Slashdot Mirror
Vista Licensing Speeds Linux Move
Stephen Samuel writes "Australia's NSW Office of State Revenue is speeding it's transition to a Linux desktop due in part to a lackluster interest in Microsoft's attempt to lock them into the Software Assurance Program, reports LinuxWorld. The agency's CIO and manager of client services both confirmed they would start scoping for a move to a Linux desktop within six months. Manager Pravash Babhoota seemed satisfied with a Linux move in their back office, citing Linux costs as being just over 1/6 the projected cost of a Windows upgrade, while processing doubled."
Ballmer just striped his shorts.
Microsoft is a company hell-bent on self destruction.
I'm as tickled as the next Linux advocate to see a move to my favorite platform (Unix). But now some warning bells are going off in my head and I wonder if "we" are on a collision course with Vista, and Microsoft's thrust (innuendo intended) into Trusted Computing.
What are the possible ramifications, and can the Linux community proactively attenutate? I've read many articles, and many posts about Trusted Computing (this has to be one the more ironic names ever, I can almost hear the Microsoft-Intel juggernaut sniggering from here), but I've never felt completely comfortable with how all of the pieces fit together. Maybe it's time for yet another series of replies to re-educate me.
From past learning I understand TC won't stop Linux from working, and won't stop people from installing and using Linux, nor will it stop entire organizations from converting to Linux. But, what about the "Trusted" relationship to the Microsoft world? An entire organization running Linux would seem open to being completely shut out from a Microsoft shop.
Are there answers to this? Is a future Linux conversion vulnerable to what amounts to a technical shunning by the Microsoft universe? Not only do I need to know for myself, but for counseling others who are considering Linux.
Seems like Microsoft has done a wonderful job of convincing customers that buying Vista is pointless. It's bad enough that existing MS operating systems will likely have the same base functionality of Vista with lower hardware requirements(and possibly higher overall performance). Now this?
In the not too distant "Micro-future"...where a person has to obtain proper M$ licensing from birth...
Seriously though, I wonder what Microsoft is thinking sometimes. It's like they're playing chicken against a cement wall with a tank.
I don't get it.
Sounds like a reasoned decision, and not a surprising one either. Time will tell what really happens when they switch from XP. I think that if you have your own in-house expertise, the TCO will be lower in whatever OS that knowledgebase is best versed in.
This group has time to ensure that they are versed in the Linux OS Desktop environment before they switch, so I'm betting that they have a smooth-ish transition.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Call me sarcastic, but I can see the world not trusting MS systems in the future... if Vista performs as well as IE has, perhaps the divide will be a good thing in the eyes of those who have jumped off the MS ship before it sinks... Maybe that is harsh, but MS does seem to be working hard to make itself irrelevent in ways that will not be fully understood for years...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
"As soon as support ends for XP, we will look at moving to Linux [desktops]," Babhoota said, adding the back-end switch to open source had cost 17 percent of what a proprietary upgrade had been costed at, with the agency doubling the amount of business it processed in the same 12-month period.
Whither now the Yankee group with their magic statistics and Excel sheets which show that in fact Babhoota real TCO is over fives times what it would have been if he'd switched to Server 2003, with a shiny new fade in comboboxes.
May the Maths Be with you!
From TFA: '"As soon as support ends for XP, we will look at moving to Linux [desktops]," Babhoota said'
Babhoota also says in the article that going from NT4 to XP was sensible because they waited long enough that prices dropped, and support increased. I don't see any difference in that case and the one I quoted above. Once XP support terminates, Vista's pricing will have decreased from initial launch, and it's support will obviously increase as well.
But hey, more migration to Linux makes me smile. 2006, the year of Linux on the desktop!!(??)
The great thing about governments is that they tend to make the law. Suppose Microsoft's attempts to lock people into their own software start to get in the way of governments using other software they believe to be better, whether in features, reliability, cost, or whatever; it doesn't really matter why. It's a pretty safe bet that the fairly direct result would be legislation making that sort of lock-in explicitly anti-competitive, followed quickly by a nasty lawsuit.
The one group in any country that Microsoft and their commercial partners can't afford to piss off is the government. Not only are they a major potential source of income in their own right, they are also a powerful ally (witness the DMCA in the US and similar legislation elsewhere). Oh, and they also have the last laugh -- always.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"Babhoota said the agency had already successfully bedded down open source on its back-end, running its Oracle 9i and 10g core databases and assorted other transactional applications over Citrix on Dell-based clusters and had guarantees of open source support from key enterprise applications vendors."
What is open source about Oracle and Citrix? Sure you can run Oracle on an open OS, but that's not really an open solution. And Citrix?? How does that involve open source at all?
Maybe I am ignorant, but this makes no sense based on what I know about the products they list.
-Lod
You assume the public feel compelled to "trust" Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft has become the company that everyone loves to hate. They haven't released a major offering in years, and continue to depend upon new computer purchases as its main source of OS revenue (i.e. highly discounted). Meanwhile, you've got a public tired of the lock-in -- espeically when it serves no purpose other than to extract more of their hard-earned dollars. And I haven't even mentioned the lackluster attempts at beefing up security.
Meanwhile, Apple seems to be gaining market share -- based on what? A freakin' MP3 player! "Gee", folks wonder, "Are all Apple products this good?"
And last but not least, there's Microsoft's crown jewel -- Office. Who has $400 to spend on an office suite when Open Office is delivering the same value for FREE?
Which brings me back to the origainal point --- Microsoft wants us to trust them. What have they done to earn that trust?
Sure you have the trusted computing iniative, but if corparations and governments start to jump ship based on Vista and Microsoft's attempts to force people into using it, then the end result is going to be demand for computers without TC built in. You'll see this especially if a government agency adopts a position counter to TC. If a company is producing a computer with TC built in and one with out for a government, then they most likely sell it to consumers that want it. If, for example, the IRS goes against TC and Vista, and opts for Linux, then you'll see a lot of accounts start to run a linux desktop with a lot of commercial software going for it. The best thing that could happen would be if California adopted Linux as a desktop. With the world's 7th largest economy, a lot of vendors would start to produce for Linux.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
if oly they'd donate 1% of the savings back to the projects they'd be doing themselves a majour favour and eveyone else too.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
"Babhoota said the agency had already successfully bedded down open source on its back-end, running its Oracle 9i and 10g core databases" Oracle??? Talk about hypocrisy. How much $$$ would they save getting away from that "proprietary" software? "While the back-end migration consisted of moving off heavier Unix- and Solaris-based operating systems running on Sun hardware..." LOL! So they moved from Unix/Solaris to "open source" and not from Windows to "open source". Oooook.
And why should "Trusted Computing" be a problem for NSW? They (presumably) will have their needed applications running on *BSD/Linux, they'll use a standard format for exchanging documents with citizens (or offer several formats). If Microsoft et al is stupid enough to try hindering citicens from reading those documents on Windows, Microsoft will be in trouble.
So, the company agrees and begins to move forward. To my dismay, they put in Citrix, and proceed to replace workstations with Winterms! So, they spent a fortune replacing workstations, instead of just replacing the OS with Linux and featuring new workstations purchased without any OS.
Management types looked at the skyrocketed costs and went back to the original documentation. They actually tried to blame Linux for the costs. The board report reflected this, even though no Linux was installed. Once this was discovered, to save face, they started buying Linterms (still expensive, still replacing workstation, still with 3 year depreciation and replacement cycle).
So, I hear of companies complaining about Linux costs and have to take it with a grain of salt because I know that many people have their numbers inflated or do not really realize what they have. For example, a company buys a Linux box running Oracle for a 25-Windows-workstation network. They classify all the workstations and Oracle, the whole kit and kaboodle, as a Linux project. All associated expenses become Linux's fault, even though the Linux costs were low or none.
Click here or here.
Similarly the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council on the OpenDocument format mentioned the "cost of a Windows upgrade" if they wanted to upgrade to the next Office version instead of using something that supported an open format. They said that:
Bold mine. I would like to point out for background info that they said they are running mostly Win2k and Office 2003, and that they wanted to state "vehemently" that they didn't want cost to be made into an issue.
Another nice feature of an enterprise Linux install is letting employees take home OS install CDs without even thinking about licensing. Sure, MS relies on piracy to spread Windows across org boundaries, jumping through homes to consolidate the installed base their monopoly leverages into proprietary lockin. But Linux can do that, too, without forcing committment to a vendor or requiring licensing overhead at all.
--
make install -not war
No, its a 'mareketing phrase'. Its not designed to be accurate, but to appeal to the 'average joe' and make him feel good.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Most US corporations have executive portfolios with M$ stock, and therefore resist anything that threatens their personal wealth. Unless Linux is less than 1/10 the TCO of Windows, it will take a generation before Windows is gone. Gone it will be, but how soon? I expect to be fighting for open source until the day I die. Governments flip/flop just like all politicians.
Software freedom...I love it!
another article saying that they aren't really switching to Linux because MS made them a sweet sweet sweet deal? So many stories of big corporations switching to linux ending up being schemes to get licensing deals from MS...
I'd have to say it is the absurd requirements to run the OS alone; not the total lack of features. I mean seriously what are they thinking? People shouldn't need multiple GHz, gigabytes of ram, harddrives the size of buses, and videocards with 128MB of ram just to make the OS pretty. Scaling be damned, its ridiculous.
IT managers are looking at it like this, $200+ for a new CPU, $120 for a Mobo, $500 for the video card, $200 for the 2GB of ram, and $200 for harddrives just to run an OS that will be outdated compared to its alternatives? Thats outright stupid.
What? How is this insightful? You've said absolutely nothing useful.
TCO discussions, without context, are ridiculous. Pick an OS: Linux, Windows, *BSD, OSX, Solaris, etc... doesn't matter. It's all about the current infrastructure and intended uses.
Linux could be like a company without benefits as you suggest, in some scenarios... and in others it could be like Company B but with the cost of Company A. Or it could just be like Company B. It all depends.
The key is finding the right tool for the right purpose. AND you have to find the right people to use the tools.
Please don't make such blanket statements, it's people like you that try to force square pegs in round holes. Just relax, have an open mind, and I guarantee you your life will be much better (and profitable) in many respects.
Bologna. Nonsense. Most people do not hate Microsoft. Many people that are tech savvy don't like Microsoft, and some of those actually hate Microsoft. But overall, these groups to not constitute "most people".
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I, for one, welcome our new overlord Tux.
:)
Thank you Microsoft, as you push more and more customers away, hardware manufacturers will be providing more and more support for open-source driver development - unhindered by DRM, even!
I used to be a Microsoft fanatic. Hell, I used to WORK for Microsoft! While I was no stranger to Linux (I ran it back when it was just a floppy-based installation and if you wanted X you had to FTP and compile it yourself) my job obviously required the use of Windows (Duh, working for Satan, you have to use his OS). When I moved on during the dot-com boom thinking that other tech companies' stock options would fare better (STUPID decision on my part. I worked for two dot-coms who tanked) I quit running Linux for a while. It wasn't until Microsoft began to outright attack their own customers (Suing college students for reselling unopened software after Microsoft refused to honor their unconditional 30-day money-back guarantee, suing customers who resell used but retired software license, and hell, even suing customers when they choose competitors' products) that I began to look seriously at Linux again, and when I began testing various distros last year I was shocked awed at how much and how quickly is matured. I use Linux 99.9% of the time now. I only use Windows to pull photos off of my cellphone, and to play an occasional game of Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
I still consider Windows to be an excellent tool for most average users, but I have been moving more toward recommending Linux to non-gamers. OOo has matured, and while its file I/O still sucks, it is usable for 99% of users, and what's more, when they come home to {write term papers/draft business plans/write proposals/edit small flyers} Linux and OOo won't hinder them in the least, and most user-friendly commercial distros of Linux are under $100, and to get the equivalent amount and calibur of software for Windows would be anywhere from $20K on up.
Microsoft you're shooting yourselves in the foot, and with every suit you file against a customer choosing a competitor's product, you're gaining bad press and driving thousands more away. With every bit you tighten the noose on your licensing scheme, you're driving more and more schools, municipalities, and large corporations away from your product line entirely, from desktops to workstations to servers.
Keep it up, and you'll go the way of SCO in a few years.
I get very excited when I read these governmental switching stories. Governments are the only real business users that can effectively mandate file-formats and interoperability standards. Businesses will follow because they must.
Even in the US, I hear of companies switching whole departments over to OSS on Windows (namely openoffice). These are actually large companies switching over whole departments in regional offices.
I think that there is a network-effect of these early adopters. If there are enough of them that mandate that you have open-office installed, then (at some point near or just less than ~50%) there will be a sea-change of business that will switch over in one fell swoop. If it turns out that it is a business requirement that you use and have training for open-office, then people will wonder why they are voluntarily paying for Microsoft Office for no good reason. (Legacy docs in MSOffice is not a good enough reason to stay - support for these docs in OpenOffice will be demanded and feverishly worked on if enough enough businesses want it)
Once the slide starts, it will be a brutal few years for Microsoft Office.
TCO studies never capture the real costs of either a switch to Linux from Windows or a Windows upgrade. They invariably take the easy route, comparing only OS licensing costs, sysadmin/support salary, and training issues. They aren't "studies" in the academic sense, since the data they study are chosen to achieve a particular outcome.
In my practical experience as a Linux/Unix sysadmin and MCSE, the things they miss are:
Against all the benefits of not having to hassle with licensing there is a balance, the ability to point the finger of blame at a vendor. With free software, all the blame goes to the internal champion of the software, usually the sysadmin.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
A huge amount is riding on Vista, not just for Microsoft but all through the IT industry right down to the little guy in China who helps make circuit boards. They all want a piece of what they hope will be frenzied upgrade action and plenty of businesses will suffer badly if they don't get it.
There will be huge pressure on Microsoft to make Vista work, if necessarily fairly brutally - stick with WinXP and find your security expectations downgraded, monthly updates increasingly scarecrow and difficulties soon arising accessing certain websites or playing certain media, etc, etc. We'll all be told that only Vista can guarantee proper security "for your own good" or whatever.
It's great to see Linux making inroads, but they are still fairly small and tentative. These guys, after all, are only scoping out Linux, not installing it. Linux still needs some big, influential and well-respected folks to get behind it of the kind Joe Sixpack will admire. Apple has Steve Jobs and the ipod, two items of superb natural showmanship anyone can relate to. What does Linux have? The Eric S. Raymond Opensaucemanship Memorial Lecture is no substitute. Dell will want a bit more excitement before they start shipping Linux boxes en masse.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Are you serious? Moste people don't even know they're being locked in. Many wouldn't even care if the did know. Governments are known for their complete lack of any sense of reality, especially when it comes to technology. They are also hardly immune to the lure of money. I think the fact that most governments still run on Microsoft, and the underwhelming results of Microsoft being convicted aptly demonstrate that.
How you can ever hope to rely on governments to keep Microsoft in check is completely beyond me.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Most people I know who still run windows have at least a once a month cussing session when they get hosed, and have to haul their borked windows box to the smiling local MS fixit guy for folding money "repair". Not sure if you would call that angry or anoyed with MS, but put it this way, they are not amused in the slightest. if people don't have a tame geek handy who can be suckered into working for free, running MS just costs people cash and aggravation in between a few minutes of medicore performance and use.
If you don't believe this, just go into your nearest whitebox shop and see what the bulk of the repairs are. It's certainly not hardware failure at the top of the list. Now MS has done a remarkable job in marketing so far into keeping people dumbed down that it is 'the computer's" fault things go wrong, but we are at a tipping point now where people by the millions are realising that it's MICROSOFT that's broken. Years past they didn't know any better, but it sure is changing now. Heck, I was in a big chain hardware store yesterday, needed to order a part for a small gas engine tool, when the dude booted his machine to look up the part number I noticed the machine was running the moz browser, NOT IE. I commented to the salesguy, he said "it worked better". Kinda neat. A few years ago this wouldn't have been so, but once large corporations start changing, and those people go home and run that stuff on their home machines, then they tell their friends and family, and etc...well, MS is on the way out sometime, they have PEAKED and are on the downhill now, and longvistahorn will not be saving them. It will take some more time, but there's nothing they can do to stop the changes now, this "most people" person IS getting hip and won't be putting up with their ridiculous rip off buggy stuff for much longer. Might take 5 to 10 more years, but once the big slide happens, watch out, it will go FAST. And the younger geeks entering the IT workforce will be pushing this now, they just aren't going to be standing for running ancient expensive and bogus crap when they KNOW there's better.
And I say Windows is not and never has been user friendly. I am a UNIX and Linux user, and whenever I have to use Windows,it becomes as intuitive and friendly as a lefthanded bobcat.
You are a narrow minded moron. Just because you know Windows and find it intuitive doesn't make it intuitive tosomeone who has never used a computer.
Infuriate left and right
Regardless of whether any given person hates Microsoft, or merely dislikes them, or doesn't even know that they exist (and think the Windows is "the computer" and IE "the Internet"), you would be rather hard pressed to find a person outside of Redmond that actually feels the warm fuzzies for Microsoft. And, judging from people like Mini-Microsoft, those people seem to grow fewer even inside Redmond.
Yeah. It's kinda funny...
The average users can't configure a VCR or maybe even a microwave oven. Not surprisingly they can't really handle Windows - they can just about get it started, and their apps. So they'll be just as frustrated with Linux.
So much so that if Desktop Linux ever gets popular, and they want to install a fancy "Britney Spears" screensaver, they'd paste and run a test message that's some obfuscated perl that installs a trojan.
Most users send their cars to "professionals" for maintenance AND for adding of 3rd party accessories.
The trouble with Windows or Linux is while most people know that cars need to be refuelled every now and then, most don't seem to run the O/S update stuff regularly. The other trouble with either Windows or Linux Desktops is that a certain bunch of people want to add 3rd party stuff very often, and when they can't figure out how to do it, it's the "manufacturer's" fault (that said computers are supposed to be a lot more extensible than cars).
Of course there are the vast numbers of people driving around with unmaintained bangers that are nearly falling apart and giving problems to everyone else.