Munich Open Source Switch 'Completed Successfully' 275
Qedward writes "Munich's switch to open source software has been successfully completed, with the vast majority of the public administration's users now running its own version of Linux, city officials said today. In one of the premier open source software deployments in Europe, the city migrated from Windows NT to LiMux, its own Linux distribution. LiMux incorporates a fully open source desktop infrastructure. The city also decided to use the Open Document Format (ODF) as a standard, instead of proprietary options. Ten years after the decision to switch, the LiMux project will now go into regular operation, the Munich City council said."
good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a pleasant surprise.
Hopefully the near 12 million pound savings can be expanded upon and cause others to follow suit.
Other Motives (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also no backdoors. This alone would justify switching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on what backdoors. NSA hidden backdoors? Maybe not. Security issues? There may be plenty.
I know that many Linux systems end up quickly outdated (practically all of mine have mile-long lists of security updates waiting), mostly because you don't really want to hose your machine during development, and you end up with odd requirements like needing Ubuntu 10.04 still installed (despite it being out of LTS support in a few months).
So the big question
Re: (Score:3)
Most large/corporate installs of Windows manage updates via server-determined policies, not by individual users.
One would assume LiMux is managed the same way: an IT team is constantly pushing out updates to their 14,800 desktops. If they made their own distribution, they probably manage their own auto-updates.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we know that they saved money overall? I poked around the article but I couldn’t find anything.
From what I have read in the past, conversions like this did not save money. The reduced front end costs were offset by higher backend costs. Linux admins have higher salaries then windows admins. Front end staff needs to be retrained and have to spend more time with outside vendors who are on Microsoft Office. Etc.
I really hope that the conversion does save money and I think the open data formats
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to believe Munich more on this, because they can actually point to real numbers from the real world, while Microsoft's claims are based on speculation and estimates.
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's claims are based on speculation and estimates and blatant self-interest.
FTFY.
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if it cost more (and it didnt) all the money would go directly into local economy (IT staff wages) instead of offshore M$ Tax heaven.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we know that they saved money overall? I poked around the article but I couldn’t find anything.
That's also my question. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around a decade long engineering effort, plus the ongoing costs of maintaining their own distro(!!) is going to lead to a net cost savings. Best of luck to them, and I do hope they succeeded here, but I too would love to see specifics (and not marketing drivel provided by MS, Gartner, etc).
Re:Other Motives (Score:4, Informative)
It's no more difficult to maintain a custom distro than a custom Windows installation. In fact, many organizations have their own "Windows distro" that comes with preconfigured and preinstalled software and properties.
I'm guessing you, and many others for that matter, think that since they have their own distro, they must be coding themselves almost everything they use. This is simply not true. Simplified version is they just select what software they want to use and install it off the official Ubuntu repositories.
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Interesting)
The end user retraining is probably the biggest expense but that might be offset by greater productivity / fewer desktop issues - it's hard to say.
I see Linux admin salaries at ~10% more than for Windows but perhaps they can get by with fewer.
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Informative)
No "perhaps" about it. I've been an admin in a lot of different mixed shops and the ratio of servers to admins is always better for *nix than for Windows, true for both servers and desktops. Gotta love ubiquitous scripting tools and absence of Patch Tuesday.
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
You write as though this point is the end of possible cost savings. In the future, there will be no more Windows licenses, no more CALs to buy. No more Office licenses.
More importantly, no (or perhaps fewer) vendor(s) with a lock-in that prevents effective price negotiations and, for those that do have lock-in, a very credible threat that they will be replaced if they refuse to play ball.
Re:Other Motives (Score:4, Insightful)
You write as though this point is the end of possible cost savings. In the future, there will be no more Windows licenses, no more CALs to buy. No more Office licenses.
More importantly, no (or perhaps fewer) vendor(s) with a lock-in that prevents effective price negotiations and, for those that do have lock-in, a very credible threat that they will be replaced if they refuse to play ball.
Also no tying up tech staff with juggling licenses in fear of the Spanish Inquisition, er software license audits.
Re: (Score:3)
Linux admins have higher salaries then windows admins.
But you need less of them
March 28, 2012: In response to a request from the CSU the City reported that it has already saved about 4 million euros in licensing costs as well as reduced the number of support calls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Linux admins have higher salaries then [sic] windows admins.
You may not always get what you pay for but you usually pay for what you get. Linux admins understand computers, Windows admins understand Windows.
Front end staff needs to be retrained and have to spend more time with outside vendors who are on Microsoft Office.
Utter bullshit. Staff need to be retrained when they upgrade from Office '03 to Office 10, and when going from W7 to W8. Your secretary, who needs little computing power, could get by with
Re: (Score:3)
1. Er, what?
2. The leap from Office 97 to 2003 is less of a jump then from Office 97 to OO.
Again, er what? The point was that you always have training costs with Windows. Damn but I'm glad I retire soon and won't have to put up with that god damned ribbon. Excuse me. Linux apps usually don't have that "reinvent everything even if it already works."
3. Convert your stupid Visual Basic bullshit to something that isn't tied to a single platform.
4. There are alternatives.
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
No tablet interface shoehorned onto your desktop because Steve Ballmer says so...
Re:Other Motives (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
No tablet interface shoehorned onto your desktop because Steve Ballmer says so...
Having experienced the Gnome Desktop, I'm presuming that this was meant to be sarcastic.
Re:Other Motives (Score:4, Informative)
Yes it is.
We have alternatives. Those alternatives won't mix with the base system like oil+water because our system is modular.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
KDE's choices (Score:3)
KDE has different desktops for laptops & tablets. Plasma Active is their choice for phones, tablets & touch computing devices, like it says in the link you provided, but nowhere do they suggest it for laptops or all-in-ones. For that, they have Plasma Desktop [kde.org], which is as different from Plasma Active as a butterfly from a moth. (They also have a Plasma Netbook, but looking @ it, it's not obvious how it's more suited to a Netbook than is Plasma Desktop itself)
KDE did this the right way - they of
Re: (Score:3)
No, a table interface shoehorned onto your desktop because the Ubuntu devs say so. It's so much better in Linux land.
What a mess of conflicting things...
On the one hand, the "Modern UI" in Windows 8.1 isn't nearly the issue a lot of people think it is. On the other hand it IS true that users are forced to stay on the Microsoft feature treadmill whether its headed in a direction they like or not.
While the Ubuntu comparison is humorous and somewhat apt, it also fails. Firstly, one can switch distros relativel
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Interesting)
We're living proof that it's possible. Local school district, using diskless Linux in every school, roughly 95% of all PCs in the district are running Linux. IT budget is just barely over $100,000/year and that includes hardware and software. 14,000 students in the district, spread across ~10 towns, in 50-odd buildings. Only 14 IT staff, looking after it all.
We pay $0 for the OS and 90-odd% of our apps (we pay for a CAD program, a typing program, and some VC stuff).
Computers are diskless appliances, booting off the network, mounting filesystems off the local server, and running all applications locally. Thus, we get all the centralised management of a thin-client setup, but with all the power of a local computer (apps run on the local CPU, using the local 3D graphics card, pumping audio through the local soundcard, etc). Each one is under $200 CDN, with a quad-core Athlon-II CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and either nVidia or ATi graphics onboard.
They are treated as "disposable" appliances -- if one fails, sent it to maint, grab a spare, plug it in, carry on with your day. Replacement time for a hardware failure is under 15 minutes.
4 service desk staff look after 90% of the software side of things from a central office. 5 school techs look after the other 10% of the software onsite, and hardware issues. Then there's a video conferencing tech, a hardware tech, an electrician, some programmers and managers.
We're using Debian on the servers, FreeBSD on the firewalls and backups servers, and Xubuntu on the desktops. $0/desk.
Oh, did I mention we also have NX installed to allow any student/staff member remote access to their full Linux desktop from anywhere? Try that without licensing fees on Windows. :)
We went from paying several hundred thousand dollars per year in software licensing (Novell Netware, Windows, Office, anti-virus, Ghost, etc, etc, etc) to virtually nothing per year. It's been over 10 years now since we started the transition to Linux (2001), and the savings are HUGE!
Re:Other Motives (Score:5, Interesting)
What about motives for us?
To me this is a new wrinkle in the Linux discussion. We've been seeing uBuntu's "slide towards the Dark Side". A city running its own distro built at least partially from scratch (with German Engineers! Ha! Take that!) can potentially have a super clean codebase with none of the bloated and/or dangerous commercial cruft.
To my layman's eyes, Linux has been suffering from a bit of "X distro is/once was good and is slowly dying from lack of funds or internal politics". But a City has its own different motivation - it needs to Get Stuff Done with people mostly properly trained, vs the whole End User struggle for commercial distros.
So what if we can tap into their work and use it ourselves? Could they provide us with a distro with the full power of a city distro with (hopefully!) no hidden agendas, backed by their level of tech support they use themselves? That could be a new go-stone in the OS Wars.
Since the Germans are probably as upset as anyone else at the NSA, isn't that sorta "pitting them in a cage match vs the NSA spy-hackers"? If you had to put a bet on the NSA attacker vs the German Defender, which way would you go?
Re:Other Motives (Score:4, Interesting)
This is part of the messaging that FOSS advocates get wrong. Do not, ever, try to sell businesses, governments, NGOs, etc. on FOSS based on "freedom". That sounds like hippie logic and it simply doesn't compute with those audiences.
Instead, flip it around and say: Convert to Linux and all FOSS apps and you gain a huge amount of control over your environment. You're in charge and can do whatever you want, without having to deal with Microsoft's (or any other vendor's) latest psychosis that forces you to deal with a uselessly different UI or development model. The more examples you can give people of specific examples -- the Windows 8 flaming, toxic train wreck simply leaps to mind -- the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully the near 12 million pound savings can be expanded upon and cause others to follow suit.
The savings will surely help fund their joining the United Kingdom...
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting metric to go by as well. Going proprietary means a large investment in cash and related tangibles, but not many consider how much time it wastes to get away from it. I know junkies who've been on methadone that long.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't this take over 10 years? I seem to recall hearing about their decision to switch sometime around the year 2000....
Re: (Score:2)
A new meme is born (Score:2)
RTFS - Read the f-ing summary
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't this take over 10 years?
From TFS: "Ten years after the decision to switch, the LiMux project will now go into regular operation, the Munich City council said."" So, yes, it took 'em about a decade to dig themselves out of that hole. Sad, but true.
Re:good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
10 years in a governmental organization is bloody fast! Not to mention they would have had a ton of apps and systems dependent on proprietary stuff that would either need migrating or testing under WINE.
But mainly, it would be the fact that a majority of departments I can imagine would have been fighting the change tooth and nail, not to mention pressure from MS sales reps who would have been doing the rounds convincing everyone they could that a change would be the end of the world!
Re:good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to see a cite for that.
I have seen him say that he would not invest in technology companies because he couldn’t understand how they would make a profit – as in lack of knowledge verse a conclusion that it could not make money.
If you look at his investment philosophy, it is about investing in long established boring business where he can understand the cash flow. He has stated that he does not have the technical chops to wade into the tech market sector.
Re:good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is the place we're just making s*** up, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Hello, I'm the google suggestion bot. Did you mean 'shit' ?
Re:good for them! (Score:5, Informative)
Warren won't buy Microsoft stock because the entire world would be throwing insider trading accusations at him.
I—well, Microsoft is a special case because Microsoft is off bounds to us because of my friendship with Bill and if we spent seven months buying Microsoft stock and during that period they announced a repurchase or increase of the dividend or an acquisition, people would say you've been getting inside information from Bill. So I have told Todd and Ted and I apply it myself that we do not ever buy a share of Microsoft. I think Microsoft is attractive but that—but we will never buy Microsoft. It—people would just assume I knew something and I don't, but they would assume it and they would assume Bill talked to me and he wouldn't have. But there's no sense putting yourself in that position.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45290263 [cnbc.com]
Re:good for them! (Score:4, Insightful)
Note to Wall Street investor types: the best guy in the business is scrupulous to the point of rigorously avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Warren Buffett became a gazillionaire without bending the rules and throwing ethics aside.
If you feel you have to cheat to get ahead, then openly admit that you're not very good at your job. Go ahead: look in the mirror and say "I suck too much to play it honestly". If you can't do that, then maybe you need to evaluate your decision making.
ODF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ODF (Score:5, Interesting)
More ODF files should be put into circulation in the business world.
I fullhartedly agree! When I have to send a company a file (most of the time my CV, alas :-( ), I always ask if I can send it as an .odt file. Many times I am asked what that is, and then I explain, but offer to send the file as .pdf. I do this, just to make clear that there ARE other things around than MS-Office. However, I find that, slowly, .odt files get accepted more, and companies that do accept them have a plus for me.
Problem is that most people, even when they use Libre Office or any other non-MS suite, will by default send everyone everything in the MS-Office formats, thus establishing the status quo. Non-MS users should use Open Document Format files, especially when sending documents to regulatory organs like city councils etc.
In Europe (where I live), governments and government organs are mandated (hope that is the right word) to be able to handle ODF's, but if they never recieve those, most of them won't even know about their existence, let alone know how to handle them.
(For those who want to tell me I am a pretentious prick: I know. :p )
Re:ODF (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Office and its DOCX format is pretty much the last big thing holding people to the Microsoft monoculture.
I still really find it hard to believe that the only reason people use Microsoft products is because of DOCX, LibreOffice can open DOCX (even if it does have some minor formatting bugs every now and then) and there are addins to Office to output to ODF if you have problems with their default ODF writer or of course you could use PDF if you aren't worrying about the users editing it. There are also a lot of legal templates for LaTeX which is another good option.
Then there's the ease of transition, non-gov/co
Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Informative)
10 years is a long time to switch, I can see that being an impediment to other cities following suit. Are they sharing details of the changeover experience? It would be quite valuable to have a list of the major problems that made this take a decade rather than a year.
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I could imagine a large amount of infrastructure, and the need for custom applications to be re-written.
I hope the massive development they did is open sourced, and makes it easier for other cities and governments to switch, and the code and effort can be reused to make it easier for other cities
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
10 years is a long time to switch
Seems quick to me... where I work, I saw it take ~8 years for a modestly complex VisualBasic application to be replaced with a .NET one. These sort of transitions take place in an environment with a lot of moving parts and ongoing demands for change and many competing priorities. Heck, we're just now to the point of completing the Windows XP --> Windows 7 transition. Big organizations move slowly... sometimes for reasons that are dumb, but frequently because that's the only way to do it.
Congratulations! (Score:2)
Re:Congratulations! (Score:4, Insightful)
And it only took Munich ten years to upgrade - at that rate Linux will bury Microsoft in just a few years...
This is an interesting "glass is half-empty or half-full" issue:
Linux "advocates" will focus on the "switch completed" part of the story, MS advocates will focus on the TEN YEARS and their "need" to create their own distribution.
No CIO in any organization of any serious size will look at this ten year effort as anything other than justification for their decision to remain on MS software.
This is declaring our dependence on gasoline is almost upon us because one fellow in town just converted his diesel VW Rabbit to run on used cooking oil.
Linux is 20 years old and has less than half the market share of Microsoft Vista... (3.57% v. 1.56%) [netmarketshare.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah...the idea that companies make money off of software is absurd. Who cares that a company like Valve spends millions on developing games...they should be free.
You're such a genius!!!
Open source and making money are not mutually exclusive. Here's some proof [technewsworld.com]. BringsApples is commenting on the successful transition away from proprietary file formats and vendor lock-in. MS is a cut-throat competitor and want as many people to buy into their ecosystem as possible, and they do their damnedest to keep them in that ecosystem... by releasing new "latest and greatest, you must have this for security blah blah". Then they limit what is available for that OS, "you can't have Office 2000 anymore!!
help (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What??? There are several options for open source email servers and most of them scale really well. Exchange typically takes a lot more resources for the same number of users...not less.
Re:help (Score:4, Funny)
"Can an email server hold more than 1000 accounts?"
Hahahahahahahhahahahaaha.
Oh, you Microsoft jokers...
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any other alternative to let say outlook exchange servers ? Can an email server hold more than 1000 accounts?
Are you fucking kidding? Seriously?
Re:help (Score:5, Informative)
Start here - http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/biztools/article.php/10730_3932591_2/Top-5-Open-Source-Alternatives-to-Microsoft-Exchange.htm [smallbusin...puting.com]
A 1000+ users isn't that many nowadays. Sogo, Zarafa, Zimbra should manage that without too much trouble. I'd check for the other groupware / calendar features that your users depend on before seriously considering a switch.
And there's always hosted mail / hosted Exchange. I think some of these are really running Exchange on the backend but so long as they provide the features and fully support Outlook or whatever mail client you're using, I don't think it matters.
Here's a vid from Sogo demonstrating Outlook compatibility, narrated by a very boring robotic voice - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hcBSB4Kxww#t=292 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"hosted Exchange" isn't an alternative TO Microsoft, it's an alternate way to STICK WITH Microsoft...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any other alternative to let say outlook exchange servers ? Can an email server hold more than 1000 accounts ? I know I can use openoffice but the email would be a big pain
Er, you DO realize that it took several years before Microsoft was able to run Hotmail on Microsoft software don't you?
Guess what they were using before then.
What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The last users to be converted (upgraded?) to LiMux spent the last TEN YEARS on WinNT? Whoa!
Watch out for patent legal action (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this is Germany and there are no software patents but why would that stop Microsoft (or some MS funded troll) from trying?
They simply can't let the public know that whatever it is, it can be done with F/OSS and if it can't now, a project can be launched and funded to pay for it... ONCE! Not over and over and over again, by the seat, by the user, by the processor or however a software might be licensed. It's just better. But people have grown pretty fat, dumb and lazy and are willing to just let th
Re: (Score:2)
Munich proved it took TEN YEARS to migrate off Microsoft to Linux, and in the process they had to roll-their-own distribution.
This won't convince major corporate installations to cutover to Linux, it will scare them off! I mean seriously, a ten year process?
So wait, Steve Jobs was wrong? He said Apple stuff was the best, but he also profited off it greatly...
And what about a
Re: (Score:3)
In the process of migration they've also consolidated a dozen IT departments, each one doing their own thing. They've done a lot more than simply moving a well-ran Windows shop over to Linux. They've done that but also had to create a well-ran shop in parallel with the migration.
It only took... (Score:3)
It only took ten years and the development of their own distribution of Linux to migrate from WinNT to LiMux (their own Linux distro) - wow.
I guess if Munich can do it, anyone can!
Question - were the last few users to convert (upgrade?) to LiMux still running WinNT for the last ten years or did they upgrade from WinNT to one of Microsoft's other interim offerings before finally landing on LiMux?
As I remember, one thing a leader of this effort pointed out was that this was not about "saving money," and if that was your primary goal you should reconsider any plans to migrate to a Linux distribution - there are many valid reason for the cutover to Linux, but cost savings alone won't justify the change.
Proof (Score:3)
Really really impressed with this project, and now Munich truly owns their data unlike any other government.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was the days when Reagan was president and Dallas was best the tv had to offer.
And you think that was bad? At that time, Derrick [imdb.com] was on tv too, and that's the image most people had - and often still have - of Munich around the world. They *had* to do something to change their image!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.largo.com/egov/apps/document/center.egov?view=item;id=1793 [largo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, that's from 2001.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough
2007 : http://archive09.linux.com/feature/119109 [linux.com]
2013 : http://davelargo.blogspot.fr/ [blogspot.fr]
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.largo.com/egov/documents/122089377228.htm [largo.com]
CC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
MVS was supported for 34 years, from 1966 to 2000, when it became replaced by z/OS..
Its not really the same thing, MVS went through lots of revisions in that time period, and in many ways zos is just another step in that list of revisions (aka add a big feature and rename the OS). The early versions of zos could run on non 64-bit hardware and were basically identical to mvs.. Its just that support for legacy systems were dropped along the way. Even the applications have sort of moved on and now require the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
On the plus side, it's given them more time to find the remote holes, a number of which have been fixed in the last couple years.
By the time it's no longer supported, it'll be rock solid.
Re: (Score:3)
they never planned on supporting it for 12 years, they just wound up supporting it, because well, just because no one wants to give it up.
It also interestingly shows that there is a market demand for ultra-long-term-support desktop OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If all your doing is defining a specific set of existing packages then you really aren't creating your own distro. All the major players let you define a configuration to install.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why roll your own distro? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why waste time and money creating your own distro when there are many good ones available?
How many good ones were there TEN YEARS AGO when they started this adventure?
This project started a year before Ubuntu Linux's first public release in 2004...
Re: (Score:3)
Troll of the day. Well done, AC
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good reason why Microsoft is the standard for business computing and that's because their products are almost always better than open source.
No, it's because Microsoft is better at running legacy software (or at least that's how businesses see it). And business computing is all about legacy software.
Re: (Score:2)
And being able to easily hire low-cost admins to run the environment...
Re:It'll cost them more in the long run (Score:5, Funny)
<voice class="TV gameshow host" style="decade: 1980">
It's time to play Spot The FUD! With your host, Sarten-X!
Doing this sort of thing to spite Microsoft is silly.
Our game opens, and THERE'S SOME RIGHT THERE! Wow, right outta the gate! When we're talking about a large-scale integration project, "spite" isn't likely a significant factor, unless Microsoft has somehow managed to personally offend every politician in Munich. Note the literary device, though... by saying the decision was spiteful, the people who decided against Microsoft are cast as being evil... Who'd want to agree with someone so mean?
Whatever they save on licensing fees will end up being spent on support, and then some.
Ah, now there's the biggest bit of FUD we've seen in a long time here on Spot The FUD! Now, this might look like a restatement of a zero-sum philosophy, but it's really FUD! Not only hasn't it been established how much they'll actually save on licensing, but there's no real indication that support costs would change at all, or which direction they would go.
Playing computer politics with the taxpayer's money is irresponsible.
Wow! We're three for three here, folks! Just like the last one, this is FUD disguised as common sense. Also like last time, a little analysis shows the problem. Sure, tax money should be spent responsibly, but there's still no reason to think that "computer politics" was behind this decision. It'd be equally irresponsible to choose to be locked in to a single vendor, especially with a vendor that's made such an effort to be incompatible with alternatives.
There's a good reason why Microsoft is the standard for business computing...
This must mean it's time for...
<voice class="crowd">
THE BOOK OF HISTORY!
</voice>
That's right, folks: The Book Of History! Let me just crack it open and... here we go! Throughout the '80s and '90s, Microsoft made exclusive deals with developers and hardware manufacturers to ensure that Windows was the operating system with the widest support, regardless of its actual merit as a platform. Once Microsoft had money to spare, competitors were purchased just to be shut down, or occasionally to have their product bundled into Windows, ensuring that there would be little viable competition in that market.
Ah, I just love history... but we're not done yet! We'll be right back after these commercial messages!
<voice class="pushy salesman">
Do you suffer from shills? Do you wish you had more rational discourse? Are you irritated by ignorance? Order FUD-B-GONE today! Apply directly to shills' sinus cavities! It might look like a set of brass knuckles, but FUD-B-GONE is really a precision-engineered shill ELIMINATOR! Only $19.99! Send check or money order to the address on your screen! Ordervoidwhereprohibitedbylawmustbeeighteenoroldersorrynoc.o.d.
</voice>
and that's because their products are almost always better than open source.
Well, we're almost out of time, but here's our last bit of FUD for today! It's a pretty easy one, too... Of course, there's no definition of "better" to go along with this unqualified statement, so this shill expects you to accept it at face value, but we know that "better" depends on a wide variety of criteria!
And that's all the time we have for today! Thanks for joining us! Be sure to tune in next time when we hear a concerned parent tell us about the hidden dangers of vaccination, even though her "research" is based on urban legends that predate vaccines!
</voice>
<audio><source src="endtheme.ogg" type="audio/ogg"></audio>
Re: (Score:2)
"spite" isn't likely a significant factor, unless Microsoft has somehow managed to personally offend every politician in Munich.
Clippy: It looks like you're attempting to write a campaign speech. Need some help?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever they save on licensing fees will end up being spent on support, and then some. Playing computer politics with the taxpayer's money is irresponsible. There's a good reason why Microsoft is the standard for business computing and that's because their products are almost always better than open source.
In this case, they have to insource the support, whereas in the Windows case, the support has to be outsourced either to Microsoft, or to a Microsoft partner. So that turns out to be a wash in either case. Nowhere did they do it to spite anybody. They needed a platform where they get to control the upgrade cycles - they can't leave it to Microsoft to retire one version next year, the next in 2020 and so on. It needs to run as long as they want, and what better than to roll your own distro? They d
Re: (Score:3)
US$1.05 seems to be the going rate.