A few years ago a team from the U.K. based team of academics started a spin off company claiming something similar. Reminova

Wasn't this similar to Cresilon's Traumagel by Joe Landolina?

Isn't GalliumOS doing exactly that?

I agree and this article explains it as well.

I totally agree. And that is why tenders with smart requirements are loving this.

The government is allowed to set requirements on what they want to receive, and how they want it be be delivered. So technically speaking they can request a can of developers for 10.000 hours, and want to have a fair price in a tender for that. Or you can ask for a software license to allow you to do this and that. Hence if a solution company does not want to deliver such, they will not participate in the tender, but they have been allowed to participate and with a lot of experience might have been able to do so under a reduced cost (much experience in the field, able to reuse previous work). Less money spend is good for the tax payer. But this would still only be able to be used inside the government. Because there is a limitation a public body could act as a private body by the legislation of competition. Imagine the government buying all ground, developing real estate, there couldn't be any competition. The article is about should government require open source software to be independent of suppliers. There are quite a lot of examples where government software development is not about the next "Office" software but in CAD, geospatial, photogrammetry, simulation, urban planning where this software might benefit others. If the government would build a new OS-kernel we would likely all agree this is stupid, what about a competitor to ArcGIS/QGis?

Considering the following real case. The City of Amsterdam created a new CAD plugin allowing to the export to contain all properties required for a government exchange. Everything they had seen on the market had issues, hence they developed something new. Other municipalities started to use this software, and one of the commercial suppliers of a competing plugin was not amused. Here the government puts in resources to compete with a market activity - even if they completely hate the product - the proper way to solve this is via a tender, which can obviously request all software assets to be available. The currently legislation prevents unfair competition by provision costs, hence the development costs (labor fees of the civil servant) should be balanced over all private users, unless legislation is made to prevent this. For open data this is for example the European Public Sector Information act.

Recently a Gartner report on open source in The Netherlands made an interesting case why with the current legislation the Dutch (and likely European) governments could not contribute to open source software. Governments may use it, but a software developer disguised as civil servant must never be provide patches or features back to the open source project, nor is the government allowed to publish their work in public, publication should be strictly limited to other governments. This would be prohibited due to unfair competition with software suppliers that build closed source software not having the advantage of government support. Now the case of no-vender-lockin still remains, but unless we first change these kind of laws, harnessing the true power of open source: collaboration, is legally not possible.

You may wonder, they are trying to use the US intelligence service now. Was Germany helpful in the past for example when the Wikileaks cables were published?

I wonder how this relates to the Radionics work of Royal Rife.

The crazy thing with Mozilla seems to be that they have been removing features from Firefox if IE/Edge was not supporting it, while KHTML, Webkit and Chrome still did. It is much better explained by Edge adding the format, as they follow Microsoft.

The problem is not the cost of the new feature development. The problem is the cost of maintaining that specific part in the future (long tail). If the feature is delivered and the bounty is awarded for that, that will not keep in mind the cost by the project maintainer(s). Hence it is likely to attract external bounty hunters, coders for hire, but not what is needed to have a stable revenue for the project itself.

Could you maybe post a reference that they "reduced" the claimns not being a waste burner anymore?

Every time storage or bad management of nuclear waste comes up it reminds me of Leslie Dewan. If the Transatomic design just converts the waste to energy that can solve many scenario's. The question is: would it be able to work on this kind of plutonium waste as well?

What has to actually change to prevent these kind of out of proportion, justice and claims?