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.
They spend quite a while discussing the problems Windows has with security, including viruses... how is that a nice plug?
The article seems pretty balanced to me, although it does gloss over one or two points (Munich hadn't already 'made up their mind' when Microsoft made a cheaper offer).
Sounds like a good opportunity to look into why and exactly what isn't going too well, so it can be fixed.
...if Linux really is to blame (and I haven't seen any specifics on what problems they are having), then they can fix them themselves. If similar problems occured with Windows, then you would just have to beg Microsoft to fix them for you.
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.
True, those costs are saved and they are quite substantial. The problems are getting everything to work with Linux when it was not designed to from the beginning. Now that is another substantial cost that stands out because it was not a cost anybody was dealing with before.
These problems are to be expected and certaily should not be a surprise to anybody with a clue. After everything is up and running THEN the savigs will be apparent and the Linux folks will laugh best.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
So Ballmer is saying "It's more expensive". I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be more expensive - MS were the cheaper (initial cost) of the two solutions for Munich, in fact the article more or less says this.
So what exactly is this article, apart from a chance for MS to spin the loss of some major business into more fear, uncertainty and doubt ?
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
For a city the size of munich its nice to see them trying to use linux on such a massive scale, but any kind of technological roll out is going to have unexpected cost. However,as more people do these roll outs, the costs will come down -- or rather be gauged more accurately. We should all be thanmkful that Munich is willing to ungergoing this projects, as it will help the rest of us understand linux deployment on a largetr scale. Also on a personal side note: this is really to be expected seeing how they are using SuSE. SuSE isnt a terrible distro, but since we can all thank suse for being rpm based (yes i know it can support yum and maybe deb).
There are quite a few LUGs in Germany. I think it would be great press for one of them to assemble a team to assist their Government with the implementation of GNU/Linux.
They didn't say it was more expensive than Windows-- they said that it was more expensive than keeping what they had (i.e. having Windows and never upgrading/maintaining it) and more expensive than they anticipated. And I don't know if the Munich government works the same as city governments around here, but it seems to be traditional to severely lowball the costs of projects, just to get them rolling. Later, no one wants to kill a 'city improvement' plan, so everyone grudingly agrees to more funding.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I'm surprised that a migration from Windows to somethign else would be difficult. Certainly not so difficult that it would cost more than Microsoft discounting the upgrade (which would not require any migration at all) down near zero.
There are costs leaving Windows, no doubt. From format lock in, all the way to the staggering stupidity and fear it fosters in it's users, Windows is all about keeping you using Windows.
..of those problems are because of they were using ms in the first place?
and how many of them would have existed when trying to move to a newer microsoft platform, and how many of them transition problems would have been significantly bigger if they had later decided to jump off the ms boat(after this round of upgrades and new lock in's from changing fileformats)?
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Sounds like another good reason to switch to Linux from where I am sitting :-)
They're no longer struggling with Windows, like 99% of the world's organisations.
And they'll be pissing themselves laughing next time a big virus hits.
That was classic intercourse!
So, let me get this straight.
A Toronoto newspaper says that Steve Balmer says that Munich is having trouble switching to Linux. Boy, that's great investigative journalism there.
Answer that one for me, Mr. Ballmer.
They aren't locked into your prescribed update path, at your prescribed price, with your prescribed software... If Microsoft says "like it or lump it," you have no choice, and no freedom.
Yes, linux can theoretically be "free" (as in beer), but everything has update and maintenance costs (even if only in manpower costs)... everything... including windows and linux.
Even if it costs a bit more up front... how much are they going to save in the long run? And how much is it worth to be free to choose another vendor? Another tech support company? Another code monkey to maintain their systems?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Well, duh. That's why Microsoft has a monopoly, right? Ballmer likes to bitch and whine about how it was a "political decision" and how such things are somehow dirty and rare, but he seems to have missed the fact that every decision is political. There's no such thing as a pure business decision.
No matter how many TCO studies you do, no matter how many reports are written by an IT dept doing an evaluation, the final decision is going to be made based on how comfortable somebody is with an idea. Going with Microsoft is safe, it's easy, because everybody else does it. That's a political decision. It's the old "nobody got fired for buying IBM" thing.
The problem with Ballmer is that he sees what he wants to see. Somehow he has to reconcile his beliefs (that Microsoft is better) with reality (people are chomping at the bit to leave them). He does this by saying:
There's another thing. Does anybody else have questions about the competency of the Munich guys to be doing such a migration? Why are they doing a crash switch, which is bound to end in tears? Why are there persistant rumours of them using VMware rather than bringing Wine up to speed on their products (which I'd guess works out cheaper in the long run and certainly provides a better desktop experience).
Finally, is it just me or does Ballmer look really evil in that photo?
Isn't it great how ALL of the quotes in this article are from Ballmer? Every single one? I mean, gee, they spend a whole half a paragraph on paraphrasing "news reports out of Germany", but then let Ballmer go on for paragraphs and paragraphs without any attempt to analyze what he is saying. Real balanced journalism, that.
How many readers of the Toronto Star, do you think, are going to just glance at that article, see a quote from [someone] saying "All of a sudden it's more expensive now to use the Linux solution than the Windows solution," (with respect, in the article, to... well, they don't say what that quote refers to or what its context was, just that he said it at an expo) after a few paragraphs of talking about unexpected cost increases in the Munich city government, and walk away with the interpretation "It has been more expensive for the Munich city government to use Linux than it would have been to use Windows."
It seems that the main problem in Munich is with the knowledgebase of the integrators. The equivalent of this problem would selecting the wrong Microsoft Partner to do your rollout.
I would imagine that as experience with Linux grows this problem will be easier to minimize.
Linux needs to offer more than just lower costs to successfully compete (I would probably point to the lower costs last - it's not like it's a good idea to run your systems on something just because it's cheap). So instead of taking how much they've saved and will save on future licenses it would probably be more beneficial to look at what the problems are and how they can be solved. Not least because similar problems are likely to arise in other organizations switching to Linux.
So to sum it up, they spend the same, but pay germans (so they get some money back), and educate the people. Not really a difficult choice.
What exactly makes Ballmer think that the Windows version wouldn't have gone over budget? You'd think that he'd seen enough consulting projects "go north" that he'd understand this is relatively normal, especially in a government job, with a tremendous number of people, and the result of a strongly competitive bidding process. I'm surprised that he can't see that - with his position, he should be able to understand what's going on here.
Oh, right - he's a fucking liar, from a nest of fucking liars. I forgot.
I think there are more than enough geeks out there that would like to see the Munich transition work. Why don't they (Munich) put up a site with the problems they are experiencing and ask for a little help? If they were to list the environment and the problems they are having, with an email addy for response collection, I bet they would be flooded with support.
' The migration plan is more complex than simply replacing Windows with Linux, according to an outline provided by the Munich information department. Studies on open-source security, desktop ergonomics and the software components' stability and compatibility with other applications will be included in the process.
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. 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.
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.'
Yes it's more expensive to actually worry about security and design system that factors in security needs.
It would much cheaper in the short term to just toss the latest MS product on hundreds of machines and ignore security totally. Nobody need do a study, the answer is MS security is almost non existent.
And the last paragraph speaks volumes about relying on an MS monoculture. Noow those vendors are screwed and any venor who can provide an open source solution for Munich will get there contract.
Not two weeks ago, slashdot was discussing this.
But how about the angle that the US is known to write software to sabatoge the economies of other countries, making independent, inspectable code a matter of national security. Of course, if it isn't the government sabatoging your economy, then Microsoft clearly is.
I use Windows XP professional, Mac OS X and Redhat Professional WS 3 and Linux still isn't there and won't be for awhile. I don't think that anybody that claims that Linux can compete one to one now with the two other major options has a grasp on the complexity the diverse needs of business and individuals. One thing in my mind that needs to gel is one dominant environment. I'm talking about a common development toolset, libraries, GUI... etc One paradigm needs to rule the roost to provide commonality for developers. A big reason for the success of Windows and the Mac is tight rules for the way things work.
A lot of work needs to be done. A lot of integration and automation needs to be worked on to fill the needs of the common computer user, that would be the user that treats the computer as an appliance. Until I can just plug any hardware in and get the kind of support that Windows and Mac OS X provide for it Linux won't be challenging for real. My fear is that it might be hyped to much and those that try it now, and find it unacceptable, will be soured by the experience and be hesitant to try it again.
I've always heard that it's a good idea to do a migration like this slowly but MS stuff intentionally doesn't play well with other software which makes migration away from it hard. This kind of thing needs to be planned long term.
I do like the rip it out and replace it all approach though. It'll be fun to see how it goes (assuming it doesn't crash and burn). A lot of people are going to be learning a lot about Linux fast. If I spoke any German I might offer to help a little.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
This is true to an extent, but I'd add that any government just like any corporation needs to reduced expenditure of its stakeholders.
For large organisations the cost of Linux scales very well.
Given that the performance of linux matches or exceeds MS - duh, the cost issue is justafiably the only reason needed.
while sco {
wget -O
}
Exactly.
The thing is, the first priority is the value that Linux is providing Munich. Security and stability are big points in Linux's favor. Customization should be another. If we can't offer compelling value, people will smile, nod, say "good for you guys, I'm rooting for you" -- and then plunk down money for the product that fits their needs.
We can't as a community wish away these transaction costs of switching. The whole point Ballmer is making when he highlights stories like these is that Open Source is NOT free.
You need expertise in-house, custom development to meet your needs, tech support, administration, management. All these things are expensive. If Linux is to win, it needs to prove that it isn't just hiding its costs.
I'd like to see the community really engage the guys in Munich to ascertain 1. what the problems have been 2. what we can do (new software, utilities, companies, services) to alleviate these transition pains.
That's what MS does with their customers. If we're to really challenge them, we need to be even more responsive and useful. We have the advantage, but that doesn't mean we're using it.
Lets review some of the reasons Munich made their initial decision of Linux over MS:
1. Freedom: total independence from an overseas monopoly.
2. Public interest: a large % of project dollars is going to local integrators paychecks instead of overseas to Redmond.
3. ROI: long term analysis showed that, even though initial Linux cost was greater, Linux would
soon proove cheaper.
4. Security: aside from all the MS vulnerabilities (viri, worms, etc) the Munich government is not
woried about the possibility of closed source spyware.
5. Future model: any lessons learned by this project only help ensure the success and low cost of deploying Linux in other government agencies.
Why is Ballmer gloating like this wasn't expected? Microsoft has worked for over a decade to make their applications into Roach Motels for your data, and the cost (not just financial) of transitioning away from them as painful as possible-- to make many of their dissatisfied customers see sticking with MS as the lesser of two evils, and dissuade them from switching to something else.
I'm not surprised at all that making the switch away from Microsoft is a rocky and expensive road, after all the work Microsoft has done to make it that way... but once it's done, it's done and you're no longer a slave to Microsoft's licensing whims and mandated upgrades, which in the long run would be much more expensive.
~Philly
One thing that I don't see being noted here is that it's not just how much something costs, but who gets paid. If Munich uses Linux then a lot of the costs stay local, if they use MS then the business is exported. Even if MS uses locals a lot of the money goes to Redmond. With all the bitching about lost jobs we have to remember that other countries have the same problems and Linux is one solution. You can get the best minds around the world working for you, but still keep your business local.
It is telling that Ballmer is gloating over the difficulties of a transition to Linux instead of gloating over stomping the Linux community into the ground with better products and services. The fact is that they are having trouble BUT they are still transitioning.
Change is always costly, Linux transitions have all of the troubles that other software transitions have without the high cost of each liscence.
I agree completely with the proposition that we must strive to provide software support for Linux as the primary focus of our community efforts. The code is free, the support is where we have the opportunity to add value and create wealth.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
I run a Samba+LDAP "windows" domain. Why? We could have purchased a windows server. It would have been easier for me. We paid a consultant a fair amount for the help (this was before Samba 3 or TNG). Sometimes printing goes tits up for no discernable reason.
It's still worth it. We were hit by a software audit- no need to track CALS. We set up authenticated wireless access - again, no need to ask, "Per seat or per connection?" and be damned either way. We own the solution, we're not renting. No "All your base..." click-through agreements. (Which I render null and void anyway by crossing my fingers as I click.)
Security is better. The server is immune to win32 attacks (though some smb protocol vulnerabilities may be yet be present).
The technical part of my job presents enough challenges without precious "mental bandwidth" (in Ballmer's phrase) being syphoned off on distractions like licensing. It's INCREDIBLY time-consuming and that effort is totally wasted. It doesn't advance our mission at all.
I just want to do tech stuff. Proprietary software introduces friction that has to be weighed against any purported benefits like a more polished UI.
"User friendly" isn't the problem. Clicking on an icon is the same. There's just a bit of training so people will know which icon to click on and where it is.
The big problem is that there are lots of little apps that need to be ported. This is the same in any migration. Someone, somewhere throws together a database for some reason and it becomes "mission critical" to that department.
So, you have apps that you knew nothing about....
That need to be ported....
With 100% functionality....
Prior to your roll-out....
And it is probably badly written with no thought to managability or portability or even data integrity....
And THAT is what eats up your budget.
It might be worthwhile for these cities who are moving to Linux to keep a document project about their trials and tribulations ... a sort of Linux KB directed towards large geographical distribution, and then linking this documentation resource into the HowTos, man pages, and what-not. It would cover all the Linux distros. However I would hate to be the document maintainer for that task. Probably something like this already exists, however before you mod me down, provide a link. Thanks.
I'd like to see the community really engage the guys in Munich to ascertain 1. what the problems have been 2. what we can do (new software, utilities, companies, services) to alleviate these transition pains.
/. interview. As troll- and IANAL-bloated as Slashdot is, there are some people here who can make decisions about thousands of systems, and are watching Munich with great interest.
Perhaps even a
Haida Manga
Damn right!
Heh...apparently it comes as a total shock for Ballmer that not everyone is all about the almighty dollar (or euro or whatever). Yes, Munich did this to save money in the short term, but in the long term it is also politics. I just hope it works out for Munich, then hopefully more cities and goverments will follow.
Well, Balmer DOES have a point when he points out that political motives were behind the move. I will and do not doubt its ultimate wisdom, but since anti-MS sentiment is rampant in Europe and anti-competitive behaviour as exhibited by MS in the past is taken very seriously over here, there's bound to be a political motive. Which should never be an argument in deciding what to base your IT infrastructure on. Of course, the security center is a joke. As if a cool dashboard is going to help if your car is designed so badly that the wheels are falling off.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
A good analogy would be moving the tire swing of a gorilla. It is going to take awhile before "JoJo" realizes it is a good thing.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
I don't know why I'm posting a comment. Not like people read stuff down here anyway.
Tyler Hamilton is a hack, and here's why:
"They're saying it's more expensive," Ballmer told the Star yesterday.
Why is it more expensive, Tyler? Why are you relying on a secondary, unauthoritative, possibly hostile source for your information? Is it really more expensive? Did you bother calling Munich?
And then this:
They all cite the perceived lower cost of open-source alternatives, though organizations pay to customize and support them. But their reasons for choosing Linux are often more political than economic.
Why, Tyler? Because Ballmer says they do?
Ballmer said governments that abandon Microsoft are more interested in making a political statement than using the best and most affordable software.
That's the only source this guy has that isn't anecdotal. Even then, it's secondary. And Tyler never even bothered to directly interview Ballmer either.
6th grade research projects show more effort.
I didn't see any particular details on what was going slowly with their implementation... The article seemed to focus more around Balmer's reaction to it...
Anyone know more about what are the install issues? Is it a training issue on the part of the implementors or scalability and requirements-meeting on the part of the Linux distro they are using?
The reaction that I'm afraid we'll see from most people on slashdot is one of denial that open source can be hard to integrate... Let's see what the real issues are and address them rather than making up excuses.
Vince
Eventually someone will make a Linux distribution customised for municipal administrations. One that will be possible to deploy quickly in any city of the world. What is needed is for these governments to realise the importance of contributing back their solutions. If Munich solves their migration problems, they should share the solutions with Paris, Beijing, Bangalore and Austin...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Since when do transition's ever go well, especially something this large scale?
Hey Balmer, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Josh
A newspaper in Toronto, Canada is reporting about difficulties a Linux transition in Munich, Germany has. They are not even on the same continent.
I wonder what sources closer to the real thing have to say.
Companies do not want the best, they want the cheapest. Linux (BSD) is the cheapest, so why not promote it as such.
In this particular case, Linux is not the cheapest solution. Up front. It will be in the long run. What I find most disturbing is Ballmer gloating at how locked in to the status quo Munich seems to have become. It is almost like he is giving Munich the finger while yelling "I told you we had you!".
It occurred to me recently, after having lost another file to a PC lockup, that the enormous costs of transisioning from manual business machines to PCs (over the past twenty years) are not reflected in MS's profits. The costs of learning all this new technology and the costs of all those lost files and other inefficiencies have been absorbed by the users. The economic gains have been split by the organizations that have bought PCs and Microsoft.
With Linux the costs are more equally distributed and more available for realistic analysis. What that means is that Microsoft is at its peak now in terms of being rich, fat, and happy. The period of increasing returns for them are over and that of diminishing returns on investment have begun. Mr. Balmer shouldn't gloat (like saying the sun shouldn't shine) over the transision costs of changing operating systems because (one) the costs were originally greater to transision from manual machines to PCs but Microsoft didn't pay those costs. And (two) each movement of a large organization from Windows to Linux is cheaper as the unforseen problems and their solutions get shared by the Linux community.
In their defense, Windows is a lot easier to use than Linux and Windows is not dominated by the computer geek mentality that continues to cripple Linux. Windows is dominated by the 'make Microsoft rich by providing useful tools that increase worker productivity' mentality. Since MS has been able to provide their solutions so far at a cost that is much less than the value of productivity gains of their product, they have won spectactularly over all their competitors. But that will change and is changing with every new Linux inplementation.
These guys in Redmond shouldn't gloat, it's makes them look 'white trash' and insults their customers who are not caught up in this American "business is a football game" mentality.
I'm not surprised that the transition from Windows to Linux has its share of bumps in Munich.
I work in a small non-profit organization and we had our share of difficulties migrating from Windows NT4 to Windows 2000. It was several months before we had all of the bugs worked out.
So no doubt shifting between completely different operating systems in a very large organization like a municipal government is going to have its initial upfront glitches.
And of course one of the big problems is going to be one of training. If most of the tech staff is trained in the "Windows" way of doing things it'll be a while before they learn how to do things the Linux way and as others have mentioned some will resist having to learn new skills. That's a natural thing in any workplace environment.
That "inertia" is part of what's helped perpetuate the Microsoft monopoly.
But the key thing will be what happens in the long run. Once the tech staff are fully trained and comfortable in the Linux environment the city of Munich will find significant cost savings.
Its also why even though I work in a "Windows shop", I feel a need to learn as much as I can about Linux, because I think that in the long run my future employment prospects will depend on it.
I live in the UK. Find me a good laptop to buy for my university course next year without Windows XP in some flavour preinstalled. Explain to me why I should pay around 100 more for the privilege of an operating system I will use roughly 5% of the time and wouldn't miss.
It is because of this I am considering building my own easily stealable desktop and buying a PDA for note taking.
Well, Mr. Balmer, I would say that Microsoft isn't doing to well in Munich either. Harharharhar.
Nobody said migration would be cheaper or easier, stupid. On the contrary, _everybody_ said it would be more tedious and expensive. But the majority also said it would pay of in the long run _and_ serve as a landmark for free software growth. And would be a desireble political statement.
Just go on. The more the process of migration recieves a bashing from MS, the stronger the impact will be when Munich migration has succeeded.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"Local custom software contractors don't know how to write Linux apps."
Can they write Java apps? then they can write 'linux' apps.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ok, I find a fundemental problem with your statement. "SP2 will address..." Gee, interesting, something that is not yet out will address the problem that is being caused. Is the solution not to have the problem in the first place?
Frankly this is what sucks about the MS vision. "Today things will not work, but tomorrow all will be better". You are constantly chasing the dream.
That is why I use Open Source software even on Windows. I have very little headaches. Had one recently BECAUSE of IE and a new scam that Casino's spyware have.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Most people dont even UNDERSTAND how Linux works, or how to use it, so you cant even hire qualified people (because no matter how good the admin is, you still need people to visit the desktops).
Most people don't even UNDERSTAND how Windows works. There are of course people who do, so you can hire qualified people. Linux is the same. There are plenty of people who know Linux well enough to be considered a qualified person.
And if you're speaking about difficulties with the GUI on the desktop, well I personally don't think that the average user who is limited to point-and-click would have any more difficulties pointing-and-clicking on KDE or Gnome than they would on Windows.
Have you tried Linux yet?
(take Ballmer's word for it?) Even if it is more expensive, the money stays in Germany, in the EU, not going to the US. That's a good enough reason for many govts.
Posters recognized by their sig,
I emailed these points to him, I encourage you to do the same.
This article may be a red herring.
Not knowing what the coversion problems are nor how much more they forced Munich to spend can make the problem seem worse then it really is ( to microsoft's benefit ).
For all anyone knows the problems could be minor and the cost overruns modest.
Steve
Isn't the real issue that a one-time transition cost is better in the long run than having to pay license fees every year?
Let's see if Ballmer is gloating about Munich 5 years from now when Munich has all the bugs worked out of their transition, and never has to pay a single mark again for their OS.
Why is choosing Linux over Windows a POLITICAL statement? Is Microsoft some kind of politicking engine?
... there might just be something to that...
Wait...
The Penguin Producer
To me the article looked like nothing but typical msft hype. Msft floods with pop-media with this cr@p.
I would have been interested to know *specifically* what problems Germany is having with Linux. I have no doubt that a move like that would be difficult. Vendor lock-in is what msft is all about, and msft is very good at it, has been for 20 years.
Are Germany's problems related to not being able to run msft apps? Or is it difficult for users to learn linux? Or is linux more difficult to administrate? Or something else?
Ballmer, recognizing that virus-infected home PCs pose a risk to business users, said the company is studying how consumers can get software patches automatically when flaws are detected in Microsoft software.
Am I the only one worried about microsoft being able to automatically patch your software?
If say, a patch improved WMP, would it be considered an upgrade?
From the EULA:
2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no longer use the product that formed the basis for your upgrade eligibility.
Would this mean that once something is auto-patched, old versions couldn't be used? I can think of lots of diabolical uses for this, but I'm just paranoid.
Could Microsoft actually do the above?
*puts on tinfoil hat*
> 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.
This is, in a nutshell, why Linux desktops are now *better* than Windows in a large corporate environment. Big corps don't want their users to be running every application in existence; they want them to be able to run only those ones that they should be running.
For most large companies, the vast majority of users need to run the following apps:
- email client
- Web browser
- spreadsheet
- word processor
- some sort of presentation package
That's it - that meets the requirements of the majority of office workers. In fact, many would only need to use email+browser; not that many people actually create content.
I'm aware you can do this sort of customisation and establish a Terminal Server in Windows; I've done it myself several times. However, it's much MUCH easier to do it with Linux, plus you're not worrying about licence management/violations with MS Office apps.
You don't need to run massively planning exercises to roll out the next version of Office or Windows; on a Linux Terminal Server platform, you can run small pilots with a few users then flip out the upgrades (to e.g. OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc) to all your users with much less effort.
As the parent points out, the time between required hardware upgrades to desktop systems is typically a couple of years longer with Linux than with Windows. You have to upgrade your "central server" system on about the same schedule regardless of whether it's running Windows or Linux, but desktop systems have rollouts only every e.g. 3-4 years rather than every e.g 2.