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."
start rolling in?
Isn't OpenOffice on Windows the same as OpenOffice on Linux? I see in the story at The Register that they have various office templates and scripts that they want to port to OpenOffice, yet why waste time removing Office from each machine, then installing OpenOffice, then getting all the scripts and templates to work, then having to recreate things when done again in the Linux environment? Why not just cut out the middle steps and go directly from Office on Windows, to OpenOffice on Linux?
People, am I missing something here, or would it not just be best to just go to Linux with openOffice functionality directly, and not even bother with this middle step? If you ask me, it sounds like something else here is amiss, as their reasoning seems flawed to me...
I can understand people being concerned about switching from a Microsoft Windows environment, using Office for their word processing, spreadsheet, database, and presentation tasks... yet as far as things go, Linux can do the same things with OpenOffice just as easily...
Also, Linux has a web browser, music player, everything that a company could need to do business with, and these days, with the majority of applications that companies needing built on web-based infrastructures, there really is very little reason to run Windows these days. Of course some companies still have applications that are Windows-only, but with time I can see more applications being able to function on Linux...
Another bonus of running Linux is the amount of spyware that will be cut down drastically, as windows is well known for how easy spyware can infect it and totally ruin a system image. If they would just hurry up and switch to Linux, so many problems would be solved...
Oh well, at least they can build cars right over in Germany...
Need a Nerd?
Nerd Systems
Who here, who as ever worked on a large scale project, has not experienced delays?
They rolled in a few months ago. Missed the boat a bit there I think.
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 $350 and call it a good deal. For people who really need the software and are on a low budget these prices are truly crippling.
All that's happening is that they're waiting a little while for the workers to get comfortable with the office suites first. There's no hesitation about switching to Linux. Munich is a big city folks, you can't just say "We're going to change to Linux . . . wait for it . . . NOW!"
Slackware's a bitch to install .home) and I've never had any problems. Have you used it recently?
I've been using it since 8.0 and every version doing a fresh install (backing up and restoring
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
Although the compatability between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice has definitely improved, it would be interesting to know how much trouble is had in this region. The switch to OpenOffice because it is free arguement does not take into account the amount of time spent trying to make old documents work. If it could be shown by a large organization that all is good many more may make the switch
:(){
Somewhere in Redmond, Ballmer is abusing a chair.
Yes you are missing something, OpenOffice on both platforms is the same. The idea is the users will have a chance to get use to OpenOffice, before they have to get use to linux.
Which quite honestly is a bigger change than changing from M$ 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.
- User resistance: people like to stay with what they know rather than being pushed to use something unfamiliar.
- Extensive use of MS Office only features such as VBA or features that work differently in Open Office.
- Applications using Active-X or other COM controls that are not easily converted to WINE or similar.
- Third party software products that are only supported under Windows.
- What else?
There is probably aThis 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.
I can't imagine waiting for Gentoo to compile on 30,000 PCs. ;)
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
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.
As far as I understood the speech of Florian Schießl (project leader in Munich) on the LinuxTag 2005 they are using a Debian based solution. So there is no need to figure out how to install Slackware.
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
Already did. The MS solution was cheaper at the time. Munich still decided on Linux. They want full control over their IT infrastructure in the future, right down the souce code level, something Microsoft can't offer.
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
The patent proposal is that if you attack a given GPL'd project with patents then you lose the right to distribute that product. Not the ability to use it.
Linux is under GPL 2 not GPL 2 or later so that is no issue. Open Office is under the LGPL not the GPL.
Ok looks like you misunderstood what that means if you write a peice of software, patent that peice of software, and then decided to release the software under GPL you cant enforce the patent on people who create derivtive works based on your software... but you can still enforce your patent on people who make a product that that is the same as yours but isnt a derivative work of you GPL'd code.....
:)
for example you write a compression algorithim, patent it and release source code for it under GPL, People can make projects with your compression algo and as long as they release it under gpl its all good... but if some company wants to include you compression algo without making their code subject to the gpl they cant without infringing on you patent
in other words patented software released under the gpl is good
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
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.
This obviously means the death of Linux.
After all, these opensource nuts are the only ones that experience delays, and its only because of the poor caliber of opensource programmers.
Microsoft, of course, never experiences delays. If they had gone with a Microsoft Solution 3 years (projected started in 2001), they'd be running on Longhorm, ahem, I mean, Vista, today!
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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.
I had to blink for a second; I knew slashdot has some slow news days but that takes the cake; is it now news that someone had to stop talking about Linux long enough to eat some food?
I see in the story at The Register that they have various office templates and scripts that they want to port to OpenOffice, yet why waste time removing Office from each machine, then installing OpenOffice, then getting all the scripts and templates to work, then having to recreate things when done again in the Linux environment?
Probably because they'll install OpenOffice before removing MS Office, so they can continue to use their scripts and templates while they get them working in OpenOffice. It's a lot easier to write a new version of your templates if you can see how the old version works with software you have 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.
So basically, despite trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, you don't know enough about large scale human-office-computer dynamics to closely estimate the completion time.
I came up with that estimate based on my experience working at major corporations and seeing how they made migrations. An OS migration on the desktop has to be one of the most painful migrations you can put an organization through.
I would also point out that so far the large migrations in progress are either being scaled back or are moving towards the 4-year timeline (+/- a year).
There are also some other good reasons for this estimate. Often this is the OS upgrade lifecycle (and sometimes even line of business tools lifecycle) in many organizations, so it makes sense that you can phase out other line of business apps in favor of those that are cross-platform in this length of time. In essence, I figure one can probably go with a 4-year migration plan without spending a huge sum more on the migration.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
"Munich's attempt to migrate to Open Source ends in total disaster! Billions wasted! Budget destroyed! Fires! Floods! Dogs and cats living together! MASS HYSTERIA!"
];)
Regards;
If a peice of software is released under GPL v2 OR later, you can choose to continue to use GPL v2 for the software even after GPL v8 is available.
If the software was released under with an "AND" instead of the "OR" then it would require you to follow future revisions of the GPL (although the AND clause is fairly foggy and it should be better written then that.) If the license said "You must follow the latest revision of the GPL" then you'd obviously have to honor that.
Personally, I prefer the LGPL for most core software such as kernels and even Office packages, but the GPL ain't bad. Commercial vendors don't seem to have a problem working around it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -