I've also become a cynic. I welcome national services to lose control of their systems and their data. I have had countless talks with people here in Germany about why computers and therefore open and libre software and hardware are a matter of national interest. Obvious disaster, at least and last, will hopefully make them get what I mean.
Having said that, I feel bad, but I just don't see any other way.
You're frustrated, but what are you doing to provide a better alternative? If national services lose control of their systems, what then? What is it that you expect to happen? The same people in charge, but making better decisions? A revolution that will magically fix everything?
I understand that you've been trying to persuade people of the merits of openness, but as you have experienced it's very difficult for an individual to persuade people of things without being a politician or offering some commercial bargains. Managers keep making bad decisions because they can always find someone who will write the code instead, but for some reason developers are unwilling to act in concerted opposition to this and so find themselves endlessly ignored and overruled.
> Managers keep making bad decisions because they can always find someone who will write the code instead, but for some reason developers are unwilling to act in concerted opposition to this and so find themselves endlessly ignored and overruled.
A labor union that protects you when you refuse to implement things that should not be implemented?
IMHO it is a difficult thing to manage and integrate into the tech culture.
It suits the management class very well to minimize the formation of organizational structures among technologists.
While I'm not a big fan of unions or guilds - insofar as they rely on internal hierarchies that just reproduce existing and faulty control structures - those who resist or deny the possibility of organization among technologists are not necessarily disinterested in the outcome.
I agree as to that it sounds moronic. Maybe it even is.
However, think about a levee about which you know that it will not hold when a storm comes, but people don't believe you and are not even willing to listen to you. Would you think it's moronic to welcome a storm as a shot across the bows so people realized what you are talking about?
The constructive solution to this problem is to find a way to convey the message such that people are willing to listen. But that can be very difficult.
In a similar vein Karl Marx is said to have been pro free trade, as it would lead to what he believed would happen to capitalism much faster. Also the colloquial expression "kick in the teeth". Often actual change requires drastic consequences.
I don't feel you're moronic and I absolutely get your sense of frustration, but welcoming a storm is implicitly saying that you think the suffering of some others is an acceptable price to pay for opening the eyes of the higher-ups. I'd like to suggest that the reason people in management don't listen to people in IT is because the people in IT aren't willing to make them, despite having direct and often primary access to the organizational levers of power.
Have you ever considered the possibility that management deliberately selects for this kind of passivity and conflict aversion when staffing IT departments, hiring exactly the sort of people who might roll their eyes or grumble at things but will reliably do what they're told?
You do realise that very nearly every engineering standard ever established, or regulation imposed, is written in the blood and memorialises the souls of those who died because it wasn't in place.
Turn on your gas stove for a moment, but don't light it.
That smell you detect is a memorial to the 295 students and teachers of the New London School:
Early in 1937, the school board canceled their natural gas contract and had plumbers install a tap into Parade Gasoline Company's residue gas line to save money. This practice—while not explicitly authorized by local oil companies—was widespread in the area. The natural gas extracted with the oil was considered a waste product and was flared off. As there was no value to the natural gas, the oil companies turned a blind eye. This "raw" or "wet" gas varied in quality from day to day, even from hour to hour.
I disagree. Every day we become more and more dependent on computers, and more specifically, networked computers. The IoT is exploding with horrific security implications. Everyone is focused on the next big thing, and no one is paying attention to the house of cards we are building.
So for something like this to happen now is much better than it happening later, because people need events like this to wake up and motivate action.
Having said that, I feel bad, but I just don't see any other way.