UK Councils May Dump Windows For Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Local authorities in Newham and Nottingham are expected to migrate more than 10,000 desktop computers from Windows to GNU/Linux. ZDNet has the story. "If this is seen to work in Newham, it has the potential to be a significant project, changing the perceptions of other councils," said Tim Dawes, director of local government technology consultants Nineveh."

Comments

And for the Linux pessimists...

[haxor.dk]

...can anyone tell me when we ever saw a large-scale switch from Linux to Windows NT?

Re:And for the Linux pessimists...

[stephanruby]

"...Hmm if anyone has access to Microsoft Partner Source they have pretty good presentation on ROI of a Windows Server vs Linux. Basically it said that with just a web server Linux has the better ROI, but when it came to an applications server Windows not only has better ROI, but a more complete applications suite, many available as both 1st and 3rd developers "

In other words, Microsoft thinks it's better than Linux (except in the simplest cases). I'll be damned !

What's next, companies making hammers saying that their hammers have better ROIs than screwdrivers. I wander how such a presentation would go. "When nailing three hundred nails, each nail costing around $0.5, each MS hammer costing $7, each LN screwdriver costing $.50, each employee costing $10 an hour, [...]; our MS Hammer does the job 5000 times more accurately than our LN Screwdriver, therefore the ROI with a MS hammer is superior to LN screwdriver by a factor of blah...blah."

Hopefully, most IT managers already know that Linux and Windows are not necessarily interchangeable. They're both different tools with different capabilities and it sure would be stupid not to have both those tools in your toolbox.

OS is not the problem

[cerberusss]

I don't think the OS is any problem, I think the software is. If they want to stay on the open source path, they're going to have to use StarOffice or OpenOffice.

While it has very good Word im-/export, it's not yet faultless (and won't be any time soon, because of inherent limitations of OpenOffice). And you NEED that import, because otherwise you can't exchange documents outside of your department.

They could also use the excellent CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office but then they'll probably pay more $$$ for the MS Office licenses than when they make a OS+Office deal with the MS sales reps.

Either way, they'll have to solve a problem, now or in the future. Then again, Windows brings its own host of problems.

Re:OS is not the problem

[HugoQuixote]

The Council I work for maintains thousands of documents for the various departments (Housing, Planning, Member Svcs, Legal, Audit, Finance, Council Tax, Environmental Health, Leisure & Tourism), and it's not a huge area to govern. Moving from Office 97 to Office XP (Not to mention migrating to a Citrix environment) caused enough problems with formats, etc.

I'd hate to work in the Support department of either of these much larger Councils, if they choose to go ahead with these desktop changes. The amount of documentation, archived information, templates and standards in place to update would be horrendous!

Re:OS is not the problem

[cerberusss]

Moving from Office 97 to Office XP (Not to mention migrating to a Citrix environment) caused enough problems with formats, etc.

Have you used Star/OpenOffice? In your opinion, could migrating to those be worse or better than from 97 to XP?

And just being curious: does MS provide tools to migrate from 97 to XP?

Re:OS is not the problem

[NoOneInParticular]

It might be horrendous work to update all standards and templates and such, but it is inevitable that this will happen at some point in the (near) future. The battle that is fought within the EU at the moment is not about OS (operating systems) nor about OS (open source), not even about OS (office suites), but about OS (open standards).

The situation you sketch above with migration problems for ms-office, is very scary for a government that is supposed to have some openness and accountibility. Currently nearly all governements in the western world have 'standardized' on some microsoft format, but none of these governments can actually guarentee that these documents will be available for reading in 10 years time, simply because Microsoft does not give any such guarantees. In fact, the situation you sketch with public data that is only accessible through the software made by a single company should be made illegal.

People are starting to realize the danger of this situation, that all these nice documents and templates can become unreadable simply because a commercial company decides that it is not in their interest to be compatible with their older formats. Other issues in government are proprietary database formats. In many places it is such that the data of general practitioners cannot be read in the hospital's system and vice-versa. At this point to collect a person's medical dossier, the only way is to print out everything that is known and collect it through regular mail. This simply costs lives, as ambulance personal has no way of knowing that the person who just broke a leg is on a particular type of medication that cannot be combined with particular pain-killers.

The only way out of this mess is the use of Open Standards, which is a much less controversial issue than the use of Open Source. It seems that the awareness of this issue is rising, even though many people will not let go of MS-Office willingly. At some point (which I think is not far off), it will become illigal for a governmental body to standardize on MS formats, unless MS will create an open standard of it. When this situation arises, MS will probably comply, but this does mean that suddenly the playing field is leveled, as everyone has access to the specs and can write their implementations/frontends.

However, although this (political) struggle for Open Standards is fought for a large part by the Open Source community, it is actually hampered by the community as well. Unlike Open Standards, which is non-controversial, Open Source is (This is mainly caused by economic arguments: governements want to endorse a local software industry, and open source is not much of an industry). By pushing both Open Standards and Open Source, the non-controversial point (Open Standards) is obscured by the controversial one (Open Source). It is easy to convince even the most business-friendly official that Open Standards are mandatory for a governmental body, but much more difficult to do the same for non-corporate backed software.

Ironically, if Open Standards are compulsory in government, this will be a big boost for Open Source, as then it is no longer neccessary to reverse engineer formats, and software can be evaluated on their merits (compliance to standards, functionality, price, etc.)

Thus in my opinion, by wanting to have both issues resolved at the same time, the Open Source lobby hampers its own goals. To get back on topic, although it is great that some council in the UK is starting to use open source, the issues that are raised in this discussion seems to center on the possibility of loading in proprietary formats of Star/Open Office. The important question that I miss being asked here is: On what formats does this Council standardize now?, and how are they planning to exchange information with other governmental bodies?

I'll finish this rant with a plea to the Open Source community as a whole: when dealing with governments, keep pushing Open Standards, and lobby for official stand

Hmmm...

[nepheles]

Linux is ideal for places like Council Offices -- little complex software beyond Word-processors or Spreadsheets is required, meaning any OS can conceivably be used. What sets apart one from another is the cost, and ease of maintenance/deployment. And, here, it is obvious that Linux wins.

Having said that, this doesn't do much for Linux in the home, or for those who use PCs for anything more complex.

ok

[Anonymous Coward]

So we see there stories all the time on Slashdot.

But has any government ever ACTUALLY DONE IT?

Ever government in the world has "considered" mandating and using open source for everything (usually around the time a MS contract comes up for renegotiation/renewal).

Isn't this just the usual Linux as a bargaining chip thing all corporations and governments do right before they sign their latest MS contract to try and get MS to sweeten the deal?

I mean has any government actually done the switch? ever?

Windows isn't ready for the desktop!

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed clueless people spreading FUD like "Linux is not ready for the desktop" as if they get paid for doing it.

If Linux would be ready for the desktop in the meaning like windows is ready for desktop then we would have to remove virtual desktops, changing of resolution with hotkeys, the shell, the flexible window manager concept... everything..

Maybe it's more like that Linux has a different (better) desktop than windows and will (hopefully) never gain that state of "readyness for the desktop" that windows has achived and which these people are looking for.

local LUG groups to help out

[sublime99]

With this move from a propiertary software vendor to an Open Source vendor is a great move, and I hope they go through with it. Maybe with some help of the local LUG maybe they can cordinate something with the users to help them make the transistion easier? Hav the groups have a special day that can be posted through out the company for employees to goto to learn more things, or even have the people come in and help people in the spare time? or even get paid? Nothing wrong with taking the Open Source mentality of taking a large group of people and making great products.

Let's hope that they get this right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been seeing more and more large scale "trial" runs for linux in corporate and government settings. I sincerely hope (as I cannot assume) that they are putting the necessary planning and talent behind these transitions. For something of this scale, you cannot simply re-train your current IT staff (once an MCSE, always an MCSE). It requires significant restaffing, rearchitecting, and user re-training.

Anyone who has done a platform migration in an enterprise knows that this is an extremely difficult undertaking. I can't even imagine having to do this for 10,000 systems! I really hope that the community reaches out to support these large trials, and that they are ultimately successful. We all know that linux "can" be successful in this setting. Here's to hoping they get it right.

Thank you for your time,
Frank Russo

Agreed

[dmaxwell]

Microsoft let the cat out of the bag by saying that if you menace them with Linux they will giver you their software for free. So expect a rising volume of incidents such as this while everybody negotiates them dry.

That's ultimately self-defeating. The more Linux is given away the better Linux does. Linux gains more mindshare, developers, and generates opportunities for small businesses as it propagates. This is not true of MS. When MS gives away licenses to maintain marketshare, it is at the expense of revenue. Sure they can threaten to take away the crackpipe if they aren't paid down the road but then the "feasibility studies" start up again. Mind and marketshare doesn't do them much good if it isn't making them money.

This feasibility study is not news. When Ballmer flies out to Britain with a briefcase full of free/deeply-discounted licenses, that will be news. It isn't a "loss" for Linux either. To MS, it'll be the equivalent of a played out one-crop field. Sure, nobody else will grow anything but they won't either.

MS faces a mature market for their only two moneymakers (Windows/Office). Palladium-style lockin strategies won't save them either. At best, they can hold the line a little while longer. They need new products and new business model that doesn't involve making legions of potential users and developers highly pissed at them.