Slashdot Mirror
Linux in Munich Followup
Rican writes "Wired has a story that details some of the difficulties that Project LiMux seems to be experiencing in Munich. Including financial and technical issues. On the positive side it looks like despite these setbacks they are continuing with the project and have a positive attitude about its completion. Let's keep our fingers crossed and do what we can to support this monumental effort that will benefit the whole Open Source Community."
why all the fuss? good question, i think...
/. comments...
<conspiracy>
maybe it benefits "someone", to make a fuss out of this. so now they can say "SEE! we told you it was no good!"...
</conspiracy>
we just cant really trust the media anymore.. i just trust
but the fact is this - the city of Munich has no intention of switching to Linux.
/. learns?
You guys fall for this every single time - Houston, Israel, etc...
Get it through your heads - cities/states/countries only say this to leverage Microsoft and get favorable pricing. Sheesh, how many times does it have to happen before
I'm an avid Linux user, but let us all face reality - Linux on the desktop is going nowhere fast.
I think it's especially interesting to note the high cost of migration. I wonder how the cost of open-source can be so much higher than overpriced windows. I agree that they will save money over the long run, though.
I would also have to think that the city could form a partnership with SuSe. It would be beneficial for the both of them. Maybe they could put up SuSe billboards throughout the city in exchange for discounted software. If Linux companies can form those kind of alliances, windows will be eradicated quickly. Obviously Microsoft can be brought to its knees quickly, as seen from the article!
They also really need to do more studies like the one mentioned in the article. Since Linux can consistently undersell Microsoft, all they need to do is concentrate on studies. Once they improve ease-of-use and ease-of-learning issues and prove that is in fact is easy to use in the studies, Linux will be the OS of choice for the general public.
I don't believe Linux on desktop will be ever successfull, but anybody who is serious enough to invest their time should think twice. There is too much hype about Linux on desktop. The main reason to migrate to Linux seem to be the hatred for Microsoft, but not many people hate Microsoft, on the contrary what it seems from the news media. People are pretty much neutral about it. On the other hand, over time, people realize that most of the things they hear about Microsoft and Linux are simply put, pure lie and distortion of facts. Just look at the IBM's plan to migrate Office to Linux, it is pure news media made up story. If you seriously believe in that, you are going to have a very hard time implementing a linux desktop solution. If this project dies, it would be a disaster for the hopes of having linux on desktop.
for people looking to switch and those who want to keep their options open is to use GPLed software suites on windows. Get people to start using mozilla as their browser and openoffice as their office package so that when they swap to windows, only the file system ("how you save you files") is slightly different.
Pick KDE or GNOME with a bottom bar and a windowsish them and you have a clean, easy, incrimental swap.
...the moment they showed an interest in an OSS alternative that Microsoft turns up and offers them a huge discount on using Windows. It's quite lucky that they decided to pay $37.7 million for the OS option instead of the amazingly reduced dirt cheap $23.7 million for the Microsoft option.
If Microsoft is able to get away with this kind of preditory pricing, this will result in a much slower take up of the cheaper OS alternatives. So much for capitalism.
If the project is cancelled, it will be because Novell bought SuSE, so the private partner is no longer German. If the project had had huge costs, even recurring costs much higher than those of a Microsoft solution, Munich would have been happy to paper it over as long as they went to a German firm. Now the project may have to compete on some market merit. This is hard since transition projects ALWAYS go WAY over time and budget. On the other hand, recurring costs for the Linux solution may be lower, perhaps signficantly so.
Don't worry too much if this is eventually cancelled. Linux is constantly improving, and there will be more successes in the future, even if this chance fails.
I got a scarier one for you.
:-O
I am reading a proposal from CATSA (the Canadian version of TSA) right now. They are an ENTIRELY MS shop...desktops, servers, directory etc. Not only is that scary, the RFP is to create "secured" web apps that will share personal information, CAD drawing of airports and check points, counts of people passing through those check points and lists of the stuff that has been confiscated between all 89 Canadian airports and CATSA head office in Ottawa.
They want this to run on their existing infrastructure.
The information is CLEARLY classified info (that is, it will be SECRET or even TOP SECRET). There is no way this stuff should be any where near an MS system except maybe for a desktop, and even then, it should be accessed through Moz instead of IE.
I find it absolutely outrageous that MS will make money while putting our national security at risk. I hope they can be convinced to at least store the data on Trusted Solaris....
Since the RFP is still live, you will understand why I post ANON...
I'd like to know how an agency so clearly centered around security has an MS server infrastructure in the first place. I know CSE (Communications Security Establishment - our NSA) and the RCMP don't use Windows except on the desktop, why should CATSA.
Somebody suure sold them a bill of goods.
As for the fun and games - I don't see why I should care about munich, or IBM, or Joe User, adopting Linux. What made open source what it is today was a combination of enthusiastic hackers writing better software than the corporate drones were allowed to, and companies trying to make money off that software. The companies won't stop trying to earn money, and I don't see a reason why the hackers should stop hacking for fun.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
But instead of paying $23.7 million for the Microsoft solution...
Don't forget though that Microsofts initial proposal was $36.6m! Ballmer flew out there do demonstrate how keen MS was to keep Munich's business. MS then subsequentally cut the cost to $31.9m and then finally $23.7m.
A similar thing happened in the UK where Newham Council in London considered migrating away from a MS environment to a Open Source environment. A Linux based desktop (not sure about backend stuff) was designed, built and trialed. MS sponsored an "independent" consultancy firm to do a TCO Investigation which, surprisingly, found that the MS Solution would have a lower TCO. The most interesting aspect of this case is that it became quite high profile in the UK and it soon became apparent that MS where very eager to secure the deal. However, in no small part due to the media exposure this story received, MS where given two choices; either aggresively discount their proposal or risk a humiliating defeat (remember the "Under no circumstances lose to Linux" memo?). Newham Council eventually chose to stick with Microsoft, citing the difficulties of getting a reliable Exchange 5.5 client for Linux, but not before they had secured a deal that was apparently an order of magnitude better than the deal that the UK Govt. has! Not bad for a poverty-stricken East-London Council!
$892 per system... but you're talking about hardware and software that will be working until it dies or is completely replaced by a new fleet of systems. To begin with, GNU/Linux (especially SuSE) brings new life to old machines because it works better with older hardware than Windows does. One deciding factor for this choice may have been that Windows XP doesn't support some of their current machines whereas SuSE does. So $892 may have to pay for a whole new computer, OS, and Office license.
While we're on the subject of licensing, let me remind you that the MS EULA prohibits you from doing everything except using the software on a limited basis. If you lose the license sticker or CD, that license becomes effectively invalid and you are unable to legally reinstall it. I don't know what the penalty in Germany is, but in the US it's $150,000 plus the cost of the license in question -- and prayer for no criminal charges, which are $200,000 plus five years in prison.
Lastly, Microsoft forced this upgrade on them with their bullshit licensing. They bullied Munich into an upgrade -- why would anyone stick with a company that attempts to force you to pay them for unnecessary upgrades? The article says that some machines were still using Windows 3.1, meaning they had no need for anything above that and in all liklihood (as mentioned above) they would not be able to upgrade to WinXP.
Windows really isn't a very good solution for a business environment. The only value it has is in third-party software support, which has nothing to do with Microsoft (outside of MS Office and VB).
-JemReports in Computerwoche also stated that local vendors who currently code applications for the city were experiencing problems in developing applications for the open-source operating system, since they are more familiar with Windows than Linux.
This is concerning special administrative software that has to be (frequently) updated when regulations change. As I read elsewhere, vendors are not willing (or reluctant) to come up with LINUX solutions.
A chance for startups, I guess.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Resistance to change within Munich's Rathaus (City Hall) has also been cited in the German press as a source of problems that might delay the project.
Hmm, what to think of this? I MSFT bribing people to generate "resistance"? I could imagine them to use all means to sabotage this project. The outcome of this project is a big example for many others, I think they'll fight with all means possible. Knowing the company, that excludes almost nothing...
If I were in this project team or part of the politicians that made this decision, I would surely monitor any resistant people very closely (including their bank accounts).
I am working in Munich for a large publishing house in IT and what I heard (partly, though, from munichs Microsoft workers) the whole project isn't doing well. When I met a MS employee lately he had that evil grin when he said: "If there is one thing that won't bring OpenSource on the Desktop it will be the Munich migration! They [the Munich IT department] are rather incompetent, they are currently even trying to run Winapps inside VmWare, and they don't have the manpower to get the thing flying."
I am not sure how far he really is into the subject but from what I know from living in munich for 20 years now is that the city is cutting back on finances, and that there was more than one project that wasn't really thought through before making the decision. I really, really hope they can handle it, but the latest relaunch of www.muenchen.de, the cities new online-portal, was a catastrophe (a friend of mine worked at the project) and if that's any indication than they might be in trouble...I don't have any inside information, I am just stating what I learned from watching the "Rathaus" through the years as a munich citizen...
Lispy
I'd be very interested in seeing the results of their studies into TCO and migration, published openly after they get done. I think the OS community can use that kind of real-world feedback, and I'm *sure* that other (closed-source) vendors *will* use it. You know, so they can "Get the Facts".
C|N>K
Are we comparing apples and apples? The Microsoft figure was just for the licensing (from all indications), not counting the pain and agony of migrating 14,000 PCs to XP and 2003, a process that I promise would not be painless. Not to mention the four or five (or more) "critical updates" and patches in mid-project. The IBM SUSE figure was a guesstimate at the whole project. Wouldn't you have to add a huge deployment chunk to the MS figure for a fair comparison?
"If no one tilts at windmills, the damn things will take over the world!"- christian simpleman
You should admit you totally missed some significant points that others have brought to your attention.
Unless it really was flamebait.
Most notably:
1) A lot of this money stays in German hands. That helps germany's struggling economy. Or perhaps you are unaware of this, too?
2) This was an MS-ordered upgrade that basically caught Munich by suprise. How many cities want to be in this position? A prominent company, from a foreign country, decides when you should upgrade?
3) MS continually sweetened the deal as it appeared they would lose the contract. Their original prices were much higher. And that's for a system already based on MS technologies!
4) No migration is painless.
I've migrating all my machines and applications to Linux. It's only two servers, a firewall, and twelve desktops, and there were times when I was frustrated. Suprisingly, the other two users found OpenOffice and Mozilla fairly easy to use and learn. I hear about complaints all the time, from other migrators, but it is not happening here. They are not technophobes or any of that.
I no longer have to dread a minor upgrade-->forces major upgrade-->forces hours on the web with my credit card out. It's a gift.
Finally, I am in a special position. I took several computer classes in university, many years ago, and have no fear of it. Compared to the the VMS, SunOS and MVS installs I used to participate in, Linux installs and configuration are trivial, and the machines are cheap.
So different people have different experiences. Maybe you are a Windows VAR or something, and prefer it? In any case, there is nuch more to the story than your original post implied.
If only my boss would have realized this before they started to migrate the 500 desktops into their new domain. That would have saved a lot of time and trouble.
*sigh*
> [...] since I assume SuSE still has many German employees [...] SuSE has certain advantages for German costumer [...]
In contrast to Microsoft Germany, which has certainly more employees than SuSE? (And was voted Best Employer 2003 in Germany in the +500 employeer category)
In contrast to the assumption most people here make, I'd say the more important fact was that it was backed by IBM. That the relatively small (once) German company SuSE is part of it only sweetened it.
When, say RedHat and HP, placed a similar offer it would have been considered, but the point is, at that time, there was only SuSE and IBM.
SuSE alone wouldn't stand a chance as they surely don't have the man-power.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Most people I know resist change. In my shop we upgraded from Word 6.0 to Word 95 (years ago) and so we rewrote all of the Word Macros from the old scripting language to the new VBA.
We tried to keep the look and feel exactly the same. But we had complaints from users about things as trivial as button sizes. The application didn't look the same. And of course anything that goes wrong after a change is blamed on the change even if it is totally unrelated. It's just human nature I guess.
Anyhow, we spent a lot of wasted time during the convention dealing with bogus user complaints. It just goes with the territory. You have to do it to keep the users happy and you should do it with a smile on your face.
This change was no where nearly as drastic as switching from Windows to Linux. I can just imagine what the poor IT people are going through. All I can say is: Hang in there. Do what you need to do to keep the users as happy as possible. Things will get better and once use to Linux they won't want to go back to Windows anymore.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
the cost of MIRGATING to linux is higher than the annual fees of ms software. MIRGATING people. thats different to forking out for upgrades. for this they are having to redevelope software and test systems which costs in man hours. frankly i'd be shocked if this inital change didn't cost more. lets have a look 2 years from now and i'm betting they will be saving millions.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Give me a ssh connection to some servers and tell me what you need. I would be happy to configure machines for them.... total cost 0$ . Give me a couple servers and a stack of cd's and I can show you how to bring online 500 clients in one day.
If you had the typical windows IT shop they would attempt this by trying to deploy linux as you would windows which is not the way to do it. Linux in a business or government environment should always be deployed thin client. Remember the MS deployment model is geared towards "selling licenses" and not efficency.
Any open source user is a friend of mine!
Got Code?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
1. Your mostly right. A well planned migration can be done, and is a thing of beauty when it happens.
2. In most of the migrations I've done, there is a point of no return. That is to say, rolling back is more work, and more of a problem then finishing the problem. Instantly migrating back can be a huge issue (I've dealt with this on schema's in a database).
3. IMHO, if you interview enough rank and file employee at any company of nearly any size, they will complain about the computers reguardless of the OS, the machine, the software involved. I don't care if it's Linux, OS X, Mac Classic, Amiga, MS Windows 3.1/NT3.X/4.0/2K/XP/CE/ME, OS2, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX, or raw LPAR's on a mainframe. So talking about "force feeding Linux" and having complaints afterwards isn't a useful datapoint.
In my experience, most peoples objections to Linux are that it's not Windows. That in a lot of ways isn't a complaint I worry about. Most of the people who work at my company, need a web browser to run the application they use all day every day. If it's Mozilla, IE or Opera it really doesn't make any difference at all. All they really get mad about is not being able to go to IE required sites to play games. I double dog dare those people to complain to their boss to make me fix it.
Most people I work with have problems with Windows. If you interviewed them, they'd complain about all sorts of stuff. It known to hang, and/or crash. In my experience, it gives you very little to backtrack to figure out what is causing the problems. (It might be that I don't have the right tools). When I have problems under Linux I generally get a pretty good error message, along with a stack trace and symbols to use to track things down.
Microsoft has wonderful integration between multiple applications. It has incredible abilities to export objects from one app, and past them into another. In my experience, that's also a wonderful way to crash Word/Excel. It's a wonderful way to leak memory. It's a great way to slow those applications to a crawl.
Linux has plenty of rough edges, but in a stand alone environment (where it doesn't have to mix with Win32 formatted documents), and you have limited functionality required (read a limited job description) it can stand up to Windows any day of the week. Can you download a GUI to do family tree stuff, probably not. Can you download a tool deal with the newest goofy scanner that some no name brand has put out, probably not. Can you download some of the goofy little programs that people develop only for Win32? Normally no, you can't.
However, in my experience, if I want a printed document I can do that. If I want a spreadsheet, I can do that. If I want a decent browser, I have one. If I want to read email. There is a plethora of apps to choose from. If I want to customize my desktop I can. If I want music, I can do that. If I want instant messaging, I can do that. If I want VoIP, I can do that. If I want development tools, I have those. If I want a photo manipulation program, there are a couple. If I want to watch movies, I can. If I need various compression/archival/backup programs, I can. If I want to write CD/DVD's I can.
Can you make it run as the primary desktop for employees at a work environment. Sure can, been doing it for 4 years personally. There are some people I can't to do that, but that is primarily because MS propriatary formats are a defacto standard. You just can't deal with people without that. It's annoying, and it's fundamentally bad for the economy (it's limiting competition, and an artificial constraint on increasing effeciency, all of which are bad for the economy). If people exchanged documents in a more open format, it'd be a heck of a lot easier to migrate to a non-windows environment.
Kirby