Slashdot Mirror
Will Munich's Linux Desktops Be Running Windows?
An anonymous reader writes "Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those 'Linux desktops' will be used to run ... Windows." This Gartner report from early June seems to be the one mentioned in the article, though I'm not sure exactly where Thurrott gets the 80% figure.
interesting if it's true, although the article does specify a redmond source.
vmware is a great product for developing using a virtual network, and I'm sure they must have done their sums (they are Germans, after all)
My guess is that they must have a lot of legacy apps that they can't afford to update now, and that in the future they will use linux clients, but that they can start moving everyone to linux now to make the later switch easy.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
Would you not have to pay for a SUSE linux and windows license to run windows in vmware? Maybe they are going to run their OLD versions of windows?
...is to buy out vmware like we did with blender. Then, we can hopefully get OEMs to start including windows UNDER Linux for increased features and stability. In addition, when Windows crashes, more options can be granted. If we can get Linux as the base for Windows, then people may start developing programs directly for Linux that bypass Windows altogether.
Running VMWare under Linux, not under Windows, could provide a needed security blanket for those people that aren't used to sudden change. If they weren't serious about the move they wouldn't be doing this transitional thing; remember that these are mainly office paper pushers, not computer geeks.
Trolling is a art,
Maybe inside VMWare'd Windows they can run a Mac emulator, too.
Sure, I also think that Linux is perhaps not ready yet for GENERAL desktop use and replacement for Windows for all, but this article is a lot like Yellow Journalism, where the facts are more BS, fluff, and stretched fact than anything else.
They're also forgetting a major thing. If they were to use SO many computers with Windows anyway, WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST TAKE THE MICROSOFT DEAL? Instead of blowing several million euros on SuSE's Linux and IBM's machines?
In all, this article makes little or no sense, cites only one reference, gives no source for the statistic, and stretches many facts in the sole reference, to the point where it makes little/no sense. The very fact that this crap could be MENTIONED on Slashdot really makes me question the integrity of this news source.
By switching to Linux for operating system, Munich avoids depending on Microsoft for technical support and product upgrades. While using VMWare allows continuous usage of existing programs and possible future migration to Linux. This decision allows CHOICE and FLEXIBILITY, which are what I believe Munich wants in the first place.
My Computer repair class last year switched to linux my behest and because my instructor wanted to anyways. we setup VMWare and a win2k install on all of our machines as a stepping stone, throughout the year, people stopped using windows as much, as they had to start IT up from inside linux and that was "too much of a hassle" to lazy high school kids. However, they did start using linux more and more, and ultimately the b3ecame more proficient. So I believe Munich is using these VMware installs to allow their workers to be able to go back to a familiar enviroment while they learn the new one and how it functions
why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
It often makes sense to maintain backward compatibility for a stage or two. If they were just going to run Windows apps they wouldn't need Windows at all. So clearly, if the story is even true, what it means is just that they have some 'legacy' apps they can't immediately replace. No big deal. Run VMware (or Win4Lin, or Wine, depending on the specifics) use Windows and the software for it that they've already payed for, but it gets them off the upgrade treadmill, and looking for *nix-native programs to replace the legacy crap.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Must... not... give in... to... M$ propaganda...
...owwww...
/me is dead.
[gurgle]
Large orgs, (governments in particular) are seldom known for radical changes of course due to their size and institutional momentum.
So, if we replace the underlying system and keep the top, we've made a small turn. In the right direction, IMHO.
Also, they probably own the windows licences to be used w/ VMware, so there's no new costs there.
Besides, if you read the article, this guy is a hardcore MS zealot. The little blurb under "Glass Half Full Much?" and it's associated denial is pretty frickin' funny.
I think I need a new sig here.
Good grief. A little common sense would dictate that even if they are using VMWare, its not something to generate a whole lot of hulaballoo about. Everyone needs a transition period.
Munich has over 100 Windows-only custom apps! They can't be expected just to switch to Linux and loose those overnight.
Even *I* dual-booted Windows next to Linux for 2 years, and I'm a geek. Its to be expected, and isn't "Betrayal" or a "Loss" to Linux... it is the necessary progression.
Fact: Linux solution was 3 Million more. No way this covers the licenses for 14,000+ copies of Windows that is going to be required to run with VMWare, unless Microsoft is working behind the covers with the linux vendor and giving them a bigger discount then they were offering the city in the first place. Just other BS article to let us think that microshaft has won again.
Maybe they have tons of legacy applications running and are simply going to migrate those apps over slowly?
I've been to Munich, and compared to the rest of the cities I saw (Heidelberg, Cologne, Berlin, Potsdam, Dresden, Saarbrucken), it seemed pretty behind the times (regarding subways, trams, and buses). No doubt that their apps are old, too. You can't expect them to abandon their programs yet. I doubt they have Linux equivalents yet, since they were probably custom-developed for either the City of Munich or the Free State of Bavaria.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
I think it really depends on what they're doing with the Windows VM's. If they're booting up their Linux boxes, firing up VMware and spending the duration of the day in Windows, then yeah, that's pointless.
But if they're only using Windows/MSOffice under VMware to aid in the transition to non-MS software, and using Linux everything else, this could be a huge opportunity to introduce Linux on a large scale without pissing people off with OpenOffice incompatibilities, etc... IMO, this is a good thing.
While in an ideal world, the entire setup would instantly switch to a purely linux solution, the real world doesn't work that way. You'll always have people who are more comfortable with certain apps, and you'll have applications that just plain aren't available for Linux just yet.
By running the workstation on Linux, and by locking Windows into it's own little virtual machine jail, this accomplishes several important things:
1. Gets Linux on the desktop
2. Handles any/all remote display sessions, eliminating cost of a windows X-desktop solution.
3. Handles remote NFS mounts to *nix servers, eliminating *that* cost.
4. Allows users to continue with most of their work when the Windows VM bluescreens - reboot the VM and keep going.
As long as 3 years ago, a Linux desktop with VMWare running Windows was a viable solution from a cost perspective, and with the reliability and other improvements in VMWare, it's an excellent solution in a hybrid environment.
While many of us would prefer to be in a Pure Open Environment, the reality of the world is that this doesn't exist in many places just yet. Moves such as this will go a long way torwards getting us there, and in the meantime, there are a bunch of desktops which will be far more stable and usable than if they were running only Windows. I've been running this way for around 3 years now, and it's a perfectly viable solution. It gets Linux the exposure it needs, and the quality of the product will do the rest.
You are so off you're not funny.
First it's a brilliant move. Make the entire part of windows A pain in the arse to every user. now if you have linux stations running say win95 or 98 for your legacy apps in a Vmware session, you eliminate the headaches of windows system management. Simply only have the desired legacy apps on the windows side, and remove the web browser,ftp,etc... the users now cant hose it by installing elf-bowling or clicking OK to install gator. next you can simply have linux replace the windows VMware file every time it reboots. plus have a new image rolled out to all systems without any intervention.
finally, when you roll out your linux native or web based versions of the apps, all your users welcome the deletion of that damned windows.
It's brilliant! and about time someone in a IT department made such a great decision to start a migration from microsoft and closed source in a smoother way.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I suppose it would. That doesn't mean, however, that it would be better to run Windows. If only to force M$ (look I'm trendy) to perhaps change it's practices just a little, to start fixing flaws rather then visual appeal and claim "compatability" as a universal advantage. Even if they run a windows emulator, it is a step forward.
SAILING MISHAP
The article asks the source of the 80% figure. The original report is here (in German). On page 34, footnote 1, there is the assumption that 80% will be using VMWare for 4 to 5 years.
Just like you can always stick a wooden box with the word "OPEN MAZDA" written on it inside your car in case you don't want to pay money for a real engine.
Did anyone think that the vmware may be used to access the Windows that was previously installed on these machines?
And I thought the bulk of these machines were embedded devices like cop cars, etc.
This seems a bit fuzzy...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
think of it as having a terrarium.
like in your own environment you have a model of a smaller environment for amusement and to archive
lesser lifeforms for sentimental reasons.
I'll keep mine alongside my giant carboy with an actual example of a wild billgates.I may actually replace him with it tho cause he kinda smells and sits around touching himself like a gibbon.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
they want to be in *control* of their computing environment.
When this is done, they will be able to take advantage of any Linux or Unix based application easily. Why? Because their desktops are open ones, not closed.
No amount of money spent on the Microsoft deal will allow them the level of choice they have now.
That is going to be worth something more than the few million extra euros they spent today.
Blogging because I can...
As a minor IT functionary in Deutschland (that's Germany for you Anglophiles) I've been watching this situation closely. It's sad but true, but right now Linux just doesn't entirely suit our needs.
.DOC files are commonly passed back and forth with business/government emails...it's become a defacto standard. Open Office mangles them horribly, I'm afraid. I guess that's it, really...it's all about standards. I wish it weren't so, but Linux doesn't yet have support for many of the standards on which our infrastructure relies, like .DOC, .PDF, or MSHTTP. With the proliferation of .NET applications...what are you going to do?
Primarily, I'm concerned about comptability, and communicating effectivley with the rest of the world. Microsoft
I'd really like to see more Linux on our desktops. I think it's got more potential to integrate granular deliverables, especially in this post-bust economy, but right now MS simply has better core capabilities to enhance transparent web services. Maybe MS will release a *n?x varient of their own, and that will solve our goverment's problems...
Here's to hoping!
Consensual sex is boring.
I have linux installed on my laptop with vmware running windows to have word. I generally write papers with my laptop. I would LOVE to get rid of windows but I need word because my school has it in the computer labs. I need to be able to print papers out at school, and most times I don't have time to fix the formatting and other misc descrepances I get from converting to .doc format.
I might be missing a solution to my problem, though, because I'm still learning how linux works (I did recompile the kernal and get wireless networking functional, and I'm proud of it dammit!)
----
Squirrel
Look at the slashboi banging his head against the keyboard and screaming "it can't be!!! it's not true!!!1! it's all FUD from M$!!!"
Look,
Bad news would be a total reversal and going with a full MS solution. This is an intelligent, well thought out migration. As nice as it would be to have all Linux based apps at the changeover, it's just not going to happen. As nice as it would be for all systems to be rolled out with Linux and everyone be perfectly happy with their systems and no retraining required, it's not going to happen. This is an excellent migration strategy. Start porting your critical apps over to Linux over a period of time (months/years), keep your existing legacy apps running on Windows in a sandbox (ie. VMWare) so that the typical crashes don't bring down the whole system (just restart the virtual machine), and, best of all, keep everyone happy and content. This shows that IT was thinking of the users throughout the migration and have their best interests at heart.
To everyone blasting this as a betrayal or a PR stunt, work in the real world and do this for a living. Wholesale switches from one platform to another is not an easy thing from the IT side of things or (especially) the user side of things. This is warranted, justified, and just plain right.
These guys don't need yelling and screaming, they need a pat on the back for thinking this through thoroughly enough to see that not all apps can be migrated over yet and people still need to work, otherwise, they could have 14,000 new bright and shiny systems with only a handful of people actively doing their jobs while all of the others sit and twiddle their thumbs for most of the day (besides to send emails, type up some documents, and surf).
I love linux (as I state all of the time), but a migration of that size (or any size) has to be thought through from the perspective of not only IT and monetary considerations, but from the user standpoint as well.
CliffH
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
I wonder if they are going to a least try WINE(or Crossover Office) first?
I'm a Mac user myself. But Virtual PC has it's place. Alot of my job entails Visual C++ 6 programming, so being able to run that is nice.
I don't feel I'm betraying Mac because of it. Besides, how can you betray an inanimate object? There is a good article about fanatacism over computers. In reality they're just tools to help us accomplish an end. Whether it be saving the world, or getting that file off my digital camera and sending it to Aunt Sally.
Some people get attached to them, fight wars over them, etc... but in the end there are different computers, many capable of doing a job. Windows, Linux, BSD, OS X, IRIX...whatever. All are pretty decent.
If running Windows on Linux lets them do whatever they need to do, then who are we to criticize them?
Which explains why they are giving that excellent German firm, IBM, a buttload of cash in the deal.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
Exactly. When transitionign to a new platform, any userbase is going to need to figure out how to transition their data over, find or create replacements for Windows apps, etc.
It's not like they're running Linux *just* to run Windows. I'm sure some of their apps will come from the Linux side, and some from the Windows side until their Windows apps are slowly phased out.
After almost 10 years of running Linux, I *still* have a small Windows XP partition for doing stuff like games or certain Windows-only apps. I spend the *majority* of my time in Linux, sure, this is still a very Windows-centric world.
My journal has hot
Moreover, if the admins mirror the VMWare disk image periodically, it's trivial to roll back any damage to the Windows installation that a user will inevitably introduce. Comet cursor and Bonzi buddy? Just roll back the disk image.
On the other hand, the latest pirated, 3d accelerated Windows games won't run well in VMWare, so users won't be tempted to install those. Again, that's great news for sysadmins.
Overall, Linux is just a great way of increasing the productivity of Windows users.
this start demonstrates already how serious a reader can take you: the city in question is Munich, not Frankfurt
They simply didn't want an American winning,
so IBM is not an american company? could you please let us know where their headquarters are?
and were willing to do anything, even pay more, to accomplish that goal.
i suspect most of the extra cost is training for the new environment, a one-time cost. the main reason microsoft's offer ended up being so much cheaper is that they offered to pay the extra training out of their slush fund, something that they most likely would not offer again on the next upgrade. with linux additional training on future upgrades should be considerably less.
and do you really think that the only reason MS can lose is anti-americanism?
Exactly.
I run Linux on my desktop at work, but I have an application that I need to do my job with that only runs under Windows (and doesn't work too well with WINE). So when I need that application I fire up VMWare and use it. Big deal.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
This is actually great news. When I read the initial article I couldn't understand why the Linux solution was actually more expensive - now I do. Not only are they paying for the general conversion, but they're also paying up to $300/ea for VMWare, PLUS whatever they had to pay Microsoft in the first place, because they still need to have their Windows and MS Apps' licenses in a row. In this case, Linux {IBM, SUSE} is getting paid, VMWare (a great company, imho) is getting paid, Microsoft is getting paid - and a black eye to boot. This goes to prove that you can make the conversion to Linux even if you are still bound to Windows apps, and do so at a fully comparable price!
OpenOffice.org still has its problems of handling files made with MS Office, atleast in my experience. I've had documents that don't get formatted correctly at all by OO.org which show up fine in MS Office. And as many others have said, they are making a huge change here and might have applications that they still need to use or have not found alternatives for, and given time, I'm sure they'll find something that accomplishes the same thing or more.
Its also probably safe to assume that they are making the change to linux for a reason other than PR. To the normal Joe Schmoe, he could care less what OS they use. They obviously saw an advantage to using linux or they would have stayed with the status quo.
Mark Loeser
They'll have lots of legacy Windows apps that will need to be progressively ported to Linux, so it makes sense to do this in a planned, application-by-application manner rather than go for a 'big bang' approach.
Furthermore, maybe only 50% of their users will need to run Windows/VMWare at any one time, so they may only need to buy half as many Windows licences as they have machines. Over time, this would decrease, as more and more apps get moved off Windows and onto Linux, and the number of users that need Windows decreases. And before anyone says "this is illegal", remember that we're talking about Germany, and they have much stronger laws restricting licence tying than they do in the US. I'm not an expert in German law, but this is quite likely to be "more legal" (if that term makes sense) in Germany than it would be in the US.
windows crashes as a linux session start it up again.
windows crashes while hosting a linux session you're offline until it reboots.
windows crashes a lot more and needs reinstalling a lot more.
linux at the bottom of the stack works a lot better in my practical experience, plus it gets you headed in the direction you want to go.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
This makes sense to me, as I am doing the same thing to finally migrate over to Linux full time.
In fact, this approach has me using Linux MORE than when I tried to only use Linux apps.
By having a Win4Lin desktop running Window 98 just one click away, I feel much less silly with my self-enforced migration to Linux.
When I absolutely have to use Windows, it's there for me - no re-booting necessary. The majority of the time I can use the Web, etc. in Linux, and thus slowly, smoothly determine how much of my day to day tasks I can actually accomplish using open-source things like open office.
In other words, having Windows there is making me use it less!
I think, therefore I thought.
Yes you can make the switch over night.
Maybe YOU can. You probably are pretty experienced and can tolerate some downtime. Unlike you, a city can't just shut down for a couple of months until everyone becomes proficient with the new system. People can't learn something suddenly. If you ever worked in technical support, you would know that proficiency is acquired pretty slowly.
This is just the equivalent to 'checking into Betty Ford' for those users still addicted to MS Cocai^H^H^H^H^HOffice etc. No need to force them to go cold turkey.
Once they are straight, they can go off the VMWare medication.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Check the history. If you Google for Gartner and OSS/Linux etc., you will see that Gartner's reports are ALWAYS pro-Microsoft even when their supporting arguments are very weak indeed. So no surprise there.
By comparison, Bloor Research reports are usually positive about Linux and Open Source in general.
and the only way to run Office is to use VMWare.
I use Microsoft Office both on my home PC and my work laptop (when necessary, which is, unfortunately, often). They both run Linux. I use CrossoverOffice, which is a commercial version of Wine.
So, there are ways other than vmWare, FYI.
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
Correcting the spelling of the name of somebody noone gives a shit about anyway is worth +4 informative these days?
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
I think you guys missed the obvious advantage of using VMWare to run Windows - you can reboot Windows faster in the case of the a BSOD :)
Most likely GSX for the desktop app needs. ESX is more for reducing TCO for enterprise datacenters. The cost per 2 seats for GSX is $2,500. I'd imagine they are getting at least a 20% discount for buying 5k+ seats worth but it just dosent make business sense to me. If I were a tax payer in Munich I'd be extreamly pissed off that that they wasted soo much money. Rember, they are not just buying VMware, they are also purchasing SuSE and paying someone (IBM I belive) to set this mess up, & they have to train an untold number of users.
Just for the record, there is NO "off the record" record.
Make a record of that.
If running Windows on Linux lets them do whatever they need to do, then who are we to criticize them?
We are Slashdot. You must be new here. :)
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
If Munich is doing this for backward compatibility, that's one thing. But if they aren't:
The IT director at a place I used to work for (with around 300 Windows desktops, plus maybe 75 HP-UX workstations) wanted to do much the same thing that Munich seems to be doing: he wanted to get rid of every one of our Windows desktops and image them instead with Debian. But there were *tons* of legacy Windows apps that we absolutely had to run, which our users absolutely needed, so his solution was to host them all on a farm of about 30 Citrix Metaframe servers.
When we heard this, my colleagues and I scratched our heads, thinking, "Why is he so hell-bent on getting rid of Windows in favor of Linux, only to serve up our critical apps via Citrix? What is the burning need here? Why don't we just keep the Windows desktops?" Then it dawned on me. The only conclusion I could come up with was that the director just had an affective bias--an irrational hatred--against Windows.*
Well, anyway, like I said, if this Munich decision is a short- or medium-range compatibility move, then that's one thing, but if it's anything like my experience, then, well, they're crazy.
* Do not accuse me of being some kind of MS shill; I am not pro-Windows and anti-Linux, any more than I am pro-Linux and anti-Windows. I believe that an org's business requirements and TCO analyses should be allowed to determine what technologies to deploy. If that's Linux, then great; if that's Windows, fine; if it's something else or some combination of them, then wonderful.
Wow, I'm going out to buy Windows XP now!!!
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
VirtualPC actually emulates an x86 processor, so it can run on non-x86 platforms (e.g. Mac PPC). But VMware uses the virtualization features of the x86 processors, and is wed pretty tightly to them. I imagine VMware does a nice business with its server consolidation products (ESX/GSX) and in the security industry.
I can't see MS cutting off VMware because people run Windows on what are primarily Linux boxes, since they still sell licenses. I expect the death of VMware as a desktop solution will come quickly, though, if Windows is tied to TCPA-like hardware a la NGSCB (formerly known as Palladium). Then virtualization of the kind VMware provides, which would allow access to memory of a running system from the eyes of an omnisicent (via the host OS) certainly won't be supported, and probably won't be tolerated.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
One interesting support model I'm seeing someone do right now is to have every single desktop running Linux and a Linux version of VMware, regardless of the "actual" client operating system. Boot the box, VMware starts, then without any manual intervention the client OS (usually 'doze 2000) starts up and goes full screen.
... the entire image can be pulled back remotely, then fixed/upgraded/replaced, and shoved back down to the actual physical location. Sweet!
Sounds silly? When there's a problem, or a need to upgrade, or whatever
The long-term answer to tech support problems is to migrate towards true thin-client or lean-client computing, making the actual desktop device irrelevant. But this is a nice stopgap.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Absolutely ridiculous. To begin with, Windows supports by far more hardware than Linux, so having Windows as the base OS almost certainly gives one more flexibility in the hardware that can be effectively utilized, and the featureset that can be utilized.
Secondly, the old "stability" mantra is so dated that it really makes people look like they haven't pulled their religious zealotry out of 1997. Even as of NT 4.0 (presuming you didn't have ATI video card drivers on your machine) system crashes were extremely rare, with Windows 2000 upping the stability quite a bit further (over 3 years of intensive use I recall my own crashes relating to a, surprize, ATI TV Tuner card). With Windows XP this stability exists at the consumer level, whether you're a gamer or a software developer. Please show me some metrics proving that Linux is a more stable OS in actual day to day usage (i.e. not a "could be done better in firmware with a $4 chip" acting-as-a-trivial-firewall box, which is the usually pathetic example given).
Munich has over 100 Windows-only custom apps! They can't be expected just to switch to Linux and loose those overnight.
That's the first time I've ever seen the word lose mispelled and it still worked in the sentence. Kinda cool.
I suspect that the actual users will become highly motivated to run VMware as little as possible and will soon learn to love linux (as they should).
Ok, in reading most of the 3+ comments here, it looks like most slashdot readers here, at least the ones with a bit of foss experience, know that having vmware on a fat client migration from windows to gnu/linux in a business setting is a requirement, and there is no such thing as immersion or shock implementations of FOSS in a large business or government, unless you are trying to guarantee failure.
What everyone should be questioning, however, is why doesn't Gartner know this? Or do they?
If you have been following the juggernaut of gnu/linux, you are aware that gartner is slanting every report they can in favor of microsoft. Quite simply, microsoft pays many of their studies. What would happen to gartner funding if they started coming out with stories that said that it is cost effective to switch to gnu/linux?
Do you think that microsoft would continue throwing the same amount of money gartner's way? Especially when execs and government workers, the majority of which don't know their asshole from a donut hole, rely on gartner's reports for purchasing and implementation decisions?
microsoft has billions to grease the wheels. Should gartner piss off microsoft?
microsoft was so desperate to not lose the munich deal that butterball ballmer cut short his ski trip to try and salvage the deal. And when they tried once again at the last second to underbid the foss deal (which they were already underbid), one of the munich officials considered it "insulting".
So now, microsoft has to do everything it can to spin this loss as best as possible. Claiming that vmware/windows will run on 80% of the desktops smacks of tactics used in the OS/2 wars, similar to the current tactics of hitting Newsforge and Slashdot boards with "Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet". That's right. That phrase keeps popping up. When you see that phrase, review what went on during the OS/2 wars. If you are too young to remember, google the phrase.
microsoft will be spinning the munich loss for many years to come. This 80% figure, on munich desktops, is exactly this: spin. It won't even be implemented by 1Q04, and we already have spin that says that in munich, an IBM/Suse/linux win, microsoft loss, 80% of the desktops will be windows desktops because they have vmware installed.
What can Gartner do to make their reports more balanced? How about counting down time/reboots in their tco studies? Or counting how many servers a windows admin normally maintains, against how many servers a unix/linux admin maintains, in their tco studies? Or counting actual number of patches of actual number of installed and running services in comparable systems, instead of counting every patch of every application included in the major distros, even though microsoft has no functional equivalents, or is not running them on a particular installation. Does gartner include patches for microsoft office when comparing file servers? So why throw in patches for applications for gnu/linux distros that would never be included on a file server, as part of the total count?
In short, do you believe that gartner will do this? Have they done this in the past? Have you taken a look at their study that found that gnu/linux was cheaper only for web servers, and microsoft applications were cheaper for everything else on a tco basis? Have you taken a look at the criticism of this study? It's been covered here on slashdot previously.
The gartner tco study counted linux/unix implementations as costing more partially because linux/unix admins command a higher wage/salary. And higher technical skills. But they assumed that windows and linux/unix admins also administered the same number of servers. Anyone with extensive experience on both sides of the fence believe this?
What about hardware? No where in the gartner study did it mention or take into account that hardware requirements for gnu/linux is less than windows. No where.
Also, conveniently, the leng
Comments on this article will fall into 4 categories: 1. "They have some legacy apps that they will migrate from Windows to UNIX slowly, maintain stability and control" 2. "They betrayed us and are a bunch of publicity-hungry Redmondites!!" 3. "Well, obviously, Linux sucks so of course they're using Windows on top of it" 4. "All your base are belong to us"
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux; instead, the bulk of applications requiring Windows will probably be Web-enabled and accessed through a browser. Munich will accommodate any remaining applications using virtual machine software, such as VMware.
How Paul Thrrott of WinInfo jumps to the conclusion that the "Desktop" won't be GNU/Linux and that they are really running Windoze is beyond me. I imagine the browser will be from KDE or Mozilla and the desktop will be KDE and that all normal applications, email, word processing, simple spreadsheets will be free and open software. That Munich can also run crappy old windoze stuff is a benifit that's not reciprocated on Microsoft's limited little GUI. Yet Paul would imply that this ablity indicates some kind of short comming in free software, hmph.
WinInfo looks like it was written by a crack smoking Microsoft Public Relations firm. Other nonsense on the same page include dreams of a surge of interest in Windoze as a web serving platform prompted by Bill Gates changing servers for his personal site, a rosy assesment of the M$ empire after failing to meet market expectations, and a piece playing down yet another major security flaw in windoze. There's neither logic nor dignity on that page. I've seen circus posters that made more sense and promoted more reputable things. Hell, I've seen more profesional things on Burbon Street. What does our Anonymous Reader do all day that he might stumble across drivel like that?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The windows remote desktop client can attach your local drives so that they are visible on your remote desktop.
I presume then that it's a case of implementing this part of the protocol in rdesktop.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
NSA supposedly no longer exposes Windows directly to the net. It is run on top of Linux using vmware. So, if good enough for the NSA, then it is good enough for me (assuming that we both have the same versions with all the same patches ).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
and the only way to run Office is to use VMWare.
I use Microsoft Office both on my home PC and my work laptop (when necessary, which is, unfortunately, often). They both run Linux. I use CrossoverOffice, which is a commercial version of Wine.
So, there are ways other than vmWare, FYI.
I run MS Office on my laptop using Windows 2000! I've heard of people using Windows NT, XP, 95 and 98 too! There's lots of ways to run it!
All of the vmware discussion is based upon guesses in the Gartner report. It is assumed that the bulk will be web based and a small remainder will need something like vmware or win4lin. These unknown apps may run well enough under wine or crossover office.
It seems that IBM and Suse understand enough about the current apps that Munich currently runs to have accomodated this in the proposal where they gave a solid price. The Gartner group is making guesses, seems like they don't need to base reports on solid facts does it?
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
r0 only has addressing restrictions where some load/store forms use the register 0 value in the encoding of the instruction to represent a 0 in the calculation of an address. There is no restriction on the usage of r0; it does not have the hard value of 0 like MIPS. It is a regular register.
Okay. So we know that the guys who put *stars* around words for emphasis instead of, say, using a few html tags for a similar effect are dual booting.
That much has been established.....
(1) As VMWare is used, it allows the users to have a maximum amount of compatability.
(2) As VMWare is being used under Linux to run Windows, Microsoft has no cause to complain.
(3) As for speed; The majority of the applications I assume are being used, don't require the mammoth memory and CPU overhead (I doubt the government is going to be playing Q3 deathmatch on their systems, or watching a huge amount of pr0n) that the average 'Doze or 'Nuxers need for their computing "experience". If you aren't using it for those, it probably will be quite snappy, because math oriented apps don't need nor care about DirectX, OpenGL, et al.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Hell, I've seen more profesional things on Burbon Street.
Hey now, don't knock Bourbon Street's professionalism. I was very expertly pick-pocketed there.
If you read the Gartner report you will see that it doesn't refer to any sources at all.
At one point it says "Munich hasn't yet disclosed the business case behind its decision." and at another "The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux".
Note that the source of the business case is carefully omitted and it doesn't refer to Munich's business case as that hasn't been released. I read it at referring to Gartner's own ASSUMED business case.
The article is just another imaginary pro-MS Gartner report. Move along folks...
Hmm, lets see why.....
- Having to reinstall windows on systemst that just "stop working".
- Having to take care of Antivirus software.
- Having to maintain license information for a company that may very well raid your facility with armed government agents if they feel you need an audit.
- Once the dog and pony shows are done..the reality is no matter where you purchase it, there is really only ONE vendor. MicroSoft.
- Not having the ability to get inside an modify any drivers or other OS software to meet company needs
Need I go on?The Citrix farm solves some of problems above. The workstations are just "boxes", if one dies, just toss another one in there. Everything that is important lives on the server. Licence's are easier to track if everything is installed on the server. Installing apps, taking care of virus isues,etc, all easier to handle on the Citrix farm.
Then of course, there are the advantages of a *nix based system over the Citrix farms....
vi +
It often makes sense to maintain backward compatibility for a stage or two
Actually, this is great advertising for both VMware and Linux, as it suggests that the migration need not be that radical at all. I suppose MS would never want to emphasize how they aren't "really" migrating at all, as it is in their interest to keep corps/orgs in belief that in order to migrate, they have to abandon all their legacy stuff.
Actually, this Munich case is a proof that almost any org can migrate, without any special computer usage pattern (web uis only, for example). Perhaps, after a few years, they will notice that Wine will do all their remaining win16/win32 stuff.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Here are a few facts for everyone to chew on:
Let me also point out that this isn't some little "ThirdWorld" (tm, USA) country with no economics or tech savvy we are talking about - this is Germany - probably the economically most powerful nation along with USA, and the driving force behind Europe. These guys have what it takes to do an evaluation of this sort, and come out tops.
And they have proved that *again* with their decision to switch to Linux while also giving their users the psychological crutch that they will be able to use their existing windows applications. In one fell swoop, they have swept all objections off the table, and have set up a scenario where people will now actually begin using Linux/OSS apps, rather than just reading about them.
And as we all know, that is the *one* single obstacle that Linux/OSS has been facing in the past - getting people to actually try it.
Go, Germany! Show the world how it is done!
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
Maybe they know like I do that you can run NT stable this way? There is something in the hardware abstraction layer of VMware that makes NT much more stable.
It also lets you run NT on hardware that it wouldn't run on normally (Sony Vaio C1XD Picturebook in my case). So they can keep NT and run it on any hardware IBM has on offer today.
realkiwi
It's also compelling to note that it appears to be more cost effective to "upgrade" to Linux, spend money on the migration and training, and run VMware (man, all those licenses must cost a ton) - then it is to upgrade to Windows XP and Office XP, even with all of the discounts that Balmer threw in at the last second.
Upgrading to XP still means you need to spend money on training, migration and ensuring that the needed apps still actually work.
I've been researching about Open Source.
Munich choose Open Source because O.S is a "strategy enabler". Cost came second.
Think it for a second. If something gives you flexibility and more choises for you strategy ultimately means that it provides you with more axis of freedom in your strategy. You can maneuver better in the long run.
I predict that this property of O.S will be more importand than cost in the future.
kanenas
It's very likely that they already have their Windows licensing "in a row". Remember, they're currently running a mixed environment of Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000. I don't think Microsoft is allowed to dictate which computer (or VMware session) the license is for. At least, not in Germany :-)
Also it's likely that they got VMware a bit cheaper than $300/copy. Buying in bulk you can often halve the sticker price (or better). If they paid more than $150/copy for VMware I'd be very surprised.
Finally, the Windows licenses are one thing, but the Office licenses are another, and the client-access licenses are another. Windows is pretty cheap compared to Office and CALs. By switching to OpenOffice and no CALs they'll be saving millions.
GNU/Linux desktops with VMWare for virtualized access to other systems -- be they legacy MS Windows, GNU/Linux, or other, makes tons of sense.
First, you've kicked the monkey off your back, er, desktop. The principle system is Linux, and the end-user application space is more than adequate for general business computing. Depending on the services SuSE and IBM can offer, the flexibility and management of this solution will be worlds above what a Microsoft environment could offer. And running VMWare on GNU/Linux to serve legacy MS Windows makes far more sense than hosting it the other way around given the stability, configurability, and performance of GNU/Linux.
Second, VMWare is a great product -- words I'm not prone to utter about proprietary software in general. The high-performance general system virtualization niche is one that VMWare has fully locked up. I've used the product since first public betas in 1999, and none of the other alternatives I've tried -- Bochs, Plex86, UML, WINE, or dosemu -- hold a candle to it for ease of configuration, versatility, stability, or performance.
Third, VMWare provides an awesome way to manage a large number of desktops. Within the virtual machine, the hardware configuration is identical for all systems. The only differences are processor speed, memory, and availability of specific peripherals which don't exist on the host system. However, all devices -- disks, network cards, sound, monitor, etc. -- are the same for any VMWare virtual machine. Any system-specific drivers and related configuration is a non-issue.
Fourth, VMWare allows access to multiple configurations, which may be accessed simultaneously. In part this is a box Microsoft has launched itself into with gusto. A trivial example is browsers: one side-effect of the tying, er, integration of MSIE with the legacy MS Windows product is that it's not possible to run multiple variants of an MSIE browser since version 6.mumble. With VMWare, it's possible to run different configurations of, say, Win2K and MSIE. It's also possible to run different legacy MS Windows OSs entirely: Win3.1, 95, NT, 2K, XP, and their variants. Simultaneously (a respectable system should be able to support 3-4 concurrent virtual machines if necessary). Support desks worldwide already find this invaluable. It's likely that Munich's aquired a motley mix of applications which run in a number of specific environments -- VMWare is likely one of the best ways to make these conveniently available to workers.
Fifth, the virtual system images themselves are nothing more than file snapshots. These can be stored and served centrally (again reducing maintenance issues), and eliminating again the overhead of creating and installing thousands of systems -- rather, a few standard file images are served centrally. User-specific files can be served over the network from your GNU/Linux Samba server.
Sixth, VMWare's rollback and checkpointing means that for a given image, it's possible to run a system either with no commits (all changes to the running VMWare image are lost on exit, great for highly specific tasked workstations), or can be committed or discarded as an option, on system exit (useful for development). In either case. backing up the image file prior to use allows for recovery later.
Seventh, once you've kicked that Redmond jones, "deinstalling" the now-worthless virtual system is a snap.
I'd say Munich's going to have an excellent, flexible, configurable, stable, and useful system.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
"Bei der Ermittlung des Mengengersts fuer die Lizenzkosten VMWare wird fuer;r die WiBE21 davon ausgegangen, dass fuer ca. 80 % aller PC-Clients (14.183), d.h. fr 11.364 PC-Clints [sic!] je eine VMWare-Lizenz beschafft werden muss." Quelle: Projekt Client Studie der Landeshauptstadt Muenchen: Entscheidungsvorlage, V1.11 vom 23.01.2003
in english:"The determination of the quantity structure for the VMWare-license-costs for the WiBE21 we assume that approx. 80 % of all PC Clients (14.183), i.e. for 11,364 PC Clints [ sic! ]one VMWare license each to be procured."
Conclusion: anonymous reader is well informed."Up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare," it says here (my italics).
Do you think they could be any more vague?
Let's mentally replace the words "up to" with the less-than-or-equal-to-sign <= to understand that statement.
In other news... up to 80% of people enjoy reading Microsoft propaganda newscasts!
The article reads: "...such as vmware...". This is very speculative of nature. Why not run Terminal Server if you have to? It is a lot less maintenance and you can us rdesktop or tsclient from the Linux machine. Performance will also be better.
These analysts seems terrified of Linux on the desktop. Why?
"I'm not sure exactly where Thurrott gets the 80% figure"
As Vic Reeves would say "86.5% of statistics are made up on the spot".
Jaj
They are running VMWare as part of a migration strategy. This is exactly what MS itself is going to do in the future - why do you think MS bought Connectix Virtual PC? Because they need a way to migrate people off NT 4.0, and it provides a path.
Munich needs this interim step since they probably have a bunch of Windows apps that doesn't exist under Linux yet. Heck, they'd probably have the same problem if they went with Windows anyway (trying to get their legacy apps running on a modern version of Windows).
Running Windows Media under VmWare, you can swipe the bitstream and copy DRM crippled content. Seeing as how blank media and CD-Rs are taxed in Germany, Munich probably reckon that they should get the most from their tax dollars.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
BTW: Did anyone notice ?
Nikos Drakos - one of the Gartner consultants who is the author of that report is the writer of the famous latex2html tool.
The EU as a whole has a GDP of about the same as the US.
The other point to note is that if MS-Windows crashes regularly, the people using it think nothing of that (another day, another document trashed), and don't report it. What's the point in reporting it? Nothing ever gets done about it. I see this regularly when empenguinning older machines - they crashed six times a day under MS-Windows, and continue to crash under Linux until I fix the broken hardware (typically a dud SIMM else replace the mobo). OTOH, people often report kernel panics under Debian because they are unusual and something will get done about it if it's Linux's fault.
When people read "Where do you want to go today?" they miss the emphasis. It's "Where do you want to go today? Not likely!" - and in similar vein, few people ever realise that the "My" in "My Computer" is one William Henry "Trey" Gates III, not themselves. Once you realise these things, you start to understand what MS-Windows is for.
If you've not seen any blue screens from XP recently, perhaps it's because you changed the default background colour. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Where he gets most of his information - straight out of his ass.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.