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."
If there is one place that will be the turning point for OSS and Linux, it will be Europe and Asia. Wait: I guess that isn't one place! :)
MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING
Interesting that all the problems are interoperability with proprietary software. There haven't been any problems with the people using linux.
"Right now we are proceeding as planned, and we have no hints or signals that the city counsel is regretting or reconsidering their decision to move to Linux,"
Sounds like the normal hitches you'd expect when doing any large-scale migration. Something more detailed would have been nice rather than generalities about 'software compatibility' and 'security'.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
..i dont think there is the need to start making up big stories out of this. Of course this kind of migration takes a lot of time, specially for the training.
I really hope that everything proceeds as planned.. a project like this is important for the public opinion of Free Software and Linux...
I think part of the problem with migration is that in many instances many people who use linux and love did it because they were disenchanted with proprietary OSes for personal reasons, and these guys are trying to migrate for a multitude of reasons, including monetary ones. Add on to that the fact you're retraining thousands of people, and you've got one heck of a mess on your hands.
Nonetheless, hopefully they persevere.
Wired has a story that details some of the difficulties that Project LiMux seems to be experiencing in Munich. Including financial and technical issues.
What this experiment will have to do is prove that Linux can do it for less money and be more efficient than proprietary solutions such as Windows.
Studies on open-source security, desktop ergonomics and the software components' stability and compatibility with other applications will be included in the process.
For my money, I would have bet on OS X providing a better system from these perspectives.
IBM and Germany-based Linux distributor SuSE are expected to help offset the costs of the migration by supplying technical support and conducting some of the studies that the Munich city council has requested.
This will most likely be of huge importance in maintaining this transition, but more support may be needed in bringing custom applications from Windows to Linux.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
So migrating all the systems from Win98 and Windows NT to Windows 2003 Server and WinXP desktops would have run within schedule and under budget? I think not. This is an IT project for god's sake, they never get completed on time and within budget. You will always strike issues and problems once you get into the thick of it.
Why all the fuss? Why any fuss? Sounds like business as usual to me.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Munich Council Press Statement (translated)
Stefan Hauf
Presseamt Muenchen
http://www.muenchen.de
Munich goes with Open Source Software
The city of Munich will use Linux as the operating system for their 14,000 PC clients as well as open source software for their office applications.
With the votes of SPD, Alliance 90/Die Gruenen/Pink list, FDP, OEDP, REP and Party of Democratic Socialism, the town assembly followed Mayor Christian Ude's proposal.
An appraisal given by the city in order to evaluate the pro and cons of a conversion of the present urban standard "Windows NT/Microsoft Office" alternatively on "Windows XP/Microsoft Office" or "Linux/Open Office" comes to the conclusion that there is a clear strategic-qualitative projection/lead for the open source solution.
Mayor Ude: "With this trend-setting decision Munich secures itself as the first major city to have a major portion of its IT infrastructure be supplier-independent and sets also a clear indication of more competition in the software market. The prehistory of this decision already showed that a competitive situation helps the formation of prices pretty well. "
Regarding the decision, mayor Ude pointed out that this is not a decision for a specific IT partner, but a strategic positioning based on a noncommittal market evaluation.
Until spring 2004, a detailed concept of implementation and migration will be developed. Based on the results of this evaluation, the city council will decide how the migration to Linux will take place.
IBM Germany Statement
May 28th 2003
The city council of Munich today made a key decision to deploy the open source operating system Linux instead of alternative operating systems. This initiative will see Germany's third largest city migrate 14,000 desktop and notebook computers to Linux. Their objective is to deploy information technology that stimulates more commercial and technological flexibility at a lower cost to the public sector. Although the council has not made a decision on its choice of vendor, Linux distributor SuSE AG and IBM Germany will be participating in the resulting contract bid.
Walter Raizner, Country General Manager IBM Germany: "In the public sector in Germany we have seen a variety of new implementations of open standards-based software such as Linux. And worldwide, more than 75 IBM government customers - including agencies in France, Spain, UK, Australia, Mexico, the United States and Japan - have now embraced open computing and Linux to save costs, consolidate workloads, increase efficiency and enact e-government transformation. With Munich's decision, one thing is clear - it's open season for open computing. Linux represents freedom and flexibility. This is essential in e-government - they need more flexibility to serve their constituencies better and faster, and freedom of choice to do it at less cost to the public. Munich is leading the way."
Massive by Design
But instead of paying $23.7 million for the Microsoft solution, Munich's city council opted to spend roughly $35.7 million to switch to open source, saying that the higher price would be offset by lower costs and more flexibility in licensing fees and software choices over the long run.
That's an initial difference of $12.5 million, or $892 per system. They say that they'll make it up in the long run, but they must really mean long term.
I love linux as much as the next guy, but the duty of this agency is to provide the cheapest solution to server their constinuents. This whole project smells to me like the council had a beef with Microsoft, and allowed that bias to lead to a poor business decision. Now they're trying to justify it so they don't have to admit that they made a mistake.
There are probably organizations that are ready for a wholesale ms to linux migration, but this doesn't look to be one. All of their staff have to be retrained, the price is more expensive, and a considerable custom windows application base seem to make this a bad idea. The linux community can only be hurt by a square peg linux solution being shoved into a circle microsoft hole.
Microsoft is loving this, and preparing marketing material right now that shows that replacing Microsoft with Linux doesn't make business sense. Business realities, not propoganda, should dictate migration to linux. Forcing the issue (as it appears they are doing) only hurts linux in the long run.
Here in Canada, most government departments and agencys are either undertaking, or considering the migration from Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95 to Windows 2000. I once added up the total cost of Windows NT 4 Workstation licences, NT 4 Server licenses, NT 4 CALs, and MS Office 2000 licenses for the government agency that I worked for (~20000 pcs served by ~500 NT 4 servers) and the figure wasn't pretty. A signifigant portion of the operating costs for many government offices goes to buying access to Microsoft's IP; I would like to see my tax dollars used in a more productive manner. Kudos to Munich and best wishes that their problems will be overcome shortly.
An eye for an eye... leaves the whole world blind.
The OSS movement can't affort to blow this. It's, IMO, that important to demonstrate to the city of Munich that they, without a doubt, made the right decision. Set a precident.
The fun and games---if they weren't over before, they are now.
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.
So migrating a large governemtal user base from Windows to Linux is experiencing some difficulties. Gee...whodathunk? /. fanbois predicted an easy transition. "Just install Linux! All your problems will be solved!"
Only the (very vocal)
The real outcome will be in 3 or 4 years. Everything will have been transitioned and shakendown. Then, and only then can we see if has actually been beneficial or not. We can see the parts where a unified Linux base has worked, and where it has failed.
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.
they went for lower total cost of ownership, and superior strategic position, not lower initial cost.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Where do I sign?
Money seems to be the main problem here, and I think when things come to public administration money is not the most important thing.
:)
The most important thing to a public administration should be citizens, and there are a few issues that propietary software doesn't do for citizens. First of all, doesn't let to audit the code, and this is a problem when you manage sensible information. Another thing that Microsoft don't does for Munich citizens is promoting local software industry, here in Europe, apart from free vs. propietary software we have another problem. Import vs. local development. Linux es the only horse we can ride. And it's from european origin, also
More money, maybe, but why spend this money in a foreign industry when you can spend it developing the local software industry?
DON'T PANIC
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.
Did you miss the part where Munich turned down a sweetened offer from microsoft?
--Mark
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
$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).
-JemPreditory pricing like this is a lot more worrying than with Internet Explorer. Okay, Microsoft bundled one piece of software into the cost of something a lot bigger, giving people the impression the smaller piece of software is free, hence Netscape lost. This is bad, but not nearly as specific an attack as they tried in Munich.
If Microsoft is able to sell the same software to different parties at different prices (ie the maximum price that party is willing to pay without swapping) then there is no hope for OSS use anywhere on a commercial basis. Microsoft can always afford to give discounts to the small few who think of switching.
Reports 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)
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
This IS WHAT CAPITALISM IS ALL ABOUT -- COMPETITION. I don't care whose product we use, I just want it to work, and I want it to be fairly priced. And guess what -- we (the linux community) are the sole reason for getting microsoft to drop their prices. We are now COMPETITIVE. This is huge. This is what capitalism is all about. MS can't strongarm every company in the world for too much longer. You can now threaten them with the big L word or the big blue.
This is incredible. Others are going to see that MS can have lower prices, and we can now negotiate with the devil.
Berto
The goal of governments is not to do anything as cheap as possible, but to do the right thing.
The right thing, IMHO, is that no state may make itself dependant on a single external (commercial) entity. I would say, no matter what the cost, it is the obligation of any decent government to free themselves of any strangleholds that may exist.
As a side effect, it will be much much cheaper in the long term. Someone must make a first step; after that, the compatability issues shall diminish, and others to follow (e.g. other cities) shall have less problems. Once we are saved from the dictate of proprietary file formats (getting rid of which does cost some money initially) the savings are enormous.
Contrary to quoted companies, states do not only have to look at next quarters financial, i.e. be extremely short sighted, but have to think on timescales of up to 50 years.
Wow, deja vu. Just as good as the last time this response was used. If you're going to copy something, at least make sure you change it around just a little bit. Outright copying of comments is just lame at best.
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
The attempt by Microsoft to cut prices for one customer (preditory pricing against a competitor) is definitely anti-capitalist, since in a free-market situation you have to sell each product for the same price to all customers. Otherwise the system doesn't work efficiently and you end up with market failures such as monopoly.
In basic economics this is Microsoft attempting to eat into the consumer-surplus. It is anti-competitive and hence anti-capitalist.
You are right in that Linux is now competiting with Microsoft enough that they are having to lower their prices, which is a good thing. However, Microsofts response simply negates any competition Linux may pose, since they can lower prices for the few individuals who do threaten to swap until they promise not to and buy into the current lock-in situation. We'd have to wait until 10% of Microsoft's customers threaten to swap simultaniously for it to effect Microsofts bottom line.
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
and found I'd better clear things up a bit.
My point was that in Germany we have had a recent tendency to rush things. There are numoerous examples, the launch of the UMTS-Network debacle (highspeed mobile network), the Transrapid (a magnetic monorail) fiasco in China and, worst of all, the tollcollect (a sattelite based system to charge on traffic) desaster. All of these projects were ambitious and technically challenging and all of them have a long history of failure and mismanagement. I really love this city and I appreciate the brave decision of the city council to try the switch. But I have this fear that they will blow it and Munich will not be known as the "Linux-Capitol" but rather as the "bad example". Keep your fingers crossed that I am wrong!!
btw: here's a link to the english page of muenchen.de.
Good night.
Lispy
Despite the wet dreams of the pointy-hairs the best way to do a large system migration is not to make a project out of it but to set it as an objective.
I understand peoples fear of uncertainty and their inclination towards organizing everything to avoid "chaos" but making a project of that scale is really just a nice way of deluding yourself. It will be chaos regardless.
If you want to migrate a disrtibuted organization of 14,000 desktops and unkown amount of servers from one operating system to another you do it by setting an enterprise standard and then knocking it out one project, system, or group at a time. Hell even microsoft didnt do a mass migration from their old unix desktops to their own operating system en masse, they migrated slowly where it made sense and pushed the remainder.
I will not be suprised if this project partially fails.
But according to Computerwoche and other reports, the city lacks the funds to invest in the planned testing and development of an open-source solution.
They've got about $35 million budgeted for this migration, and they're out of money at the 'testing and development' phase? How did they come up with their replacement cost figures without doing some 'testing'?
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Linux is a pretty tough change. Gradual migration is necessary for continuty of operation, so you must work with interoperability.
I have set up in the past a Linux intranet servce in a Windows IT environment, precisely because I thought that it would be "better" in the long run to work with Tomcat/Apache/Linux than WebLogic/WebSphere/Windows.
The basic set-up was very easy, as always. But soon we got into things related to security & authorizations, for which we needed to interface with Active Directory... I'm glad we had some time to do this right. "Active Directory access from Java over LDAP with Kerberos authentication to a Win2K domain controller" is very sparsely and partially documented, and then what you can find on the net relates to earlier versions of software, other distros... A lot of testing and trying with some very good people on the task, and finally we got it off the ground. It's not the kiddie-script grade stuff or burn-a-distro-and-enjoy story we like to hear.
This was in a top-tier R&D lab, with research-grade time on our hands. Basically our core business. Now I'm not sure the municipal office of Munich can do these kinds of things themselves... And if they hire consultants to do it for them, you can be pretty sure they'll take advantage of their unawareness.
In that particular case, we got for a short period of time a MS Consulting dude to help us. The poor guy knew less about MS' own products than us! Now imagine the same guy "advising" the Munich city office on how to better interoperate with Microsoft's products.
Here's the timeline
1- City of Munich goes Linux
2- City of Munich realizes during the migration it will need to interoperate with Windows
3- City of Munich to MS: one more thing, guys... before we ditch you, how do we interoperate with your products exactly? No, not for us (we don't do, we make others do), but we need to tell our IT subcontractors.
4- IT subcontractors blame bad interop on MS, who blames it back on these sloppy-Linux-hackers--and meanwhile, computers kaputt
5- ???
6- One good "TCO" sell point for MS?
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*
(As posted at 10:37).
Sounds to me like Munich is having second thoughts about not keeping Office.
This is how tenders happen. Bidders get one chance at offering a price. That MS lowered their price after they heard someone elses means that a) they have insane amounts of profit and/or b) their new price will cut lots of corners. Now, software isn't something like construction where a shaved down bit might produce a building that falls down... The incremental cost to MS is zero, once the R&D is done. But the same general logic applies. That MS came back with a lower price, Im sure, solidified the plan to go with Linux. They were clearly trying to screw Munich with their first price.
Ignoring that the loosing bidder was MS for a second, they deserved to loose, their second bid not withstanding.
But, the bidder was not just a random company trying to screw Munich, it was Microsoft. Microsoft is a monopoly. Being a monopoly isnt illegal. Some specific acts arnt illegal in general. However, a monopoly that performs those specific acts is breaking the law. One of those is dumping. While we dont know MS's cost for this project (and that is largely meaningless in this zero-incremental cost industry), we do know that their second try was lower then the competition. Additionaly, the (winning) linux bid had some non-zero cost items. Retraning. Redevelopement of custom software, amongst others Im sure.
Monopolies are not allowed to set prices intentional lower then is possible for the competition.
> It is anti-competitive and hence anti-capitalist.
> since in a free-market situation you have to sell each product for the same price to all customers
Where did you get that idea? Do I have to sell the same product to my concurrent for the same price? Do I have to sell it to small buyer to the same price as to a quantity buyer? Do I have to sell it to the same price to a celebrity than I sell it to Mr Smith.
The city of Munic, a quantity buyer and relatively known entity decided to buy from a different seller. Microsoft decided to leverage its large captial to lower the price, maybe even so far that they make a minus, for the sake of big, known buyer, in fear of losing more clients and to knock out a competitor. Capitalism at work. Just because you don't like it, don't call it otherwise.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Over 75% of all IT projects fail totally, is late or over budget. Most of them are not Linux projects.
So, Microsoft is in no position to gloat over any Linux setbacks in Munich.
This is a problem that probably has more to do with leadership, management methods than with any specific technology like Linux or Windows.
Even if the up front cost for switching to Linux turns out to be higher than expected, it will probably be cheaper in the long run. Using Linux they will be in much better control of their future upgrade costs.
Not to mention that, money spent on Linux stays in the local economy instead of feeding a foreign company.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
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?
Germany is right in the middle of this. Strategicly the OSS/Linux vendors are in for a bonus few years.
You can guarantee that IBM, Novell and SuSE will all want to make this work out fine because they would then sell this solution on.
You have to ask youself - why spend hard earned EU taxpayer money on Microsoft licenses when it can be spent on local service providers integrating freely available OSS software ?. IBM Global Service are asking that same question - pity SCO are not getting stuck in too as their traditional strength in vertical integration would be perfect for the new EU countries, but now no-one will touch them with a barge pole.
To my considerable surprise, many people seem to think that a free software/open source solution will be or will have to be cheaper than the proprietary solutions. That's a misconception.
Free software doesn't compete with proprietary software on cost, reliability, performance or features. It's not even really appropriate to use the word compete, since the metric of success is so different for free software than for proprietary products. A proprietary product succeeds when it makes money. But when does free software succeed? When it attracts a lot of users, maybe. But what does that accomplish?
Well, it liberates users. The goal of proprietary software is to make money. The goal of free software is to liberate users. Not to make cheaper software, or even better software (although we try), but to make users more free. Any other motive just does not survive contact with reality. Nobody starts their project with the idea of making a cheaper widget. Most people start their project with the idea of making a better widget, but this seems to be a very elusive and highly subjective quality. The truth is we don't know how to make "better" software any more than the proprietary people do.
The benefit of free software is not that it's cheaper or better, since these are after the fact rationalizations at best and misleading fantasies at worst. The benefit is that it frees users from mindlessly protectionist policy, draconian restrictions on use and distribution, and a whole universe of demeaning do-not-trust-the-customer attitudes.
This freedom might be more expensive than the alternative, or it might be less expensive in the long run, or it might lead to better software, or not: these are issues that are infinitely malleable in the hands of a skilled advocate. But it all derives from the motive of freedom -- not the mere availability of source code.
With short termism prevalent in the corporate world, with people achieving success by meeting expected profits per quarter, and failed if expectations are not met (hint, profiuts were still made), it comes as no surprise that people can only measure success of a project merely on TCO or migration costs. The brainwashing of powerful IT companies is working wonderfully.
I want to be the owner of my IT infrastructure, both at home and at work (that is my compny or employer), I want to make the decisions of how, when and who does maintenance to my IT infrastrucutre, I don;t want to migrate or upgrade because it is convenient to the provider and when the provider asks me to upgrade or migrate I want to be able to shopr around for possible options.
I could not care less if going OSS will cost me a few bucks more in the short term if in the long term I will regain the control of my IT infrastrucutre which should be reflected in saner decision when spending money.
Shortermists should jump from a clift and marvel at the tremendous speed they achieve just one second before they come to a complete halt once they hit the floor.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Our Primary weapons are Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt...
The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]