Slashdot Mirror
Munich Delays Linux Conversion
It doesn't come easy writes "A short blurb over at The Register reports that Munich has decided to extend the pilot phase of their Linux migration project. One smart move mentioned: Many of their office workers will switch to OpenOffice on Windows first where it is comfortable, easing the transition."
Who here, who as ever worked on a large scale project, has not experienced delays?
It's nice to see a successful government project, even if it is something as relatively minor as a computer systems switch. Yes, okay, switching computer systems is a pretty big deal if you are a system administrator or applications developer for those systems. But from the general public (the ones whom the system is meant to serve) perspective, it should all be pretty transparent.
To see such a move going so well that they intend to do more of it is certainly heartening. I know that I wish the American government would allocate its funds better. Switching to low-cost, high-quality solutions like Linux provides us taxpayers with more bang for our buck.
Let's see how well it goes in Germany and see what lessons we can take away from it!
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
makes sense to me.
I find nothing wrong with it if it would bring the price down. It was interesting to read recently that the price of Vista is rumored to debut at $99, which some people at MS consider a low price (?) Apparently Microsoft is hoping people will have a more positive incentive to upgrade to the new software, instead of letting their existing OS slip into obsoletion. Of course, this would also mean more people would go out to the stores and buy the OS, raising profit margins and revenue... I still consider that $99 to be a high price to pay for an operating system, but the price of MS Office is just rediculous. Microsoft Office Professional Edition is retailing on Amazon for $404.99. If there is a big transition to OpenOffice maybe we will see some real competition and that price will start to come down... but from the looks of it MS would probably lower it to $350 and call it a good deal. For people who really need the software and are on a low budget these prices are truly crippling.
All that's happening is that they're waiting a little while for the workers to get comfortable with the office suites first. There's no hesitation about switching to Linux. Munich is a big city folks, you can't just say "We're going to change to Linux . . . wait for it . . . NOW!"
Slackware's a bitch to install .home) and I've never had any problems. Have you used it recently?
I've been using it since 8.0 and every version doing a fresh install (backing up and restoring
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
Yes you are missing something, OpenOffice on both platforms is the same. The idea is the users will have a chance to get use to OpenOffice, before they have to get use to linux.
Which quite honestly is a bigger change than changing from M$ Office to OpenOffice.
The effect will be that they will be able to convert there templates and scripts while still using an OS they are comfortable with, then copy those Templates/scripts to there Linux setup once they are accustomed to OpenOffice.
You and I may have no problem changing OS'es just like that, but they are dealing with general users that wont be, and will simply be expecting there computers to just work.
This is often a much more sure road to successful acceptance than big-bang rollout projects, where any issues tend to be magnified in that short window when the powers that be see themselves politically vulnerable to errors in execution and might pull the plug.
When going after user acceptance, a pull is better than a push; if users want the change, they're on your side and will work to show the change in the best light. When pushing the technology out to people who would rather have a bit of control over the process, you risk their ire if you tread on their schedules.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I am a little confused here... why the switch to OpenOffice on Windows first, then to Linux second? Is that not an extra step, that could be totally done away with?
Explain to me how the switch from Office on Windows to Open Office on Linux is not two steps to beging with. I would say going to Open Office first, then to Linux would more easing into OSS then the other way around. Switching your OS is a much bigger step than switching your word processor/office suite software. And if you switch your OS to Linux, you would be forced to switch your office suite package. I think it would be easier for someone to switch to a Mac and still be able to use Office rather than switch to a foreign OS and a foreign office suite all at once.
They are mostly worried about the fancy stuff that no one but secretarys ever use. It's mostly there, but the shortcuts might be different, ect.
Can you imagine what most geeks would do if copy went from ctrl-c to ctrl-k or something like that?
Just a thought.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
One point I see made constantly (wonder how many MS shills there are out there) is the concern and finger pointing at OpenOffice about ensuring smooth interoperability and compatibility with Office documents. This is frustrating.
First (but not foremost) in my opinion the sooner "compatibility with Microsoft" is dropped as the IT yardstick (really it is just a canard), the better. As posted in previous /. articles there are other and emerging standards. The other standards aren't necessarily better (since that's an esoteric discussion unto itself anyway), but I can think of one that in the long run if adopted hints at greater interoperability than seen in a long time.
Second (and foremost AFIC), I've posted on this point many times (hmmm, time to start keeping a list of links), there really isn't such a thing as Microsoft and Office interoperability and compatibility. It's time to push back and start pointing that out to the puff-piece MS standard bearers. How many times have you wasted valuable time at a meeting while attendees share paper copies of the pre-distributed incompatible (with their version of WORD) Word documents? If you don't remember, you're not trying.
It's just not OpenOffice's fault anymore, and it's time to start defending it. I know it's a long shot. I know it's a long haul. And I know I'm getting modded troll and flamebait.
I've been moving people away from 2000 Pro at work to XP Pro and a few have complained that "It's too different! I can't learn this" even with the classic windows theme installed. Some people will fuss for no good reason. My only motivation is all the 2000 systems are still joined to a NT4 domain that is being taken away. Then people bitched when we went from Office XP to Office 2003. If you force things upon people they'll adapt quickly, but if you give them too many options it could take years to get them moved over to something different.
Training, primarily, as well as care and feeding of the myriad process monkeys with their taproots in the flow.
Seriously, large organisations - including municipal governments - are notoriously risk-adverse. Not adverse to change, but adverse to unmanaged change. And if you're working with people who are extraordinarily process-minded (the nursing profession comes to mind) then you're not going to get the ball over the line without showing a step-by-step progress from point A to point B. Smaller steps will be seen as less-risky, and therefore better. Chaos in any bureaucracy is considered irreligeous.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
First, I am not at all surprised by this delay. Munich is undertaking something extremely massive. I figure it is going to take maybe 2-3 more years to make it happen. Undoubtedly this delay has happened because they have found that some of their internal apps/web apps/etc. don't work as well on Linux and they are working on porting them over. This is to be expected and is hardly the end of the world.
Secondly why migrate the apps first? Think about it. You want to make sure everything works. This usually means migrating in stages and slowly. The last thing you want to do is migrate everything all at once and then have to shut down everything for a month while you rebuild certain areas of your infrastructure. So you start with the easiest to replace areas (Mozilla/Firefox, OOo) and work down from there. You have some people on a pilot program using Linux and finding all the issues with it, and this makes it easier to migrate additional areas. Also moving everyone over to OOo as soon as possible makes a lot of sense because it helps the people on Linux use the same software as the people on Windows.
Ideally this pilot program would be done by those people with the least specific requirements and the fewest software tools they rely on. Once these users are stabilized, then you can expand the pilot to a larger group with slightly more complex needs. And so forth. I figure that a well orchistrated migration of a large organization will take at least 3-5 years to complete assuming all goes well.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Massive changes almost never work.
The best way to approach this is to have a lot of small steps. That way, any minor advance that has a problem can be rolled back without killing the entire project.
The trick is to space out the changes that the end user has to deal with so they don't get overwhelmed by them.
And neither do your techs.
It's all about the migration plan.
For the IT department, switching the O/S is more complicated than switching the office suite because of all the details (user accounts, profiles, mail, printers, and so on).
But for a end user which spend most of its time in the mail client, spreadsheet or word processor the O/S is not such a big issue, as long as they have icons on the desktop, similar behavior from widgets and basic information on how to get the files they are using on the network.
For the end user, the big issue is all about the software, being it the office suite, the C++ IDE or the accounting package. (How do I merge documents? How can I convert this 30 MB Word file bloated with bitmaps that the customer sent to me? How come the CTRL-B won't put the text in bold?)
I think the two-steps migration is quite wise and to me it is obvious that those people know what they are doing. After a couple of months they will either rollback to M$ or move fullsteam to Linux, and this will be a very, very interesting story to follow-up.
End users will bitch, which is unavoidable, but with a strong commitment from the top levels of the hierarchy and from the IT department the move can be successful.
Anybody who experienced an SAP implementation or a M&A will tell you that: the challenge of the migration process is the user inertia and fear of change. How Munchen face this challenge will be textbook material for future generations of MBAs.
lucm, indeed.
Most of the people will be using three applications that are found on both Linux and Windows, OpenOffice, Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird. Getting them used to OpenOffice(hopefully the beta its sooo nice), Mozilla Firefox, and Mozilla Thunderbird will help ease things out when they are finally on Linux and the users will have to get used to the Linux desktop environment(I would suggest KDE). Anyway if they are really afraid I know there are many skins to make Linux look like windows, they should consider that to.
The key words are "being depreciated." That doesn't change anything about the installed user-base who depend on VBA applications or tools. It means they would have had to change anyway in the near future, but that's irrelevant now that the move to Linux has been announced.
Now, all the effort at replacing them will be blamed on the OS switch, as opposed to just being written off as a necessary upgrade in order to use the new framework and remain competitive. And of course the end users will still bitch and moan the same either way, now it'll just be directed at Linux instead of Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the switch, I think Munich should be applauded. However everyone has to realize that when you make any kind of big change or migration, it instantly becomes world's largest scapegoat. Any problem, real or imagined, regardless of whether it would have happened under Windows anyway, will be its fault.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's not so much that OO is almost the same as MSO.
It's more about psychology. People generally don't like change. And big change is more disrupting than small change. Part of that comes from fear of the unknown.
You get people transitioned to OO still on their familiar windows platform. It gets them used to the new OO system, while also helping build confidence in the overall changes to come.
While it might make more sense from an IT standpoint to just make the change and be done with it, from a human management point of view, it makes more sense to make a gradual transition. A successful deployment of OO on Windows will help win over the timid, and help check the nay-sayers. It builds confidence in what you are doing and helps build overall buy-in to what you're doing.
I guarantee you, if the people you're supporting don't buy in, they can make your life hell and cause the project to fail miserably.
This is not good news. A total of ZERO machines have been converted. A full conversion is expected to take 3 years. The pilot has been scaled back from Linux to Windows/Open office.
When faced with a project that cannot be cancelled there are two tatics that can be employed:
1. Delay
2. Reduce scope
Both of these seem to be happening.
Honestly I expect to see Munich eventually walk away from this project. It may take a couple of years... but if the day to day management throw enough road blocks and delays eventual a bean counter is going to go "free? this project has cost X million so far and only Y% have converted". At that point success will be declared and no further conversions will occur.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The idea is the users will have a chance to get use to OpenOffice, before they have to get use to linux.
Which quite honestly is a bigger change than changing from M$ Office to OpenOffice.
You and I may have no problem changing OS'es just like that, but they are dealing with general users that wont be, and will simply be expecting there computers to just work.
Having performed exactly this sort of migration, I completely disagree. It is the switch between Office systems that is the main issue. For a typical commercial user of workstations a Linux desktop can, if set up right, be immediately useable by anyone who has used a typical Windows desktop: icons for office applications, directory exploring, browser, e-mail etc. can made visible and then the user can get started - the computer 'just works'.
The big transition is in the way that the user will do various tasks in the office suite - multiple document management, mail merge etc.
yeah right, and the moon was once part of the earth, and you were once an unfortunate accident waiting to happen.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
The biggest problem with this proposal is that is costs a *lot* of money to make patents and even more money to take patents violators to court. Sure, some of this money *might* be raised by donations but it kind of removes the whole free-as-in-beer advantage of opensource (leaving the speech option for all us die hard OSS people...).
It's a nice suggestion and all but i have a hard time seeing it work. Perhaps in a few limited occassions like for some kernel stuff where the patents could be used for cross licencing with some big companies.
Nonetheless, the disadvantage would be that the reputation and credibility of the non-software-patent and OSS communities would be damaged.