Slashdot Mirror
Details of Linux-in-Munich Deal Revealed
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today is running a piece about the lengths which Microsoft went to in order not to lose the government of Munich's account to a Linux-based proposal from SuSE. Interesting to see how these types of contracts are structured, and just what Microsoft is willing to give up to prevent losing to Linux."
goes to show how much they hate microsoft in germany
bite my glorious golden ass.
weird so do I
It is really impressive to see that Munich went with Linux even though the price tag was higher than Microsoft's. The affordability of Linux is a definite plus, but too often Linux is played up in the media as being the "less expensive alternative to windows". I think that this downplays the other great advantages of Linux. Glad to see that Munich appreciates a great product when they see one.
lysergically yours
What length WILL M$ go to in order to preserve their market share?
Somebody should test this and put in the contract that Bill has to do dishes or clean toilets at the company for a month. Then we'll REALLY see to what lengths they'll go...
Bill Gates was seen curled up in the fetal position after learning the marketshare held by Microsoft would drop from 90% to 89%
"ooh...can't lose marketshare...can't lose marke-...gaahh!!"
I guess Ballmer's "Ich bin ein Bavarian Creme Pie" speech didn't go over so good with the Mayor. ;)
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
From the article: "...Mozilla, a Web browser that can perform basic workplace tasks"
How about: "Mozilla, a web browser with more features than Internet Explorer"
Well, they actually considered buying from Microsoft until Ballmer showed up doing the monkey dance.
I am all for linux, but now are we going to bash Microsoft for trying to do business. People this is business, its a cut-throat world not a woodstock concert.
Of course M$ will do everything in its power to bury linux, what's the news here ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
The real interesting thing that this article brough out was that the decision by wasen't made due to up-front costs: Microsoft brought their bid down to below IBM/SuSE's bid by several million dollars.
Probably, the government realised that the Microsoft solution had higher total 'costs' due to:
*vendor lock-in
*poor reliability
*poor scalability
*poor security
*poor standards compliance
amung other items.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
...Microsoft last March dispatched CEO Steve Ballmer to the rescue....Documents obtained by USA TODAY show Microsoft subsequently lowered its pricing to $31.9 million and then to $23.7 million -- an overall 35% price cut. The discounts were for naught.
for the non believers: The CEO of MS himself went to a sales call and lost the sale, you better start beliving Linux is a threat to MS.
3 Cheers for all Linux, OSS, and Choice! Hip Hip Horay!
... was leaning toward a switch to Linux, the upstart computer operating system whose open-source code is continually improved by volunteer programmers worldwide.
How many big contracts have to be won by Linux companies before the papers realize that it's been around for a dozen years? Or that not everybody working on OSS is a volunteer?
Nice writeup (w/ movie) here.
Share and enjoy!
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I just noticed.. the article sums it best:
Open-source advocates counter that Munich proves tech buyers are beginning to demand price cuts from Microsoft while giving Linux a serious look.
-Valiss
Though Microsoft underbid IBM and SuSE by $11.9 million in Munich, city officials were concerned about the unpredictable long-run cost of Microsoft upgrades
The city paid MUCH more money to IBM/SuSE because they didn't want to be locked into Microsoft's refusal to support/insistence on upgrading their software after X number of years. Linux let them upgrade when they wanted to, and not before. It was a long-term financial decision which, I'm certain, IBM and SuSE emphasized heavily in order to score a win.
Big, big news to other cities and corporations out there. A Microsoft contract is a dangerous thing when money is/will be tight. You can save a lot of money down the road if you make the switch today.
Quote of the year IMHO: "Microsoft's philosophy is to change our software every five years," Strobl (Munich council member Christine Strobl ) says. "With open-source, it is possible for us to make our own decision as to when to change our software."
Government uses tax payers' money to purchase the computer equipment.
The German legislation requires, that government has to make a public
call for offers, and then choose the cheapest offer. This was done
for buildings etc, and recently it occurred to the Germans that this
law also applies to computers and software. After all, it's quite a
huge investment. Unless Microsoft lowers the price, or Linux increases
the price, or Microsoft bends the numbers so that their offer appears
cheaper than Linux, government HAS TO choose Linux.
I think, the German government is not keen on using Linux over Windows,
and they will appreciate when someone comes along with a good-looking
statistics that allows them to go Windows without risk of being held
liable later.
The Microsoft numbers about total-cost-of-ownership obviously are still
not good enough, otherwise the case would be closed already since long
time.
Marc
It makes me feel good to know that finally someone other then a bunch of geeks is getting it.
Though Microsoft underbid IBM and SuSE by $11.9 million in Munich, city officials were concerned about the unpredictable long-run cost of Microsoft upgrades
Munich chose to spend a little more money now to save a LOT of money down the road. This was a big decision, and may have political ramifications in the short-term, but no doubt it was a wise one. Microsoft's strategy is to push an upgrade after X number of years by cancelling support for older products. With Linux, the city can upgrade what they need to, when they need to.
Hey Steve, where's your Moses now??
- The negociations where in step with what Microsoft is accostumed to doing with big accounts, regardless of who or what the competing "thing" happens to be. And it's no different from what other big software houses (Oracle in particular) do as a matter of fact when engaged in stuff like this. The idea that Microsoft was somehow "more desperate" because it was bidding against Linux is stupid.
- Yay free software. They ended up spending millions of dollars more over the Microsoft package. I'm sure training and attrition will offset whatever benefits they could have realized by avoiding the "forced upgrades", which SuSe will most certainly start doing eventually when they come to their senses, just like RH did. In any case, Microsoft was willing to defer the upgrade cycle for them. So it was more expensive and it will probably be about the same in the long run
- The vote was 50-30. Doesn't seem to me like an "overhelming" victory. Well, I guess it depends who you're rooting for.
Furthermore, I'd like to continue seeing articles about this topic here. I.e., how is the switch going, how much Munich ends up spending over the next 12 months, what their rate of attrition is, etc. All of previous articles smacked of "hahaa, we stick it to the man!!!1", which is nice but worthless unless all we're interested in is FUD and fluff.If anything, this will be watched by other cities and companies to see how well it works. I hope it does work, because Microsoft will be forced to change the way it does business. But it better damn work.
Ballmer cast open-source software as having 'no center of gravity'
What it means is "We don't know where to attack, because we can't buy them out"
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
In the case of Munich, as the USA article points out, it's the fact that the city is replacing desktops.
To Microsoft, this is the Kiss of Death. They really only make a huge profit off of two items:
Desktop OS - the so called "Microsoft Tax" that is the reason why when I go to dell.com (well, not that I would, I'd go here instead for my Unix needs), I can't get a $100 price discount on a new computer by having it be "naked".
Microsoft Office
Other than these two, they don't make a lot of money on other stuff. Oh, some on server licenses, but a pittance compared to Desktop OS sales and Microsoft Office. The Xbox is losing money, I haven't heard anything profitable about their cable investments, and their games division (with the exception of the Xbox) is doing decently.
But the two things that keeps them with that $35 billion in cash is Desktop OS and Office. And Munich basically said "no" to both of them, so they would have the ability to upgrade when Munich wanted, not when Microsoft wanted.
And that's been Microsoft's winning business edge for years. We'll sell you Windows 98 - and in 3 years, you'll have to get Windows 2000 if you want to be able to do stuff with your vendors, your co-workers - you'll have to put it onto your machine at home if you plan on taking work home and doing stuff there.
Munich just got off the Wheel of Upgrades. Now you wonder how many employees will feel they have to upgrade their home computers? How many employees (espeically managers) will go to the IT department and say "Hey, I got a laptop - make it so I can do the same stuff I do here in the office on the road", and they walk out with a SUSE installed machine.
There's still some things they'll have to do on the Desktop end to make things as easy to use as the Windows world, and I trust that will be part of what Suse and IBM were just paid for.
But this is a major step for Linux in business, and Linux on the desktop. And what can Microsoft do about it, other than really compete for the first time on something other than forced installation upgrades?
For the record, I don't think Microsoft is "evil", but I do think they haven't had a real challenge in business because of their predatory business practices. I think it's great they're having a real competitor. Costs will go down, products on both sides will get better, and it someday I might be able to migrate back from OS X over to Linux - once it provides the same ease of use with Unix power I get from OS X.
And competition with Microsoft is just the thing it needs to get itself there. I'm patient - I'll say another 5 to 10 years before I have what I want.
But Munich is a good start.
Oh, and this is all just my opinion - I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
More details to follow...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As many of you know, at the recent O'Reilly Open Source convention, Microsoft provided sack lunches to attendees for free. The Munich article reminds me of one guy's comment: "They should get used to us eating their lunch."
include $sig;
1;
As much as I welcome that the city of Munich has decided to use Linux, I am really pissed that the ruling party in Munich, the SPD, is now running a poster campaign all over Munich with the slogan:
Mehr Linux, Mehr Freiheit, SPD
(More Linux, More Freedom, SPD)
Linux should not be misused by political parties to strengthen their chances for reelection.
Here's a screenshot of the poster.
so I don't hate Microsoft because they're greedy, manipulative and all-out evil? I hate them because I'm German? I'll be a sonovabitch.
The decision was based on a study made by a consulting firm in which the upgrade solution to winxp was cheaper than a pure linux solution on the time base of 5 years ! In the longer run the study claims that linux is cheaper than m$. also a solution with vmware was compared which was the cheapest of all ! The study claimed that for the pure linux solution they would have to buy a lot of new peripherials (card readers, printer etc) which makes the linux solution more expensive. a big problem for the winxp solution was that they would have to buy a lot of new hardware (new processors, more ram) which they wouldnt have to using linux. a short version of the study is available online:2 7.06.03-0 03/e _kurz.p df
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-
(sorry in german, use the fish)
the study is here:
http://www.muenchen.de/aktuell/clientstudi
They simply wanted to deal with a German company, not an American one.
In an opposing decision, microsoft won the contract to suppply server and client software to the department of homeland security here in the US.
- You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!
Why is the price tag so high for Linux. It is FREE open-source software running on already existing hardware.
Isn't this just Upgrading the operating system? How can Linux cost more than Windows when the software is free??
This story is really interesting for showing us what, as the blurb says, MS will give up to try to hold on to its contracts. Please permit me to juggle for a moment...
The fact that MS was willing to let Munich unbundle office is indicative that people dont want to pay for huge monster suites that they arent using most of. And in a govt organization this is even more true. Your average memo writing paper pusher doenst need to use excel.
MS, being the monster it is, is tripping over itself trying to dodge the bullets of its smaller, faster, and more flexible competitors. It's as if MS wants to jam the status quo down the throats of large organizations, hoping everyone will think "well everyone else uses MS is going to have to also to work with the rest of the to world." (not to mention I [and probably you] have heard variations on this theme before)
In today's climate of cost cutting and internet security disasters, the managers want to make sure people have the necessities to perform their job functions and not a bunch of extra crap to screw around with. A one size (license) fits all approach cannot meet that goal. The fact that the CEO has to show up implies 1 of 2 things. 1) The salesperson didnt have the authority to make such changes that the customer wanted. 2) Or if he did the initial beating over the head of the initial proposal spooked Munich so much they needed executive handholding.
Lint - Professional amateur analysis while you wait. Call for more details!
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Guess we're at the "fight" part. Wake me up when it's over.
Thanks!
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"Unilog first recommended that the city select a $39.5 million Linux package from IBM-SuSE over a $36.6 million standard upgrade package from Microsoft" . What does IBM get out of this ? Thought linux was supposed to be free ? Why are these clowns even paying for it ,just download it and install on every computer.
If you have to compete on price... you've already lost.
(As Microsoft drops it's bid by several million).
Sure, the concept is a little different when it comes to open source software - and as with the city of Munich, price wasn't the main reason they made the decision.
(If time == money, I sure as hell didn't choose to learn OS software because it would be quick to pick up the technicalities. I would have saved myself a lot of time by upgrading to XP. I chose to move to FreeBSD because the open source experience is overall a more enjoyable, less big-brother-ish experience.)
So Munich pays a German sw company more for software support instead of paying an American company less. Sounds like nationalism had some role in this. Certainly the US govt. support of MS has something to do with them being a US company.
Vote for Pedro
Umm they are probably paying for the cost of support and rolling over all their machines (14,000 I think).
Major IT purchasers like to have someone they can rely on for support so they pay for it. The other cost would be the storage and distribution costs allowed under the GPL.
Costs estimates failed to take into consideration the costs in lost productivity due to having solitaire installed on every desktop! Yep, my corporate installed Windows XP box has the productivity enhancing suite of FreeCell, Hearts, Solitaire, Pinball, Internet Backgammon, etc. What that hell were they thinking when they decided to give games to every employee?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
After all that is the way MS, works you get assurance the the stuff you buy will work, then if the device sucks you have no one to blame but the manufacturer. If the North American retail and business market is to be addressed then the sale of Linux ware and tech help in retail need to be a focus for Oss people.
Don't give me any of that Bill Gates crap about everything being free and you cannot make money, there is no reason why software companies cannot use and improve Linux ware it is just that only the ones that offer effective customer support will thrive. In business that is the way it should be, not the current system "you have to use this software product because our hardware only runs this way!"
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I have nothing whatsoever to back this up, but I wonder if things had been different had it been Red Hat vs. MS and not Suse? I know parent was trolling, but it does bring up something of a point.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I didn't see this mentioned in the article or in the comments here, but I'd bet one of Munich's "strategic" considerations was the overhead in managing license compliance. Particularly with MS's concession to unbundle MS Word for some machines. Watch those savings go down the tubes when the MS lawyers come by and say, "So, can you prove you have installed only MS Word on X thousand machines?"
Assuring license compliance on desktops is a frickin' nightmare, and the lack of that overhead is a major advantage of open source software.
(And that's not even considering the ridiculousness of the Microsoft position that basically says, "We want your business so much we're going to let you NOT buy some of our software that you don't need! Yes, normally, we make everyone buy this whether they need it or not, but because we pride ourselves on being customer-driven, we will actually break our own rules and not sell you something you don't want!") Sheez. GMAB. (Give Me A Break)
Amongst others, this is one of the reasons why the study commissioned proposed a solution that comprises Linux, OOo and VMWare.
While I make a living from M$ software I'm always looking at the Linux alternative, I've just begun installing and maintaining both Linux and Windows servers for a hosting company. The OSes are split about 50/50 all on Intel hardware.
High profile decisions attracting media attention like this could cause a snowball that crushes all over M$ at a speed never before seen in the business world. I'll even sum the reasons up for you:
1. Microsoft has just pissed of all of it's largest customers who will want to know why they don't get breaks like this.
2. The public will begin to see that hundreds of M$ programmers can't possibly compete with thousands of OS developers.
3. Every company that reads about deals like this will also be expecting huge discounts from M$.
4. Forcing companies to upgrade every 5 years means that each company must also evaluate their IT needs, this continually forces a company to reevaluate their IT infrastructure which means a regular comparison against OS products.
5. What sort of a company allows details like this to leak? Now all of their customers are going to expect huge price breaks.
6. OS might be more expensive to support now but as soon as the huge shortage of OS network engineers is resolved support costs will come down - forget the desktop argument, Linux isn't getting very far now because there's so few people that can install it for small to mid sized businesses for less than $100 an hour.
7. Did I mention how every company is going to start threatening to go OS to get increased benefits and discounts?
8. Even though there is a shortage of qualified OS network engineers the ones that there are know their beans, they know their hardware and software a whole lot better than an equilavent M$ engineer.
9. M$ has a terrible market name and security history. The whole of the IT industry has monumentally changed over the past 7 or 8 years. Windows 98 and Windows NT were never made with the internet in mind, every "update" and "add on" to Windows is another patch to make Windows do something it was never designed to do. It's little wonder there's been so many bugs introduced over the years.
10. My God! M$ customers are being given the green light to hold out and bargain hard because M$ will cave in the end.
There's a few other reasons that this could happen too. M$ OSes have gotten more mature and gotten exponentially better with every revision (discount Windows ME).
The basic trade off between OSes for companies to consider now is this:
With Linux you are locked in with your support company (small businesses especially) and there are far fewer qualified people to work on your network
M$ offers standardized systems and a tried and true support methodology. Real world performance with the history to prove it.
I consider M$ products to be the superior when competing with other OSes. Windows 2000 always installs on standard hardware and I know that if M$ says a product will do something then I know it will do it (maybe not well or as well but that's moot).
Anyway that's my take on this, I hope everyone has bookmarked this story and emailed it to their managers.
John the Kiwi
If you're thinking of buying a Microsoft product, then ask them: "Surely I shouldn't get a worse deal than what you were willing to offer Munich?" It's just a question of how much better they can make that deal, for it to start to look competitive.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You don't know MS to well do you.
MS needed to make Linux didn't get a big deal and some legitimacy. They could have lost money on the deal and wouldn't have cared.
If someone small comes and says we want discounts and am pretty sure MS would say "No"
And then the small company would evaluate the cost of switching(linux or some thing else) to keeping current software to upgrading.
If enough small company switch then maybe MS will change but until then... don't hold your breath.
Munich ... uses 175 Windows applications for such tasks as managing police records, issuing permits and collecting taxes. ... Linux ... does not work well with Windows programs. Another layer of connection software is required, adding complexity. Unilog judged Microsoft's proposal -- to swap out all existing versions of Microsoft Windows and Office for the newest versions -- as cheaper and technically superior.
It seems that the only advantage Microsoft really had was that it worked, sometimes, with it's own software. Training was offered by both teams, implying no difference. Once those 175 applications are ported out of Windoze, what will Microsoft have to offer? Painful file formats? A single screen GUI, inferior networking, poor security, inferior stability and data loss are all hallmarks of Microsoft software. In six years, what's Microsoft going to do to try to win back the business?
Microsoft screwed their only advantages. They had a tremendous advantage in user familiarity and widespread use. The advantages this offered was supposed to be ease of information transfer and hardware compatibility. Instead of using that, they got greedy and broke interoperability to force upgrades. They also abused their deathgip on hardware manufacturers the same way to foce purchases of new equipment. With advantages like those, who needs flaws? Microsoft squandered money on anti-competitve behavior when it should have been fixing it's own software.
Free software has stuck itself right into these shorcomings. You can exchange data bewteen free programs though accepted standards. Why you can't get a hardware driver for the new Windoze, you can be sure the old one still works with free software. Free software is doing what Microsoft prommised to do but did not. That's not surprising because free software is made by people who have a job to do and they don't have an incentive to break things.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
My fave quote is this one:
Ballmer ... suggested IBM adds an illusion of support and accountability to Linux.
I laugh out loud. IBM adds an Illusion of support? Gimme a break. IBM's support has, in my experience, been pretty darn good. Maybe we got a green tech from time to time, but at least they showed up and I could tell my boss IBM was on it. Management will usually take that for an answer.
What does Microsoft contribute in that arena? A fingerpointing game with the OEM?
I distincly remember waiting two years and five service packs just to get NT4's DHCP server fixed(*). Who do I hold accountable for the decision that integrating IE4 into the server(!) so I could view my server's desktop 'as a web page' (whatever that means) was more important than functional DHCP? Will they reimburse my employer for the *nix box they eventually bought to do DHCP, after having been promised that functionality in Windows at time of purchase? How about me, for my OT and aggravation, and having to explain to unreceptive Management that yes, the product they blew their budget on (against my recommendation) was defective and there was nothing I could do to fix it until MS patched it, which they were apparently in no hurry to do, so they had to spend more money to get what they paid for the first time?
At least I had the good sense to quit the next year when they shoved Outlook/Exchange Server down my throat. I hear my replacement spent a lot of nights and weekends cleaning up the worms and script attacks that I warned them were inevitable. Who at MS is 'accountable' for deciding that auto-executing attachments as SYSTEM was a good idea?
And people wonder why we hate Microsoft so much. After over 15 years working with (more like cleaning up after) their products, nothing triggers FUD in me like 'New from Microsoft.' Where'd I learn that reaction? Redmond taught me, the hard way.
(*) Well, DHCP did work as far as distributing IP leases from a block, probably looked just fine at the trade show demos. Problem was, once the block was exhausted and it wrapped around to the beginning again, it reassigned addresses without checking to see if they were still leased, knocking both users off the network and generating two support calls and two workstation reboots each time it happened. If you had to reboot the server for some reason (which in Windows, could be any minor change to anything), it started at the beginning of the list again, and every client on the network would need to be rebooted before the network would stabilize. MS support's answer: Don't use DHCP, use static IPs. They even suggested using Excel to track the assignments - yeah, I'm going to buy another MS product to replace the one I already bought that doesn't work. 'Illusion of support,' indeed!
I think their "last minute" offer shows that Microsoft still thinks that everyone else either stands in awe or cowers in fear when in Microsoft's presence. I think that the deal-makers at Microsoft were thinking, "They'll be stunned to receive a deal from someone the likes of Microsoft!" only to be completely chagrined when Munich was not impressed. Microsoft isn't used to having to bargain. They're used to having their way.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"Microsoft's biggest enemy is themselves," says Gartner's Silver. "They do things that make people very upset and engenders a lot of resentment."
:-)
That about sums it up for me. What upset me the most was the inability to master their products. I've worked with small businesses for over 7 years installing and supporting LANs. I began my career as a CNE with Novell NetWare, transitioned to Windows (which was the worst 4 years of my life), and now work exclusively with Linux. From my experience, It's impossible to avoid huge time-sucking disasters because of Microsoft's constant upgrade and patch cycles. Their End User License Agreements (EULA's) absolve themselves of all wrongdoing, and leave techs like myself holding the bag. After years of blowing out the operating system and reinstalling, hoping that a shotgun approach of service packs and hot fixes would make the problems go away, and reading everything under the sun only to find documentation fraught with errors, I gave up. Which is why two years ago I adopted the mantra "I don't do Windows" and set my mind on Linux. My current job is with a company moving their 2 servers & 22 workstations off Windows NT/98/XP, and onto Debian GNU/Linux.
And I'm happy now
There's no such thing as a Windows expert. There's only "I can flail around in the dark better than you can".
Ruby on Rails Screencast
but 600 pounds? Sheesh, that's just being mean.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
C'mon, Microsoft hardly killed innovation. Both Linux stuff and MS stuff are very innovative, just in different arenas. Linux innovative, IMHO, is largely spent in catch-up for mainstream apps, while MS is trying to dominate think-ahead markets like all internet commercial activity (DRM, P3P, proprietary streaming formats) and home interconnectivity. The problem with MS innovation is that it generally doesn't appear to be ever in the consumers' interest except very short term 'gosh, new feature!'.
No, IANAMSE (I am not a Microsoft employee)!
" Interesting to see how these types of contracts are structured, and just what Microsoft is willing to give up to prevent losing to Linux."
I hope Microsoft will give up their entire business in order to not lose to Linux.
From the article:
With battle lines drawn, Microsoft turned to a freshly hired recruit, Jurgen Gallman, steeped in Linux. Until last November, Gallman had been IBM's top Linux executive in Germany.
Nobody else (at +5) has commented on it, but this guy must sure feel like a tool...
--
$tar -xvf
"Linux is cheaper if your time is worthless"
Windows is only $100 if your time is worthless. (Otherwise it's much, much, much more.)
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
$35 Mil. for 14,000 desktops comes to $2,500 per desktop. If it is only for software upgrades, even if you include training costs, it seems pretty high. Unless they are rewriting all of the Win32 apps to work on Linux, in which case it might not be enough (175 apps to port).
Most people (Judge Jackson included) get emotional and condemn Microsoft summarily, without giving them credit where due. Here's a little guide, how to treat MS fairly:
.Net, and tell us why your losy mktg team removed the .Net brand from seeral products."
1. When throwing an egg, ensure it's a golden egg.
2. Don't say Windoze sucks. Be specific. Say "Windows 95 is fast, but doesn't have USB. Win98 sucks bad, no security. WinNT4 is actually good - no wonder you withdrew support. Win2K supports USB, but breaks a lot of code. Win2K also gives us useless DRM. WinXP Home sucks, and doen't include networking. WinXP PRo sucks bigtime - lots of Spyware, builtin lousy fiewall, builtin DRM enabled CD writing s/w etc..........."
3. Don't say ".Net is complex" Say instead " Please explain
and so on... Be fair to them - they spend $5bn every year for R&D, generate lots of Linux jobs,make more people hate the US by their attitude and behavior, etc. Praise them for all this.
Peace.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The city paid MUCH more money to IBM/SuSE because they didn't want to be locked into Microsoft's refusal to support/insistence on upgrading their software after X number of years. Linux let them upgrade when they wanted to, and not before. It was a long-term financial decision which, I'm certain, IBM and SuSE emphasized heavily in order to score a win.
I think plain cold reality also played a part.. Think about the two options
a) Pay 25 Millions to Microsoft, most of the money goes to the US, and ends up in shareholders pockets or as stockoptions for employees over there.
b) Pay 36 millions to SuSE, all of the money stayes in Germany and ends up as salary of lots of people. And when you calculate the multiplier factor of this money for the economy, it becomes an even bigger +
Now, let's say you're a German politician, what would you do ? (Apart from canceling your summer holiday in Italy :-)
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Linux, linux, linux... really?
Follow the money. This is about one company beating another in an important deal. The winner here is IBM, who have promised Munich a better deal than Microsoft was able to deliver.
Linux is IBM's (not so) secret weapon, the product they can push as a Windows killer.
Don't forget that for many large institutions and their IT departments, Microsoft is somewhat of an annoying upstart that caused havoc by giving tools like Excel and Access to people who then broke the back of centralized IT. IBM represents the comforting security of Big Iron, and with Linux, Big Iron that is Definitely Hip.
This is a victory for Linux, but before we all do a dance of joy for freedom and the GPL, remember that this is about money and power and IBM, the company that taught Microsoft everything they needed about monopolies, customer extortion, and unfair competition.
There is no reason to believe that this is not also the future of an IBM that once again gains a dominant position in corporate IT.
If there is one crucial device that will keep Linux alive it is the GPL, which is a beautifully designed poison pill against corporate takeovers of free software. Richard Stallman, thanks again!
Ceci n'est pas une signature