Munich Struggling with Linux Transition? 566
rune2 writes "The Toronto Star has an article up that mentions that Steve Ballmer is gloating about how the Munich transition to Linux and Open Source software isn't going too well." Even if the transition is going poorly, what about when Munich is finally set? Funny how there's no mention of all the future costs of licenses they've already saved themselves from, yet there's a nice plug for the next version of Windows. Last time I checked, Windows' upgrades from one version to the next were not free by any definition.
There is one positive (Score:5, Funny)
There's another (Score:5, Insightful)
And they'll be pissing themselves laughing next time a big virus hits.
Re:There's another (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's another (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's another (Score:5, Insightful)
The best source is the heise.de and Computerwoche articles, but those are in German
The main problems are as follows:
- The project's timeline was too short. They specified two years to migrate 14,000 desktops. That's a challenge for a Windows->Windows transition, much less a Linux->Windows transition.
- They are hitting funding problems.
- Users need to be retrained for the new software.
- Contractors need to move their apps to the new platform.
Most of these are inherent to any transition, especially one of this magnitude.
Microsoft profits undercount the costs of PCs (Score:4, Insightful)
It occurred to me recently, after having lost another file to a PC lockup, that the enormous costs of transisioning from manual business machines to PCs (over the past twenty years) are not reflected in MS's profits. The costs of learning all this new technology and the costs of all those lost files and other inefficiencies have been absorbed by the users. The economic gains have been split by the organizations that have bought PCs and Microsoft.
With Linux the costs are more equally distributed and more available for realistic analysis. What that means is that Microsoft is at its peak now in terms of being rich, fat, and happy. The period of increasing returns for them are over and that of diminishing returns on investment have begun. Mr. Balmer shouldn't gloat (like saying the sun shouldn't shine) over the transision costs of changing operating systems because (one) the costs were originally greater to transision from manual machines to PCs but Microsoft didn't pay those costs. And (two) each movement of a large organization from Windows to Linux is cheaper as the unforseen problems and their solutions get shared by the Linux community.
In their defense, Windows is a lot easier to use than Linux and Windows is not dominated by the computer geek mentality that continues to cripple Linux. Windows is dominated by the 'make Microsoft rich by providing useful tools that increase worker productivity' mentality. Since MS has been able to provide their solutions so far at a cost that is much less than the value of productivity gains of their product, they have won spectactularly over all their competitors. But that will change and is changing with every new Linux inplementation.
These guys in Redmond shouldn't gloat, it's makes them look 'white trash' and insults their customers who are not caught up in this American "business is a football game" mentality.
Re:There's another (Score:5, Informative)
700+ Macs --- Never had an email virus. Never had an issue with spyware.
100 linux machines -- Never had any virus. Never had any spyware issues.
1000+ windows boxes. Many full time jobs spend doing little but virus removal. Yes we have Norton... Also spyware is a HUGE problem. It has gotton to the point that our clients machines do nothing but have pop-ups and slow down to a crawl.
So in my opinion, switching to ANYTHING non Microsoft Windows will reduce the total cost of ownership after the initial pain of moving. Also, non of these Windows users have administrative access. I will say one good thing about Microsoft Windows, you generally don't have to ask if it is supported, but then again it is almost getting that way with Linux.
Also, do you honestly believe that SP2 will address all the remote secuirty issues of Windows? Would you bet your job on it? I wouldn't...
Re:There's another (Score:5, Informative)
I work as an independent contractor developing applications for large electric and gas utilities in North America. In any given year, I spend two or more weeks working hands-on with up to five different large organizations: in the past nine years, this has included over thirty organizations.
All of these organizations have primarily (or entirely) Windows workstations for their users (NT, 2000, and XP over the years). All of these organizations take computer security seriously. At none of these organizations has there ever been more than one instance of a virus or worm causing a real disruption to the rank-and-file folks using Windows. To summarize: over nine years, over thirty organizations, and none suffered even a second occurrence while I was there.
Clearly, it is possible to administer Windows-based networks proficiently. I sincerely hope that the next time you (and others like you) choose to post to Slashdot professing your inability to do that, you instead take that time to learn how to do your job effectively.
Re:There's another (Score:5, Insightful)
Second. If you expect anyone to believe that no place you "visited" ever had a second issue with viruses then you are either a liar or don't talk to the people there OR they are not allowed to actually use their machines for anything other than basic applications. I also visit many government agencies and will concede that most of them don't ever have any problems. That is because they don't do anything! Don't let your lack of true public sector work cloud your judgement. I will also concede that it "IS" possible to get a Windows client secure, and keep it secure, but you the admin will have to spend considerably more time working with security patches than any other OS, and don't even start with the "well the hackers/crackers target windows..." The problem is that Microsoft has never taken security seriously, their focus was to make stuff easy on the users. i.e. DDE and OLE.
Yes it "is" possible to administer a Windows network, but the amount of work is considerably more (with regards to viruses, email, spyware) than other platforms.
There is a fundemental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly this is what sucks about the MS vision. "Today things will not work, but tomorrow all will be better". You are constantly chasing the dream.
That is why I use Open Source software even on Windows. I have very little headaches. Had one recently BECAUSE of IE and a new scam that Casino's spyware have.
Re:There is a fundemental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine that as experience with Linux grows this problem will be easier to minimize.
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally think the overall complexity of the open source path is probably slightly higher than Windows these days, but on this scale of operation probably not radically different. Pick the wrong Windows integrator (strong on client or server side but not both) and it will be a painful migration.
One problem that I do see is that in strategic deals like this one, Microsoft has an advantage in that the corporation can "fix" a bad integrator choice by flooding the site with the money and knowledge needed to make this work. A big IT consultant can try to do the same thing, but that may require a big internal investment on their part - I'm not sure whether going back to a SUSe or RedHat with problems could create the same effect.
Of course, that's what MS would argue that their value-add is, and I don't know that I would completely disagree. I'm sure they're loading MS commandos into the Microsoft Air Force troop carriers in Redmond, waiting for Munich to ask for help.
I partially agree with you, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't even UNDERSTAND how Windows works. There are of course people who do, so you can hire qualified people. Linux is the same. There are plenty of people who know Linux well enough to be considered a qualified person.
And if you're speaking about difficulties with the GUI on the desktop, well I personally don't think that the average user who is limited to point-and-click would have any more difficulties pointing-and-clicking on KDE or Gnome than they would on Windows.
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the first priority is the value that Linux is providing Munich. Security and stability are big points in Linux's favor. Customization should be another. If we can't offer compelling value, people will smile, nod, say "good for you guys, I'm rooting for you" -- and then plunk down money for the product that fits their needs.
We can't as a community wish away these transaction costs of switching. The whole point Ballmer is making when he highlights stories like these is that Open Source is NOT free.
You need expertise in-house, custom development to meet your needs, tech support, administration, management. All these things are expensive. If Linux is to win, it needs to prove that it isn't just hiding its costs.
I'd like to see the community really engage the guys in Munich to ascertain 1. what the problems have been 2. what we can do (new software, utilities, companies, services) to alleviate these transition pains.
That's what MS does with their customers. If we're to really challenge them, we need to be even more responsive and useful. We have the advantage, but that doesn't mean we're using it.
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Insightful)
Change is always costly, Linux transitions have all of the troubles that other software transitions have without the high cost of each liscence.
I agree completely with the proposition that we must strive to provide software support for Linux as the primary focus of our community efforts. The code is free, the support is where we have the opportunity to add value and create wealth.
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Informative)
It's certainly not easier to use..
Depends on the definition of "easier to use". We customise all user desktops (we use Linux as a terminal server) so that only 5-10 icons are present and those are the only apps the users can access. Easy to use, no confusion. Study after study shows that giving the administrative workers access to all sorts of "accessiores" produces hours of fucking around with screen savers. Web access is restricted to the intranet and few choice sites. No ebay and chatting. Huge increases in productivity and a lot of whining from the spoiled brats when we implement this, usually in the vain of "this sux! On Windows I could play my Backgammon with the dude in shipping all day!". Those who are there to work and make their company successful somehow never complain. Go figure.
Oh and I can just imagine the sort of friction the dudes in Munich are getting from the government workers, I truly sympathise guys.
Again depends on the definition. If you are looking to squeeze the maximum from your existing hardware so that your return on investment is maximized, you use Linux. Otherwise you go upgrade all your PCs every 2 years on schedule. The advent of Windows Terminal Services (something Linux/Unix had for ages) made Windows more competetive but thats not how most Windows installations are deployed. We tend to use Linux based Terminal Servers as a primary mode so the hardware requirements on clients are next to nothing.
You cant be for real. I have people with applications on Windows who pay $7.5k in "support contract" fees for their windows software and they call me to rescue them because that wonderful support just works so great. Did you ever call Microsoft for anything? I did a dozen or so times. Last time it was ~$250 US per "incident" (you will not catch me dead with a MS support contract) and after spending 1/2 a day I still didn't get to talk to anyone who could diagnose a BSOD, even though I went to all the trouble of preparing the dumps and messing with the system debugger and symbol files to try to get the call stack extracted so we could backtrack to the offending code. Oh, and that other time when I called after finding out a critical bug in MS SQL only to find out that a) SQL support is ~$350US per incident and its a call-back "less then 48hrs" response time and b) its not a "bug" but it will be fixed in the "next release". I stopped calling MS many years back, simply because when I looked at the results they never provided me any useful assistance.
Windows world suport is not in any shape or form better then that on Linux and unlike Windows apps, I can at least attempt a work around or even a fix since I can program in several languages.
I am starting to find all these people who repeat mindlessly Redmont's propaganda with no actual practical experience in the matter, truly infuriorating.
Re:There is one positive (Score:5, Interesting)
With all the outsourcing going on in the US, companies seem to be determined to decrease the costs as much as possible. Why then do you want to make the emphasis on how Linux better solves the organisation's problems? Haven't you read the recent article about technical support [slashdot.org]? Companies do not want the best, they want the cheapest. Linux (BSD) is the cheapest, so why not promote it as such. If you don't like the word "cheap", say that Linux will allow to lower the costs. After all, multimillion dollar ERP systems do the same - they decrease costs. Teleconferencing systems decrease the costs. VoIP systems decrease the costs. I.e. they are cheaper. So is Linux, don't feel ashamed of that.
Nice plug? (Score:5, Insightful)
They spend quite a while discussing the problems Windows has with security, including viruses... how is that a nice plug?
The article seems pretty balanced to me, although it does gloss over one or two points (Munich hadn't already 'made up their mind' when Microsoft made a cheaper offer).
Re:Nice plug? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is Slashdot - what many others would call fair and reasonable is considered hopelessly biased towards Microsoft by many (not all) people here.
Re:Nice plug? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice plug? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice plug? (Score:4, Insightful)
This point can't be emphasized enough. Microsoft is an 'alpha' company that is hyper competetive. They needed Netscape to egg them into making Internet Explorer as good as it now is. They need Linux to egg them on as well. And Microsoft's stuff since 'the rise of Linux' has been vastly superior. Honestly, they were mired in NT 4.0 service packs and pasted-onto-16-bit 'Millenium Editions' before.
This can be considered good or bad by different people. For the customer, it is pretty good.
Re:Nice plug? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the caveat that "now" and "good" are relative and only apply to the browser 4 years ago, not today. This very minute, Internet Explorer is to the browser market as Yugos are to the sports car market.
Re:Nice plug? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Mr. Ballmer, "more expensive" than what? Than keeping their older MSWindows systems? Than was originally budgetted for the transition? Than gold-plating all the computer cases?
Re:Nice plug? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article, the only person saying that Linux is more costly is Steve Ballmer, so it's not a statement being made by Munich government itself.
The article seems to be equally harsh and generous with microsoft, first talking about the cost of viruses, but then taking at face value some statements about how they're going to improve security.
"The next step is to make the Windows XP operating system less vulnerable to malicious attacks." says His Billness.
What are we, 3 or 4 major versions into the WindowsNT kernel and they're only just starting to think about making it less vulnerable?
It's a bit misleading calling it an article about linux, when it's actually an article about microsoft. If you're going to talk about installing Linux in Munich, why would you then go on to interview the entire leadership of a vendor that hasn't been involved since they lost the bid?
Re:Nice plug? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite. We only have about 10,000 desktop PCs but, even with Microsoft reps onsite full time, lots of money and some clever technical staff, our migration from NT4 to XP has been running for two years and is still not complete.
Thank god I'm one of the stragglers. XP... eeuuuggghhh!
So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has a definite edge in the usability category while Linux has the edge in the security category. They both have their places, but as far as I am concerned for the average business Linux is a better choice for the server side and Microsoft is a better choice for the client side.
If Apple would aggresively sell their OS for x86 hardware they would probably make a killing since they have found a very good balance between the two sides.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
- To write a document, click on the OpenOffice.org Writer icon.
- To send email, click on the Evolution Email icon.
- To browse the web, click on the Mozilla Web Browser icon.
- To do anything else, click on whatever icons the company installed for you.
Common office drones don't install software (heck, they're not even allowed to). They don't spend time configuring things because everything is already configured. They don't have to use the commandline.
People always say "no Linux is not userfriendly enough" but they never say what EXACTLY is wrong! It's exactly because of this kind of trollish attitude that critics aren't being taken seriously anymore.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
And I have to say, in the usability realm, open source software on any platform often sucks. The gimp is a popular example.
It is a popular example, but I often wonder how good an example it is. How often, when people say "X is much harder in The GIMP than in Photoshop", do they really mean (without realizing it) "I have been doing X in Photoshop for years, so I know how to do it in my sleep in Photoshop, but I'm not used to the differences in The GIMP".
I'm not saying that The GIMP is as good as Photoshop (I'm just a dabbler in both), or that you didn't run into a real usability problem. But I'm sure that that is the case for many people; an unfamiliar UI can feel like a bad UI at first, but being unfamiliar doesn't mean that it's bad. It means migration can be troublesome, sure, but it doesn't mean that the long-term usability is different.
To back up what I'm saying with some antecdotal evidence: I used to use a several-year old version of Photoshop (site license at my University), and I got along fine doing the little things I did. But when I switched to OS X and there was no license for Photoshop for OS X, I thought "Hey, I've heard that The GIMP is cool, I'll try that". So opened it up and started trying to use it (no looking at a guide, just playing--the same way I'd learned my rudimentary Photoshop skills). I hated it immediately and went back to using the old Classic version of Photoshop. About the time I realized that I was never using it because Classic was interacting badly with Photoshop, the school licensed the OS X version, so I grabbed that--and hated it too! They had changed things around enough in the last couple of versions that I felt just as out-of-place as in The GIMP. So I figured, if I have to relearn things anyway, why not stick with the free software. I looked through a short guide to doing basic stuff with it, played around again, and found it quite easy to use once I made the mental transition that this was a different piece of software, not a different-looking layer on top of Photoshop. Why had just messing around with Photoshop worked, but not The GIMP? Because I learned Photoshop with no expectations, but I had some built-in Photoshop responses when I was first trying out The GIMP.
Again, I'm not a power graphics user, so I don't want a lot of replies telling me that X, Y, and Z are impossible in The GIMP. I make no claims about their relative merits for anyone but myself. My point is that I don't agree with this:
I've used computers every day for 17 years and I couldn't figure something out! This is a sign of a chronic usability issue
Photoshop and The GIMP are very complicated pieces of software, with correspondingly complex interfaces. They are not the sort of program where every menu item, button, and control panel can be self explanatory. It is too much to be purely intuitive; it must be learned and memorized to an extent--it just doesn't feel that way once you've used something for a long time. I wonder how much of your frustration (and thus inability to find what you wanted) was due to a nagging feeling that "this is stupid, it should be easy, I know exactly how to do this in Photoshop".
There is certainly open-source software (and commercial software) with real UI problems. But many people attribute problems in using other systems or programs to bad UI when they are caused by simple lack of familiarity.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, OpenOffice is based on StarOffice, which was commercial software. The interface hasn't changed that much. Just because it's open source now, it's usability magically became worse? That makes no sense.
You say usability of OSS software often sucks. Yeah let's forget about many of the good apps out there. Mozilla Firefox, Epiphany, gedit (or "Web Browser" and "Text Editor" as the menu items are called, in case you want to complain about naming), FileZilla, Evolution, Red Carpet, just to name a few.
Let's face it: bad user interfaces are *everywhere*, not just among open source software!
Have you never downloaded a Windows freeware app or something? And I know lots of commercial software with horible user interfaces.
And the only reason why you say Gimp's UI sucks is because you've never used it before and has only used it for a while. Back in my early days, I only knew how to use MS Paint. Then I download Paint Shop Pro. And guess what - I had lots of trouble working with it! I couldn't figure out how to do trivial things that can be done easily in MS Paint. After several months of playing around with it, I finally felt more comfortable with it.
Then came Linux and Gimp. At first, I found Gimp very confusing, just like when I started with Paint Shop Pro! After several months of working with it, I felt more and more comfortable. And soon Gimp became my preferred image editing program. Yes you read what I wrote: I prefer it over PSP!
Now I'm using Gimp 1.3, which has a GUI that's much more easy, efficient, powerful, and polished. I found Gimp 1.2 floating tool windows a little annoying (though not nearly as annoying as PSP's window-in-window tool windows!!). Gimp 1.3 got rid of that final complaint I had, and gave me even more than that. Gimp 1.3 even allows you to set the Utility window manager hints for tool windows, which means tool windows won't show up in the taskbar, but will get raised if you click on the Gimp main palette. Gimp 1.3 also gives me a global menu bar, which I don't really need (rightclicks works just as well, if not better) but is still nice.
Gimp's MDI approach gives me some very real advantages. I can Alt-Tab between documents. And I can switch between documents in one click (click on taskbar button) instead of two (Window menu-> select menu item).
Gimp is a good program, period. Well you bought Photoshop, good for you. Gimp fulfills my graphics needs, for free, and it better than Paint Sho Pro, a commercial app.
About a year ago I introduced my non-techie friend to Linux. I installed Linux for him so no, he didn't get into any configuration problems. It's just like getting Windows preinstalled. He calls Linux "very userfriendly, stable and easy". He says that Gimp is a "good and powerful program", even though he did think the UI is a little weird. But got used to the UI very quickly and is now very productive with it. Recently I installed Gimp 1.3 for him and he was very impressed.
"Now, I'm not stupid! I'd like to point that out. I've used computers every day for 17 years and I couldn't figure something out!"
And I've used computers for 7 years and I could figure it out? And my non-techie friend too? Something's very wrong here.
"OpenOffice, Evolution and Mozilla have completely different interfaces from each other",
What "completely different interfaces"? You have a main window, with a menu bar, toolbars, status bars, and the main content. Buttons still look like buttons and text boxes still look like text boxes. Menus still look like menus and the cursors are the same. Even the colors are the same. (The icons are not the same but I don't hear anybody complaining about that Internet Explorer's icon style is different from Wordpad's.)
If I put any of my friends behind my computer they can immediately figure
Far more likely it is the apps. (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem is that there are lots of little apps that need to be ported. This is the same in any migration. Someone, somewhere throws together a database for some reason and it becomes "mission critical" to that department.
So, you have apps that you knew nothing about....
That need to be ported....
With 100% functionality....
Prior to your roll-out....
And it is probably badly written with no thought to managability or portability or even data integrity....
And THAT is what eats up your budget.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Interesting)
* User training?
* Gaps in the user application space?
* Porting in-house applications?
* Database access or porting?
* Windows or other *NIX interoperability?
* Availability of trained admins?
* Cultural problems?
What is it?
Inquiring minds want to know!!
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:4, Informative)
They are still preparing the invitation to bid. It seems that Red Hat, SuSE, IBM and all the usual suspects want to see too much money, more than initially expected. There isn't much you can do about it. Even bidding yourself wouldn't help because you wouldn't be able to compete against these brands, even if your bid were much lower.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like this is an extremely important piece of work for a Linux company to get for two reasons:
* It is very high profile - Linux beat Microsoft (not on cost BTW) even when uncle Fester flew in (because uncle Fester flew in) to sell Microsoft.
* This is precisely the type of large rollout that Linux companies need to get a handle on. The company that gets the inside track on this contract will have a wellspring of experience that will translate to thier brand and even into thier product suite.
It seems that Linux companies out to be fighting for this. Yes they have to make money but sometimes a loss leader is called for for strategic reasons.
This sounds pretty strategic to me.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
But the city representatives know this, too, and I'm sure they are trying to exploit it to some degree. At least I hope so, they owe it to us taxpayers.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:4, Interesting)
If they figured out that you can run a netboot or ltsp system in a way you really often can't with Windows, maybe they'll start saving money.
Re:So let's try to fix it (Score:4, Interesting)
You made one statement that sounded like we shouldn't make Linux like Windows, but then you pointed out the very reason why we must. For Linux to gain enough marketshare to be viable it needs to be so similar to Windows that from a user's viewpoint the only difference is the price. Once Linux has about 25% of the world market then we can afford to let idealism and perfectionism have their say.
No surprise. (Score:5, Informative)
E.g. some departments are already running AD and have been issued permissions to run this setup for 2 or 3 more years.
Other factors are lots of home-grown VB-apps that need to be ported or converted into Webapps, with the added complexity that there's no budget and virtually no knowledge about how to do that...
Nevertheless, the city will not go back (I hope), because the decision *does* make sense. Just not for Steve Balmer.
But that should come as no surprise, either.
Rainer
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like another good reason to switch to Linux from where I am sitting :-)
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough. But the salient point that everyone seems to miss when looking at things like this is that a trasition from software A to software B is always difficult, for pretty much any A and any B. Were Linux in a dominant position instead, we might well be seeing similar stories about a few high profile sites struggling with an attempted switch to Windows...
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. GTK, QT etc. are all available in Win32-land. And most of the OpenSource software you and I use is already ported to Win32.
It's only difficult getting away from Microsoft-written apps, because they are almost the only software-company left that doesn't offer at least some of their products on Linux/Unix.
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they going to rebuild that? Where's the money coming from? And don't say web apps, because it takes MUCH longer to write a db app originally made in Delphi (which is outstandingly fast) and build it in php / perl / jsp. And these web apps are not close to the ease of use of a Delphi or Access app. Linux and open source DESPERATELY need a RAD tool like Delphi with data-bound controls and grids (too bad borland gave up on Kylix, it seems). All other development in the open source world should take a back seat to this. Why not do it in Python - with TCL or PyQT?
I really doubt this migration will go through as planned.
Re:Ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly the answer is java. Eclipse and netbeans are very good IDEs and there are great commercial ones as well. For delphi shops Jbuilder is a great choice because it looks and acts a lot like Delphi. With java you also get great middle tier and scalability. Much better then what you would get with VB or Delphi.
Finally check out this [bs-factory.org]. They seem to be working on data bound widgets for J2EE.
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
You call it proprietary lock-ins, I call it a damn good way to manage a few thousand users.
I've been on both sides here. I've done the OpenLDAP database of users, with OS X desktops an Samba fileservers, Sendmail / QPopper / IMAP mail setups for a few thousand users.
I've also done the Win2k3 servers with AD and Exchange, and WinXP desktops, again for a few thousand users.
The bottom line is that they both serve the same roles: user management, mail, fileserving.
The difference is that while it takes 20 seconds to add a user to Active Directory (complete with Exchange mailbox setup, login script assignment, etc), it takes fussing with LDIF files for OpenLDAP. Eventually we went to web applications to mimic the MS tools, but that again takes time and money. There simply aren't the tools available that make it worthwhile for busy administrators to fuss with OpenSource solutions.
It's difficult to get away from MS tech because MS makes it damn easy to run an enterprise of a few thousand employees. It may be that the IT staff just isn't used to linux (I suppose I benefit from the fact that I grew up on Sun and FreeBSD, which makes it really easy for me to pick up just about any of the common OSes around), but realistically speaking, there's a lot to be said for the enterprise tools that MS offers, even though they cost a lot of money.
I'm still waiting for an open source package that comes close to rivaling Exchange in functionality. I don't see that happening anytime in the near ( 3 years ) future.
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flip side, though: No viruses. No files lost. No idiot using someone else's machine and wiping out data. Automatic remote backup. The sysadmins are happy! Unfortunately these things do not seem to figure in the tally of the staff, even when one of their colleagues who has yet to switch has had all her files scrambled by one of the latest viruses.
In short - it is hard to get people to change. But there are enormous savings, and not just financially.
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
You mirrored my thoughts on that. I was thinking 'growing pains' instead of teething, but it still is the same general idea
Let's face it, Linux DOES need this kind of experience. It's what helps it grow. I mean, you can't say that migrating from Windows 98/ME to XP was an EASY thing for companies. I'm sure that there were plenty of early implimenters who ran into similar cost/resource overruns. The fact of the matter is, the more companies who DO face these things, the more we learn about the process itself. I don't think we can even say that the migration problems are more techinical related or more to do with implementing business processes within a completely new environment
Having done work in managing software migration within a business process, I know for a fact that pre-existing business rules play a critical role in how easily something is implemented, but with Windows, any time there's a new release, I make sure I read through all the articles of InfoWorld (and other such trade mags) to see all the articles on caveats for migration. Linux needs this type of coverage so that more people actually DOING migrations can know what to plan ahead for. And let's face it, botched upgrades or cost overruns is part of this process.
Personally, I'm fine with Munich running into more problems then expected, because it's something real and something we can learn from. It just means that the next city/state/country that seeks a migration can communicate with Munich and find out WHERE the problems occurred to plan ahead for it prior to even starting. So each subsequent installation becomes that much easier until it becomes a neatly documented procedure.
No matter how 'Developers boy' tries and spin it, Microsoft went through the exact same thing with companies who moved to XP from the 9x family (I know I have firsthand experience of that as many of you probably do as well).
ads (Score:5, Funny)
Security & mental bandwith (Score:5, Funny)
That's probably the reason why my Windows machine at work has downloaded the same security update about ten times in the last two weeks. Nice to watch progress in the making...
At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least... (Score:4, Informative)
The little information the community has about this seems to be that the main problems are purely related to the monopoly status of Windows, ie app compatibility, lack of knowledge, admins who don't want to have to retrain, infighting and so on... not much that can be fixed with changes to Linux, it's purely a matter of economics and inertia
Re:At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah; any administrator in Munich or elsewhere would simply understand this to mean they have to hire people to dive into the code. Or assign the job to someone already on staff, though of course it's always better in any organization if you can hire someone and increase the size of your staff.
And I don't believe that there are no linux/unix programmers looking for a job in the Munich area. If they claim they can't find anyone to help them, they are most likely looking for an excuse to not do the job right.
Chances are that they have lots of people on staff that would jump at the offer to take linux training courses. This would be good for the old resume, and they have lots of immediate opportunities for some useful class projects.
Re:At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting to note, however, that most of the problems Munich is experiencing are exactly the sorts of troubles they are switching to avoid in the future.
The fact of the matter is that most of the issues revolve around backing out of having used Microsoft propriatary solutions, such as VB, instead of open standards solutions, and now they have to figure out how to migrate between the two, which is not proving as easy as they might have hoped.
Thus validating their desire to switch.
The more you use Microsoft the more you have to use Microsoft, and are thus prey to whatever whim sweeps through Redmond at any given moment.
Obtaining stability and freedom, especially for a government agency totally dependant on a foreign technology, is often worth a good deal of trouble and expense to establish.
As, perhaps, say, America and American companies are willing to spend far more on researching alternatives to oil than just buying the oil would cost at the moment.
KFG
Re:Amen- proprietary software ==friction (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the part of TCO that Ballmer/et al like to overlook. Not to mention the potential real costs of "failing" an audit.
KFG
Depends on what costs you are saving. (Score:4, Insightful)
already saved themselves from, yet there's a nice plug for the next version of Windows. Last time I checked, Windows' upgrades from one version to the next were not free by any definition.
True, those costs are saved and they are quite substantial. The problems are getting everything to work with Linux when it was not designed to from the beginning. Now that is another substantial cost that stands out because it was not a cost anybody was dealing with before.
These problems are to be expected and certaily should not be a surprise to anybody with a clue. After everything is up and running THEN the savigs will be apparent and the Linux folks will laugh best.
Re:Depends on what costs you are saving. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell us something we weren't expecting... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what exactly is this article, apart from a chance for MS to spin the loss of some major business into more fear, uncertainty and doubt ?
Simon.
perhaps Note: I am not trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Any LUGs near Munich? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure hearsay (Score:5, Informative)
So we're going to base this entire article on HEARSAY?
Microsoft's Ballmer says this and says that in the article. What does MUNICH have to say about all this???
PS: my experience has shown that Linux is the cheapest, most secure, and most reliable system to run. #2 would be OS X with Windows boxes coming in a very distant third. All costs absorbed in the switching happened in the first year (higher hardware & training perhaps) -- but within two years it was paying for itself in the lack of Microsoft tax alone...
Note to Ballmer: (Score:5, Insightful)
How Odd! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are costs leaving Windows, no doubt. From format lock in, all the way to the staggering stupidity and fear it fosters in it's users, Windows is all about keeping you using Windows.
how many.. (Score:5, Insightful)
and how many of them would have existed when trying to move to a newer microsoft platform, and how many of them transition problems would have been significantly bigger if they had later decided to jump off the ms boat(after this round of upgrades and new lock in's from changing fileformats)?
-
Primary source please? (Score:5, Insightful)
A Toronoto newspaper says that Steve Balmer says that Munich is having trouble switching to Linux. Boy, that's great investigative journalism there.
Re:Primary source please? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty typical journalism. Not much in the way of facts and undisputed, third-party claims from well-known people.
Most "newspapers" in the USA are a collection of press releases separated by the occasional column about a person's cats [sfgate.com].
Re:Primary source please? (Score:5, Funny)
CowboyNeal says rune2 says a Toronoto newspaper says that Steve Balmer says that Munich is having trouble switching to Linux.
Boy, that's
Re:Primary source please? (Score:5, Informative)
A Toronoto newspaper says that Steve Balmer says that Munich is having trouble switching to Linux. Boy, that's great investigative journalism there.
The primary source is German: c't [heise.de].
Slashdot's audience is anglo-american, primarily, and the useless Babelfish-translations of this article would only have added to the confusion.
What the problems seem to be (Score:5, Informative)
- Resistance among the user base (people don't like change)
- Vast number of different applications/suppliers to work with
- Lack of support from on-high
None of these problems are specific to linux - but rather to any attempt to introduce change on massive scale. Nowhere are they saying that "linux doesn't work"What's the price of freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't locked into your prescribed update path, at your prescribed price, with your prescribed software... If Microsoft says "like it or lump it," you have no choice, and no freedom.
Yes, linux can theoretically be "free" (as in beer), but everything has update and maintenance costs (even if only in manpower costs)... everything... including windows and linux.
Even if it costs a bit more up front... how much are they going to save in the long run? And how much is it worth to be free to choose another vendor? Another tech support company? Another code monkey to maintain their systems?
Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, duh. That's why Microsoft has a monopoly, right? Ballmer likes to bitch and whine about how it was a "political decision" and how such things are somehow dirty and rare, but he seems to have missed the fact that every decision is political. There's no such thing as a pure business decision.
No matter how many TCO studies you do, no matter how many reports are written by an IT dept doing an evaluation, the final decision is going to be made based on how comfortable somebody is with an idea. Going with Microsoft is safe, it's easy, because everybody else does it. That's a political decision. It's the old "nobody got fired for buying IBM" thing.
The problem with Ballmer is that he sees what he wants to see. Somehow he has to reconcile his beliefs (that Microsoft is better) with reality (people are chomping at the bit to leave them). He does this by saying:
There's another thing. Does anybody else have questions about the competency of the Munich guys to be doing such a migration? Why are they doing a crash switch, which is bound to end in tears? Why are there persistant rumours of them using VMware rather than bringing Wine up to speed on their products (which I'd guess works out cheaper in the long run and certainly provides a better desktop experience).
Finally, is it just me or does Ballmer look really evil in that photo [thestar.com]?
Maybe because 80% runs Windows? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that 80% of the Linux computers in Munich run Windows on VMWare [osnews.com]. But they don't mention that in the article, of course, which is intentionally written to make Linux look bad.
Isn't it great how (Score:5, Insightful)
How many readers of the Toronto Star, do you think, are going to just glance at that article, see a quote from [someone] saying "All of a sudden it's more expensive now to use the Linux solution than the Windows solution," (with respect, in the article, to... well, they don't say what that quote refers to or what its context was, just that he said it at an expo) after a few paragraphs of talking about unexpected cost increases in the Munich city government, and walk away with the interpretation "It has been more expensive for the Munich city government to use Linux than it would have been to use Windows."
My experiance with Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Ballmer maybe laughing now, but as more and more organizations switch, it wont be long before Linux DOES cut into Microsoft's profits, and we will see who has the last laugh.
If you havn't tried Linux before, then [nvu.com]
Legally get a free copy of Lindows! Lets see Microsoft beat that!
You would think.. (Score:5, Interesting)
have a president gloating over how hard it is to change away from their
system to a more standards-compliant and open one. I guess they've given
up any sense of decorum a long time ago, but it's still a bit shocking.
Here's the scariest part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Attention IT managers: the PCs you're in charge of fixing may change their OS behavior at times of their choosing.
I can only hope... (Score:5, Interesting)
The out come? When everyones network, except mine, were going to hell in a hand basket
The customer just sees what they didn't have to spend on Windows licensing, the difference between said licensing and the cost of Panther (OS X) [approved upgrade -- which costs ME] -- and the huge savings across all the Linux servers and those Linux desktops that have been deployed (OS X is winning w/ me).
Upgrade my cost to them while showing them a bill that is 1/2 if not 2/3 the full cost of staying with Windows licensing
TCO is different for governments (Score:5, Insightful)
So to sum it up, they spend the same, but pay germans (so they get some money back), and educate the people. Not really a difficult choice.
What exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, right - he's a fucking liar, from a nest of fucking liars. I forgot.
Smart Move (Score:4, Interesting)
Humph. (Score:5, Interesting)
What constitutes the "best" software? Most features? Maybe. Best stability? Maybe. Best security? Maybe.
For some situations and groups, the best software is software the furthers goals like avoiding dependance on a foreign company with a bad track record for business practices and near monopoly control. Like, say, foreign governments. Which are, after all, political institutions. Why wouldn't they make political statements?
Microsoft gets it, all right. They will do their best to make decisions other than for immediate $$ spent look silly, but for some in this world there really is more to it than that. Microsoft knows to fear thinking like this, because it cannot be controlled.
"The people who are making business decisions based on where are the applications, what is the value, what is the lowest cost of ownership, we're not losing them."
At, but there again value and cost of ownership are not always strictly a matter of $$. Frankly, it's a pretty cold world when that is true, and it's one of the things I dislike about the US. In any case, to solve the chicken egg problem of applications first or users first, the users typically have to take the plunge.
Ballmer can chuckle all he likes. What he isn't mentioning is that first adapters always, ALWAYS, have a hard time. Did we make fun of the first people who bought those really expensive first generation DVD players? Do universities shrink away from paying Peoplesoft $$$$$$$$$ for rather unimpressive systems that still need lots of tweaking? (I'm still convinced if a couple of them had hired GNU enterprise with that $$$ everyone would have been better off, but that's another post.) Change is tough. But for each person or group that makes the change, things are ironed out and it gets easier next time around. And as things get easier, a proven track record emerges, and the trail is paved, more people start to go down it.
So sure, Munich is chopping down trees to make a road through the forest right now. But the next time around someone else will have an example to follow, and will also do some more road clearing.
I'm quite sure if Munich had made the decision to switch over to Macintosh, they'd be facing many of the same problems. To a certain extent change is just hard, period. But the thinking here is long term, not short term. The Media reports short term, Microsoft laughs in the short term. But I'm a lot more interested in the long term, when Munich can look at the next upgrade cycle prices for Windows and laugh in their face.
They aren't being truthful (Score:5, Insightful)
' The migration plan is more complex than simply replacing Windows with Linux, according to an outline provided by the Munich information department. Studies on open-source security, desktop ergonomics and the software components' stability and compatibility with other applications will be included in the process.
But according to Computerwoche and other reports, the city lacks the funds to invest in the planned testing and development of an open-source solution. IBM and Germany-based Linux distributor SuSE are expected to help offset the costs of the migration by supplying technical support and conducting some of the studies that the Munich city council has requested.
Reports in Computerwoche also stated that local vendors who currently code applications for the city were experiencing problems in developing applications for the open-source operating system, since they are more familiar with Windows than Linux.'
Yes it's more expensive to actually worry about security and design system that factors in security needs.
It would much cheaper in the short term to just toss the latest MS product on hundreds of machines and ignore security totally. Nobody need do a study, the answer is MS security is almost non existent.
And the last paragraph speaks volumes about relying on an MS monoculture. Noow those vendors are screwed and any venor who can provide an open source solution for Munich will get there contract.
What about Microsoft roll outs that are expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget Steve boy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pay more now, or pay a lot more in the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not surprised at all that making the switch away from Microsoft is a rocky and expensive road, after all the work Microsoft has done to make it that way... but once it's done, it's done and you're no longer a slave to Microsoft's licensing whims and mandated upgrades, which in the long run would be much more expensive.
~Philly
with linux Munich doesn't export business to US (Score:5, Insightful)
FUD FUD FUD FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems MS has been briefing their employees on what to say about the Munich linux conversion, this all proves that we have them worried.
Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes it is. Its free as in Kazaa.
Free software movement feels schadenfreude too. (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as I'd like to commiserate, there simply isn't enough detail on what the problems are which makes it difficult for anyone to help. But Ballmer reveals more than is probably healthy for Microsoft here:
However, this is a compelling reason to stand on the side of free software for freedom, rather than low price (and this, again, is one reason why "free software" trumps "open source" [gnu.org]). Low price may get people's attention, but sometimes unexpected expenses come up and what will keep people around (such as the Chinese government as mentioned in the article) in the long term is software freedom--being able to inspect, share, and modify the software. When you base your decision on software freedom, software proprietors simply can't compete no matter how much they mark down the cost of their software. They know that and that is where free software can win. Technical merit can be had with enough time and effort, and low price is a side effect of software freedom. But the freedom itself, by definition, is not something you can get from any proprietor. The free software community does themselves a disservice by not teaching people about software freedom.
How MS can claim lower TCO is beyond me... (Score:5, Informative)
The Ordeal of Change (Score:4, Insightful)
A good analogy would be moving the tire swing of a gorilla. It is going to take awhile before "JoJo" realizes it is a good thing.
City Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Wired Story on Munich Transition (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,
According to the story, here are the major problems, aside from some resistence among city hall staffers:
1. Munich insists on a whole bunch of studies into topics like Open Source security, desktop ergonomics, and software component stability and compatibility as part of the transition, but wants someone else (i.e. IBM and SuSE) to pay for them.
2. Local custom software contractors don't know how to write Linux apps.
Obviously, the first problem has more to do with politics than technology (to paraphrase Ballmer). You can always raise costs by wrapping something in red tape.
The second is a real technical problem, but it also occurs trying to move older Windows apps (i.e. 95, 98) to newer Windows versions. Solution: write Web apps, bozos (that way, if they ever want to go to yet another OS on the desktop, their apps will still work). The real problem is that they still think writing custom client-side apps in *any* OS is a good idea.
Re:Primary source please? (Score:5, Informative)
first source for all things german, heise.de:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url
based, in turn, on this article in computerwoche:
http://www.cowo.de/index.cfm?pageid=267&type=Ar
nothing in there about linux being more expensive (than what?).
main problem seems to be that the head of the project hoped to put together a municipal linux task force, but the municipality isn't freeing city employees to dedicate their hours; since the city coffers aren't brimming, there's now a budget problem for the "refined project" phase they're currently working on.
who publishes the toronto star...?
Well, Herr Balmer, ich wuerde sagen.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody said migration would be cheaper or easier, stupid. On the contrary, _everybody_ said it would be more tedious and expensive. But the majority also said it would pay of in the long run _and_ serve as a landmark for free software growth. And would be a desireble political statement.
Just go on. The more the process of migration recieves a bashing from MS, the stronger the impact will be when Munich migration has succeeded.
did I miss something, or was article pointless? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have been interested to know *specifically* what problems Germany is having with Linux. I have no doubt that a move like that would be difficult. Vendor lock-in is what msft is all about, and msft is very good at it, has been for 20 years.
Are Germany's problems related to not being able to run msft apps? Or is it difficult for users to learn linux? Or is linux more difficult to administrate? Or something else?
What I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
The only actual quote in the article is from Balmmer: "They're saying it's more expensive" and he goes on to gush: "All of a sudden it's more expensive now to use the Linux solution than the Windows solution." I seriously doubt that any evidence of this can be found in the German press. I certainly can't find any. I also asked my German friends in IT if they had heard of anything. No they hadn't. If there is no evidence, then Ballmer is a bare-faced liar.
What I suspect we have here is simply Ballmer cackling over the results of a FUD piece that he had planted in the first place. If so, it's nothing new, it's the level of ethics we've come to expect from Microsoft.
Re:Linux is bleeding edge on the desktop (Score:4, Informative)
At home, you may want to buy a new gadget and plug it in, and expect it to just work.
In a company environment you will not expect that. In fact, in many environments the OS will have been configured to NOT allow installation of addons unsupported by the ICT department.