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.
' 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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
This is the part of TCO that Ballmer/et al like to overlook. Not to mention the potential real costs of "failing" an audit.
KFG
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 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
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 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
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?
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
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?