Details of Linux-in-Munich Deal Revealed 685
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today is running a piece about the lengths which Microsoft went to in order not to lose the government of Munich's account to a Linux-based proposal from SuSE. Interesting to see how these types of contracts are structured, and just what Microsoft is willing to give up to prevent losing to Linux."
That was in frickin' Belgium, eh! (Score:3, Informative)
Nice writeup (w/ movie) here [bitstorm.org].
Share and enjoy!
Re:quality and value (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here's what clinched it (Score:1, Informative)
The bad news for us hobbyists is that, to encourage companies to buy support contracts, these same distros have greatly shortened the support lifespan of non-enterprise products (e.g., Redhat 9).
Re:German legislation requires this (Score:4, Informative)
the reason why linux was chosen over MS was because MS' approach was viewed as being somewhat deceptive, and because linux wouldn't leave them in a lock-in situation years down the road
Some background information (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-
(sorry in german, use the fish)
the study is here:
http://www.muenchen.de/aktuell/clientstudi
Re:quality and value (Score:4, Informative)
Re:$39 .5 million for Linux package. Linux is fre (Score:4, Informative)
Major IT purchasers like to have someone they can rely on for support so they pay for it. The other cost would be the storage and distribution costs allowed under the GPL.
Re:Price Tag (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What about the 175 Windows apps? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:2, Informative)
The progression from OLE->COM/DCOM->.Net wasn't done to turn everyone's world upside down. Rather, OLE compared to COM sucks. And COM compared to
Yet, scary thing is, OLE apps still work, COM apps still work. Gee, what a shock. What EVER were they thinking. If you don't like the new stuff (or there isn't any benefit to using the new stuff), don't use it. If you think you can do your old stuff better using the new stuff, use it.
Also, as a side note, COM was not a replacement for ActiveX, and DCOM is not a replacement for COM. ActiveX is based on COM, and is a way to write reusable GUI controls. COM is a technology to allow one component to talk to talk to another component (invoke methods with parameters, get results) in a completely different process space. DCOM is a way to allow one component to talk to another component on a different MACHINE (DCOM is basically an COM->RPC wrapper).
Re:Linux used in political campaign (Score:5, Informative)
This comprises technology and its economic/social
implications.
Moreover, Lochner-Fischer (the candidate who had
printed the poster) actually has been a C application
programmer, so she understands the issue and her
stance in this is credible (I also saw her personally).
For bipartisan balance: [cdu-hannover-stadt.de]
Former Fortran programmer posing with Jon Maddog Hall, also a good thing.
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:5, Informative)
And that doesn't even get into compatibility issues....
Re:quality and value (Score:2, Informative)