Munich Votes for Linux Migration Plan

JoScherl writes "The German news site Heise reports (German, Babelfish version) that the city council of Munich (3rd biggest city in Germany, 1.3 million inhabitants) has voted for the detailed concept of the LiMux - Linux for Munich (German, Babelfish version) project with votes from all parties except the CSU (Christlich Soziale Union, christion social union). With this decision the 13,000 Desktops and Servers of the city administration will be migrated to Linux. CSU, which has just won the European elections, said they won't support Linux since its Feierabendprogrammierer ('leisure-time coders') would destroy Munich's IT-landscape (Microsoft Germany and other big companies are located in and around Munich) and they also fear that the personnel would have problems with learning how to use OpenOffice and other migrated systems. The migration plan has the following steps: This year the Windows NT desktops get OpenOffice and Mozilla as their default office and browsing suite. In 2005 and 2006 the systems will be migrated to Linux, with some applications running on Windows application servers. In 2008 all applications should run native on Linux."

Comments

Re:Isn't that a bit rash....

[log2.0]

Well, they will first be trained in OOo and mozzy while still running windows. Then a few years down the track comes linux. I would expect that in a few years, linux will be a lot easier to use than it is now. Even now, if you are given a linux desktop box that has already been set up, its easy to use.

Razors edge

[noelo]

Linux fans had better hope that this goes well because if it doesn't you can guarantee that Microsoft will be hopping up and down screaming "I told you so".....or "Ich tolden youze sozen" (in German)

Re:Isn't that a bit rash....

[smash]

This is brought up every time someone proposes switching to linux/anything else.

Fact is, virtually none of my 150 users know how to use Windows, so why should Linux be any different? Its the applications that users care about.

In fact, one of the biggest excuses for them not trying is "i'm afraid I'll break something".

If they're not logged on with a root account, they can't really break anything, so if anything, Linux will be easier for them to learn, too :)

Besides, the re-training thing is just as bad when switching from Windows 98/NT to Windows XP anyway....

smash.

Re:Sounds cool to me.

[Canberra Bob]

Do you have any idea how government / business works when implementing / changing new technology? 4 years is actually a remarkably quick time to change ALL software over to Linux.

So they have decided to do this. Firstly, they have to determine what problems they will encounter. What apps might they need that they may have difficulties finding under Linux? Code may have to be migrated from ASP / whatever. Excel / word macros rewritten. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Implementing a radical change in a very large organisation goes beyond just deciding "hey, Ive got this really cool idea, lets just format all the hard drives and install Linux".

Even training, each hour the employees are in training is not only costing for the training, but also for lost productivity. The IT support has to be re-trained in the new software.

And on the server side, any code / app migration is no "simple" task.

So no, it is not "extremely simple".

Re:$30mil EURO?

[gweihir]

$30m divided by 13,000 machines = $2300/machine? Is this the reasonable cost companies should budget for to migration from Windows to Linux?

It is. Actually it is a bit more expensive than staying with MS for the moment, but the main criteria were stability, security and removal of the dependency of one company only (MS). The move is expected to pay of in the long term (>10 years). Cities are long-term planners, or at least should be.

That is why Balmer failed to convince them to stay with MS by offering better prices. The fundamental motivation was not the current prices, but strategic reasons.