Slashdot Mirror
Largo Loving Linux
A little over a year ago, dot.kde.org and Newsforge did stories on the Linux-based systems being used in Largo, FL to run the city government. Roblimo went down there, drank their coffee, and wrote a follow-up piece which might be, but wasn't, entitled "How to be a sysadmin whose pager doesn't go off". (Newsforge is part of OSDN.)
I thought we were against digitized cops with access to all our private data.
Even the Microsoft people couldn't refute the fact that Largo's current setup uses far less hardware and is far easier to administer and physically maintain than an equivalent Windows-based system.
Yay for Linux!
I also was impressed that they spend less than half the money other towns do on their IT. Of course, from the sysadmin POV that's bad as it means they aren't paid much. But that's the price of freedom, I guess.
If i'm reading this right, the IT department of Largo is actually thinking about ways to save the taxpayers money instead of ways to spend it... If the rest of the country operated in such a fashion maybe we could pay our teachers better. Its interesting that they chose a thin linux client model, that seems to be the growing trend with IT departments (and they said linux was dying). Im pleasantly surprised that they managed to resist microsoft's pressure, as im sure they would have had nothing but issues with the CeMeNT model, and I think ill stop now because im rambling ;)
This sound's great and all, and I am all for it, but it seems that one would need some pretty intellegent/knowledgable/creative IT's to get this running. For instance, using a thin client for the tablet PC. I could be wrong here, I hope I am.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Having said that, the 1.3% vs. 3% IT budget cost reduction is not all because of linux. All of that dirt cheap hardward adds up. I'm sure their bottom sure would still be significantly less than 3% even if they did use windows. Spending a couple dollars on a dumb terminal equals hugh hardware savings.
I think one important facet is could they run Windows on the same kind of hardware as the equipment they are buying as Linux terminals? Granted, the HW is dirt cheap, but also consider that Windows XP needs to run on a 1Gh+ machine with 128Mb of memory. Suddenly cheap hardware doesn't make sense in a Windows installation.
The big advantage is that old and underpowered systems can be recycled and still used. So Largo sees a cost savings in both SW licensing, and HW costs. But the costs are intertwined. Buying a Windows license also means buying more expensive HW to run it on.
I was actually down there a few months ago, and I can say from a first had look at the place, that it's a very nice and neat setup. Even if you never worked on a thin client their setup was fast, easy and almost no learning curve. And being a somewhat of a "Windows guy" I have to admit that Linux is a viable choice for any organization.
make the choice to switch to thin clients attractive.
The model of thin client they are using only uses 19-25 watts of power. Compared to a standard PC which uses at least 150 watts, that is a huge power savings. True, the monitor uses about half the power, but that can be miminized if you also switch to a lcd.
Capitalism is a wonderful thing. If they go up much in price, then you move to a different system or even a different paradigm. This only fails when a company(s) or a government (Or possibly both) interfere with it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You've got an insightful point, but I still must disagree. Keep in mind that Microsoft builds planned obselescence into their systems, so most MS shops need to upgrade anyway. I work for the Rescue Mission of Roanoke, and as you can imagine we're not a rich organization. We desperately need to upgrade our old systems, and Linux is simply the cheaper and more cost-effective way to do it.
Miko O'Sullivan
How about Slashdot interview the IT shop in Largo?
So you simply use a different thin client. Personally I would probably opt for something PC based anyhow. The Wal-Mart Linux PCs can be had cheaply enough that you wouldn't feel bad throwing them away, and they would be easy to image with software from the Linux Terminal Server Project. This type of a setup requires a little more work than simply buying X terminals, but the availability of PC hardware is not likely to decrease anytime soon, and you can probably reuse existing PC hardware.
The beauty of thin clients isn't the fact that you can use cheap hardware (though that certainly helps). The beauty of thin clients stems from the fact that you don't ever have to troubleshoot individual PCs. All software can be managed centrally, and failed terminals can be replaced by a monkey.
assuming a modicum of competence on the MSCE's part, an assumption that is, as many here have pointed out repeatedly, is not one that is safe to make
Using the average wisdom of Slashdot is a perilous exercise. The average Slashdotter knows astoundingly little about Windows development, the Windows platform, or Windows administration, although they never fail to proclaim their mastery of the same.
If you are saving money because your staffing requirements are lower (in raw numbers of bodies), your licensing costs are lower, and your TCO costs are lower (all nearly always true with GNU/Linux or FreeBSD vs. Microsoft), you can pay a premium for really good people and have the benefits that brings along with tremendous savings.
Firstly, countless studies have shown that in the TCO game it is a wash: While the fanatics rally against any study that proclaims Windows the winner in TCO (it's amazing the fine-toothed comb criticism of studies that occurs when a they proclaims !(Linux) the winner of anything, versus the completely uncritical consumption and cult-like "just believe" that occurs with any study proclaiming Linux 'teh ownz'), the reality is that many respected, unbiased studies have found it to sway either way when filling similar roles. Linux/FreeBSD do not own the TCO in any unanimous way, but instead are appropriate tools in specific instances.
Having said that, I have found that many people confuse technology imposed scope limitations with TCO: i.e. A Linux shop has a small application set and has low TCO becauses users have the ability to A, and the server does B, versus a Windows-enabled engineering shop with dozens of in-house applications, dozens of third party apps (and the TCO that goes along with it), and countless different uses and configurations.
While at a prior organization I was responsible for a very heavily loaded application server hosting some monster loads and queries. This beast ran a huge SQL Server database in concert with a highly complex query engine, all on a low end Dell machine (a Dell PowerEdge 2400 with a couple of P3 667s). I actually even did development and testing on this production machine (ah the downsides of low cost development). Total crashes: ZERO. This was on NT 4, btw. Total exploits on this publicly accessible server: ZERO. I generally never touched this machine and it just purred along serving up pages for months on end to happy customers.
BTW: The witty will be prepared to proclaim that "Oh, then you must suck because there's a Microsoft patch requiring a reboot every other week!". About 95% of those patches, which I am informed of via Microsoft Security emails, have absolutely no applicability to servers running as front-line web servers with no untrusted interactive logons. The only ones who generally are rebooting their server once a week are the self-proclaimed "UNIX savvy" admin who's doing anything and everything to put themselves on a cross.
I think it's wonderful Largo is able to work with this model. Many corporations still use it in specific instances. I don't see it as revolutionary.
I would be worried somewhat if I was a Largo police officer and I had a thin client in my car that used a wirless service. This is pushing it. Maybe if I had redundant wirless coverage on multiple frequencies I'd feel less vulnerable. But to me, the police car is exactly the type of environment where you want an intelligent heavier client. One that can cache the last couple of inbound messages, cache the last lookup you did on a license plate, maybe also proactively download other information based on the information you searched for, so that in the event of an outage, you aren't s.o.l.
I found this quote unusual too:
This doesn't seem accurate in the least bit. I'm not sure why they simply don't say "look, it was about money". Because that I could believe.
Their network is run off two boxes, each dual-processor. One a ML370 and another a ML350. One's a dual 933 the other a dual 1ghz.
Now, using these boxes and assuming a gig of RAM at least (not specified in article), Terminal services or Citrix could have easily services 150-250 users on _each_ box. Granted, it depends on what they are doing (so called, light, medium, or heavy users).
I'm not saying Terminal Services, or Citrix would have been better. I'm glad their operations run as smoothly as they do. I just wish people would be honest and simply say "yeah, of course it was about the licensing fees". The reason they probably are not saying this, is I bet MS offered them free licenses to get them to switch, and they don't want their City Council hearing they could have had it all for free, but opted not to in a "fuck u" gesture to MS....
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
So have the people who work for Largo started to switch to Linux at home?
The Risk aspect I discussed was not whether or not it would work, but whether or not you could properly budget for the solution.
Your cobbled together solution doesn't have a fixed cost associated with it, it will cost a different amount weekly depending on what it is you buy. Also as you introduce new cobbled together equipment to the environment, you've increased your support costs as you now have to manage multiple configurations.
It introduces some new variables which would have to be studied. I guess the point is, from an IT manager perspective life is a lot simpler if you can choose a solution and stick with it for at least a year. The cost Risk is also a little easier to handle when buying new equipment as you are fairly assured the prices will go down, not up. Better to come in under budget than over.
I've worked both in private industry and in government, and this cobbled together inelegant solution would probably fly in the government. But with the exception of a few small companies I've dealt with, few in private industry would accept this as a solution.
Again, it reminds me of the recent article discussing the cobbled together PVR. These were solutions that looked like good ideas when I was new to the industry 15 years ago, but over the years I've learned from experience that they aren't such great ideas.
whether or not you could properly budget for the solution.
Pretty simple. You budget dollars for what reasonably priced new equipment would cost. In actual practice, you can save 80 to 95% of the budgeted amount but cannot reliably count on those savings, so you don't budget the savings. The budget is what you are prepared to spend, only slightly related to what you will spend.