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."
quality and value (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: "Mozilla, a web browser with more features than Internet Explorer"
Oh come on... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am all for linux, but now are we going to bash Microsoft for trying to do business. People this is business, its a cut-throat world not a woodstock concert.
Of course M$ will do everything in its power to bury linux, what's the news here ?
Wasen't Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably, the government realised that the Microsoft solution had higher total 'costs' due to:
*vendor lock-in
*poor reliability
*poor scalability
*poor security
*poor standards compliance
amung other items.
Horray for Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
for the non believers: The CEO of MS himself went to a sales call and lost the sale, you better start beliving Linux is a threat to MS.
3 Cheers for all Linux, OSS, and Choice! Hip Hip Horay!
Linux competitiveness. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fledgling newspaper prints Linux article... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many big contracts have to be won by Linux companies before the papers realize that it's been around for a dozen years? Or that not everybody working on OSS is a volunteer?
Re:The Long run... (Score:3, Insightful)
Open-source advocates counter that Munich proves tech buyers are beginning to demand price cuts from Microsoft while giving Linux a serious look.
Here's what clinched it (Score:5, Insightful)
The city paid MUCH more money to IBM/SuSE because they didn't want to be locked into Microsoft's refusal to support/insistence on upgrading their software after X number of years. Linux let them upgrade when they wanted to, and not before. It was a long-term financial decision which, I'm certain, IBM and SuSE emphasized heavily in order to score a win.
Big, big news to other cities and corporations out there. A Microsoft contract is a dangerous thing when money is/will be tight. You can save a lot of money down the road if you make the switch today.
Re:quality and value (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be a great incentive for ISV to start porting their desktop software over to Linux. The fact that they were willing to pay more a Linux solution than a Windows one is a signal there's actually a buck to be made selling software on the platform.
No longer is Linux merely the OS choice of cheapskates and freeloaders - some customers are willing to pay cash for their software!
More Expensive? Yes, but here's why they chose it (Score:5, Insightful)
...naming its own price ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes me feel good to know that finally someone other then a bunch of geeks is getting it.
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, this will be watched by other cities and companies to see how well it works. I hope it does work, because Microsoft will be forced to change the way it does business. But it better damn work.
Great efforts indeed (Score:2, Insightful)
Letting the mayor not to lick Gates' boots?
Offering some Munich citizens the possibility not to send their first borns to Redmond?
Re:German legislation requires this (Score:3, Insightful)
and they will appreciate when someone comes along with a good-looking
statistics that allows them to go Windows without risk of being held
liable later.
I am not so sure. SuSE is a german company, thus the money stays within the german economy unlike with the M$ solution where the money would go across the Atlantic.
There always was an interrest in Linux, but they couldn't justify it because nobody big was backing it.
If Munich pulls this off you can expect others to follow suit. Munich isn't really a very poor city there are poorer ones out there.
Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the news here is that parts of the world outside the tightly wound tech community are starting to realize how over priced Microsoft software is. In this specific instance they noted this condition when Microsoft kept dropping their software prices. Sure it may only be one government, but soon it may be many and eventually the U.S. one as well. Hopefully the competition will continue to drive down software prices for everyone in the WinTel world.
The other good thing here is that it shows the OS war isn't over completely. So maybe someday in the future we may see some serious OS innovation again from some small upstart company or group of individuals. As great as linux/the bsds are they are a refinement not an innovation.
Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasen't Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
That, sir, is a *good* thing. It means that those who choose to learn and support Linux are the ones who are 1) intelligent and competent enough to do so, and 2) bright enough to see that Linux is the correct long-term choice. Besides, it takes less Linux admins for a given number of boxen than it does MCSE's.
The server isn't the big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
To Microsoft, this is the Kiss of Death. They really only make a huge profit off of two items:
Desktop OS - the so called "Microsoft Tax" that is the reason why when I go to dell.com (well, not that I would, I'd go here instead [apple.com] for my Unix needs), I can't get a $100 price discount on a new computer by having it be "naked".
Microsoft Office
Other than these two, they don't make a lot of money on other stuff. Oh, some on server licenses, but a pittance compared to Desktop OS sales and Microsoft Office. The Xbox is losing money, I haven't heard anything profitable about their cable investments, and their games division (with the exception of the Xbox) is doing decently.
But the two things that keeps them with that $35 billion in cash is Desktop OS and Office. And Munich basically said "no" to both of them, so they would have the ability to upgrade when Munich wanted, not when Microsoft wanted.
And that's been Microsoft's winning business edge for years. We'll sell you Windows 98 - and in 3 years, you'll have to get Windows 2000 if you want to be able to do stuff with your vendors, your co-workers - you'll have to put it onto your machine at home if you plan on taking work home and doing stuff there.
Munich just got off the Wheel of Upgrades. Now you wonder how many employees will feel they have to upgrade their home computers? How many employees (espeically managers) will go to the IT department and say "Hey, I got a laptop - make it so I can do the same stuff I do here in the office on the road", and they walk out with a SUSE installed machine.
There's still some things they'll have to do on the Desktop end to make things as easy to use as the Windows world, and I trust that will be part of what Suse and IBM were just paid for.
But this is a major step for Linux in business, and Linux on the desktop. And what can Microsoft do about it, other than really compete for the first time on something other than forced installation upgrades?
For the record, I don't think Microsoft is "evil", but I do think they haven't had a real challenge in business because of their predatory business practices. I think it's great they're having a real competitor. Costs will go down, products on both sides will get better, and it someday I might be able to migrate back from OS X over to Linux - once it provides the same ease of use with Unix power I get from OS X.
And competition with Microsoft is just the thing it needs to get itself there. I'm patient - I'll say another 5 to 10 years before I have what I want.
But Munich is a good start.
Oh, and this is all just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
That they lost?
Re:quality and value (Score:4, Insightful)
That to me speaks volumes of how desperate Microsoft was to win and it sounded like the Munich council picked up on that as well.
Re:quality and value (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, you don't need to updgrade your machine every time a new major version of Linux comes out. Unless you are running a high end PC before you upgrade Windows, you need to upgrade your hardware too. Cities and schools probably don't have the latest computers so a city like Munich might have many computers that they would need to replace. Even at a low rate of 10% replacement and an absurdly low cost of $300 per computer, that's $420,000 that is not included into the price tag.
Another thing to understand is the nature of the deal. With MS you are paying $31.9 for software and service. I don't know what the breakdown of software vs service, but a great deal of it is software. And we all know how good MS service is.
With the Linux deal, the majority of the cost is services (installing, customization, etc). So you actually are paying for mostly service. Theoretically you are getting for your money.
SUSE vs Microsoft, not Linux vs Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:quality and value (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Linux won because it competed on freedom.
Re:quality and value (Score:4, Insightful)
600 pound gorilla (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that MS was willing to let Munich unbundle office is indicative that people dont want to pay for huge monster suites that they arent using most of. And in a govt organization this is even more true. Your average memo writing paper pusher doenst need to use excel.
MS, being the monster it is, is tripping over itself trying to dodge the bullets of its smaller, faster, and more flexible competitors. It's as if MS wants to jam the status quo down the throats of large organizations, hoping everyone will think "well everyone else uses MS is going to have to also to work with the rest of the to world." (not to mention I [and probably you] have heard variations on this theme before)
In today's climate of cost cutting and internet security disasters, the managers want to make sure people have the necessities to perform their job functions and not a bunch of extra crap to screw around with. A one size (license) fits all approach cannot meet that goal. The fact that the CEO has to show up implies 1 of 2 things. 1) The salesperson didnt have the authority to make such changes that the customer wanted. 2) Or if he did the initial beating over the head of the initial proposal spooked Munich so much they needed executive handholding.
Lint - Professional amateur analysis while you wait. Call for more details!
World domination (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess we're at the "fight" part. Wake me up when it's over.
Thanks!
Re:The server isn't the big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
My Dumb Idea:
The Linux uprising has been helped by Microsoft killing the competition.
If BsOS 11 was out, would you still be using Linux?
If Apple was twice as large, as was able to spend twice as much money on their os, would you still be using Linux?
If Amiga 2004 was just released, would you still be using Linux?
Microsoft killed all the invation, and this allowed a clone of a old crufty Unix system become suddenly a viable chouice - when you compare it to Microsoft. Linux woulden't be so viable if you had to compair it to what Amiga 2004 would have been.
(and yes, in case you're worndering, I love Linux and *BSD)
Re:Linux used in political campaign (Score:2, Insightful)
Germany is in recession, and $12 million of tax payers moneys is quite a bit of money, even for Munich. Most of Munichs inhabitants are using Microsoft anyway, so SPD might have some difficulties to explain their decision to their voters facing unemployment.
And yes, more Linux means more freedom.
Problem is the retail end in North America (Score:3, Insightful)
After all that is the way MS, works you get assurance the the stuff you buy will work, then if the device sucks you have no one to blame but the manufacturer. If the North American retail and business market is to be addressed then the sale of Linux ware and tech help in retail need to be a focus for Oss people.
Don't give me any of that Bill Gates crap about everything being free and you cannot make money, there is no reason why software companies cannot use and improve Linux ware it is just that only the ones that offer effective customer support will thrive. In business that is the way it should be, not the current system "you have to use this software product because our hardware only runs this way!"
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:5, Insightful)
The insistence that "Linux is cheaper if your time is worthless" is ONLY true if you're talking about near-term costs.
But consider LONG TERM costs. Like 5-10 years later, when you've got to sustain a system, and forced upgrades from the vendor or backwards compatability issues screw you over. With Open Source, and a team of competent maintainers, it is theoretically possible to maintain a system based on commodity hardware indefinately. But with Proprietary Closed Source software, you will be forced into the perpetual upgrade cycle, and be dooming yourself to buying an entirely new system every 5-10 years, as the old one is no longer possible with the new mix - often because some marketroid made the decision that "that way (OLE) of doing things is obsolete, now you must do it THIS way (ActiveX)" only to be followed up in another two years with: "that way (ActiveX) of doing things is obsolete, now you must do it THIS way (DNA)" only to be followed up in another two years with: "that way (DNA) of doing things is obsolete, now you must do it THIS way (COM)" only to be followed up in another two years with: "that way (COM) of doing things is obsolete, now you must do it THIS way (DCOM)" only to be followed up in another two years with: "that way (DCOM) of doing things is obsolete, now you must do it THIS way (.NET)" only to be followed up in another two years with: "that way (.NET) of doing things is obsolete, now you must do it THIS way ()" only to be followed up in another two years with:
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Though Microsoft underbid IBM and SuSE by $11.9 million in Munich, city officials were concerned about the unpredictable long-run cost of Microsoft upgrades, says Munich council member Christine Strobl, who championed the switch to Linux."
SuSE probably shaved the 'flexibility' portion of their price without cutting services like MS did. The upside is that here we have a city council unschooled in technology who saw the advantage of using Linux versus Windows. They were able to look at how MS has worked in the past and decided that Linux would be a more feasible alternative in the long run.
This is a very progressive shift for a governmental body who are usually conservative and resistant to change. But the Germans have always had a knack for being wise open to change -- if only other politicians would follow this lead.
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:quality and value (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that's really true. In any number of discussions, I've seen that people repeatedly bring up variants of the question:
"Do you want your data to be under the control of a big American corporation that doesn't have your interests at heart?"
This is a really scary question to a lot of people in the world (including quite a lot of Americans). It has nothing to do with price; it's all about control.
For government agencies in particular, which have to function on longer terms than the current fiscal year, proprietary data formats are a serious problem. If you can't read your own files 10 or 20 years from now, you will be in bad trouble.
The fact that linux (and BSD) solve these problems very nicely is much of their appeal. The fact that, over the long run, you can save a lot of money is nice, too, but it's not the clincher.
Look what M$ was prepared to forego in this deal (Score:3, Insightful)
High profile decisions attracting media attention like this could cause a snowball that crushes all over M$ at a speed never before seen in the business world. I'll even sum the reasons up for you:
1. Microsoft has just pissed of all of it's largest customers who will want to know why they don't get breaks like this.
2. The public will begin to see that hundreds of M$ programmers can't possibly compete with thousands of OS developers.
3. Every company that reads about deals like this will also be expecting huge discounts from M$.
4. Forcing companies to upgrade every 5 years means that each company must also evaluate their IT needs, this continually forces a company to reevaluate their IT infrastructure which means a regular comparison against OS products.
5. What sort of a company allows details like this to leak? Now all of their customers are going to expect huge price breaks.
6. OS might be more expensive to support now but as soon as the huge shortage of OS network engineers is resolved support costs will come down - forget the desktop argument, Linux isn't getting very far now because there's so few people that can install it for small to mid sized businesses for less than $100 an hour.
7. Did I mention how every company is going to start threatening to go OS to get increased benefits and discounts?
8. Even though there is a shortage of qualified OS network engineers the ones that there are know their beans, they know their hardware and software a whole lot better than an equilavent M$ engineer.
9. M$ has a terrible market name and security history. The whole of the IT industry has monumentally changed over the past 7 or 8 years. Windows 98 and Windows NT were never made with the internet in mind, every "update" and "add on" to Windows is another patch to make Windows do something it was never designed to do. It's little wonder there's been so many bugs introduced over the years.
10. My God! M$ customers are being given the green light to hold out and bargain hard because M$ will cave in the end.
There's a few other reasons that this could happen too. M$ OSes have gotten more mature and gotten exponentially better with every revision (discount Windows ME).
The basic trade off between OSes for companies to consider now is this:
With Linux you are locked in with your support company (small businesses especially) and there are far fewer qualified people to work on your network
M$ offers standardized systems and a tried and true support methodology. Real world performance with the history to prove it.
I consider M$ products to be the superior when competing with other OSes. Windows 2000 always installs on standard hardware and I know that if M$ says a product will do something then I know it will do it (maybe not well or as well but that's moot).
Anyway that's my take on this, I hope everyone has bookmarked this story and emailed it to their managers.
John the Kiwi
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:2, Insightful)
Err...That violates microsoft's new licensing regime. Munich needed to upgraqde because MS was no longer supporting NT. Note that the article said that MS was willing to *LET* Munich go 6 years without a forced upgrade, instead of the standard 5. This is one of the things that Munich was objecting too. In some circles, that is known as "the point".
Re:Look what M$ was prepared to forego in this dea (Score:3, Insightful)
MS needed to make Linux didn't get a big deal and some legitimacy. They could have lost money on the deal and wouldn't have cared.
If someone small comes and says we want discounts and am pretty sure MS would say "No"
And then the small company would evaluate the cost of switching(linux or some thing else) to keeping current software to upgrading.
If enough small company switch then maybe MS will change but until then... don't hold your breath.
Microsoft's value was hollow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Munich ... uses 175 Windows applications for such tasks as managing police records, issuing permits and collecting taxes. ... Linux ... does not work well with Windows programs. Another layer of connection software is required, adding complexity. Unilog judged Microsoft's proposal -- to swap out all existing versions of Microsoft Windows and Office for the newest versions -- as cheaper and technically superior.
It seems that the only advantage Microsoft really had was that it worked, sometimes, with it's own software. Training was offered by both teams, implying no difference. Once those 175 applications are ported out of Windoze, what will Microsoft have to offer? Painful file formats? A single screen GUI, inferior networking, poor security, inferior stability and data loss are all hallmarks of Microsoft software. In six years, what's Microsoft going to do to try to win back the business?
Microsoft screwed their only advantages. They had a tremendous advantage in user familiarity and widespread use. The advantages this offered was supposed to be ease of information transfer and hardware compatibility. Instead of using that, they got greedy and broke interoperability to force upgrades. They also abused their deathgip on hardware manufacturers the same way to foce purchases of new equipment. With advantages like those, who needs flaws? Microsoft squandered money on anti-competitve behavior when it should have been fixing it's own software.
Free software has stuck itself right into these shorcomings. You can exchange data bewteen free programs though accepted standards. Why you can't get a hardware driver for the new Windoze, you can be sure the old one still works with free software. Free software is doing what Microsoft prommised to do but did not. That's not surprising because free software is made by people who have a job to do and they don't have an incentive to break things.
Re:Price Tag (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Any chance this is nationalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Enemy Within (Score:5, Insightful)
That about sums it up for me. What upset me the most was the inability to master their products. I've worked with small businesses for over 7 years installing and supporting LANs. I began my career as a CNE with Novell NetWare, transitioned to Windows (which was the worst 4 years of my life), and now work exclusively with Linux. From my experience, It's impossible to avoid huge time-sucking disasters because of Microsoft's constant upgrade and patch cycles. Their End User License Agreements (EULA's) absolve themselves of all wrongdoing, and leave techs like myself holding the bag. After years of blowing out the operating system and reinstalling, hoping that a shotgun approach of service packs and hot fixes would make the problems go away, and reading everything under the sun only to find documentation fraught with errors, I gave up. Which is why two years ago I adopted the mantra "I don't do Windows" and set my mind on Linux. My current job is with a company moving their 2 servers & 22 workstations off Windows NT/98/XP, and onto Debian GNU/Linux.
And I'm happy now
There's no such thing as a Windows expert. There's only "I can flail around in the dark better than you can".
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll also note that incompatability does exist in even minor additions (MDAC components, ComDlg.Dll hell, etc) Each of MS's "innovations" was to solve an existing problem. Your claim to "stick with it" means dealing with their originaly lack of insight forever. No thanks.
Linux captures the ability to build on FREE software designs that get tested in a larger user base over longer time. Hence, shells scripts still work, CL utilities still work. Filemon and other GUI can be replaced easily without downloading an 80MB Service Pack and watching it munch your system driectory, registry, etc. Then do this for every computer in your corporation? WTF!
The "small, isolated, corperative" style of *nix applications dominates the testing field over the monolithic "its part of the value-added package" mentality of MS's products: IE is part of the OS, Office is a 1GB gorilla, most OS services are SO heavily intertwined, good luck upgrading just 1 or 2. On top, terminal-style nodes are just what the doctor ordered for large numbers of interconnected limited-use machines. No need to pay for splaying software and licenses to 100's of boxes all over your building.
Oh - don't forget! Your developer base is a pool of people from the past 30 years! Nobody has to go rush to the convention center every 2 years to be read white papers on the NextBigThing. If a single new technology is introduced, you can find a targeted application to implement it in OSS, or rollyerown. In MSworld, this means a gigantic run of releases over the next few months to take advantage of it (IE's birth, java engines, security updates, multimedia support).
Linux has the advantage on many more things than price. Face it. Choosing MS is simply for people who wish to spend money instead of knowing exactly what their machines are doing.
mug
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:3, Insightful)
The support contract that Munich signed with Suse undoubtedly includes upgrades to the system. Since it's the support service that Suse sells, the actual OS is insignificant (it's free, after all). Any and all upgrades will be provided under the support contract at the cost of the media it's on, if that.
If MS were willing to hand out licenses of Windows 2003 Server to everyone who has Windows 2000 Servers and Windows NT Servers, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, everyone must pay for the upgrade. If the payment is discounted, you are still paying something. Compare this to Linux, where all that is in place is a support contract. The OS upgrades are a giveaway.
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. If I may suggest a corollary, "Linux is more valuable if your time is worth much."
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:4, Insightful)
Upgrading Windows involves either
a) Trip to Wal-mart for expensive OS
b) 'Discovering' an extra copy of the newest OS that happens to be laying around in my friends living room.
Most companies I know of wouldn't choose b.
Most companies don't have $100 - $200 to spend per PC and still be able to afford support for when something goes wrong.
I don't think they mind upgrading as much as they mind draining their entire budget upgrading.
It's about TCO (Score:1, Insightful)
One quote in the article sums it up best: "Microsoft's biggest enemy is themselves" says Gartner's Silver.
That also means it is easy to fix, providing they actually open their eyes and see things as they are. If Microsoft's response is the same as it always has been (these are our enemies and we must crush them) and not as it must be (a few simple changes to the basic philosophy of Microsoft such as treating customers as a valued resource and actually offering more value for an upgrade to convince people to buy it rather than schemes to force an upgrade down people's throats) then they simply will not survive.
Another interesting quote: Munich "reinforces for us that we operate in a very competitive marketplace," says Maggie Wilderotter, Microsoft senior vice president of business strategy. Holy shit! Did we really hear that from a Microsoft vice president? I have the feeling this time Microsoft really means it, as opposed to press just for the benefit of the DoJ.
And one more interesting quote (I promise, last one): Should its desktop software sales stagnate or, worse, decline, Microsoft's profit could plummet, and it could find itself with a diminished ability to bankroll promising, but costly, new ventures, such as tablet PCs, smart phones and online video games.
Oh, bullshit! This has been standard partyline from every monopoly since Standard Oil; the world will be a poorer place if Microsoft doesn't make all that money! Truth is, if those "promising, but costly, new ventures" are valid, they will be funded and produced. If they re invalid, not even all of Microsoft billions wil be able to make them profitable. And I find it real hard to believe that a company with cash reserves larger than most countries' GNPs cannot bankroll just about anything they want, even if all revenue stopped tomorrow.
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a really really big IF.
In my IT experience with MS, and experience throughout school with UNIX flavors, I'd say that more time is wasted on Windows. Windows Servers are bad in particular.
I've had our Database server up and die, killing your "4 hours of productivity." Every time I log in, I wait for Windows to automount every network drive that is mapped, which takes about 20 seconds. Every time I need to reboot because an installation program has updated the registry, I've needed to reboot.
Now, I'm a developer. If you compare just common desktop users, you'll find that Linux is either slightly faster than Windows. The UI for Windows is/has been cloned to the point of mootness. The MS point of "Time & Training" is completely bogus, as well as being nebulous. There really is no way that MS can back up the claim of time saved, since they have done a full year comparison of users, chosen at random from a very very large userbase.
Re:Linux used in political campaign (Score:2, Insightful)
I say... more power to them. They promote linux by handing MS's sales folks their asses.. they should get some street cred for that. What, you think the pawn administration that the US would want to rule your country would do the same?
Wasn't it RMS who said that ultimately software is always political?
An even bigger reason .. (Score:3, Insightful)
The city paid MUCH more money to IBM/SuSE because they didn't want to be locked into Microsoft's refusal to support/insistence on upgrading their software after X number of years. Linux let them upgrade when they wanted to, and not before. It was a long-term financial decision which, I'm certain, IBM and SuSE emphasized heavily in order to score a win.
I think plain cold reality also played a part.. Think about the two options
a) Pay 25 Millions to Microsoft, most of the money goes to the US, and ends up in shareholders pockets or as stockoptions for employees over there.
b) Pay 36 millions to SuSE, all of the money stayes in Germany and ends up as salary of lots of people. And when you calculate the multiplier factor of this money for the economy, it becomes an even bigger +
Now, let's say you're a German politician, what would you do ? (Apart from canceling your summer holiday in Italy :-)
Re:Linux competitiveness. (Score:3, Insightful)
They can, however, run apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade or the SuSE equivalent. This will give them the most up-to-date version possible. Linux doesn't get old. Sure the version numbers change, but packages release at different times. One day it's kernel 2.6.0, the next day it's XFree5 or whatever. Windows is updated in giant chunks, Linux is updated a program at a time. As long as someone maintains the packages and apt's magic files, Linux NEVER goes out of date. Even without a support contract. I don't have one, and I'm running the latest software (including 2.6.0test1 on a PPC. Yes, it does work out of the box
How is 23.7M More than 35.7M? (Score:1, Insightful)
So Microsoft sold Munich a software bundle based on NT for some $$$. I am assuming it was millions of dollars, probably tens of millions. Now Microsoft won't i.e., choses not to support that platform - and it is propriatary software, so no one else can either and wants $36,600,000 more. Except there is now a competitor, so they reduce their profit (from 80%) and eventually get to $23,700,000. (1. Competition is GOOD for the consumer - 35% off in this case, 2. Propriatary software is BAD for the consumer - in this case it is the reason Munich has to spend $20-$30 million after ALREADY BUYING A SOFTWARE SOLUTION FROM MICROSOFT.)
I don't think Microsoft should have to support a platform forever - or even any longer than their contracts require or they are legally obligated. But the consumer should be allowed to chose between options - including support - which they can not do when they choose Microsoft OS.
I am running Redhat Linux, distribution 8.0, but have compiled the kernel - the source code is included in the basic install - with only the options I need. I have updated the kernel several times, and have updated binaries and compiled apps from source code. My computer is running the latest stable kernel version, and if a new version is released tomorrow, I can be running the newer version within hours. I don't have to wait for a large company with many other things - including making a profit occupying its' attention.
I can choose to upgrade to a later Redhat distribution. I can, if I choose to, stay with the current distribution, but update the kernel. I can, if I want, get support from Redhat or, again if I so choose get support from another vendor. These are not, with the exception of the first option, choices available if I am using Microsoft Windows.
Have mod points so posting anon!