[mellosouls]

Hmm, this sort of thing (switch over from corporate to open source and vice versa) seems to happen on a periodic basis with often the reverse-ferret then happening a few years later.

Probably not because one is better than the other, but I wouldn't be surprised if a significant factor is the prevailing sentiment at the time among senior decision-makers - especially those wanting to make their impact seen and felt. A significant platform switch over either way is always going to gain CV kudos.

Or am I being too cynical?

[calgoo]

Well, as a European i can understand why you dont want your military strike plan excel and powerpoint files in office 365 where microsoft and the US can see it all. Hopefully the EU throws a few of those military millions on some devs to improve it.

[IAmBroom]

100% agreed (and I'm American) - but that doesn't mean that's the reason they shifted.

[hgomersall]

That's the reason they gave.

[bell-cot]

If you're both competent, and responsible for critical national security documents - then MS's long-term "push your stuff into our cloud" strategy is a poisoned chalice. Glowing red, and with touch-activated danger music.

But I've no familiarity with Austria's armed forces, to guess at the actual priorities of their decision-makers here.

[IAmBroom]

I've worked for military contracts that outlived the time that their officer-in-charge (typically a colonel, trying to get his general's star). That is EXACTLY what they do.

We had a more-or-less don't-care issue, that was a fundamental design choice, flip-flop every two years. It would require redesign of the whole weapon, but at least the colonel could provide a bullet on his CV stating that he improved the program by choosing XYZ (because arguments could be made either way). Meanwhile, our actual problems with the weapon were weight and cost - the flip-flop choice had no real impact on either.