Slashdot Mirror
Munich Struggling with Linux Transition?
rune2 writes "The Toronto Star has an article up that mentions that Steve Ballmer is gloating about how the Munich transition to Linux and Open Source software isn't going too well." Even if the transition is going poorly, what about when Munich is finally set? Funny how there's no mention of all the future costs of licenses they've already saved themselves from, yet there's a nice plug for the next version of Windows. Last time I checked, Windows' upgrades from one version to the next were not free by any definition.
For those a little bit envolved in this transition, that comes as no surprise.
E.g. some departments are already running AD and have been issued permissions to run this setup for 2 or 3 more years.
Other factors are lots of home-grown VB-apps that need to be ported or converted into Webapps, with the added complexity that there's no budget and virtually no knowledge about how to do that...
Nevertheless, the city will not go back (I hope), because the decision *does* make sense. Just not for Steve Balmer.
But that should come as no surprise, either.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
I work for a fortune 500 company that has done many many large Windows rollouts. We also have done many Solaris and Linux installations. Guess what... Windows is often more difficult, more expensive and less stable than Solaris or Linux. Real "objective" reporting. Sounds like the media is appealing to it's sponsors (Microsoft).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Resistance among the user base (people don't like change)
- Vast number of different applications/suppliers to work with
- Lack of support from on-high
None of these problems are specific to linux - but rather to any attempt to introduce change on massive scale. Nowhere are they saying that "linux doesn't work"Wired has an English summary of the information in the German press:
6 22 36,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,
According to the story, here are the major problems, aside from some resistence among city hall staffers:
1. Munich insists on a whole bunch of studies into topics like Open Source security, desktop ergonomics, and software component stability and compatibility as part of the transition, but wants someone else (i.e. IBM and SuSE) to pay for them.
2. Local custom software contractors don't know how to write Linux apps.
Obviously, the first problem has more to do with politics than technology (to paraphrase Ballmer). You can always raise costs by wrapping something in red tape.
The second is a real technical problem, but it also occurs trying to move older Windows apps (i.e. 95, 98) to newer Windows versions. Solution: write Web apps, bozos (that way, if they ever want to go to yet another OS on the desktop, their apps will still work). The real problem is that they still think writing custom client-side apps in *any* OS is a good idea.
I can only speak from my own example.
700+ Macs --- Never had an email virus. Never had an issue with spyware.
100 linux machines -- Never had any virus. Never had any spyware issues.
1000+ windows boxes. Many full time jobs spend doing little but virus removal. Yes we have Norton... Also spyware is a HUGE problem. It has gotton to the point that our clients machines do nothing but have pop-ups and slow down to a crawl.
So in my opinion, switching to ANYTHING non Microsoft Windows will reduce the total cost of ownership after the initial pain of moving. Also, non of these Windows users have administrative access. I will say one good thing about Microsoft Windows, you generally don't have to ask if it is supported, but then again it is almost getting that way with Linux.
Also, do you honestly believe that SP2 will address all the remote secuirty issues of Windows? Would you bet your job on it? I wouldn't...
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
a simple case of sloppy reporting, seems to me. check for yourself:
= /n ewsticker/meldung/43485&words=Linux%20M%fcnche n
t ik elDetail&id=80114785&cfid=57927&cftoken=85649319&n r=2&kw=munchen
first source for all things german, heise.de:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url
based, in turn, on this article in computerwoche:
http://www.cowo.de/index.cfm?pageid=267&type=Ar
nothing in there about linux being more expensive (than what?).
main problem seems to be that the head of the project hoped to put together a municipal linux task force, but the municipality isn't freeing city employees to dedicate their hours; since the city coffers aren't brimming, there's now a budget problem for the "refined project" phase they're currently working on.
who publishes the toronto star...?
It's certainly not easier to use..
Depends on the definition of "easier to use". We customise all user desktops (we use Linux as a terminal server) so that only 5-10 icons are present and those are the only apps the users can access. Easy to use, no confusion. Study after study shows that giving the administrative workers access to all sorts of "accessiores" produces hours of fucking around with screen savers. Web access is restricted to the intranet and few choice sites. No ebay and chatting. Huge increases in productivity and a lot of whining from the spoiled brats when we implement this, usually in the vain of "this sux! On Windows I could play my Backgammon with the dude in shipping all day!". Those who are there to work and make their company successful somehow never complain. Go figure.
Oh and I can just imagine the sort of friction the dudes in Munich are getting from the government workers, I truly sympathise guys.
Again depends on the definition. If you are looking to squeeze the maximum from your existing hardware so that your return on investment is maximized, you use Linux. Otherwise you go upgrade all your PCs every 2 years on schedule. The advent of Windows Terminal Services (something Linux/Unix had for ages) made Windows more competetive but thats not how most Windows installations are deployed. We tend to use Linux based Terminal Servers as a primary mode so the hardware requirements on clients are next to nothing.
You cant be for real. I have people with applications on Windows who pay $7.5k in "support contract" fees for their windows software and they call me to rescue them because that wonderful support just works so great. Did you ever call Microsoft for anything? I did a dozen or so times. Last time it was ~$250 US per "incident" (you will not catch me dead with a MS support contract) and after spending 1/2 a day I still didn't get to talk to anyone who could diagnose a BSOD, even though I went to all the trouble of preparing the dumps and messing with the system debugger and symbol files to try to get the call stack extracted so we could backtrack to the offending code. Oh, and that other time when I called after finding out a critical bug in MS SQL only to find out that a) SQL support is ~$350US per incident and its a call-back "less then 48hrs" response time and b) its not a "bug" but it will be fixed in the "next release". I stopped calling MS many years back, simply because when I looked at the results they never provided me any useful assistance.
Windows world suport is not in any shape or form better then that on Linux and unlike Windows apps, I can at least attempt a work around or even a fix since I can program in several languages.
I am starting to find all these people who repeat mindlessly Redmont's propaganda with no actual practical experience in the matter, truly infuriorating.