EuroStack, EU OS, and Anti-Davos

A few months after Trump’s election, Europe finally seems to be waking up. It is still uncertain whether this awakening will lead to concrete results, but we are already hearing about some promising initiatives that could, at least in principle, bring positive change. The good news is that these initiatives come not only from the political sphere but also from various business players. Even though the approaches differ, they all share the goal of focusing more on internal consumption.

The EU OS

One of these initiatives comes from the Brussels bureaucracy. It was started by Robert Riemann, who heads the “Digital Transformation” branch of the Department of Technology and Data Protection in Brussels. Riemann is a computer scientist by training and, according to his website, a fan of open source free software. It is not surprising, then, that he proposed creating an open source operating system that is modular enough to allow different European countries and organizations to customize it to their needs while keeping a common core.

His project is still in its early stages, so details are not yet available. The basic idea is not to create an entirely new operating system but to build on the Fedora Linux distribution using a KDE Plasma desktop environment. This idea may change later, as the current goal is to develop a proof of concept. From this, lessons will be learned and the idea can be further developed by involving different sectors.

The underlying philosophy is commendable because it follows the principle of “public money, public code.” In other words, if public funds are used, the code should be open and free of royalties, which promotes innovation and reduces financial burdens.

After several Linux YouTube channels and bloggers discussed the plan, a lively debate began. Many Linux enthusiasts around the world felt that the project was worth considering. Some criticized the use of Fedora as the base software because it comes from the US company Red Hat and does not reflect a European identity. Others suggested using Debian for its stability, even though Debian is also linked to the US. Still, others preferred openSUSE, which is a good choice because it is at least partly European. Interestingly, only few mentioned Linux Mint, which is also European and very user-friendly.

Whatever happens next, the EU OS is a promising and ambitious initiative that could advance Europe’s digital sovereignty. I would welcome a solution that moves public institutions toward open source software, reducing reliance on non-European corporations and increasing transparency.

The EuroStack

Unlike the EU OS, EuroStack is an industrial policy initiative that is not focused on a specific product. Its goal is to create a sovereign European ecosystem by promoting European-made software and technology. The initiative encourages economic players to invest in European products. This will help preserve European entrepreneurship and competitiveness while also preventing brain drain.

Prominent figures behind the idea include Audrey Tang (former Taiwanese Minister of Digital Affairs), Meredith Whittaker (President of Signal), Francesca Bria, Cristina Caffarra, Alexandra Geese, and MEP Kai Zenner. The idea was developed at several conferences, including the Digital Sovereignty Conference at the European Parliament in December 2023 and an event in Brussels in May 2024 that focused on digital innovation for the public interest beyond big tech regulation.

EuroStack is a broad, independent movement that does not represent any lobbying interests. Its members voluntarily share ideas and content to help the European Parliament and the Commission “do the right thing” for Europe. They believe that funding in Europe is hard to obtain, which leads many people to move to the US, where doing business is easier due to a better investment environment and less bureaucracy.

The Anti-Davos

The initiators of EuroStack, especially Cristina Caffarra, have organized an annual conference in Brussels to promote their cause. As a competition lawyer, Caffarra once worked for big companies like Microsoft and Apple but later realized that the power of US and Chinese tech giants was threatening Europe’s economic and digital sovereignty. She believes that current EU regulations (such as the DMA and DSA laws) are not enough, because big companies find clever ways to work around the rules. As a result, the Brussels conferences have become a way to challenge big tech companies and promote Europe’s technological independence. They have earned the nickname “Anti-Davos,” serving as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where these large companies meet every year.

The Anti-Davos conference brings together entrepreneurs, academics, and politicians to promote the regulation of big business and encourage investments to flow into European industry. Their slogan is “Buy European.”

The group understands that China and the US are major players, so their current goal is to have at least 30% of central investment go to European technologies. They want both politicians and entrepreneurs to support this effort. They believe it is a good start for European start-ups and businesses to receive more orders, grow stronger, and produce better products. Since Europe is especially vulnerable to large, non-European companies in artificial intelligence and other digital technologies, they are focusing on this sector.

I would like to see Europe become stronger and more competitive in IT. I believe that having a market for European solutions would help, but it is not only about money. I have heard interviews with programmers who left Europe for the US because they faced serious bureaucratic obstacles when trying to start a business, especially in artificial intelligence. I hope that progress will be made in this area in the future. 

Share this post
Google Introduces the Agent2Agent (A2A) Open Source Protocol
In a recent speech, Jensen Huang (CEO of NVIDIA) divided the evolution of artificial intelligence into several phases and called the current phase the era of Agentic AI. Although he mainly focused on the next phase of the physical AI era, we should not forget that the Agentic AI era also started only this year, so its fully developed form has not yet been seen. The recent announcement by Google of the open source Agent2Agent protocol gives us a hint of what this more advanced form might look like. The protocol is designed to bridge the gap between AI agents created on different platforms, frameworks, and by various vendors, enabling smooth communication and collaboration.
Apple in Trouble with Artificial Intelligence Developments?
With Trump's tariffs, Apple appears to be facing increasing problems. One reason is that, besides the tariffs—which have hit Apple's shares hard—there are internal conflicts, especially in the division responsible for AI integration. Tripp Mickle, a journalist for The New York Times, reports that Apple has not been able to produce any new innovations lately. Although this may not be entirely true—since, after much debate, the company finally managed to launch Apple Intelligence—there is no doubt that it is lagging behind its competitors in the field of artificial intelligence.
New Collaboration Between Netflix and OpenAI
Netflix recently began testing a new artificial intelligence-based search feature that uses OpenAI’s technology to improve content search. This feature is a significant departure from traditional search methods because it allows users to find movies and TV shows using specific terms, such as their mood or preferences, rather than only using titles, genres, or actor names.
Strong Turbulence Around Meta Llama Models
Less than a week after its market debut, Llama 4 has already received harsh criticism from users. As mentioned before, one of Llama 4’s new features is its architecture built from different modules. This design lets the model have a much larger effective parameter set than the one it uses at run time, so in theory, it should perform much better. However, several independent user tests show that it does not meet the expected results, especially for mathematical tasks and coding. Some users claim that Meta heavily manipulated benchmarks to achieve better scores, while others believe that an internal version of the model was tested while a more modest version was released to the public.