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.
At least they didn't waste too much money buying software.
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.
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 dunno, if I'm to believe all those ads I see here on slashdot, the TCO for windows is less than linux. Because, you know, 7-11 is a company I'd look to for my technology purchase information.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
Ballmer said security "occupies a lot of my (mental) bandwidth" these days, and while much still needs to be done to satisfy customers, Microsoft is making "incredible progress" with its 2-year-old Trustworthy Computing strategy.
That's probably the reason why my Windows machine at work has downloaded the same security update about ten times in the last two weeks. Nice to watch progress in the making...
-- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
...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're saying it's more expensive," Ballmer told the Star yesterday
So we're going to base this entire article on HEARSAY?
Microsoft's Ballmer says this and says that in the article. What does MUNICH have to say about all this???
PS: my experience has shown that Linux is the cheapest, most secure, and most reliable system to run. #2 would be OS X with Windows boxes coming in a very distant third. All costs absorbed in the switching happened in the first year (higher hardware & training perhaps) -- but within two years it was paying for itself in the lack of Microsoft tax alone...
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!
Yes, but has Steve Ballmer been on Married with children?
I think not!
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?
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.
Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft Corp., appears to take delight in the troubles that Munich is having as it switches 14,000 city computers from Windows to a rival Linux operating system.
Don't forget that 80% of the Linux computers in Munich run Windows on VMWare. But they don't mention that in the article, of course, which is intentionally written to make Linux look bad.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That's another thing.
It's costing them lots of money, but that money is being charged them by SUSE. Not Microsoft; SUSE. A German company. Even if SUSE cost more *long term* than Microsoft it might ultimately be beneficial to go with that, because that's maybe 10% more money spent on the OS and 100% more money staying within the german economy.
America is corporate welfare central. If this were Seattle doing the opposite we might well be seeing glowing commendations of how they had the guts to support local businesses.
' 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.
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 - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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.
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
That's really a poor example. Getting lpd printing working on Linux is pretty simple, far easier than Windows.
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.
Maybe I'm just really bad with spreadsheets, but I've never gotten a five year projection on Windows v Linux to come out in favor of Windows and positively never had OpenOffice come in as more expensive than Office on Windows.
Hey, if there any accounting types here maybe we could do kind of an open source TCO analysis. Make it public and let people comment on it. Pick a medium size business as a standard...say 500 work stations. Is that fair? Too big? Too small? It's hard because there are so many variables depending on what type of business it is. Ernie Ball was able to throw MS out. Be interesting to see how their IT costs have changed. And how do you include a $90,000 BSA fine in TCO calculations?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You may want to check out CUPS and the kdeprint framework. It's childs play.
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.
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.
I'd be willing to bet there wasn't a transition plan in Munich beyond "Lets format those Windows machines with Linux and life will be happy!" That's the typical silver bullet attitude that management seems to have ("Lets use SCRUM and all our development problems will go away!", "Let's use XML and all our development problems will go away!", "Let's use Object Oriented Programming and all our development problems will go away!")
If we could get Munich and some Linux advocates together, we could go in there, look at their setup and what they need to do, architect a solution, show their guys (Who probably only have Windows experience) how to set the machines up, and be done in time for beer and sausages at the local pub. The Linux advocates get to put "Helped government of Munich set up their systems" on their resume, Munich gets a working setup that puts anything Microsoft ever built to shame and Ballmer pulls out his last 3 hairs in frustration. All in all time well spent, I think.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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
Last time I checked, Windows' upgrades from one version to the next were not free by any definition.
Yes it is. Its free as in Kazaa.
See (with Babelfish if you don't read German) http://www01.silicon.de/cpo/ts-csh/detail.php?nr=1 3043
- Linux-MS_030403.pdf and p df
For background, see http://www.spd-rathaus-muenchen.de/presse/press14
http://www.muenchen.de/aktuell/clientstudie_kurz.
For this specific example you're completely wrong. Installing network printers under Linux and for linux clients is MUCH easier than for Windows.
Heard of CUPS? It's a thing of beauty!!! Windows Server Push Crapnology doesn't compare.
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.
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
I wanted read some other sources about this issue ....
Keep on eye on Google news.
I admin a 7000 node network with 35000 email accounts, we have a 4 server cluster for email (postfix, courier imap) it easily supports the 35000 customers, when we were building the network we looked at everyone, to do a MS solution with exchange we would have needed between 100 and 150 dual proc xeon 2.4 procs (because exchange only supports between 200 and 300 accounts per box).. Not to mention the fact that we would then need 100-150 copies of Advanced Server at 1500 a pop... instead we have a very comparable email system for less than 8 grand... Oh yeah and we don't spend 8-10 hours a day rebuilding corrupted exchange databases.
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.
- 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"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.
The point is, it's costing more than they thought, that doesn't mean it's costing more than it would cost to use Windows.
Nice spin there, Steve. I wonder why people don't trust you?
What Ballmer fails to crow about, nor fails to mention is the cost and expense of the initial Microsoft rollout.
Given the initial rollout cost in a Microsoft platform would be in the billions for a new rollout, it's not hard to conceive that reconfiguring an entire civic network structure to embrace open source technology would have considerable costs than continuing to limp along with an insecure, bloated, and closed source technology family. This is due, by and large, with Munich technicians having already gathered years of experiencing patching Windows environments every day, and so therefore they can do this much quicker than they had been doing so originally.
Embracing a platform may have its speed bumps, but the success and self satisfaction of being able to deploy secure clients and servers will soon outweigh any teething problems the Munich techs are currently experiencing.
It's early days yet, and Ballmer's criticisms of open source rollouts of this magnitude are truly smoke and mirrors if subject to the clarity of a true competitive analysis once all of the facts and figures have been submitted and tallied.
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.
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.
Since when do transition's ever go well, especially something this large scale?
Hey Balmer, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Josh
Linus should also make a visit and poke around to figure out what is really going on. Out Balmer Balmer with counter-PR.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Many of the backbone technologies are easy, or at least don't matter very much. Such as which smtp server(s) they choose for the Munich backbone -- that shouldn't matter much. However the desktop issues in a city are many. To be specific:
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.
We actually had another article posted to the Linux Users Group of Cleveland website way back on February 11th. Full text of the article can be read here.
I read the article, and I still haven't got any clue to what the problem is. I wouldn't be surprised, if it turned out, the problem really is the 99% of people still thinking Windows is the only option. It is not like Linux doesn't have the applications needed for the average office, but maybe accessing your data stored in proprietary formats is a problem. That means switching is a good idea, the sooner the better. Because the price of switching doesn't go down if you wait. And the higher the price of switching away from Windows becomes, the higher Microsoft can turn the price of staying. Deploying Linux in an organization doesn't mean you need everybody to have Linux expertise. But you do need a few people with Linux expertise.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
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.
Much less. Much, much, much less.
Start with a Linux setup. Apps like OpenOffice and Mozilla are trivial to convert because there are Win32 versions available. Perl and Python environs are available for Windows. GTK libraries work on Windows.
Apache has a Windows port. Your Windows users can't tell if their home directory is being served up by a Windows server or Samba.
If you desperately need some application that only works on Linux, you can set up a computer or two with Linux and present the apps over the network. Cygwin is also a viable option.
It's all about open standards and interoperability.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Or was there a link to something Munich-related above?
This argument is coming up again and again. It used to be true, but no longer is. The most likely companies to do the job are IBM and SuSE. IBM is American, SuSE is now 100%-Novell owned and therefore also American. Both will certainly most likely use local personal, but this is no different from Microsoft, whose German headquarters is based in Munich with several thousand employees.
** as in "toss into the trash can".
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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?
(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,
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
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?
This article gives a few more details: http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,622 36,00.html
With a little planning and creativity, we normally find ways of doing things that are different and better than the "traditional" MS model. And, they work on all systems we use. By writing code in Java, Perl, Python, et al, and using Web browsers for most of the interface, we are able to push products out that work with any platform.
For products that need something a little more direct or snappier than what a web browser can provide, there are a few good tools for building cross platform GUIs, or there is X. Hummingbird provides a good commercial X server for MS OSs, and there are other less expensive ones (as well as free). Of course, one of my personal favorites has been the good old fashioned text interface on a ssh connection. It is fast, and when done right as easy to use as a most GUIs. Not to mention, the user can type ahead. We still have not figured out how to make click ahead work ;-)
By planning ahead, and taking a 6 to 12 month preparation cycle in which we build apps that are cross platform before we cross the platform, the crossovers go without a hitch. True, in product costs, there are more dollars spent, but in the manpower dollars, where most of the cost is, there are far fewer dollars spent. Overall, the client saves money on product, saves money on installation, saves money on training, saves money on upkeep and saves money on future development. Not a bad tradeoff for 6 to 12 months of up front preperation work.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
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*
I'm a network admin and i'm platform agnostic. We use all types here; my job is to make them work.
So you image 14000 windows computers and you forget to install an application. Using group profiles you can remotely deploy that application the next time your users login.
Company bookmarks change? No problem, just use group profiles to update everyone's favorites next time they login.
Security patch update? Easy, after you've lab tested the patch, go to your Software Update Services machine and automatically deploy the update to all your client machines.
Love or hate MS. They have done a very good job integrating the server products to the desktop products. It helps administrators do their job without making a visit to every workstation, or writing and debugging pages of scripts.
I like OS X and Linux, and I use them every day, but MS seems to do a better job of centralized administration and deployment.
-ted
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.