Slashdot Mirror
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."
...can anyone tell me when we ever saw a large-scale switch from Linux to Windows NT?
It should say, "The sheriff of Nottingham is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."
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.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
The highly applauded switch of the city of Munich to Linux had an order volume of 30 millions of Euros over a couple of years. That's just about nothing in M$'s budget. (They have fighted so heavily for it just for it's symbolic and psychological value.)
What has happened to Linux zealotry on /. The actual article title clearly and totally ignores the fact these councils are only doing feasability studies, not actually switching.
/. header actually notes this fact that these councils may switch to Linux. What happed to the good old days when /. would report them as having already switched with lots of interesting anecdotes about how shit Windows is and how brilliant Linux is.
UK councils dump Windows for Linux
Most bizaarly then the
I just dont know what the world is coming to
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Eddie Bleasedale, of Netproject has been one of the UKs most prolific advocates of the Open Source movement. Hes been running seminars, Discussions and meetings with a large variety of "movers and shaker" within the UK for several Years now. This is the not the first large scale project in the UK but it is certainly the most important. The Architecture employed to move everyone to the Linux Desktop , which I have seen , is certainly the most influential and consistent to date. We at 3aIT wish Eddie and his team all the best in this project and the future.
Though I am wondering when the UK Magazines are going to start including Eddies Name for Linux Advocacy nominations.
And if youve ever tried getting your boss to understand the benefits of Open Source in business then look out for Netprojects Day Conferences ( next on is 10th June 2003, London ) where Netprojects put together a excellent series of dicsussions and topics detailing issues and concerns over the Linux Answer.
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
I disagree. I have used Linux as my desktop since 1994 and when I set up my company I put it on everyone's destops too. I recently offered to switch to Macs but was resoundingly told that we should stick with Linux as they liked it. We have no trouble working with other companies, OpenOffice is fine for all our documents which are the vast majority of what we need an office suite for. We can share those with others as PDF as generally they should not be changing the content of our docs, and if we need to work with others OpenOffice is free so I give them a copy. And if totally unavoidable, we have Office2K under crossover on one machine but it is rarely used. Even if we were using Office2K primarily, docs sent out should be in PDF unless there is a specific reason. Word itself has trouble rendering docs correctly when done on another copy so PDF preserves the formatting better and should be used instead.
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.
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
I was reading about the switch in Munich yesterday in a German publication (no link, it was paper) based in the City.
It was a political decision and as such, it carries the implicit rider: 'if this is feasable'. The IT department has started on the detailed planning for the switchover. If they decide that in is not possible or cannot be completed within budget - and this involves retraining costs - then large parts of the administration there will continue using M$ products.
Reading between the lines of that article, some participants were willing to go for it and some looked to be trying to torpedo the decision.
The City of Munich has more than one HW/SW platform at the moment, it looks very much as though this situation will continue, with linux and windows both being present.
The article also considered the figure of â30 Million to be ludicrous - the M$ final offer was less than 25% of that (that was self-defeating, it demonstrated their profit-margins) and SuSE's offer (allegedly â34 Million) was also much lower.
The city is also currently migrating to SAP (no idea what from) which is taking up a lot of time/money, they were considering hiring students from the local University to help with the work.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
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?
First, yes the story says they are considering the switch, second, the header dosen't contain the word "may".
I wonder about pressure that local governments can apply externally on businesses. People resist moving from Windows and MS Office saying it will be too hard to convert to something else because file formats are a problem. Yet San Francisco can mandate that any company that deals with the city must have gay friendly policies in place across the entire corporation at the local, state and country levels.
Why can't this same pressure be used to ensure that documents sent to local governments must be readable by freely available packages like Openoffice.org or the companies can not continue doing government business? Make it a requirement and watch the barriers to free and opensource software drop. Then if a local government is having a financial crunch, let them convert older systems to linux/freebsd/whatever without worrying that common document formats can't be read. This way governments could cut computing costs and hire another teacher or policeman, heck maybe even fund youth baseball for a season ( not cheap).
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
The story doesn't say that the final decisions have been made. A feasibility study is being mounted to replace Windows systems by the end of the year. Microsoft will be pulling out all the stops against this. A May 14th Slashdot discussion on the topic quotes Orlando Ayala, head of sales at Microsoft, as saying: "Under NO circumstances lose against Linux." They're going to practically give Windows away to avoid these setbacks. Even if they do prevail, though, the die is cast against Redmond.
I think that Microsoft has "jumped the shark."
Longhorn is two years away. Palladium-Next Generation Computing is alarming large segments of the IT community. Microsoft's latest licensing scheme antagonized its business customers. It is a convicted monopolist; its options against future challenges aren't what they were before that conviction and they face antitrust action in Europe and elsewhere. Viruses and worms spread by and through Windows IIS, Hotmail, Outlook, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer create weekly embarrassments in the face of Bill Gates's call for improved security. The strategy to impose a Microsoft-powered Digital Rights Management regime on users has been hurt badly by Apple's iTunes Music store. Economic conditions have slowed the adoption of Windows XP because new machines aren't being bought at rates anticipated before the technology industry nosedive. Millions of Windows 98, ME, and 2000 customers see no need (and have little incentive) to upgrade.
And now, the growth of Open Source has crippled Microsoft's ability to "embrace and extend" critical standards. The first big mistake in that battle is their recent announcement that there will be no more standalone versions of Internet Explorer. Open Source alternatives will be able to develop and implement improvements in browser technology at a much more nimble rate than will Microsoft while maintaining compatibility with current standards. New versions of IE that cripple functionality will drive customers toward alternatives rather than toward IE (and the requisite release of Windows that delivers it).
Microsoft's stated goal of "Windows on every desktop" is no longer practical. Steve Ballmer's recent memo to the troops admits as much. I've been in the computer industry for over twenty years now and I assure you that that is a HUGE victory, but the advantage has to be pressed now or Microsoft will catch up like it has caught up so many times before. Open Source has to continue its emphasis on better, faster, cheaper, safer, and more reliable.
But for now? Bravo!
Merrill Lynch research shows that deploying Linux internally that could save the company millions of dollars, an executive at the investment banker said.
During a presentation Friday at the Enterprise Linux Forum, Mark Snodgrass, vice president of Merrill Lynch's in-house technology provider, the Global Technology & Services group, said that the company has found that re-architecting its information infrastructure using Linux can reduce administration costs dramatically.
In fact, Snodgrass found that, while the software licensing costs of Windows was higher than Linux, the highest cost was in managing traditional Windows infrastructure.
"It's the people that cost the most," he said.
Merrill Lynch's new plans for its information infrastructure call for running much of its Linux applications not on their own physical machines but in virtual machines running on high-end servers. Such a scheme simplifies management and allows for rapid deployment of new Linux "servers" by activating a copy of a stored pre-configured image in as little as 2 minutes 14 seconds.
"We are not trying to promote Linux," Snodgrass said. "We are just trying to reduce the cost of ownership."
Using such virtual Linux servers to store files could cut costs dramatically, he said. Keeping their file systems on Windows servers would have cost the company $600,000 in hardware and five times that to pay for the personnel to manage the servers.
"We know that Linux is not for everything," he said. "But there are not many applications that require more than Linux can give us."
Snodgrass's group proposed replacing the company's Microsoft Exchange servers with a Linux-based solution that would have all the same collaboration features and have a cost savings of 70 percent to 80 percent. However, for other reasons that Snodgrass wouldn't discuss, the company's executives decided to stick with Exchange but outsource the management of the groupware to save money.
Not everyone agrees that Linux saves money, however. Last year, market researcher IDC released a report, heralded by Microsoft, that indicated that the five-year cost of ownership for four out of five applications would be lower if Microsoft software was used. The sole Linux winner was Web server software, according to the report. (and for the slashdotters/windows users hanging on this bit of hope, note that this study was decimated when it was examined and certain facts, like license renewals being omitted, the timeline favoring unrealistic (over 5 years for the same release) use of windows, no hardware upgrades for newer versions of windows, no accounting for the fact that linux/unix admins can run more systems per admin, no patching/crashing problems with windows, downtime costs, and more).
Snodgrass said he wasn't familiar with the study, but his own data indicated that running virtual Linux servers saves a lot of money compared with running those same services under Windows.
"We've done our numbers, and we are a bank, so we know our numbers," he said.
Other companies apparently have crunched the numbers and come to the same conclusion.
Telecommunications provider Verizon disclosed that it saved nearly $6 million in equipment costs by moving its programmers to Linux from proprietary-Unix and Windows workstations. In October 2001, Amazon.com revealed that it had replaced Web application servers running on a proprietary-Unix platform with Linux, saving millions of dollars.
Snodgrass said the next target for deploying Linux could be on the desktop. The company plans to do a pilot project that will allow thin clients--computers with minimal hardware requirements--to be used as workstations. The applications would actually run on Linux and Windows terminal servers. To the user, the result would be the same, but to the company's
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.
Cities switching to Linux happens so often that it is going to be available as an option in Sim City 5.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
I asked my dad to try using OO instead of MSOffice for a day at work to see how well he could transition. Couldn't use it for more than 10 minutes because all the Excel files they have had specific macros to kick off printing and do weird formatting and calculations. OO wasn't able to deal with them. Sure, you could try to rewrite them, but why do that? They're already working in MSOffice. If/when Excel can import and use those, he'd switch.
creation science book