducing dependence on American tech companies could harm competitiveness. According to Google, the idea of replacing current tools with open-source programs would not contribute to economic growth.
Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, warned of a competitive paradox that Europe is facing. According to the Financial Times, he said that creating regulatory barriers would be harmful in a context of rapid technological advancement. His remarks came just days after the European Commission concluded a public consultation assessing the transition to open-source software.
Google’s chief legal officer clarified that he is not opposed to digital sovereignty, but recommended making use of the “best technologies in the world.” Walker suggested that American companies could collaborate with European firms to implement measures ensuring data protection. Local management or servers located in Europe to store information are among the options.
The EU is preparing a technological sovereignty package aimed at eliminating dependence on third-party software, such as Google’s. After reviewing proposals, it concluded that reliance on external suppliers for critical infrastructure entails economic risks and creates vulnerabilities. The strategy focuses not only on regulation but also on adopting open-source software to achieve digital sovereignty.
According to Google, this change would represent a problem for users. Walker argues that the market moves faster than legislation and warns that regulatory friction will only leave European consumers and businesses behind in what he calls “the most competitive technological transition we have ever seen.” As it did with the DMA and other laws, Google is playing on fear. Kent Walker suggested that this initiative would stifle innovation and deny people access to the “best digital tools.”
The promotion of open-source software aims to break dependence on foreign suppliers, especially during a period of instability caused by the Trump administration. The European Union has highlighted the risks of continuing under this system and proposes that public institutions should have full control over their own technology.
According to a study on the impact of open-source software, the European Commission found that it contributes between €65 billion and €95 billion annually to the European Union’s GDP. The executive body estimates that a 10% increase in contributions to open-source software would generate an additional €100 billion in growth for the bloc’s economy.
Okay, so:
That's fair. Repo fragmentation is a real thing on Linux, and it seems like Ultimate Systems didn't put their software on Flathub.
So instead of just using
apt– like every introductory tutorial to Ubuntu and its derivatives leads off with – you chose to do it (effectively) the Windows way that you're familiar with where you hunt and peck around the Internet for an install file. It's an understandable mistake (that I think most Windows expats make at some point), but the blame from this point on lies squarely on you.You didn't have the dependencies, and it told you which ones to install. Why does it need to tell you why it needs them? Nice to have, I guess, but if it's mandatory, it's mandatory. No amount of explanation is going to get you around the fact that this software will not function without them. Dependencies aren't a Linux thing; they're a reality of modern programming. And I imagine
aptwould've automatically resolved this and asked you to also install the deps.Because in 20+ years of off and on using linux, I've never once gotten apt to install anything. I have however fucked up my whole system by doing sudo apt update/sudo apt upgrade.
I avoid terminal like the plauge.
I didn't say I want to know why it needs them. I'm upset it tells me that it tells me it needs them, and then says "they won't be installed", but won't tell me WHY they won't be installed. If the program needs those dependancies, just install them. Instead it juat says "we know you need the dependancies, but we're not going to do that".
Sorry but that's really not typical, you must have been doing something out of the ordinary or been very unlucky.
It's the package manager that handles dependencies, not the program you're trying to install. Random programs shouldn't be able to just install things on your computer. Did you try installing the dependencies?
I have zero clue how to do that. I don't even know what file extention they would be, or where I would get them, or what step 1 would be to installing them.
They would also be
.debfiles. If you wanted to install packageA.debthat depended onB.debandC.deb, withC.debitself depending onD.debandE.deb, you would work down the dependency tree to figure that out, obtaining the.debfile for each package as you went (presumably manually downloading from each project website itself, since we're doing this in hard mode), then rundpkg install E.deb,dpkg install D.deb,dpkg install C.deb,dpkg install B.deb, and finallydpkg install A.debin that order. You also have to make sure each of those packages is the correct version compatible with the others, BTW.This is what
aptis designed to do for you, automatically. This is why you use it instead ofdpkg.(Side note: I sure would love to find out how to control syntax highlighting in Lemmy inline code markup.)
I wasn't necessarily suggesting
aptin the CLI; just the APT repository generally, which ZorinOS' built-in package manager has access to. Ifsudo apt install hardinfowill find it, I have to imagine the GUI frontend will. Granted I don't use Ubuntu or its derivatives because Ubuntu is terrible, so I can't say for sure, but this sure doesn't seem like their fault.I didn't try to use sudo apt install hardinfo, but the software store will find things from flatpack, snap, a few others.
It did not find hardinfo.
"I didn't use the main standard way of installing software, and am complaining because all the weird alternative ways I did try didn't work."
I understand that you claim
apthas never worked for you, but, frankly, I don't believe you.Just FYI, the entire point of using
aptinstead of working withdpkg(the utility used to install.debfiles) directly is thatapthandles the dependency resolution. You deliberately used the lower-level tool instead of the higher-level one and then complained that it didn't do the higher-level things.