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.
Where is the story from Munich on this?
I would have liked to hear their side on this. Unless I just glazed right over it talking about other groups moving to Open Source and their woes or reasons that sounded like they shouldn't count.
Linux is the better option. It is cheaper, just not in balmers (thats a currency). When I built my system, I had the choice of Windows (179) or Linux (40 for boxed set), natrualy, I chose Linux, I got all my hardware detected, all the software I needed and of course, all the games I played (some with wine).
Ballmer maybe laughing now, but as more and more organizations switch, it wont be long before Linux DOES cut into Microsoft's profits, and we will see who has the last laugh.
If you havn't tried Linux before, then
Legally get a free copy of Lindows! Lets see Microsoft beat that!
found here
They spend quite a while discussing the problems Windows has with security, including viruses... how is that a nice plug?
This is Slashdot - what many others would call fair and reasonable is considered hopelessly biased towards Microsoft by many (not all) people here.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
That a company that's recently been hammered in the anti-trust area wouldn't
have a president gloating over how hard it is to change away from their
system to a more standards-compliant and open one. I guess they've given
up any sense of decorum a long time ago, but it's still a bit shocking.
Amen!!! I didn't see a lot of material on what the problems were though.
* User training?
* Gaps in the user application space?
* Porting in-house applications?
* Database access or porting?
* Windows or other *NIX interoperability?
* Availability of trained admins?
* Cultural problems?
What is it?
Inquiring minds want to know!!
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.
Attention IT managers: the PCs you're in charge of fixing may change their OS behavior at times of their choosing.
It's a smart move on Toronto Star's point. Why would this be news? It isn't. Nobody in Toronto is concerned about how local government in Germany works. So why is is in the paper? Look at the ads. Microsoft, Dell, etc. Now, if it was your paper, are you going to run stories complimentary to your benefactors, or ones that paint them in a bad light. I don't read the Toronto Star, but since most papers are interchangeable in their content and (in Canada at least) are all owned by two or three companies, hence the reason for not lending much credibility to newspapers. Sorry.
"Ballmer said governments that abandon Microsoft are more interested in making a political statement than using the best and most affordable software."
What constitutes the "best" software? Most features? Maybe. Best stability? Maybe. Best security? Maybe.
For some situations and groups, the best software is software the furthers goals like avoiding dependance on a foreign company with a bad track record for business practices and near monopoly control. Like, say, foreign governments. Which are, after all, political institutions. Why wouldn't they make political statements?
Microsoft gets it, all right. They will do their best to make decisions other than for immediate $$ spent look silly, but for some in this world there really is more to it than that. Microsoft knows to fear thinking like this, because it cannot be controlled.
"The people who are making business decisions based on where are the applications, what is the value, what is the lowest cost of ownership, we're not losing them."
At, but there again value and cost of ownership are not always strictly a matter of $$. Frankly, it's a pretty cold world when that is true, and it's one of the things I dislike about the US. In any case, to solve the chicken egg problem of applications first or users first, the users typically have to take the plunge.
Ballmer can chuckle all he likes. What he isn't mentioning is that first adapters always, ALWAYS, have a hard time. Did we make fun of the first people who bought those really expensive first generation DVD players? Do universities shrink away from paying Peoplesoft $$$$$$$$$ for rather unimpressive systems that still need lots of tweaking? (I'm still convinced if a couple of them had hired GNU enterprise with that $$$ everyone would have been better off, but that's another post.) Change is tough. But for each person or group that makes the change, things are ironed out and it gets easier next time around. And as things get easier, a proven track record emerges, and the trail is paved, more people start to go down it.
So sure, Munich is chopping down trees to make a road through the forest right now. But the next time around someone else will have an example to follow, and will also do some more road clearing.
I'm quite sure if Munich had made the decision to switch over to Macintosh, they'd be facing many of the same problems. To a certain extent change is just hard, period. But the thinking here is long term, not short term. The Media reports short term, Microsoft laughs in the short term. But I'm a lot more interested in the long term, when Munich can look at the next upgrade cycle prices for Windows and laugh in their face.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Let me imagine they're installing a distro on every desktop, wasting time standardizing on a rollout plan and specific apps... probably exactly the same way they rolled out Windows in the past. No kidding they're not saving money.
If they figured out that you can run a netboot or ltsp system in a way you really often can't with Windows, maybe they'll start saving money.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
Any switchover of this kind will run into teething problems. We switched over most of our academic admin office (about 30 computers) to Linux/OpenOffice. Despite the support of two experienced Linux sysadmins and backing from On High, there was considerable grousing that still continues some 6 months later. File opening speeds, minor formatting things, print speeds - anything that might be imagined to be a little worse than the good old Win/Office system. I think it is mostly two factors: resistance to any kind of change, and the loss of freedom to mess around with the system. The slight but obvious user interface issues are a good added excuse.
On the flip side, though: No viruses. No files lost. No idiot using someone else's machine and wiping out data. Automatic remote backup. The sysadmins are happy! Unfortunately these things do not seem to figure in the tally of the staff, even when one of their colleagues who has yet to switch has had all her files scrambled by one of the latest viruses.
In short - it is hard to get people to change. But there are enormous savings, and not just financially.
It's not like transitions from one MS to another MS product is easy either. We recently switched from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003 and it was a major PITA. Their deployment guide makes it sound easy but their transition tools where major POS.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showC omments=true&entry=3255420977
The move to Linux may or may not have made sense; what's clear is that the city did not actually examine the project first - they made a political decision without ever looking (seriously) at the technical issues.
Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library
I keep hearing this story and every time it's somebody from microsoft telling it. From what I hear the problems aren't technical but involve training staff on new applications. There's no doubt that once everybody's up to speed on the new system that it will be less costly in the long term than a Microsoft solution.
It seems MS has been briefing their employees on what to say about the Munich linux conversion, this all proves that we have them worried.
My advantage has ALWAYS been limiting the Microsoft exposure as much as possible. I saw the writing on the wall with Windows 95 (refused to deploy it -- stuck w/ WFW 3.11). Beyond the desktop, word, and excel Microsoft has been snuffed by me.
... we were always operational and virus free. Always. With Windows now on a segmented network and only running for AutoCAD needs (everything else has been migrated across the offices I oversee) ... my price just went up (I gave myself a bonus :).
... add in the fact that all these Windows virus' just became a moot point -- and everybody walks away happy, working, and with more money in their pocket. Except Microsoft...
The out come? When everyones network, except mine, were going to hell in a hand basket
The customer just sees what they didn't have to spend on Windows licensing, the difference between said licensing and the cost of Panther (OS X) [approved upgrade -- which costs ME] -- and the huge savings across all the Linux servers and those Linux desktops that have been deployed (OS X is winning w/ me).
Upgrade my cost to them while showing them a bill that is 1/2 if not 2/3 the full cost of staying with Windows licensing
You mirrored my thoughts on that. I was thinking 'growing pains' instead of teething, but it still is the same general idea
Let's face it, Linux DOES need this kind of experience. It's what helps it grow. I mean, you can't say that migrating from Windows 98/ME to XP was an EASY thing for companies. I'm sure that there were plenty of early implimenters who ran into similar cost/resource overruns. The fact of the matter is, the more companies who DO face these things, the more we learn about the process itself. I don't think we can even say that the migration problems are more techinical related or more to do with implementing business processes within a completely new environment
Having done work in managing software migration within a business process, I know for a fact that pre-existing business rules play a critical role in how easily something is implemented, but with Windows, any time there's a new release, I make sure I read through all the articles of InfoWorld (and other such trade mags) to see all the articles on caveats for migration. Linux needs this type of coverage so that more people actually DOING migrations can know what to plan ahead for. And let's face it, botched upgrades or cost overruns is part of this process.
Personally, I'm fine with Munich running into more problems then expected, because it's something real and something we can learn from. It just means that the next city/state/country that seeks a migration can communicate with Munich and find out WHERE the problems occurred to plan ahead for it prior to even starting. So each subsequent installation becomes that much easier until it becomes a neatly documented procedure.
No matter how 'Developers boy' tries and spin it, Microsoft went through the exact same thing with companies who moved to XP from the 9x family (I know I have firsthand experience of that as many of you probably do as well).
-- If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else will do it for you.
You made one statement that sounded like we shouldn't make Linux like Windows, but then you pointed out the very reason why we must. For Linux to gain enough marketshare to be viable it needs to be so similar to Windows that from a user's viewpoint the only difference is the price. Once Linux has about 25% of the world market then we can afford to let idealism and perfectionism have their say.
As much as I'd like to commiserate, there simply isn't enough detail on what the problems are which makes it difficult for anyone to help. But Ballmer reveals more than is probably healthy for Microsoft here:
However, this is a compelling reason to stand on the side of free software for freedom, rather than low price (and this, again, is one reason why "free software" trumps "open source"). Low price may get people's attention, but sometimes unexpected expenses come up and what will keep people around (such as the Chinese government as mentioned in the article) in the long term is software freedom--being able to inspect, share, and modify the software. When you base your decision on software freedom, software proprietors simply can't compete no matter how much they mark down the cost of their software. They know that and that is where free software can win. Technical merit can be had with enough time and effort, and low price is a side effect of software freedom. But the freedom itself, by definition, is not something you can get from any proprietor. The free software community does themselves a disservice by not teaching people about software freedom.
Digital Citizen
can you imagine setting up that many copies of any OS?
Quite. We only have about 10,000 desktop PCs but, even with Microsoft reps onsite full time, lots of money and some clever technical staff, our migration from NT4 to XP has been running for two years and is still not complete.
Thank god I'm one of the stragglers. XP... eeuuuggghhh!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I agree with this completely.
I personally think the overall complexity of the open source path is probably slightly higher than Windows these days, but on this scale of operation probably not radically different. Pick the wrong Windows integrator (strong on client or server side but not both) and it will be a painful migration.
One problem that I do see is that in strategic deals like this one, Microsoft has an advantage in that the corporation can "fix" a bad integrator choice by flooding the site with the money and knowledge needed to make this work. A big IT consultant can try to do the same thing, but that may require a big internal investment on their part - I'm not sure whether going back to a SUSe or RedHat with problems could create the same effect.
Of course, that's what MS would argue that their value-add is, and I don't know that I would completely disagree. I'm sure they're loading MS commandos into the Microsoft Air Force troop carriers in Redmond, waiting for Munich to ask for help.
It is often repeated on Slashdot that benefits of Linux other than low costs should somehow more important to businesses and other organisations. But why? Simply because in the past cheap products were usually of lower quality? But that is no longer true with information-based products with low marginal costs (cost of duplicating). And you also forget that decreasing costs seems to be the most popular way to achieve competitive advantage. And it surely is the simpliest one.
With all the outsourcing going on in the US, companies seem to be determined to decrease the costs as much as possible. Why then do you want to make the emphasis on how Linux better solves the organisation's problems? Haven't you read the recent article about technical support? Companies do not want the best, they want the cheapest. Linux (BSD) is the cheapest, so why not promote it as such. If you don't like the word "cheap", say that Linux will allow to lower the costs. After all, multimillion dollar ERP systems do the same - they decrease costs. Teleconferencing systems decrease the costs. VoIP systems decrease the costs. I.e. they are cheaper. So is Linux, don't feel ashamed of that.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I'm sorry but our group (20 software developers, and about 25 Operations Support) has migrated approximately 20000 users from 95 to 2000 in less than a year. Successfully. We also have (inhouse) software developed that automatically patches apps and hotfixes. Within 3 days we had approximately 36,000 workstations patched for the Blaster virus with about 200 failed patches without having to send one admin in to patch. Right now we have 40,000 workstations that we do support for (course it is only 3rd level).
2000 is not a bad OS as long as you are able to augment it to do what you want. Next year XP...
First of all I want to point out that data bound controls are pretty much evil. Without proper separation of model, view and controller it makes applications very hard to maintain.
Secondly the answer is java. Eclipse and netbeans are very good IDEs and there are great commercial ones as well. For delphi shops Jbuilder is a great choice because it looks and acts a lot like Delphi. With java you also get great middle tier and scalability. Much better then what you would get with VB or Delphi.
Finally check out this. They seem to be working on data bound widgets for J2EE.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
So, people end up loading data into their local databases on Excel spreadsheets, rather than contacting the IT department, because it's cheaper or they can't be bothered going through the proper process.
Then, they lose the data they recorded because someone in the networks department upgraded the PC it was it one weekend - IE scrapped it (this actually happened).
The most productive environment I ever worked in was a green screen mainframe environment. People just got better and better with what they had on the systems side, users could work unimpeded with no forced upgrades of software, no upgrades of hardware, and almost never a network issue.
As for home use, people should be getting managed services, so that they can be truly productive. The chances of viruses/hacking/lost data would be reduced to almost nil.
"The equivalent of this problem would selecting the wrong Microsoft Partner to do your rollout."
The notion in the above quote is flawed because you almost never have Microsoft or a Microsoft integrator replacing such an entrenched Linux or UNIX environment (essentially the reverse challenge of the Munich environment) . Doing so would be very problematic particularly if that environment had many average computer users. These users and environments that have many such users tend to be the hardest to overcome.
Ballmer should remember his amusement when he talks about Windows being integrateable. The failings of people to be able to replace his OS simply proves the lack of interoperability of the OS and the file formats from MS applications. It also proves their effort to lock out competition based on predatory practices, rather than soley in competitive products is working. Anybody who thought replacing Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Applications was going to be even relatively easy is not very smart and has never tried any such thing (and I do not mean sone granola head replacing his girlfriends Windows with Linux). For less skilled users, even the replacement of Outlook with *any* other email/collaboration program is a difficult task. These people are not very trainable and painfully closed minded (probably due to fear or technology). This has nothing to do with features easy because I have gone through such hardships with users who used Outlook simply as a pop3 email client.
Odd, considering the article was about how such problems were costing them more money then they planned to spend.
Even more odd, the article did not mention how much more money Munich was spending as a result of these unmentioned problems.
The article would have been interesting if it stated either.
Steve
is why anyone would accept this piece at face value. Notice that it doesn't link any sources. Are there any? Not as far as I can tell. I've trolled the german IT news sites (I read german) and I haven't found anything that smacks remotely of the claims the article makes.
The only actual quote in the article is from Balmmer: "They're saying it's more expensive" and he goes on to gush: "All of a sudden it's more expensive now to use the Linux solution than the Windows solution." I seriously doubt that any evidence of this can be found in the German press. I certainly can't find any. I also asked my German friends in IT if they had heard of anything. No they hadn't. If there is no evidence, then Ballmer is a bare-faced liar.
What I suspect we have here is simply Ballmer cackling over the results of a FUD piece that he had planted in the first place. If so, it's nothing new, it's the level of ethics we've come to expect from Microsoft.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.