Birmingham Drops Open Source Initiative

eldavojohn writes "Birmingham, England put a stop to a half million pound project to put Linux and open source applications on library access PCs across the city. From the article, 'The council planned to roll out Linux software and applications on 1,500 desktops in libraries across the city, but in the end went no further than a 200-desktop project. Several industry watchers have voiced their concerns about the project, particularly around the number of PCs rolled out. Birmingham's expenditure averaged over 2,500 pounds per PC.' Why did they stop after 200 PCs? Because they claimed with Windows, the project would have been 100,000 pounds cheaper. One may wonder if they paid for initial training of their workforce making the first 200 more expensive than the rest but the article does not say whether or not this occurred."

Comments

How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free as in beer is cheaper every time.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[jb.hl.com]

It depends, really. It depends if you have to retrain staff to use the new systems, if you need to hire extra support personnel, if you need to buy hardware that works with Linux... all sorts of things could affect the overall cost, not just the license cost.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[dedazo]

The problem of course is that around here it's commonly understood that because I installed Fedora on the two Celeron boxen in my room and didn't spend a dime, that deploying 25,000 desktops across an enterprise should be no more complicated or expensive. Therefore, these folks must be retarded - after all I get all my apt-get help from IRC just fine. WTF? Yes, therefore "M$" must be in on it.

And looking at the general direction the comments on this story are going I'd say we have a winner. Another great day for Slashdot ad impressions and another "look at what teh evil Micro$haft did" data point to use in the next flamewar.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[ben_white]

Especially if you roll out such a small number. You have to keep all of the overhead and support costs of your existing Windows infrastructure and add a new layer of support costs. You won't start to see savings until you reduce your support costs for Windows, this requires a bolder move on the number of seats converted to Linux.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have to retrain IT staff? If management says we're rolling out AmigaOS, we're rolling out Amiga OS and it doesn't matter if it's 1 desktop or 1000, that's the job.

Sounds like they employ monkeys.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

A: *nix requires real hardware, boatloads of cheap pseudo hardware that offloads all the work to poorly written windows drivers has flooded the market over the years.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[jb.hl.com]

To cope with the new system. Duh.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[jrspur2003]

Most companies wont go to fedora, opensuse, ubuntu or your other free downloadable distros they will go to redhat or another vendor and buy the software... Reason being no real support comes with fedora and the other free distros.. Yes the community support is very good but when it comes to businesses and enterprises as wonderful as it being free having 0 support is very risky if a problem should arise its nice to know you can get support... I dont know how the licencing works for redhat but a workstation with std support runs 299 if its another OS provider that adds specific stuff that cost can be higher...which is the same as XP Pro or Even the Vista business is virtually the same price... Now add in your DB will likely have to be rewritten for Linux since its a library im sure it has databases for books and other resources one would assume being found in a library... Even more cost there... Im alittle suprised that it cost so much for only 200pc's but not suprised that end cost of rolling out 1500 would be more expensive than upgrading windows... Im All for free software and linux and don't want to sound like a troll, but when it comes to businesses, governments, and other enterprises I personally don't think that they shouldnt risk their data to a free distros...

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The problem of course is that around here it's commonly understood that because I installed Fedora on the two Celeron boxen in my room and didn't spend a dime, that deploying 25,000 desktops across an enterprise should be no more complicated or expensive.

This is a strawman argument. No one else said it did not cost money to roll out 25,000 desktops in an enterprise. The discussion is should it cost as much as they claim to roll out 1500 desktops as workstations in public libraries. The consulting firm that they parted ways with called their costs "ridiculous" and they have a lot better idea of what the project entailed than anyone here.

And looking at the general direction the comments on this story are going I'd say we have a winner. Another great day for Slashdot ad impressions and another "look at what teh evil Micro$haft did" data point to use in the next flamewar.

Who's talking about Microsoft? We're talking about the incompetent shmoes in charge of this project who decided to stop working with two different Linux deployment consulting firms and "do it themselves" with current staff who had no experience and questionable purchases.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[laffer1]

Unless they decided to use Redhat or some other pay linux distro which requires support agreements. Redhat is more expensive than windows in some cases if you consider how cheap it is to buy a PC with Windows on it. Others have already pointed out that other operating systems require certain hardware to work properly due to lack of driver support. For instance, they could not buy an intel 965 chipset system unless it was all sata and the distro of choice had the absolute latest kernel which is unlikely. When dealing with one PC, its easy to rebuild the kernel but deploying a large number of desktops that may have slightly different hardware, its not as easy. One could argue for netbooting or something but in reality they probably want it to work like windows with a local OS install. Its also entirely possible they did not come up with a good system for imaging. Not everyone is a linux expert and if they used Microsoft friendly employees who aren't familiar with linux, it could be a very difficult, slow and expensive process to switch.

Remember in GNU land, its free as in freedom not in price. Redhat can charge whatever they want for their distro and support agreements. Even if they used a free (price) distro like fedora or gentoo it may still have been more costly with personnel or they simply didn't know how to automate certain tasks like patching that Microsoft tries to do. Most free systems are not polished enough to make mass rollouts easy and knowing how to do it isn't always clear for Microsoft users.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Marcion]

"I have no idea how anyone could spend half a million pounds on 200 desktops, running free software".

Its Birmingham fucking council, the council tax (a tax on your house that does not vary with income, only with size) goes up every single year, yet they still cannot even pick up rubbish bags without making a mess of the whole area.

I love my city but everyone knows that Birmingham council are a bunch of absolute losers, so this does not comes as any big surpise.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[compro01]

this guy actually has a good point. anyone who has futzed about trying to get poorly supported wireless cards or a soft-modem to work under Linux can attest to this.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends, really. It depends if you have to retrain staff to use the new systems,

"click on this little here icon that says, "internet" to access the world wide of tubes - it is unreal, man! all those tubes boggle the mind! anyway, click this little icon on the desktop... yeah, this is called a desktop - that says "card catalogue" to look up book information stored in little closets at the end of the tubes. thank ya, thank ya very much. that will $2,000 please. uh, yeah, the us keyboard thing. well, uh, erm, huh... it's a feature not a problem. don't you anything about IT?"

"duh, okay. here's a tip."

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[bheekling]

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid Databases formats can easily be interchanged. They don't have to be rewritten. And the training cost is one time only. In fact, if they have a gradual change and not a sudden one as they are trying, they would not feel the pinch.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I think the parent is saying, simply, once you do something 1500 times that you can't help but get it right.Monkeys indeed, this is why it's actually cheaper to use a linux solution because your IT department will finally have to unlearn being used by a computer. They get enough experience points to level up.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm not making an "argument" here...

You made an unsupported assertion about what you claim people think. That is an argument.

After 30 minutes my predictions are correct.

Really? Not according to the posts I read in this discussion.

For both my points, take the time to go through the comments posted so far.

I did thanks, I just don't see how they support your assertions.

Now did you have a specific point about what I posted or are you just looking for a scrape?

Here's my point, you're making baseless assertions about "what people think" and are ponderously close to being a troll. You throw around random large numbers and apparently did not bother to read the article being discussed. Just because you say, 'Slashdotters all think this" does not make it so and does not mean there is anything valuable at all in what you've posted. How about instead of generalized jabs at your opinion of the consensus here you try addressing specific posts from someone or *gasp* the article itself.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The real question to me is why their Linux workstations were costing that much. 2500 pounds sterling is about $5000 American- I can get pre-loaded, somewhat functional, Linux workstations at Fry's for $199. I could throw in an additional $200 worth of work and $50 worth of memory to make them as functional as any Windows workstation for $450- under 1/10th the amount they were spending.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Dcnjoe60]

It depends, really. It depends if you have to retrain staff to use the new systems, if you need to hire extra support personnel, if you need to buy hardware that works with Linux... all sorts of things could affect the overall cost, not just the license cost.

Everything you say is true, but then to have a fair comparison you would need to include the cost of training support staff on Vista and including the cost of upgrading the computers to being Vista, unless the libraries were going to maintain multiple versions of Window's operating systems (which would increase costs even further).

With the limited information in the article, it is difficult to determine how the cost could be so much higher for linux. One would assume that the hardware costs are comparable. There is the cost of Windows, office, etc. versus linux, openoffice, etc., which most likely would have been less costly going the linux route. So the only other area where cost seem to be an issue is on support and training.

To arrive at the numbers they are quoting, one would have to assume that they are spending next to nothing on support and training for Windows and a lot for linux. However, in a true cost accounting model, that cannot be true. The ongoing support and training costs should be similar, so we are really talking about the support and training to impliment the project.

Now, it does stand to reason that installing new technology is going to cost more in terms of support and training than the current technology you are using. However, in their circumstances, that is very short sighted given the fact that Vista is being released within a month and during the middle of their deployment cycle. They could mitigate the training and support for Vista by foregoing it and paying for it out of their regular operating budget, but that is just shifting the funding source. If they were going to do that, they could of done the same for linux.

So, the cost issue, seems to be a red-herring. While I have no doubt it is a real number, it is hard to determine what the cost actually represents and how it relates to the overall project. It's also unlikely that it is a software issue or that would have been used as the reason -- "we have stopped the project because the rewriting of all of our applications turned out to be more monumental and costly than we were led to believe." But that wasn't the reason given. Nor was the cost of support staff or any other measurable reason.

So, by throwing out a number and saying it is too costly, they have 1) silenced critics to the decision and 2) most likely have made a political based decision.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I was thinking. And the answer is probably: "kickbacks and skimming off the top"

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[flyingfsck]

Mass rollouts? AFAIK all distro's have dd and netcat. It is just a simple matter of incompetence, lack of experience, lack of knowledge, whatever you want to call it, it is not Linux that is at fault.

The trouble is that first of all, you need to know about dd and netcat and then you need to know that you could use Google or type 'man dd'. It takes a certain amount of UNIX familiarity, which a Windoze d00d simply doesn't have.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Okay I followed each and every one of those links. Most did nothing at all to back up your assertion. Of the few that did, one was modded as "funny" and one was modded to 0. I hope you had fun making all those links, but they don't support your opinions as far as I can tell.

Now, let me save you some keyboard lubricant. Go back to my original post, and then read it very carefully. Understand what I said in that post.

Yeah, maybe you need to take some English classes again, because I read your post. You made numerous assertions about the opinions of people here, and no, I don't see how you can claim most of those links support it. Address them specifically if you have a real point.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Bertie]

Knowing the way these things tend to work in the UK, they'll have had to source them from a single approved supplier, who will have subcontracted it to somebody, who will have subcontracted it to somebody else. And all of them knew it was a public-sector job, so they would have more money than sense and hence were ripe to be ripped off.

The person signing the order's primary concern was probably not "is this value for money?", but rather "will I be able to deny all responsibility for this?"

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[dedazo]

Most did nothing at all to back up your assertion.

Really. Well, here's my original point, which you as usual managed to "miss" completely:

The problem of course is that around here it's commonly understood that because I installed Fedora on the two Celeron boxen in my room and didn't spend a dime, that deploying 25,000 desktops across an enterprise should be no more complicated or expensive. Therefore, these folks must be retarded - after all I get all my apt-get help from IRC just fine. WTF? Yes, therefore "M$" must be in on it.

And looking at the general direction the comments on this story are going I'd say we have a winner. Another great day for Slashdot ad impressions and another "look at what teh evil Micro$haft did" data point to use in the next flamewar.

There we go. If you want, I can paste it again and again, until you stop "missing" the point.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Really. Well, here's my original point, which you as usual managed to "miss" completely...

Great, I can copy and paste my original reply and save all sorts of time, since (as usual) you failed to address any of the points I brought up in it:

This is a strawman argument. No one else said it did not cost money to roll out 25,000 desktops in an enterprise. The discussion is should it cost as much as they claim to roll out 1500 desktops as workstations in public libraries. The consulting firm that they parted ways with called their costs "ridiculous" and they have a lot better idea of what the project entailed than anyone here.

And looking at the general direction the comments on this story are going I'd say we have a winner. Another great day for Slashdot ad impressions and another "look at what teh evil Micro$haft did" data point to use in the next flamewar.

Who's talking about Microsoft? We're talking about the incompetent shmoes in charge of this project who decided to stop working with two different Linux deployment consulting firms and "do it themselves" with current staff who had no experience and questionable purchases.

I'll bet I can script this.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[dedazo]

I'll bet I can script this.

I don't think you need to script it - by looking at how many comments you've posted so far to Slashdot I'd say you have more than enough time to rough it out and do it by hand.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Perhaps he does, but it's equally true for windoze.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[budgenator]

TFA I read was talking about desktops not servers, it sounded like they were having a labor action to me.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly right. Anyone who thinks OS licensing fees are a major cost of deploying and managing a large number of desktop systems is living in cloud cuckoo land. A system only has to be marginally cheaper to deploy/manage in order to negate any disadvantage in the up-front licensing costs.

This sort of thing is hardly unique to computer operating systems either. There are any number of cases where a low-cost (or free) good is available as an alternative to a higher-cost good, but the latter is used because the additional value it provides is greater than the additional cost incurred in acquiring it.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Sarisar]

Therefore, these folks must be retarded

I'm just guessing you haven't dealt with councils / government departments in the UK then...

These are the same sort of people who told a company that welsh dragon sausages should be made of welsh dragons

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Marcus Green]

Although there is merit in the thrust of your argument, PC hardware does cost more in the UK. You would be very hard pressed to buy a somewhat functional equivalent Linux workstation at the UK equivalent of Fry's for $199 (around £104). For example the cheapest machine from www.morgancomputers.co.uk is about $211 or around $400. Perhaps someone can find cheaper, and bulk buy would get you a discount but those are reasonable indicative prices.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[trash eighty]

Yeah mind you i have relatives who live down in London who get an equally poor service but look at my Brum council tax bill with sheer envy.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would fit nicely to insert something along the lines of "Look who is talking..." here, but that would be rather redundant, by now.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Marcion]

>Yeah mind you i have relatives who live down in London who get an equally poor service but look at my Brum council tax bill with sheer envy.

Yeah okay, good point. But did you get to look at their pay checks? I am sure they were earning several times more than the difference in council tax bills,

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[somersault]

Even so, you can even get decent laptops for £500 these days, so £2500 for a desktop to sit and use some library catalog software or browse the net is ludicrous. Does TFA explain why the cost was so high? Training? Heated leather seats, mousemats and plasma screens? I think I'd start crying if I read the article.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[compro01]

how so? i know of a few types of hardware that won't work in Linux (without a considerable amount of futzing), but i don't know of any that will only work for Linux, unless you're talking about something truly ancient that windows has dropped support for.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[Marcus Green]

It seems to have very little to do with the purchase cost of the PC's. An analogy that might help comparison is if you decided to run a fleet of vehicles and decided to do in house maintenence. You would have significant costs in hiring the staff to work on the vehicles, the garage space for that work to be done, the tools for the staff, and other sundry costs. Now it might make far more sense to outsource that work but the article doesn't throw much light on it. From the end of your comment you don't seem to have read the article. Why not make a habit of learning a little about whatever it is you are commenting on in public, that way you will appear to be more informed.

Re:How can windows be cheaper than a free OS?

[somersault]

Well I already knew from other comments that the article was less than informative, but of course you're right. For now I'd better not go read it since I have work to do! And it really does seem too depressing to read. If they're doing everything in house then the maintenance really should not be that high (I'd like to see how much it is for the Windows alternative).

And now a word from our sponsors...

[Pharmboy]

This article brought to you by..

"Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?"

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[zebs]

Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?"

Not Birmingham, thats for sure.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[alunharford]

"Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?" Anywhere but Birmingham?

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Jethro]

Clearly you don't like Indian food.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to Birmingham myself and to be honest, it's just as multicultural as the rest of the country with little exception to the southeast & the immigrants.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, I love that. second post in the thread and it is modded "redundant". Yes, mods smoke crack and can't tell time.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[smallguy78]

Baltis aren't Indian:

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/balti.bcc

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[gbjbaanb]

Pah. Birmingham's bluddy briliant. That's why they have this site: http://www.birminghamitsnotshit.co.uk/

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[kdemetter]

what do you mean ? Linux is user friendly . ok , it depends on what linux you use . if you think installing Ubuntu isn't user friendly , you should try Gentoo ( i learned a lot from it ) . Maybe that will change your mind . And off course , if you don't like it , make your own linux .

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't feed the trolls. Or any AC for that matter.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[alunharford]

In Birmingham today,

• Three men are accused of killing a man who died after being slashed and beaten at his home,
• A man has been jailed for life for murdering a police motercyclist,
• and detectives are handing out leaflets and questionnaires at the scene of a shooting.

But on the positive side,

• The Mailbox car park, in Birmingham, has been named the best car park in Britain.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Anonymous Coward]

And off course , if you don't like it , make your own linux .

Yeah! Or make your own Windows instead!

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Jethro]

All I can say is all the people I know who live there are always bragging about the quality and quantity of Indian food that is readily available. Despite this, I myself have not gone over to investigate.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[Anonymous Coward]

scum hole

come to manchester

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[wilfire]

True but you cant spell birmingham with out ming

Re:And now a word from our sponsors...

[nickos]

And this too (requires sound).

Incompetence

[chill]

A quick read thru the article reveals not a problem with Linux, but with the idiots trying to manage the deployment without knowing what they were doing.

I feel sorry for Birmingham. Not so much for having to use Windows, but for having to live with an IT staff like that one.

Re:Incompetence

[PFI_Optix]

Agreed. It's probably a bad idea to switch to Linux without knowing how to:

Install it
Customize it
Deploy it
Support it

In the past I've said many times that Linux has problems making inroads on the desktop because it's hard for endusers to use. In this particular case, though, it's a matter of IT staff expecting it to be easy and not bothering to familiarize themselves with Linux enough to competently deploy it.

Linux should "just work" for Joe Six-pack, but IT staff need to know it as well as they know Windows if they're going to use it. Where I work we don't use Linux because we don't have sufficient knowledge of the OS and don't have the time or money to get good training. If and when we can learn it well enough, we might start using it.

Re:Incompetence

[IflyRC]

But isn't that the problem with most Linux deployments? When you have the majority of the IT workforce out there not trained in Linux it makes for a tough hiring process to find someone qualified for a rollout like this. Then, when you do find someone qualified (I'm talking qualified here, not someone who has been running Linux at home as a hobby...but a true Linux Professional) the rates are through the roof.

As Linux matures in the marketplace you will have more people competent in undertaking a process like this rollout and rates will fall. Average time of deployment will fall as well and we'll see more successful rollouts. However, in the hear and now its difficult to get something like this to go off without a hitch due to just the sheer lack of experience in the world.

Re:Incompetence

[IflyRC]

*sigh*
Why didn't I use preview. I'd like to correct that I do know the difference between "hear" and "here". It was some subconcious demon that took over and typed it for me.

Re:Incompetence

[Carrot007]

And there in lies the problem.

In business the contract generally goes to someone who can talk the talk.

Unfortunatly where as any moron can knock up a windows environment (they should chaneg the cert to mcm=microsoft certified moron) it takes more than a gas bag mouth to deploy linux succesfully.

The project was likely a falire due to this.

Initially:
Gas Bag Moron: Hey I can save you money with linux?
Birmingham: Ok

After getting this contract
Gab Bag Moron (internal dialogue): So what's this linux thing, can't be that hard after all I've got microsoft cerification.

Bah.

Re:Incompetence

[Osrin]

While it is fun to lay the blame outside of Linux, the community should really be looking at the product provided and working out how to make it deployable for every one of the 6.2bn folks on the planet if it is going to get the pervasive desktop deployment that some seem to be looking for.

It will only take a small number of stories like this before IT managers around the world take the decision not to look at Linux at all. Adding the threat of the pointless wrath of the community to that (as per your post) and the decision not to even look at Linux is a really clear one.

Re:Incompetence

[sheldon]

I've been involved in numerous Windows roll outs, from Win95 on... As well as OS/2 and variations of Unix.

Claiming that it's the fault of incompetent staff isn't really an excuse. In every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts. You learn as you go. What you rely on is good whitepapers and documentation provided by the company on how they expect a rollout to occur. Along with some experience on proper communication, testing strategies, rollout scheduling, etc.

Furthermore in every deployment you encounter obstacles... problems interfacing with some piece of hardware or software. This could be a case of them encountering more obstacles than they assumed initially, and/or having no good reliable source for help to solve them quickly.

I realize this is /. and everybody here thinks they are smarter than everybody else in the world, but the real world doesn't work like that.

Re:Incompetence

[SnowZero]

From the studies I've seen, Linux admins cost more, but less per machine. A Linux admin costs around 50% more, but could manage 2x or more in terms of machines. Governments regularly screw up IT projects, and there are numerous ways they could fail in this one, such as:
(1) Retraining existing Windows admins, not hiring Linux ones (Common for a gov't job, admin has no motivation for success)
(2) Hiring lots of cheap admins for Linux (Works badly for Windows, but functional. Doesn't work for Linux)
(3) Too many consultants, since they don't know what they are doing (Consultants often find a way to plug their pet products)
(4) User resistance, esp influential ones (If the boss can't find solitaire, heads will roll)

Re:Incompetence

[novus ordo]

According to this commentary in a previous article, you are right:

Some facts have been omitted from this article which shed further light on the appalling waste of taxpayers money that was the Birmingham City Council's Linux trial:

1) A trial of 4 differently configured Linux desktops (Ubuntu-based) and one Sun Java Desktop machine was held at Birmingham's central library in the summer 2005. A local research company was employed to measure the outcomes of the double-blind trial, specifcally which configuration was viewed as the best by participants. The Linux desktops took the top four spots with Sun's Java Desktop coming in last. Unsurprisingly the report was never published. BCC are a major Sun client.

2) The Open Source community, especially the Open Source Consortium (others included the Gnome Foundation), was entirely excluded from the project after the initial trial. BCC IT's department thought they could undertake the deployment themselves. The failure of this project proves this was not the case.

3) BCC selected an obsolete version of Suse Linux rather than the Ubuntu desktops that won the Library trial. They were unable to replicate the winning desktop configuration because the IT department accidentially erased it.

4) Open Forum Europe managed the Open Source Academy and were responsible for the dissemination programme.

Re:Incompetence

[chasethetail]

Deployment is a complicated issue. The city likely does not have the workforce to maintain the systems. The quote about 200 systems for 1/2 mill pounds is idiotic. One would logically assume the money would be diverted into other systems and channels. As a Linux user, I understand that many of you are upset by this. But unless you live in Birmingham and use the library, how does this affect you. They did get linux desktops alongside the new Windows systems. So, it is a win for Linux and a chance for people to experience it for the first time. My library still runs windows 2000.

Re:Incompetence

[Alef]

In this particular case, though, it's a matter of IT staff expecting it to be easy and not bothering to familiarize themselves with Linux enough to competently deploy it.

It could also be that with Linux, suddenly most of their expertise and know-how is totally useless. I'm not flaming Linux here, the same is true for all major technology switches. People have invested a huge amount of effort and "intellectual capital" in the existing technology over the years, and it hurts to throw that away. That can make people rather resistive. And if the ones trying to deploy it would rather like to see it fail, consciously or sub-consciously, well...

I'm not saying this is the case here, of that I really have no idea, but it seems plausible that such a factor could be involved as well.

Re:Incompetence

[dubonbacon]

IT managers around the world take the decision not to look at Linux at all. Talk about a laaaaaame IT manager...

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unfortunatly where as any moron can knock up a windows environment (they should chaneg the cert to mcm=microsoft certified moron) it takes more than a gas bag mouth to deploy linux succesfully."

If you're right and setting up a Windows environment is much easier than a linux one, isn't that in fact a major advantage of Windows? You could make the argument that only morons need a computer while the smart guys do it in their head.

Re:Incompetence

[molarmass192]

It will only take a small number of stories like this before IT managers around the world take the decision not to look at Linux at all.

That's only on the desktop ... believe me ... on the server side, Linux is on every IT manager's mind, at least in the isp/telecom market.

Re:Incompetence

[supersnail]

Local government in the UK is not famous for big salaries or sexy projects.
Although they do have really good pension schemes.
So they are gonna be full of livewire employees who are seriously into the latest software?

Re:Incompetence

[Dan Ost]

Funniest thing I've read all day.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

Why lame? An IT manager's remit is to provide service that works, on time and within budget. That's it. He shouldn't give a rat's fig about whether he achieves that with Windows, Linux or openVMS!

What's lame is a loser such as yourself crying about your personal partisan choice not being everyone's favourite too.

Re:Incompetence

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Claiming that it's the fault of incompetent staff isn't really an excuse. In every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts.

What!?! You've never hired people familiar with the platform you're deploying to deploy it? You just hire random minimum wage people or what?

What you rely on is good whitepapers and documentation provided by the company on how they expect a rollout to occur.

They parted ways with two consulting firms that were both experienced at deploying this and instead paid no one for documentation and support and instead tried to create it themselves. That is incompetence at the management level if nothing else.

This could be a case of them encountering more obstacles than they assumed initially, and/or having no good reliable source for help to solve them quickly.

...Because they decided to stop paying both the experienced planners and the support company.

I realize this is /. and everybody here thinks they are smarter than everybody else in the world, but the real world doesn't work like that.

In the real world if you make idiotic design decisions, your budget balloons to levels described by the company that helped you plan the deployment as "ridiculous," and you decide to scrap the whole thing at the cost of a million bucks then yeah maybe you're incompetent and should have retained at least one of the professional companies instead of trying to do it yourself. There are plenty of from-scratch deployments in numerous countries, that cost half what these people wasted.

Re:Incompetence

[John Courtland]

He didn't go all the way. Sure, it's easier to get "something" that appears to be a network up and running in windows, but it's another story all together to make it maintainable and secure. That said, it's not that hard to build out a linux network, it just requires a different skill set that really isn't as marketed as MCSE.

Re:Incompetence

[Lumpy]

You mean like Fedora Core 6? upon boot you get a "unsupported video mode" on all computers with a LCD and a nvidia 7600 video card... solution, boot into init3 install some obscure rpms, change the xorg.conf by and and reboot. Added 3 hours to the first install and 15 minutes to each one thereafter. Enough for me to go back to the Director and say, "Fedora is crap, let's use Ubuntu or something else that can actually boot into a usable mode after install."

Their problem is 3 fold. 1 management made the decisions without making sure that IT had full input on the project. 2 not enough research and testing was done. 3 too much Screwing around based on bad decisions at the beginning fo the project. It was doomed from the start because management di not understand the task of switching to a different platform, The project was under researched so it was a mess at the start, IT was horribly undereducated and under prepared.

disaster... although I can not understand how in the hell you can screw up so bad to get the cost per PC that high.

But they should have had lots of testing and a well laid out plan that refrenced the actual needs ofthe project.

Re:Incompetence

[Alef]

Local government in the UK is not famous for big salaries or sexy projects.
Although they do have really good pension schemes.
So they are gonna be full of livewire employees who are seriously into the latest software?

I would expect the local UK governments not to be full of live wire employees. As with basically every other organisation where the average age of the employees is greater than 25 years. That is where the problem arises. Humans generally dislike too much change after our brain has settled and lost some of its plasticity. One should consider that when planning £500k projects.

Re:Incompetence

[Inda]

Training. Do people even get Windows training?

Back in the 3.1 days, my Windows (and MS Office) training involved watching half a dozen VHS videos. Does that still happen? I think not.

Today I had to ZIP some files onto a USB drive because my 40 year old boss didn't know how. He's a lead engineer in charge of a 650 million pound project but things like Zipping a few files together aren't interesting to him. Why should they be?

I work with others in their forties who cannot map network drives, don't understand that you can save shortcuts in your favorites [sic] to absolutely anything, are unable to save email attachments, do not understand that you can drag and drop almost anything anywhere, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not convinced that training for the office working Joe Bloggs is the problem. Joe Bloggs doesn't know how to use Windows to even a moderate standard.

Me? I only use Windows these days because everyone else is using it and I know that is true for many, many people.

Re:Incompetence

[Zeinfeld]

A quick read thru the article reveals not a problem with Linux, but with the idiots trying to manage the deployment without knowing what they were doing.

That is also a significant and important cost. People who know what they are doing with a computer cost serious money. Why do people find it so hard to beleive that it is cheaper to pay #100 more per PC for a product that costs less to maintain than a product that is 'free'?

Most people don't even realize the amount of effort that goes into running a computer. This morning the battery in my wireless keyboard needed replacement. It took me ten minutes to work out that the keyboard was the problem, go downstairs get a battery and install it. Not a lot of time but in a library type environment thats 1/400th of a person's day just for the nobrainer task.

Then I had another ten minutes trying to get the wireless keyboard to connect to the receiver due to an interaction with the KVM switch. Basically the KVM switch was not giving the receiver power until it was woken up and to wake it up it needed to see some keys on the keyboard. Not that difficult to work out the problem on the system that I put together but could easily have been an hour or more if I didn't know the connections.

Computer systems are much more complex than they should be. Management is much more expensive than it should be. All systems are awful, some are worse than others but all (and yes that includes Mac) are bad.

One of the structural problems with Open Source is that in many cases 'charging for support' is the business model. This is not exactly an incentive to eliminate support costs. Support centers are also a profit center for Microsoft so its not just Open Source that is conflicted.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

I was employed at a Metropolitan Borough Council somewhat North of Birmingham where we were evaluating a linux based desktop/server solution to replace the then current Novell/Windows implementation. This was an IT-led initiative which planned to demonstrate cost-savings and provide an argument for a competitive trial against the proposed windows 2k directory services solution.

Unfortunately word of the trial got to the wrong people and political pressure was brought to bear - the trial was killed and no competitive evaluation was undertaken. Windows 2K server and desktop was implemented as a new council standard.

Whatever you say about these guys in Brum, at least they got Linux onto the playing field. which is more than we managed.

Re:Incompetence

[ericlondaits]

In this particular case, though, it's a matter of IT staff expecting it to be easy and not bothering to familiarize themselves with Linux enough to competently deploy it.

It's not "bothering to familiarize with Linux"... it's "spending money so IT staff gets familiarized with Linux". Be it on courses, books or simply the time they spend sitting reading through man pages and HOWTOs.

Either taking some time to plan the deployment more thoroughly or hiring an expert to do it takes money.

Re:Incompetence

[DraconPern]

You try rolling out 200 PC's with managed autoupdate, remote software install/uninstall, directory service, and roaming profile with Linux and let me know how long it takes you.

Re:Incompetence

[elrous0]

He also shouldn't give a fig about whether the Linux geek "cool kids" like him or not. Free or not, Linux comes with a lot of hidden costs that must be considered over the geek chique of MS bashing.

And, yes, I did just use "Linux geek" and "cool" in the same sentence. There is a first time for everything.

-Eric

Re:Incompetence

[Kjella]

Claiming that it's the fault of incompetent staff isn't really an excuse. In every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts.

Staff needs training. But there's no helping incompetent implementers, which are the ones supposed to train the staff. It seems the IT department decided to roll their own, but if they didn't know how... A friend of mine was recently called in on a "rescue" mission after some clueless consultants had spent 2-3 weeks setting something up, and still not got it working. Admittingly it was his absolute expertise, but he did it in *one* day. If they don't know how to manage linux machines, well then I can easily see them blowing that kind of money just dicking around trying to learn linux. For example, if they're clueless enough to do things manual on 200 PCs.

Re:Incompetence

[jmorris42]

> Not so much for having to use Windows, but for having to live with an IT staff like that one.

Exactly. The difference is an incompetent deployment of Windows looks pretty much like a competent one because they both suck hard. (I know a truly competent IT staff CAN, with enough effort, make Windows tolerable but that obviously isn't an option for these clowns.)

Seriously, if you are thinking of doing a difficult migration you do your homework BEFORE you deploy the first machine. They didn't so the blame MUST rest with their IT dept. Step one is list all of the mission critical apps and have an answer for EVERY one, even if it is VMWare, Xen, QEMU or Crossover Office. Then make sure you have the hardware compatibility issues solved, either by doing the migration in sync with a hardware refresh or by testing all hardware in the field and kmowing what needs to be replaced.

Done by competent people there is no chance a migration to ANY non-microsoft solution can end up costing more. Because if it did it would have never been attempted. Of course then there is the question of total cost of ownership. On a 500,000 deal a 100,000 premium to be free of Microsoft would be a bargain over the long haul. No more annual payments for software assurance, anti-virus software, anti-spyware software, forced upgrades to Vista, lower IT staff/pc ratio, etc.

Re:Incompetence

[toadlife]

"From the studies I've seen, Linux admins cost more, but less per machine. A Linux admin costs around 50% more, but could manage 2x or more in terms of machines."

I see this as a problem with linux (and *nix OSs in general), not an asset. I don't have a study to point to, but IME, a competent Windows admin can manage 2x or more in terms of machines than a normal Windows admin. As your point #2 points out, throwing more monkeys at the problem can work (albeit poorly) with windows, it can't with linux. This reflects a strength of Windows. This is a major problem for many when it comes to the adoption of linux, because in many areas the talent pool is simple too thin, and finding quality people is not easy. Add in the government factor, and you can all but forget finding anyone competent enough to handle the migration.

If I had a buck for every time someone said "The problem is your stupid Windows admins. Just hire some competent people and migrating to linux will be easy.", I could probably buy an extra gig of memory for my wife's computer.

To the issue of "competence" - For linux, I would define a basic level of competence as having an understanding of basic UNIX concepts, an understanding of the UNIX security model, a decent grasp of TCP/IP, and the ability to make #!/bin/sh carry out repetitive tasks. For Windows I would define a basic level of competence as having as having an understanding of basic Windows concepts, an understanding of the NT security model, a decent grasp of TCP/IP, and the ability to make cscript.exe and cmd.exe carry out repetitive tasks.

Every employed *nix admin I've ever met in person meets my definition of "competent", but I've yet to meet an employed Windows admin in person that meets the definition.

That doesn't mean I don't think linux can be adopted successfully. I think the government factor, not linux, is the biggest problem here.

Re:Incompetence

[chill]

Sorry, buddy, but I've done it in a manufacturing environment using Linux terminals.

No, not 200, 84. I ran a trial with 3 systems for 30 days before presenting it to management. Another 60 days to work up the roll-out plan, get the paperwork submitted to procurement, plan end-user training, management buy-in, etc. The actual roll-out took place over a weekend, with shift training the following Monday and follow-up training over the next couple of weeks.

If you don't need fast 3D graphics, terminals are the way to go and would have been perfect for a library.

Since we re-used a lot of existing equipment, total cost was under $75,000 U.S. including training. Training was handled in-house, just like the 90% of the rest of our training. This was back in 2002, so it would actually be easier and possibly cheaper today but for a 200 unit system I'd expect a final cost of $500 - $1000 per system, depending on equipment reuse.

Of course, I would also expect a slightly longer time frame for a government as opposed to a private corporation with management buy-in.

Re:Incompetence

[perlhax]

This isn't that untypical. System Administrators of any flavor are not Infrastructure Architects even though they like to think they are. All they needed to do was build a provisioning server and drop machines on the build network. Provision em up. Rinse and Repeat. lol @ Micro$oft being lower Cost of Ownership.. Not in my shop!

Re:Incompetence

[sheldon]

What!?! You've never hired people familiar with the platform you're deploying to deploy it?

How often do you see an ad like "Wanted: Systems installer for large Windows deployment. Must have five years experience deploying Windows Vista"? ...Because they decided to stop paying both the experienced planners and the support company.

Perhaps they believed that Linux was free, and they didn't need pay for it?

Re:Incompetence

[sheldon]

You mean like Fedora Core 6? upon boot you get a "unsupported video mode" on all computers with a LCD and a nvidia 7600 video card... solution, boot into init3 install some obscure rpms, change the xorg.conf by and and reboot. Added 3 hours to the first install and 15 minutes to each one thereafter.

Can't you customize the Fedora install to have this stuff in place for you the first time you boot up?

That's surprising, because you can customize Windows to include updated device drivers, etc. to handle this situation.

disaster... although I can not understand how in the hell you can screw up so bad to get the cost per PC that high.

Not having a good inventory of what was on your network would lead to this kind of spending.

Re:Incompetence

[Thomas the Doubter]

First of all, I am curious as to what industry you work in..."every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts". This is certainly not my experience working with IT in the pharmaceutical industry. Too bad for you.

About installing and integrating linux - by far the easiest install and integration with the infrastructure I have ever done was with Xandros linux. (easier even than RedHat). Everyone knows that XP is a pain compared with NT, especially if you don't want automatic downloads from MS.
Thomas

Re:Incompetence

[toadlife]

Great. Now see if you can teach Birmingham's IT staff (who probably break out into a sweat at the thought of using a CLI) how to do that.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if its the same in US or rest of Europe BUT in UK

for Windows support

knowledge of XP, Office etc (3 months)

For Linux support

are you a kernel Hacker?

Slight exageration but not much

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

These costs seem totally reasonable to me. You probably save money in year 2, but year one where you figure out the plan for your infrastructure, train all 200 people with at least 40 hours of training (you must understand most people are not like you when it comes to computers; they take a long time and lots of repetition to get it). Install everyones machine (preserving their files,etc); so how many machines will you convert over today. Also don't forget to schedule conversions with training (arghh project mgmt headaches). Be ready to answer the extra help desk calls from clueless linux newbies (unfortunatly /kick and rtfm other IRC conventions won't work in the real world); maybe add temps to helpdesk to add support. Also, Hire help desk techs who can answer linux instead of windows (yikes pricey). Once your up and running you save a few hundred bucks a machine in licensing costs. Unless you license Redhat to get all the patches compiled for you, then there is no licensing savings.

Re:Incompetence

[Grismar]

A quick read thru the article reveals not a problem with Linux, but with the idiots trying to manage the deployment without knowing what they were doing.

Yeah, good going, keep calling these people idiots. That'll help Linux take over the world. It's not these so-called idiots that are the problem. It's the people that think they should call them that and their lack of effort to help them that will ultimately kill Linux if we let it happen.

Re:Incompetence

[Weedlekin]

It's also doing very well indeed in the embedded systems sector.

Re:Incompetence

[Lumpy]

Yes I can spend another 3+ hours making a custom install disk or server image and boot disc. Problem is other distros work perfectly out of the box. The director wanted Fedora core we are in testing phase and discovered that FC6 is still buggy and has problems.. we switched to CEntOS. Ubuntu was too "easy" and allowed users to customize and was not set up for central authentication out of the box like CentOS can be. Also scripted installs suck. best is to make a working machine and image the drive, time for install is cut way WAY down buy using image files.... Problem is that your hardware changes a bit from shipment to shipment... Linux can cope with this silently... Windows can not.

Re:Incompetence

[sheldon]

Also scripted installs suck. best is to make a working machine and image the drive, time for install is cut way WAY down buy using image files.... Problem is that your hardware changes a bit from shipment to shipment... Linux can cope with this silently... Windows can not.


The simplest way to do this with Windows is using nLiteOS to build a custom installation(this is what I do at home), which allows you to add your own device drivers and tweak settings. That works for the simple situations, otherwise there are plenty of other advanced deployment options. Large corporations have many options that even involve remote delivery of the custom image, etc. At our company we have one image, independent of hardware model. It's quite easy to get a machine reimaged. Call the help desk, and they push it down across the network.

I was just surprised that you don't have this level of customization and management with Linux and instead you have to go around looking at different company distributions. I guess it's still maturing. Some day perhaps it will catch up with Windows.

Re:Incompetence

[PFI_Optix]

Who said it affects us?

I'm not even a Linux fanboy; I've been quite vocal in the past of problems I've had with Linux lately and saying it's not ready as a mainstream desktop OS. But when you spend 500,000 pounds attempting to make 200 PC work and can't pull it off, I'm going to point and laugh.

Re:Incompetence

[PFI_Optix]

I train people in Windows all the time. It's made a huge difference in the level of support I've had to provide; in the year I've been at my current job, ticket creation has dropped nearly 40% for the people at my sites because I teach them how to resolve simple problems themselves and give them the tools they need to find answers on their own. They've learned that they have a choice: answer their own question in 15 minutes or wait two days for me to show up.

No, the training needed is for the IT department so that they can competently deploy and support Linux, as well as train their other users in the basics of it.

Re:Incompetence

[PFI_Optix]

They spent a half million pounds, so obviously they had money to burn. A few thousand of that could have put a couple of guys in week-long training camps to get a crash course in Linux deployment and administration.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I am curious as to what industry you work in..."every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts". This is certainly not my experience working with IT in the pharmaceutical industry.

Kind of hard to know a lot about a product which has been out for less than a year, isn't it?

Everyone knows that XP is a pain compared with NT, especially if you don't want automatic downloads from MS.

It's amazing how everybody knows so little and tries to pass it off as proof that everybody knows.

Re:Incompetence

[dubonbacon]

We're talking here about not even looking at a possible alternative. Would you hire an IT manager who wouldn't even consider using Windows anywhere because of [whatever unreasonable reason]? Yeah that's what I thought.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I used a couple of the Linux machines in their main library, and they were rubbish compared to the Windows ones. I think whoever set it up hadn't bothered using the machines themselves! They even had US keyboard layout set, did they just plough through the setup wizards clicking Yes to everything??

Re:Good

[gEvil (beta)]

did they just plough through the setup wizards clicking Yes to everything??

[YES] NO CANCEL

*click*

Re:Good

[rs232]

"I used a couple of the Linux machines in their main library, and they were rubbish compared to the Windows ones. I think whoever set it up hadn't bothered using the machines themselves! They even had US keyboard layout set, did they just plough through the setup wizards clicking Yes to everything??"

What version Of Linux, what did Windows offer that wasn't available on the nix ones. What applicatins were on offer on both. How did you get access to both desktops. Did you have to login or use a ticket allocated from the frontdesk. Did anyone offer to change the US keyboard.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't answer you. Microsoft employees have gone home now. :o)

Re:Good

[Malc]

"Did anyone offer to change the US keyboard."

What kind of question is that? It shouldn't even have been configured for a US keyboard. Presumably the point was raised because it had a UK keyboard.

TFA Headline says it all

[RedHat Rocky]

The actual article is titled: "Criticism mounts over Birmingham's Linux project"

This is a followup on the project being discarded, mainly focusing on critical comments of how the project was managed.

Notable quote: 'Mark Taylor, whose Open Source Consortium also exited the project in the early stages, said: "I have no idea how anyone could spend half a million pounds on 200 desktops, running free software".'

Re:TFA Headline says it all

[Anonymous Coward]

100,000 pounds and I would do all 15 hundred computers in under a month including paying my own airfare to their location. However, they would have to pony up for VAT, if there were any involved with laying out the free software. With a liberal estimate, I would spend 10,000 on a remote imaging PC setup and transportable hard drives with imaging software. Then another 10,000 for transportation costs (intra-city and getting there). 10,000 for my living expense, all of them, that month. 10,000 for unbudgeted items, paying off the department of finance to let me work in their country, etc. Nice tidy 60,000 pound profit.

Expression on Bill Gates face: priceless!

Re:TFA Headline says it all

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have no idea how anyone could spend half a million pounds on 200 desktops, running free software"

Easy! Involve a local government. What with employing 10 x as many union workers and managers as needed; the friend of a counciller getting the hardware contract despite having the highest bid; general local government ineptitude and someone with their hand in the till at every level of the project I'm surprised they didn't spend even more.

Re:TFA Headline says it all

[advocate_one]

Notable quote: 'Mark Taylor, whose Open Source Consortium also exited the project in the early stages, said: "I have no idea how anyone could spend half a million pounds on 200 desktops, running free software".'

very bl00dy easily when "consultants" get involved...

Windows can be cheaper than Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when Microsoft is paying you to use Windows.

Re:Windows can be cheaper than Linux...

[^Case^]

... and paying for the staff administrating the systems.

In related news...

[Harmonious Botch]

...the Birmingham city council is using gas lighting because of the cost of teaching their employees how to flip a switch to turn on electrical lights.

yep: unstable virus-ridden PCs are cheaper, folks

[toby]

Hmm, this smells of undue influence. Pressure. Calls were made. Kickbacks. Payoffs. Bribes. The Microsoft way of doing business.

Because there's no way any rational analysis could conclude that Windows is appropriate for public PCs. (Or any PC, but that's another post.)

If nothing else, kiosks are a whole new threat model: You can walk up, install your favourite malware, and watch the passwords come rolling in...

would have been

[SkunkPussy]

£333/desktop if they had rolled out the full number of desktops.

Its not surprising that they spent a lot of money to achieve seemingly nothing - Birmingham City Council BOASTS all over the place that they are "the biggest employer in the West Midlands". Probably cos it takes 10 muppets to do the same job that 1 competent employee should be expected to do.

Re:would have been

[mikesd81]

Now, why do you have to bring the muppets into this?

Re:would have been

[ettlz]

Birmingham City Council BOASTS all over the place that they are "the biggest employer in the West Midlands". Probably cos it takes 10 muppets to do the same job that 1 competent employee should be expected to do.

Yeah, so what? This is Brum we're talking about here.

Re:would have been

[CmdrGravy]

I live in Birmingham and worked for a company once which had taken on a contract from Birmingham City Council to digitise their land records. I think the Council had been working on it for a few years without getting anywhere before they handed it over to the company I was working for. The whole thing was a total disaster, by the time I left it was already over 6 years late which was partly the company I was working fors fault for not anticipating the uselessness of the council in organising their end of things and partly the councils for being totally incompetent at doing any of the things they said they would do in order to allow us to do anything and not managing us, as their contractors, very well at all.

Unless things have changed in the council over the last 10 years I would imagine they are just as incompetent at anything they turn there hand to. I think it was only last week that we heard the manager of the streetlighting division had recieved over £70,000 for a years work where he had in fact been off sick for the entire year. This wouldn't be so bad if hadn't also managed to pick up another few tens of thousands of pounds for overtime, when he is off work sick. The council said we shouldn't make a fuss about this since the stress it might put the man under would only mean he would be off work for longer.

Come to think about one of the councils employees who used to liase with us spent a good 4 months off sick and then went on a month holiday which she later claimed back and took again because she said she had been sick during the first one and so it wasn't a proper holiday.

Re:would have been

[SkunkPussy]

half the workforce there is on long-term sick leave! I never saw anybody working hard in any department I temped in either

Re:would have been

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it's unheard of to use apostrophes in Birmingham.

Re:would have been

[jgrahn]

Unless things have changed in the council over the last 10 years I would imagine they are just as incompetent at anything they turn there hand to. I think it was only last week that we heard the manager of the streetlighting division ...

"Panic on the streets of Birmingham", eh? Great, now I'll be humming Smiths songs for the rest of the evening.

Re:would have been

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the the same birmingham city council that pays its road bollard cleaners 65,000 pounds a year?

x

Ready! Set! Halt!

[Anonymous Coward]

"One may wonder if they paid for initial training of their workforce making the first 200 more expensive than the rest but the article does not say whether or not this occurred.""

One doesn't need training. Linux is ready for the desktop.

Here's the plan:

[styryx]

It's possible to save even more money, Birmingham. Here's how: First do what ever it was that apparently would make the project cheaper with winblows, next replace windows with linux. It's free, so ALL the money spent on windows would be gotten back.
Let's reiterate: 1. Save £100,000 2. Save £++ by using free software 3. ??? 4......you know the joke by now.

Re:Here's the plan:

[The MAZZTer]

So what you're saying is, they wouldn't have had to train their employees because everyone knows Windows already, while not many people know Linux... ok... so then they replace Windows with Linux... whoops!

Still, if designed and created properly, ANY system can theoretically be used with minimal if any training.

Re:Here's the plan:

[styryx]

"everyone knows Windows already"

But seriously though, that's the point, people don't. EVERYONE has used windows, somewhere, somehow. But when it comes to fixing it, most people don't know a thing. The only way you learn is by tinkering, it'd take just as much effort to use Linux. That was the joke.

I did have one interesting thought though:
£500,000 ~ $947 350
/$100 ~ 9473 laptops in the $100 laptop scheme. How much training do you need to use one of those?

Re:Here's the plan:

[ray-auch]

So, for example, you first ensure you understand your users' training needs by running a pilot project, trying different levels of training and testing and getting user feedback.

Then you find that training costs on Linux are higher because fewer people are familiar with it and they don't like change.

So:

1. you "do whatever it was that..." - by training your users up on Linux first so now Windows is not cheaper.

2. Now you save money by deploying Linux instead.

3. Get big bonus for saving lots of money

4. Get audited and get fired over the "miscellaneous Linux training" line item that cost three times what you saved on the project, that you failed to bury deep enough in the books.

Big organisations have lots of inertia. Unseating the incumbent is hard. The no-change option is low-risk so you have to be a lot better and a lot cheaper.

Linux on the server got in through the back door in many cases - interested sysadmins simply installed it, used it, proved it (eliminating the risk argument) and then made it official afterwards. Much, much, harder to do that on the desktop.

The next big window of opportunity for Linux on the Desktop is probably in 12-18months when large users really start looking at Vista / Office2007 (well, they'll be looking at it right now, but not with a view to roll out tomorrow), and earlier Office versions start to move out of support (I think win2k already has?). Re-training and risk are then back in there on the microsoft side too, makeing the playing field a bit more level.

Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[Sneakernets]

In other news, Birmingham, Alabama is doing the exact opposite. Open source has fluorished here, as low funds make one go to low-cost alternatives.

Re:Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[sireasoning]

Could you give examples. I am unaware of this....

Re:Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[Sneakernets]

Of course. *nix Servers are in use all over the city. UAB Uses them for all student services (except the main portal). The Birmingham news uses *nix servers for their network. UAB Students are required to use Firefox on their windows PCs due to the Shoddiness of Internet Explorer. Not only are we becoming open source, we're moving away from Microsoft. Maybe that's why UAB is considering alternatives to VISTA due to it's horrid "key activation" plan.

Re:Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[Anonymous Coward]

I work IT support at UAB and no one that I know of is required to use Firefox. We do run many Linux servers, in fact most of our servers run Linux here, but web browsers are left up to the user.....except for IE7. We don't look kindly on IE7.

Re:Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[Sneakernets]

oh Anonymous Coward, check the computer room next to the lounge in the hill building. Unless they took them down, they were saying "Use Firefox". I took it as a command, but maybe I should take it as "good advice".

Re:Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[Anonymous Coward]

Across town at Birmingham Southern just went from a linux based free mail server to MS Outlook and last I heard limited alumni email accounts due to the per user license cost (before that your BSC email was for life). I don't know if they migrated any of the other platforms, most IT classes were done with the use of remote X sessions which I loved but for all I know that has changed now.

Re:Hmm, Not in my Birmingham

[Sneakernets]

I can see BSC doing that. They have really changed these past 10 years, and not for the better. One of the reasons why I left.

And before everyone moans about the cost

[Timesprout]

The Munich migration is more expensive than the windows upgrade would have been. They just made a deliberate decision not to use Microsoft.

I would supply 200 Linux PC for just 40K Euros

[Anonymous Coward]

I would supply 200 Linux PC for 40K Euros.

500K Pounds what a rip off!

What about virus, spyware and downtime costs?

[at_slashdot]

To me it seems that the biggest cost with Windows is not the upfront cost per seat, it's probably the cost of maintanance and data lost due to viruses and spyware, but hey, what do I know....

Re:What about virus, spyware and downtime costs?

[jimstapleton]

Not much; on a locked down PC, with proper precautions, that's really not much more of an issue in Windows than Linux.

Re:What about virus, spyware and downtime costs?

[kimvette]

Yeah, but on a locked-down PC many applications will not run properly. Catch-22 situation. :(

Re:What about virus, spyware and downtime costs?

[at_slashdot]

"locked down", "proper precaution" -- is it that what we see in _real_ world? My company paid $200,000 only to clean computers of viruses and spyware in one semester, and that doesn't include lost productivity and lost data and info and identity theft. (none of those were Macs or Linux machines, and we have those too)

Re:What about virus, spyware and downtime costs?

[jt2377]

Can your company pay me $200k to clean up their pc? it's obvious that you work with dumbasses. At my company, we only have Trend Micro AV and none of our machines have any problems. If your Windows kung fu suck, please stick with Mac/Linux.

Microsoft and the RIAA - Twins Under the Skin

[Nom du Keyboard]

I think Microsoft is in the same position as the RIAA. They have to win every time.

The RIAA has to win every every court case because, by the legal principal of non-mutual estoppal, if they lose once they cannot use the same legal arguments in any future case they might wish to bring (i.e. if P2P music sharing occurs through an IP address you pay for, you're automatically responsible, guilty, and owe them lots of money regardless of what you actually did, or didn't, do).

Microsoft has to win every desktop every time because, if a large-scale commercial Linux deployment succeeds as a viable alternative to Windows, it will be considered seriously as a candidate in every future large-scale deployment of PC's. Microsoft will have to fight for every future desktop contract, instead of being the de facto only option for 99% of them.

And both groups are willing to do whatever it takes to win at all costs!

Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[madhatter256]

Linux is harder to set up, thus it will be more expensive for governments to switch over to linux because it takes more time to set it up. Whereas with Windows, after being in the market for so long and having a lot of people at least be exposed to it once or twice in their lifetime, will not require as much time compared to linux. Therefore it is cheaper to use Windows both in the long term and short term.

Once linux has the same support, features, ease-of-use as Windows has then it has a chance of succeeding and taking a good chunk of market share. But as linux continues to be protrayed as the geekdom of software, it will not be a cheaper solution to Windows.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[dsci]

That's short sited; you only set up a computer once; you have to maintain it for its entire service life.

Others may disagree, but it has been my experience and observation that Linux is FAR easier to maintain in a productive role than Windows. What are the stats? I've heard these numbers: 1 Windows admin can properly maintain about 20 systems, 1 Linux admin can maintain about 50.

Besides, aren't a lot of systems in an environment like the deployment under discussion (library public access boxes) 'installed' by cloning? Set up one system the way you really want it and clone the rest. Seem to me that in this scenario, installation is pretty much a non-issue.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[thebdj]

Linux is harder to set up, thus it will be more expensive for governments to switch over to linux because it takes more time to set it up.
There is common misconception #1. There are plenty of easy to install, easy to setup, and easy to maintain distributions. Almost all of these have free flavors without having to pay a ton of money. I believe Mandriva can be installed and setup without too much external help, and it is hardly a beast to figure out. It is also ahead of Windows because you do not have to waste time setting up the other software, like Office, since it is installed at the beginning for you.

Whereas with Windows, after being in the market for so long and having a lot of people at least be exposed to it once or twice in their lifetime, will not require as much time compared to linux.
I challenge you to get most average users through a Windows install. Guiding my brother through a re-install on his laptop was one of the most painful experiences I have ever been through. Once again, a proper distro of Linux is no harder to setup and install then Windows. It also works out of the box, unlike Windows which requires Office, your IE plugins, security patches galore, etc.

Once linux has the same support, features, ease-of-use as Windows has then it has a chance of succeeding and taking a good chunk of market share.
You do not need to start with market share to be successful. If this were the case, nothing would ever catch up to Windows. Also, Linux quite possibly has superior support to Windows. Have you tried to deal with a technical rep at Windows about any problem? If they do not try to hand you off to your PC vendor, they will talk in circles until your head spins. Trust me, Microsoft did not get big by offering great support.

But as linux continues to be protrayed as the geekdom of software, it will not be a cheaper solution to Windows.
Cost of Linux distro, $0. (Fedora, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, you get the idea)
Cost of Windows XP Pro, $299 at retail, $150 typically for OEM.

You do the math.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[betterunixthanunix]

And you came to this conclusion...how? I've seen Fedora set up in under an hour, complete with Open Office and any other software that is needed. It is also simpler to install -- no registration required, no fiddling around with serial numbers that may be invalidated later, no bullshit. The installer is more clearly worded than the Windows installer, and by default creates limited user accounts. Usability studies and personal experience have shown that KDE/GNOME are as easy for an end user to use as Explorer is -- the differences are in the administration, which end users shouldn't be concerned with in a public access setup. Sure, you pay a Linux administrator more (on average), but a single Linux administrator can manage more systems at a time than a Windows administrator.

The real reason for Windows' continued dominance is a combination of friction, marketing, and certain specialty software that isn't available for Linux (yet). Friction and marketing have kept Linux away from home users and nonspecialized offices. Specialized engineering and accounting software is the main reason that Linux hasn't been adopted by engineers and accountants.

And there are legitimate reasons to bash Linux, if you feel you must. Let's start with the disorganized nature of the kernel, which has more explitives per line of code than any other software project. How about the poor bluetooth support, or the difficulty with PDAs (why is it so hard to sync up a pocket pc? Windows Mobile 2003 supports vCard and vCal files, which are easily produced!)? Or the security holes (confused? Compare RHEL with OpenBSD...)? Come on, at least present the Linux fans with some kind of challenge...

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[jimicus]

Most of the problems you discuss with Windows will already have been solved by any halfway-organised shop.

Installation: done through imaging, and only having a small number of hardware configurations. Software which goes on everyone's desktop would probably be included at the image preparation stage.
Software updates: Active Directory can do this, or there are other means if you don't want to use AD.
System patches: Windows Server already provides tools to manage this - and it's almost unthinkable that they don't already have at least a handful of Windows servers.
Policies & Configuration: Again, this can be managed through policies (in an NT4 domain) or Group Policy Objects (in an AD domain).
Support: Well, it's debateable which is better. But in Windows, you can generally click on icons and checkboxes until you hit one that does what you want - this is one thing that fails horribly when dealing with text-based config files.
Viruses & Malware: Any business-oriented antivirus tool will come complete with a management mechanism to handle rollout to a number of systems.

While all of these things can be solved for Linux, chances are that the IT department has never had to do so. And with zero Linux expertise on the part of the team handling the rollout, it'll take a lot longer to solve.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[dedazo]

Cost of Windows XP Pro, $299 at retail, $150 typically for OEM.

Try $43 OEM. That's the middle price range for mid-size VARs - I surmise Dell, HP, Gateway and IBM get a better price.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[gbjbaanb]

true about setup being the misconception, however I contend that it isn't the OS that is the problem, but the applications that run on it.

Setting up Windows, if you know what you're doing, take no time (or you've never booted off a PXE floppy/CD with setup info on it and watched the OS copy itself over the network). That said, the same applies to Linux (or you've never booted off a floppy/CD and had the OS copy itself over the network) Obviously you have to know what you're doing in both cases, if you don't than you're going to make a dog's dinner out of whichever one you choose.

Also, when it comes to support Microsoft kicks ass. Really. If you have paid for support from MS, you really do get it. Seriously. Big time. My old company had a problem (of the CTOs making, the plonker) and we had guys at MS working round the clock to find what the issue was.

Cost similarly matters to you or me, but to most businesses with a budget to spend, and staff to pay, the cost of $300 is just negligible when its added to staff wages. Even then, big IT places will be buying PCs with Windows on them for free anyway, and the cost of the PC far outweighs the cost of the bundled apps, so cost is simply not an issue.

So anyway, I think the OS and all the rest simply is a non-issue as far as putting computers to work - you get knowledgeable staff and you're good to go. The problem comes with the apps you want to run - if you have something that is only supported on Windows, and you must run it, then you're not going to have a happy time choose Linux (regardless of how good Wine is). Similarly, for a lot of Linux-only apps. This is what I think causes the problems with these migrations more than anything.

Incidentally, saying Linux comes with everything out of the box and Windows has to have a load of apps setup is FUD. Sure, you run windows update to get the latest IE, but on Linux you run apt-get or yum to get the latest Firefox. Its the same. With apps like Office, you're installing a separate app, but if you compared that with a similar Linux app, you'd have to install that too (and we're talking non-free business apps that are not bundled with the OS).

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[flyingfsck]

You (and Birmingham) haven't ever heard of 'dd' I guess.

For a library system, once the servers are working, you only need to configure *one* PC, then replicate the disk n times. What is so hard with that?

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[Creepy Crawler]

The "stats" are probably what you have heard.

Those numbers are what every fanatic touts. However, it ONLY shows how good the admin can, well, admin.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[businessnerd]

You make some excellent points, but you have to keep the setting in perspective. Your comments are definitely valid in a corporate setting, but this is a library setting with computers open for free public access. My mother works in a public library in the US and I have volunteered my time assisting the sysadmin in support.

The first thing to remember, is that the public user does not need any specialized applications. The staff may need a special app for their check-in/out cataloguing system, but as for the public user, they need access to only two things: Office suite and web browser. Sure there are lots of other apps that we've provided (mostly some games) but the only things people do on these public machines is office related and web related. Now with the web portion, there are a lot of apps that may go along, as in flash, acrobat, etc. We even broke down and installed all of the popular instant messenging clients (I objected, but was over-ruled and had to install aim, yahoo, and msn on every pc in the place). The only exception I can think of is tax software, but the demand for it was usually low (only on a couple pc's and only used around April 15th).

You also argue about support. You and the parent are both correct in your assessments of support in Windows. Corporate support for Windows (from what I've been told) is pretty good and have gotten some previous co-workers out of some pack-up-your-things-cause-your-probably-fired type of jams. But these are for servers. A public library is already stretched for funds and does not have a support contract with MS. That's why they have their IT guy (and yes it's usually just one guy running the show). In cases where the IT guy is stumped, he's on google searching for a solution. Usually he ends up at support.microsoft.com, but the answers aren't there. The linux users have the support of not just those who wrote the software, but of everyone else using it. Comparing general desktop, non-corporate, Linux wins big time.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can use a tool like systemimager that is designed to bring up AND maintain large
numbers of identical systems for BIG HPC clusters. There are just SO MANY things wrong
with this idea that this project should fail because some doofus could not figure out
how to effectively install and maintain a Linux system. The quote about how their IT
depertment could not duplicate the test system desktop environment because they deleted
the image is just so classic.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[Malc]

And you haven't heard of Ghost?

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[Malc]

Linux hasn't been around for long? Try more than a decade. I was use it pre-Win95 days. XP is nothing like Win 3.1, and so I would argue that experience with it doesn't count anymore.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing 200 - 1000 identical machine with something like ghost does not even come close
to something like systemimager when it comes to something like this. And that does not even
take into account how easy it is to maintain those 200 - 1000 systems in an identical
configuration for years to come, all without taking the system does at all unless there
needs to be a kernel upgrade made. ghost is not in the running when it comes to doing
this sort of thing at all.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[itsdapead]

Linux is harder to set up

Clarification: (a) installing Linux as a secondary OS on a windows machine (or a Mac for that matter) without disturbing the existing OS is inevitably more complicated than installing windows on a bare machine. Installing something like Ubuntu on a bare machine is (at worst) little different to installing windows.

(b) PCs sold as windows machines may include hardware that isn't supported by Linux. This makes for an unhappy installation experience. Natuarally a large project such as the Birmingham one, they would have selected supported hardware (I had to disengage cynicism mode to type that)

(c) Some hassles when installing Linux are to do with licensing/patent issues that the FOSS community can do little about (e.g. MP3 playback, DVD playback). This is a particular drawback of the GNU-purist distros such as Debian and Ubuntu.

(d) Slashdotters are probably keen to get their 3D accelerated graphics and multi-monitor setups going, and this is one area where Linux really does suck bigtime. Probably not a big deal in a library or office setting though. The 3D bit may be down to proprietary driver issues but the multi-monitor issue does seem like a Linux weakness (it IS possible with manual xorg.conf-editing hell).

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[Anonymous Coward]

Longer to set up? What's simpler than a simple script running under the very Linux boot DVD to partition the hard drive and bunzip2 the image (or even via the network)? Linux is *the* tool to automate deployment and imaging of multiple systems. Heck, I use Linux boot disks to backup Windows machines -- cleanly and uneventfully, without having to fight the ghosts ;). On any sizeable deployment, the setup time per desktop can be ignored. You have to set up the servers, the desktops are pretty trivial in comparison.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[cloakable]

Ghost isn't free. dd is.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[cloakable]

(d) Slashdotters are probably keen to get their 3D accelerated graphics and multi-monitor setups going, and this is one area where Linux really does suck bigtime. Probably not a big deal in a library or office setting though. The 3D bit may be down to proprietary driver issues but the multi-monitor issue does seem like a Linux weakness (it IS possible with manual xorg.conf-editing hell). Doesn't look to be a problem for me :) Though I'll let you know when I get a second monitor setup.

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[gbjbaanb]

I'd say I was still right - if that IT guy is a idiot, it doesn't matter if you're putting sunray clients in, it'd still go wrong :)

Incidentally, MS websites are excellent for technical information - go to Technet or MSDN and read all about the very inner workings of Windows. Linux does have a good range of information, but I'd have to say that it is somewhat erratic, you do have to hunt down the pearls in amongst the stuff that was valid for 2.2 kernels and obsolete application versions. A case in point: my recent foray in the world of systemimager (excellent software), but difficult to get relevant information. They have a document that is valid for v3.4.1, but the current version that works with 64bit is 3.7.5. It has been slightly difficult to get to grips with it and find out the issues that affected my servers. So I can't agree that support is really better with Linux. I'd have to say they're equal unless you've paid for support. (and I'm sure RedHat as well as MS does respectively)

Re:Why Linux will not take over Window's market...

[dwandy]

The Symantec.com store says it's seventy bucks ... this windows thing isn't getting any cheaper.

As many others have pointed out it's not just the initial $45-$250 WinLicense that's more than the free 'nix - every single additional 'feature' requires yet another proprietary piece of pay-code.

Paid training? LOL, RTFM...

[Anonymous Coward]

"One may wonder if they paid for initial training of their workforce making the first 200 more expensive than the rest..."

R-ing the F-ing M is free.

Ummm....

[Otter]

One may wonder if they paid for initial training of their workforce making the first 200 more expensive than the rest but the article does not say whether or not this occurred.

If they were genuinely slow-witted enough to make such a calculation, how do you figure their chances of maintaining a large Unix install base. And if your figure is significantly greater than zero, what does that say about the intelligence required to be a Unix admin?

Ignorance is the biggest enemy of Linux

[camcorder]

Ignorance is a very big problem with Linux, which results in unsuccessful deployment and failure. It's not an easy job for making people to switch from one environment to another. Building similar GUI is not a resolution. Most computer users do not know what they use. And people should increase their knowledge if they want to use computer. Using windows is like learning driving on one car. Though you need to learn standards, you need to know what horn is and used for, instead of learning it like 'you push that place and it emit sound'.

We have to put Linux awareness on computer education. Else people would behave Linux as Windows and once they fail they would blame that on Linux. Administrators of Windows think that they know everything due to their computer training and once they encounter something different, they think its broken 'even though they did everything right'. Users thing applications 'do not work', or 'does not do something' because they can't see their familiar GUI in front of them. They don't even check other places, or don't even know where to look at it.

Technical personnel can't report bug reports, can't realize what causes the problem. They mostly get used to 'reinstall' or 'restart' to fix stuff never in need to knowing cause of previous problems.

And even worse, since they don't know deep working of some basic stuff, they design current systems platform specific. They don't use standards but rather using platform specific tools or ways to handle things due to their 'buggy training'. And when they need to change platforms they have to reinvent lots of other fixes they had before.

Summing all that up, they stay in the middle of vendor lock-in. if we can't educate people well on computers, and they think they are educated enough, they would not blame their knowledge but the products.

Re:Ignorance is the biggest enemy of Linux

[westlake]

Most computer users do not know what they use.

Nonsense.

Users in overwhelming numbers chose either Windows or the Mac for reasons which have not fundamentally changed in almost thirty years.

And people should increase their knowledge if they want to use [a] computer.

Why?

For most people, the computer is a home appliance or an office machine. It is not their hobby, much less their obsession.

Using windows is like learning driving on one car.

Ask any driver or passenger what pisses them off most about an unfamiliar make or model car and the answer is likely to be the time they waste fumbling in the dark and the cold for the latch that opens the damn doors.

Re:Ignorance is the biggest enemy of Linux

[kimvette]

Most computer users do not know what they use.

Sure they do! Ask the average user who brings in a broken PC what OS they run, they almost invariably reply "Microsoft." What version of Windows they have? "Microsoft." What word processor they use? "Microsoft."

Oh. I see what you mean. ;)

DOOZERS!

[Pharmboy]

Dude, you are underestimating the competence and worth ethic of Doozers when you trash Muppets like that. They working harder than illegals and their work tastes like candy.

Re:yep: unstable virus-ridden PCs are cheaper, fol

[bluefoxlucid]

I can write malware for Linux. I threw out a script that hijacks sudo to get root access using a couple bashisms. Drudging up passwords is nothing.

Half a million pounds, with free software

[Harmonious Botch]

At current exchange rates, that is $4,736.75 per desktop

Re:Half a million pounds, with free software

[A beautiful mind]

Here is the specification detailing those machines.

Not in my experience.

[khasim]

But isn't that the problem with most Linux deployments? When you have the majority of the IT workforce out there not trained in Linux it makes for a tough hiring process to find someone qualified for a rollout like this. Then, when you do find someone qualified (I'm talking qualified here, not someone who has been running Linux at home as a hobby...but a true Linux Professional) the rates are through the roof.

Not really. Anyone who knows *nix can adapt to Linux in a couple of days. And there are lots and lots of people who know *nix out there.

True, they might be more expensive than someone with an MCSE. But the MCSE you'd hire/contract for a migration of this size would be more expensive than the MCSE you'd hire to maintain a site that has already migrated.

Migration specialists cost the same whether they're Microsoft, Linux, Sun or whatever.

However, in the hear and now its difficult to get something like this to go off without a hitch due to just the sheer lack of experience in the world.

Again, not really. The problem is when people do not look at it as a real migration. If you've ever done an Oracle/Sun migration, you'd know the costs involved and the amount of planning. And those are the kind of experts you'd be calling in for a project such as this.

The strange part is how they could spend so much money, so quickly, on so few PC's.

Realistically, they should not have spent 1/20th of that before finding that Microsoft would cut their sales price to come under the Linux figures.

And most of that money would have been spent on identifying all the apps used and which could be ported and for how much.

Linux desktops are cheaper to run than Windows. Particularly if you're using them in a diskless environment.

The HUGE costs are porting the apps or migrating the data to Linux-based apps. This is because most vendors have spent time locking your data up in their proprietary formats in order to make it as expensive as possible for you to dump them.

Which is why migrations such as this are STUPID to rush into.

It makes far more sense to plan them over 5 years. That way, the cost of migrating/porting those apps can be compared to the cost of upgrading them (or migrating anyway when the ISV goes out of business) and the real savings can be seen.

And you can realize the easy savings sooner to off-set the more expensive projects later.

In other news

[DarkWicked]

I rolled out linux on my computer illiterate mum's computer, from another country, on the phone, by telling my windows-only using little brother how to download and install Ubuntu (no dual boot, of course).

Cost of the operation => 0 (I don't pay for the phone)
Happy linux users => +1

So cut the crap already great britain !

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that scales nicely. :/

Re:In other news

[OldeTimeGeek]

Congratulations. You've now done one. The article was talking about 1500 systems. You have 1499 to go.

Re:In other news

[DarkWicked]

1498 actually, I've done my girlfriend too ! (yeah, both meanings :p)

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

well thats nonsense, you had your little brother there to set it up and play tech support for your mom, not your mom, who would have been better served with something like osx.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because your time is completely free. (even if you don't work for a living, you could do her more often if you weren't on the phone :)

Re:In other news

[flyingfsck]

Here you go:
1. Plug some HD cables
2. dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdb bs=1M
3. Long wait...
4. Plug some HD cables
5. Rinse and repeat 1499 times

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

I rolled out linux on my computer illiterate mum's computer, from another country, on the phone, by telling my windows-only using little brother how to download and install Ubuntu (no dual boot, of course).

I did a similar thing last week. After getting hammered by Windows viruses for a second time my parents spat the dummy as asked to use what I use. I sent them an Ubuntu CD and I talked my totally computer illiterate Mum through changing the BIOS to boot from the CDROM first right through to installing Ubuntu. She was a bit spun out by me moving her mouse around via VNC.

Anyway, she now says she likes this Ubuntu thing - it just works - and she's enjoying trying out all the programs on it.

All for the price of a coupla hours on the (VoIP) phone. Cost perhaps AUD 1 all up.

Add another +2 happy Linux users.

Re:In other news

[Dunbal]

Ubuntu thing - it just works

      Provided you don't use a winmodem...

Re:In other news

[amliebsch]

Or a Canon i850 and Scanjet 4370 like my mom. :(

Initial training?

[nacturation]

One may wonder if they paid for initial training of their workforce making the first 200 more expensive than the rest but the article does not say whether or not this occurred.

It's like considering switching all traffic so that vehicles drive on the *other* side of the road. Even if it made more sense, it would be expensive as hell to do. And it's silly to take into account the learning curve of all those who had to initially learn to drive on the current side of the road. What matters is solely the cost of any changes going forward given that they have a staff already trained and familiar with Windows. If it's cheaper in the long run to stay Microsoft and everybody's already reasonably happy with it then, technical and ideological reasons aside, why switch?

Re:Initial training?

[MooUK]

It probably ISN'T cheaper in the long run, that's the point. It might be cheaper in the short run, since a simple upgrade to the next version of the same system should be cheaper and easier than a migration complete with retraining to a different system. But in the long run, you save all that money that would go on extortionate license fees.

Re:Initial training?

[BigRob7]

Well, I have to disagree with "it's cheaper in the long run to stay Microsoft" because it's just not true. Actually, linux would be ideal for long-term use, because once you have the training done (the majority of your costs in switching - and i'm not denying it's a large chunk of coin), you are in the clear for long term maintenance with a very small operating expense. Windows in the long term = major cash on perpetual forced upgrades (along with the new hardware to run them). Not only that, but you will spend more time on windows boxes once they are rolling. Spyware, viruses, malware, you name it - all seem to latch onto windows and take a lot of resources to conquer. So, maybe for a few years you will be saving money, but if you are looking for a long term, cost-effective solution, it just isn't windows.

Re:Initial training?

[Anonymous Coward]

when done right, they aren't more expensive, they are cheaper.

the problem lies when people who don't want to do it right get involved.

$5k per computer when the software is free? come on!

here are two hints...

1. the free software advocate quite b/c the project was so jacked.
2. i'm no linux admin, but i'd install the right keyboard setup - i don't even know how what it's called. only a total dufus would install us when uk is the right answer.

1. define what an install should look like.
2. create said package of software.
3. test and verify it.
4. image it to 200 hard drives and install them in 200 boxes.

run around looking for the missing $500k (or go on a shopping spree, if you know what i mean!).

i think users could click the firefox icon with "internet" as the tag line, don't you? you could even have a howto file on the desktop.

whoever did the install stole the money and the librarians likely were scared and didn't want to learn anything new - which is a scary outlook for librarians.

Re:Initial training?

[Dunbal]

So, maybe for a few years you will be saving money

      No, because next year they're going to need another couple million pounds to switch all those machines to "Vista"...

Re:Initial training?

[cronius]

You mean like this?

This really has nothing to do with the discussion, just pointing it out for laughs if anyone's interested.

Migrations usually cost more than upgrades.

[khasim]

Because your data is usually locked into the original ISV's proprietary format ... and that ISV knows approximately the cost of a migration ...

So that ISV will price their "upgrade" at a low enough point that the pain and cost of the migration is difficult to justify to upper management.

Remember, software isn't like a car. Once the time/money has been invested in writing the software, distribution is practically free. You make more money the more times you can sell the same code. Even if you have to "discount" it for some of your clients.

The real issue is on "TCO" and "ROI".

How long will it take you, running the new software, to make back the cost of the migration and start really saving money?

It's in the ISV's best interest to lock up your data so that the migration cost is so high that even with huge savings on TCO and massive ROI, it will still take years and years to make back the migration costs. That way, few businesses/governments will be willing to justify a migration that might fail.

Re:Migrations usually cost more than upgrades.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your data is usually locked into the original ISV's proprietary format

We have lots of data "locked" into Unix based application based, so we are migrating to Windows since 1999. In the future we'll discover the same again.

Why is Linux so hard for them?

[lmpeters]

I see two simple options. First:
1. Build each computer with 1GB of RAM and no hard drive. A fast CPU is not needed, but the ability to net-boot is required.
2. Set up a Knoppix image on a net-boot server, which the workstations can net-boot from. (The Knoppix image might need to be customized for this purpose, but even if no modified Knoppix image already exists with this feature, it shouldn't be overwhelmingly hard to make one.)

Thus, everything runs off a read-only NFS filesystem, and is impossible to vandalize a workstation on a software level (a reboot undoes any vandalism). Furthermore, Knoppix has proved itself to be very good at autoconfiguring itself on a wide range of hardware. And I don't know ANYONE who couldn't figure out how to use Knoppix if they tried.

Another option:
1. Build each computer with 512MB+ of RAM and at least a 5GB hard drive. The ability to net-boot is not needed.
2. Install Knoppix on one computer's hard drive, and copy the disk image to all other computers. Many tools exist for this, of which Norton Ghost is merely the best-known (open-source alternatives do exist).

Thus, you get the same advantages of the first solution, but with a local hard disk. The first solution would offer easier clean-up on workstations, while the second would result in higher performance. Of course, you could get even higher performance by configuring a net-booting Knoppix to load to RAM, but you'd need more RAM (I'd guess at least 2GB) on each workstation.

Why is it so hard for them? Did they get brainwashed by Microsoft's P.R. trolls, or am I way smarter than than Birmingham's IT staff?

Re:Why is Linux so hard for them?

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, lemmeseenow:
a. Insert Knoppix CD
b. Apply spot of super glue to drive door
c. Rinse and repeat 1499 times.

I think we got ourselves a winner.

In Birmingham, AL

[everphilski]

also happens to be the 6th most dangerous city in the US. Open source adoption leads to crime? Hmmmmm?

No, not trolling... low funds lead to crime and open source... just kinda funny :)

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[sireasoning]

I live in a suburb of Birmingham and I feel that this is overstated. I don't even feel the need to lock my door here, I often can bring my bike inside of grocery stores and leave it unlocked, etc. I generally practice a low-level type of security with my stuff. There are some sections of town though that are dangerous, but it is that way in most cities.

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[thrills33ker]

Dude the article is about Birmingham, England.

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[gbjbaanb]

To help the grandparent poster: Birmingham, West Midlands. 3264 miles east of America.

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[Anonymous Coward]

What is with you people?
"In other news, Birmingham, Alabama is doing the exact opposite."

The "In other news" is the key here. You see, there are other places named Birmingham! The poster knew exactly what they were doing. Amazing!

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[elrous0]

3264 miles east of America.

That's a mighty long drive.

-Eric

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[Anonymous Coward]

Birmingham may as well be two different cities, with North/West Birmingham being 100x more dangerous than the rest. It doesn't help that the city seems to be pouring money into developing the city center while neglecting the rest...

Re:In Birmingham, AL

[Weedlekin]

And a wet one. It rains _really_ hard under the Atlantic.

Even further

[NineNine]

Well, I think I'd like to extend what you said. I think that people should start making their own microprocessors. Otherwise, how do they know how they work? We should mandate microprocessor design in public schools. Otherwise, how can you debug your own kernel panics? After that, we need to make sure that people can make their own hard drives. After all, if you don't know where the 0's and 1's go, how can you fix the problems?

I've already done the same for my car. I won't drive one, until I know how it works. Right now, I'm busy growing rubber trees so that I can make my own tires so I can change one myself. I'm pretty excited. Only another 5 years to go, and I'll have enough rubber to make a tire! After that, I have to learn how to mine iron to make steel for the steel belting in the tires. But hey, I'm not ignorant! I figure in another 200-300 years, I should have the know-how needed to drive my car.

Does anybody know how to make a tire stem and valve? I can't put air in my tires until I know how these little bastards work.

Re:Even further

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to know every little detail, but at least you know how your car engine works. ie. what might be the cause of it, if it does not start. Don't know your country, but in my country in order to get driver's license you need to know how engine works, how brakes work etc. You don't need to know how to repair it, but at least you know more than 'when you press pedal it goes.'.

Re:Even further

[Anonymous Coward]

WEL IN DAT CAES ID LIEK TOO EXTND WAT U JUS SED PLZ
LIEK U NED TOO NO WHO ATOMZ N STUF WROK N LIEK B ABEL TOO BILD ROCKITS N STUF K?

FAK U WINDOZ ROX! LINIX NOUB

aaaaa a a aaaaa a a aaaa a a a aaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbb cbc cccccc ddddddddd aaaa a a a aaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbaaaaa a a aaaa a a a aaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbb cbc cccccc ddddddddd b cbc cccccc ddddddddd

Re:Even further

[Anonymous Coward]

Only another 5 years to go, and I'll have enough rubber to make a tire! After that, I have to learn how to mine iron to make steel for the steel belting in the tires. But hey, I'm not ignorant! I figure in another 200-300 years, I should have the know-how needed to drive my car. Does anybody know how to make a tire stem and valve? I can't put air in my tires until I know how these little bastards work.

See, people like you make me sick. You don't wait until you finish growing the rubber trees to start learning how to mine iron, you should be doing that NOW. Oh, and it's called a Schrader valve. Look it up and quit whining. You still have to learn how to make asphault, 'cause we don't let idiots like you drive on ours.

Re:Even further

[Bert64]

People who are responsible for maintaining computer systems _SHOULD_ know how they work, would you use a mechanic who knew nothing about how your car worked?

I would not be surprised

[WindBourne]

But

1. I doubt that you have proof of that.
2. I also doubt that the long-term costs of Windows would be cheaper than Linux.

Any time you make an initial jump on a platform, it costs more. But it is the long haul where you make your costs/money.

IYou always need some Windows PCs

[bestinshow]

You'll need those windows PCs for all the jobless Windows certification programs, like the MCSE and so on. That requires Office on each Windows PC.

However for all the other Library PCs, all you need is a plain desktop with a giant 'Intarweb Click This GIANT Icon' icon in the middle (with the browser configured to not keep a history). Hell, for value add include a "Messaging" icon too (configured to never save the user's settings). Put the rest of the functionality behind an "Other" icon. Linux is ideal for this, you create your "LibraryLinux" distro and install it everywhere.

Arguably installing a bunch of Mac Minis and LCD monitors would have worked out cheaper, and people don't have many issues using Mac OS X, and Office is available for it.

Quite clearly this was horribly mismanaged, and quite possibly poorly thought out in the beginning. One person can install 2000 copies of Linux in a month, assuming they put a little upfront effort into the distribution and default software install. That shouldn't cost more than £40k, including travel expenses. I'm assuming they reused PCs ...

Vienna, Austria switches to Red Hat

[kupci]

Key word is "migration". Because over the long term, the Microsoft maintenance would be greater, further there's no vendor lock-in.

Interesting that the city of Vienna is already part way (100 servers) deployed on Red Hat (funny, Slashdot has a anti-Linux post, but no post on Vienna's success. Sure, they are probably much more capable of supporting Linux vs. Munich given their experience with AIX, and FreeBSD, but this is a win for Red Hat which could've gone to Microsoft. Oh yeah, that's why I read Digg more these days.)

I think what's going on here, with Birmingham, is a little wheeling/dealing, in which the city threatens to go with Linux, unless Microsoft comes to the table. And Microsoft blinked. Competition is good..

From TFA

[AlanS2002]

"That's ridiculous," said Eddie Bleasdale, the owner of open-source consultancy NetProject and an early participant in the project. "It's an unbelievable cock-up... They decided to do it all themselves, without expertise in the area," he added, saying that a lack of skills in open source and secure desktops would undoubtedly have raised costs.

Id also wonder about which distrobution they were planing on deploying. Was it RHEL or something as equally expensive?

odd numbers ..

[rs232]

Unit cost for a Linux desktop = £2,5000

Unit cost for a Windows desktop = £2,433.00

Where did the money go .. :)

Re:odd numbers ..

[Anonymous Coward]

They might have bought 8 external DVD writers to fill all USB ports.

Dog bites Man

[Bazman]

Of course this is only news because its a Linux IT project failing. There are so many over-budget, behind-schedule public-sector IT projects involving non-Linux systems that they dont make the headlines any more.

Oh, except the new UK Health Service IT system which has just gone waaaay over budget....

Re:Dog bites Man

[winkydink]

There are so many over-budget, behind-schedule public-sector IT projects involving non-Linux systems that they dont make the headlines any more.

Few, if any, involve rolling out Windows to the desktop.

Re:Dog bites Man

[Colin Smith]

Any bets on how many billions the ID card scheme will cost? 30?

Not being funny, but...

[kbox]

Birmingham is not really know for being an IT trail-blazer in England. I'm more surpised they didn't just toss a few speak and spell toys on the desks and have done with it.

Linux Meme - Not As Rosy As You May Think

[broward]

http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry =linux_meme

The buzz factor of Linux has been falling for a couple of years.
The odds are good that this will reflect back into the actual adoption rate.

Re:Linux Meme - Not As Rosy As You May Think

[evil_Tak]

This assumes that adoption rate is directly related to buzz, which I find highly arguable.

Windows can be cheaper than Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet russia Microsoft pays for YOU!

what training ..

[rs232]

What learning curve. This is for library access so I assume they mean web browsing and word processing. What training do you need to use Firefox as against Iexpolorer. I do know of at least one library that has gone the Open Office route on Windows with no complaints. To say Windows is cheaper than Open Source is to use different mathematical functions than the rest of us.

Re:Initial training?

Costly

[Citizen of Earth]

Birmingham's expenditure averaged over 2,500 pounds per PC

I know I have trouble finding a PC for less than $5,000.

Re:yep: unstable virus-ridden PCs are cheaper, fol

[jimicus]

Not necessarily. I'd attribute it to incompetence first.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like the team tasked with this were 100% Windows folks with no Linux experience. Ask such a team to deploy Linux to several thousand PCs, and I'm not surprised it all fell over horribly.

It doesn't help that the problems you encounter when dealing with 100 or 1000 PCs bear little or no resemblance to the problems you encounter when dealing with 1 or 2.

Technically incompetant

[cdn-programmer]

It is truely amasing how technically incompetant some people are. That they can walk and talk is sometimes a surprise. I sometimes think the human race has already split into two streams. If so the problem is we have the worng people running the show and there is little accountability.

If they spent $2500 pounds on average on 200 machines then imagine if only 10% of that money had been made available to technically competant people! The rest of the money could have been donated to the welfare budget.

Re:Technically incompetant

[marktlrees]

Maybe Windows is just better.

Re:Technically incompetant

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former employee of a (non-UK) council I can tell you that incompetence is rife in local government IT. Sure there are the exceptions, but there are so many people who were the council's 'tech' guy 10-15 years ago and moved on to be IT manager with little to no qualifications and experience besides maybe the company GIS application or self written corporate database.

Additionally the salaries for local government IT positions are usually well below the private sector resulting in local inexperienced applicants rather than industry veterans. Positions are often filled by employees within the organisation transferring from another department, again lacking the experience to do the job. Think of that CV we've all seen "knows linux" etc.

These positions are often in towns and cities where no other similar IT support role would be available if they left the job, which means people hold onto their position or else they force relocating to the big city. Again this contributes to long serving staff (30+ years is not uncommon in local govt) who may know about VMS or decnet, but do not have up to date knowledge on subjects like deploying this open source project.

Re:Technically incompetant

[Dunbal]

If they spent $2500 pounds on average on 200 machines then imagine

    I know that computer hardware and software is more expensive in the UK - you pay in pounds roughly the same as you would pay in dollars for the same stuff. But $2500, or 2500 pounds buys you quite a decent rig, OS and all. Sheesh did they really need those 20 inch flat screen monitors and dual core machines, to run what, exactly?

Re:Technically incompetant

[Anonymous Coward]

people like yourself don't seem to have any understanding of large scale deployments, most of that cost of 2500 pounds would not be in the hardware but the people and training, hardware and yes even windows licenses are only a fraction of the cost. my bet would be that maybe 500 pounds is hardware (if that), the rest is spent on people. consultants, network engineers and people building your desktop image do not work for free. if it takes them even 10% longer to build it under linux then shock horror linux IS MORE EXPENSIVE.

Sweden switched

[cdn-programmer]

Check out which side of the road Sweden drives on. Perhaps the average Swede is a little smarter than the average Brit?

Re:Sweden switched

[nacturation]

Check out which side of the road Sweden drives on. Perhaps the average Swede is a little smarter than the average Brit?

And an excellent example of weighing the benefits against the costs. Short term it must've been an expensive switch. However, Sweden likely identified the long term savings benefits and decided to go for it.

Maybe it failed for bureaucratic reasons?

[s20451]

Let's not forget that most governments have unionized employees, which (if true) is material to any massive IT redeployment. In true Slashdot fashion, the following post is pure conjecture and generalization. But I think it's plausible.

Ideally you would want to hire expert sysadmins on contract to conduct a pilot project such as this one. However, there is likely to be language in the union contract forbidding a contract employee from taking a job that might be done by a unionized employee. Unless a sufficiently far-sighted employer included specific language covering a Linux deployment, the deployment would necessarily default to the in-house IT people.

And you had better believe that the union folks would be vocal about it. Especially if they -- as Windows experts -- could be replaced by Linux sysadmins in a wholesale system turnover. In fact say they believed that Linux might require fewer sysadmins, thus threatening their jobs. Maybe they wanted it to fail for that reason? Again, pure speculation, but plausible given my previous interactions with unions.

This is not to say that unions are useless or evil. Or even that any of this happened or was a factor in Birmingham. But unions do form part of the institutional culture, and if not taken into account, they can cause projects like this one to fail.

Re:Maybe it failed for bureaucratic reasons?

[dp_wiz]

Let's not forget that most governments have unionized employees

So, that's the deal? Just ionize them!

The British, what did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

incompetence reigns supreme in the UK

But any clues? Outcome?

[kosmosik]

The article itself does not say nothing. It is quite possible that such migration does not make any sense. If they have loads of Windows-only applications they would have to rewrite it all to web frontends or something. Also tech support and administration can be quite costly if they have no unix background.

But on the other hand the outcome of this case does not provide any specific information where they failed? Was it lack of apps? What distro they used? What strategy? What were main problems? Etc.? Etc.?

For this money to be not completely thrown into trash they should publish the outcome and what they have experienced. For others to learn but also for general public to justify themselves. Right now it is like big question mark on what exactly they did. And this leaves their incompetency as an option too.

library computers run a single interface

[Anonymous Coward]

That let you run a limited number of pre-configured applications.

This would have to be configured ahead of time on either Windows or Linux.

Same amount of time and effort on either platform if you start from scratch. But if you use one of the kiosk distributions for Linux and just configure that exactly how you want then you can easily adopt that to run exactly what you want under Linux.

Linux wins setting up for a Library.

The license costs would be much higher with Windows than for Linux.

Linux wins licensing costs.

The same amount of time would be spent training anyone on either system.

Wash for training time.

Linux runs great on much weaker harder. You could have a lab full of low end Linux X terminals and one high end machine running the actual hardware and come out way ahead on hardware costs by a factor of 5 and still get better performance than the windows machines. With no maintenance needing to be done to the X terminal, and with the only real computer locked up in a closet or in a high security rack that is bolted to the floor, you have much less chance of someone walking out with a computer that would do much for them.

Linux wins big, huge even, for hardware costs.

Really, the only way that Linux could cost more is if you either had a complete n00b setting it up in the worst way possible, i.e, exactly how you would set up a windows network.

Or this project was set up to fail by someone that was forced to use Linux against their will.

2,500 pounds per PC

[McNihil]

What on earth did they try to pull off? So with Windows installed it was 67 pounds cheaper to purchase? I dunno but this sure smells baloney!

FUD and incompetence

[smoker2]

From earlier articles on ZDNet:

Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely brought about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking and the changes to IT processes that would result.

WTF ! open source networking ? *costs attributed to "decision making"* ?

The Linux project cost £534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would have cost the council £429,960. There were a range of problems with the open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces and lack of support for removeable drives.

Don't they mean the Linux project "would" have cost - they didn't finish it. And lack of support for removable drives ?

Also have a read of this, in which they reveal that Birmingham was using suse 9.2 *without* a yearly support contract. Also, they weren't upgrading the actual hardware as far as I can tell, otherwise an XP upgrade doesn't make sense. And what's "an equivalent XP upgrade" anyway ? Did they take into account all the extra software needed to run XP at an equivalent level - anti-virus, MS Office, etc. That's without taking into account that they will have to "upgrade" windows again at some point, and thereby spend *another* £429,960 ! (Except it will be more than that because the hardware won't be up to running Vista).

Sniffing passwords for fun and profit

[flyingfsck]

Tah, dah:
# ngrep -q "user"
# ngrep -q "pass"

Re:Sniffing passwords for fun and profit

[cloakable]

# ngrep -q "user"
bash: ngrep: command not found
# ngrep -q "pass"
bash: ngrep: command not found

Seems not to work here :) Or is that a windows exploit?

They paid way too much

[Anonymous Coward]

If they paid that much, they got ripped off. I have been running Linux (on the desktop as well as several Linux servers as well as helping Windows users switch to Linux and troubleshooting production servers) for almost a decade and I have paid a grand total of $0.00 for everything.

Seriously, with all the documentation available (http://www.tldp.org/ http://www.tuxfiles.org/ various forums and IRC, not to mention the man pages) one doesn't need to pay for help.

If you do it right, Linux will cost the same on one machine as it does on a million machines: $0.00
Microsoft will never allow you to do that.

My opinion is, they messed up bigtime.

The law of government project management

[flyingfsck]

Any Government project expands till it exceeds the budget. Therefore the deployment cost of a Linux project simply depends on the size of the available budget. If they budgeted for a total expenditure of $100, then it would have come in at less than $500 for all 1500 machines.

And America being a child of...

[Anonymous Coward]

And so America being a child of the British Empire and its people is even more incompetent without the saving graces Britain enjoys.

Vista

[bill_mcgonigle]

What matters is solely the cost of any changes going forward given that they have a staff already trained and familiar with Windows. If it's cheaper in the long run to stay Microsoft and everybody's already reasonably happy with it then, technical and ideological reasons aside, why switch?

This would be a good argument if the Win2K/2003/XP line was going to be around for another ten years. It starts getting phased out next month.

Retraining time.

What utter tripe

[HangingChad]

Birmingham's expenditure averaged over 2,500 pounds per PC.

That is just total bs. 2,500 pounds for 200 pc's? Get real. With the help of one other skilled person and a couple weeks of planning I could have rolled 200 pc's in one night. What could be on library PC's that couldn't be replaced or framed to run as a network application? That's just absurd.

Here's a story from 2004 where a library rolled 200 workstations over to Linux and that included public kiosks!

I've seen development projects send millions down a hole when managed poorly. Now we see the same thing is possible when desktop migrations are run poorly. The operating system isn't the core issue here. Bah!

Alabama or England, say what?

[OldHawk777]

Birmingham, Alabama or Birmingham, England what's the difference they can compare fruit and vegetables as equals, and use numbers equally well. I mean, y'all ain't got no cents, if'n ya don't know Equal is as Equal does.

Who the hell is Equal?

Give us a break

[turgid]

While it is fun to lay the blame outside of Linux, the community should really be looking at the product provided and working out how to make it deployable for every one of the 6.2bn folks on the planet if it is going to get the pervasive desktop deployment that some seem to be looking for.

I've been using Linux as my primary (and only at home) OS since 1996, and I code on it for a living now.

I know this argument sounds reasonable, that "the community" should put in "more effort" to make Linux pervasive on the desktop, but it hasn't worked this way, and will not.

"The Community," in the guise of various volunteers and companies, (e.g. Ubuntu) have done a lot already, and this pervasive adoption hasn't happened, and it won't.

People will not just use Linux because they don't want to. They don't care. They are not interested. They like Windows because it comes on their computers by default, "everyone else uses it," they didn't see how much it cost, and it looks pretty, even though underneath it's pretty ropey.

"We" (whoever that is) should stop wasting our valuable time casting pearls before swine. OK, that's maybe a bit harsh, but the work has been done now (shiny user-friendly distros and Microsoft-compatible apps), it is up to them to take it if they want it.

What is far more important to me, and I suspect most of "us", is a healthy and diverse hardware and software ecosystem where everyone can play and compete, through open standards so that no one is left out if they don't want to be, and healthy progress can proceed.

"We" do not need Linux (as only one flabour of *nix) to be pervasive, to replace one monoculture with another. It would be better if everyone ran a better OS (i.e. not Windows) but that isn't going to happen.

"We" should be quietly confident and work to improve "our" software, and when any of the Heathens feel ready to convert, we should offer them our patient and friendly support.

If they don't want to convert, respect their decision, whether is is due to ignorance, laziness, fear, legitimate need or personal taste.

There ends my rant for today.

Way too much

[mschuyler]

For the life of me I do not understand how each PC could have cost so much. I was the admin for a public library for 25 years. I have installed many hundreds of library public-use PCs. My most recent full-PC installs, on Windows XP, were running about $800 each for brand new fully capable machines complete with per-seat security software of various kinds (the public is REALLY hard on machines) such as Centurion Guard and Fortres. Just before I left I installed thin clients which were running about $400 per seat (including the servers).

I realize lots of folks here see this as a Linux vs Windows issue. It's really not. The OS in this equation just isn't that much. The issue is total cost of installed base: dollars (pounds) spent divided by number of machines. These were 2500 POUNDS! That's got to be something like $4700 per machine.

Somebody screwed up.

some context here...

[Anonymous Coward]

The councils in the UK are notorious for employing the unemployable. Really. I am surprised it didn't cost twice as much. Let's look at where some of the money probably went:

1. 3 people employed instead of one, so the council can claim it is filling it's job share quota
2. Overpriced training for everyone - who cares if they didn't need the training, there is a training quota to meet
3. Never estimate how dumb some of these staff are - a task that should and would take an average IT person 1 week, most likely took 1 month
4. Meetings, political awareness, and general laziness generally win out

Overall, not a great picture. I experienced first hand the horrors of working for a council IT department, having come from the private sector. I was very glad to return to the private sector as fast as possible.

Remember - how many council IT staff does it take to correctly install Linux? No one knows, it hasn't been done yet!

Re:some context here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the middle of trying to return to paid employment in the IT field after 7 years away following an accident and would dearly love a jobshare. Getting Birmingham council to consider jobshare, in the IT sector at least is a total none starter.

Training ? I can't say as I don't know anyone working in the councils IT operations, all I know is that they demonstrate an inability to maintain public library systems - staff don't know whether books are in, out, or no longer exist, public terminals remain unserviceable for weeks.

So I am trying to find a single truth...

[ratboy666]

in your statement:

"Linux is harder to set up, thus it will be more expensive for governments to switch over to linux because it takes more time to set it up. Whereas with Windows, after being in the market for so long and having a lot of people at least be exposed to it once or twice in their lifetime, will not require as much time compared to linux. Therefore it is cheaper to use Windows both in the long term and short term.

Once linux has the same support, features, ease-of-use as Windows has then it has a chance of succeeding and taking a good chunk of market share. But as linux continues to be protrayed as the geekdom of software, it will not be a cheaper solution to Windows."

1 - Linux is harder to set up. No. Since there isn't a registry, or machine locking, it is very easy to create a single bootable image and deploy. Indeed, only a bootloader need be present on the client machines.

2 - Windows has been in the market longer. No, Unix has. And Linux is a reimplementation of Unix.

3 - You conclusion based on these two facts. Neither of the facts holds up.

4 - Once linux has the same support, features, ease-of-use as Windows has then it has a chance of succeeding... "Linux" has arguably BETTER support, more features, and (because of lock-down), better "ease of use" (in a library environment). Linux is in quotes, because we must talk about a particular distribution -- Linux is just a kernel.

5 - linux continues to be protrayed as the geekdom of software. This may be true. But, you will find Linux in your router, in your TV, etc. more often than Windows. And, it has nothing to do with your conclusion (being a "cheaper" solution than Windows). Linux *is* cheaper because there don't have to be license fees (all other things being equal).

Personally, I don't care if Birmingham uses Microsoft Windows, Suse Linux, or IBM OS/2. But, of those, the ONLY choice that may be benefical to me is Suse. The reason? Birmingham may have been in the position to contribute back to the pool (with code, documentation, artwork, or something else). Since they have elected to REMOVE themselves from the pool, they cannot participate; will not receive the benefit, and (worse); I will not receive the reciprocal benefit.

This saddens me -- I would like to see the feedback of a few large public installations.

The one thing YOU should learn is: Linux does not compete with Windows. Asserting that is ludicrous. Suse or Redhat (etc) may compete with Microsoft, though. "Linux" and "OSS" welcomes participation -- without which it couldn't survive. OSS here is deeper than money; we will mourn the lost contribution of Birmingham; its too bad that they aren't going to make the next vital contributions in "library and government usability in OSS". But someone else will take up the gauntlet. That's the beauty of OSS.

Ratboy.

Single source of Support

[Chris Tyler]

Also, when it comes to support Microsoft kicks ass. Really. If you have paid for support from MS, you really do get it. Seriously. Big time.

True -- but you have only a single source of support. If MS comes through, great; but if they don't, you're sunk.

Think about it: you can have the largest consulting firm -- Accenture, EDS, even IBM -- support your Windows-based development and rollout; but when a bug appears (and one always will), when a security problem is found (and one always will be), when push comes to shove, even the biggest consulting outfits must wait for MS to issue a fix. They can perhaps lean on MS a bit, or hunt for a workaround, but that only takes you so far. If you instead deploy on top of Linux and other Open Source software, your consultants (or in-house staff) can fix that inevitable bug themselves and then submit the patch upstream.

When your support provider has the source code, there's no one that they can blame: the buck stops with them. If they can't handle your needs, you can walk with the source and find someone who can. All support providers are competing on the basis of ability (not secrets): this in turn can lead to real competition, and, therefore, competitive support pricing.

Open Source reminds me of the Nike logo: Just Do It(tm).

Not to be discounted...

[salparadyse]

...are the companies who come muscling in - "oh you're doing a Linux migration, you'll need our help, we charge £500 a day and will take several days to do anything at all".
It's largely not the staff "on the ground", they are enthusiastic. It's poor choice of distro (SuSE 9.3), requiring EXTREMELY expensive development to attempt to make it work as expected and general dithering.

But it is both a shame and a scandal.

At our school (UK).....

[mormop]

We deployed 120 new desktop pc's which we built ourselves from parts purchased from a trade supplier. Spec was AMD 2800 Semprom, 512MB RAM, 40 GB IDE drive with no CD-ROM as we're trying to encourage the use of USB sticks. Each PC came in at £105 and the build took place in summer 2005.

We installed XP Pro on a volume licence (£35) and then duel booted with Ubuntu Breezy.

Total cost £16800 + the time to build. Without XP these would have been £12600.

Installation of XP consisted of install, update, install all applications and create disk image to be rolled out using Dolly. Install of Ubuntu consisted of popping the disk in, booting, clicking a couple of buttons, upgrading and imaging. The Ubuntu install took much less time as all the apps and drivers were installed at the same time. At the time of building a script was added to run a prompt for a machine name followed by winbinding to the domain.

The image is easy to roll out via our Gigabit LAN using Dolly. Network wide software installs can be done on Linux using a script that checks a directory on the server and after doing an md5 check uses apt to install whatever we want it to.

Given the ease of all this, the Birmingham thing just has to be down to incompetence. Excluding people who know what they're doing from helping is an arrogant act but ultimately one that probably caused the laughably huge bill.

I think that writing to the National Audit Office would be a good move by those Open Source Organisations involved as someone really needs to be held accountable for such a blatant waste of public money. Then again, maybe it was an overtime fiddle by those involved with or, more likely, another public body using Linux to beat Microsoft down on price.

Re:At our school (UK).....

[Trelane]

We installed XP Pro on a volume licence (£35) and then duel booted with Ubuntu Breezy.

I hope those came with a Windows version upgradable to XP, as "Volume License agreements--including Academic, Government, and Public Sector--never cover the initial full Windows Client operating system license. Volume License agreements cover only Windows Client upgrade licenses."

Re:At our school (UK).....

[mormop]

Yep, sure did. The guy in charge is shit hot on licencing. The initial batch (2005 build) were replacing 3 IT suites and admin machines. Since then, we buy OEM licences at £57 each with new machines and pay the Windows tax with laptops.

Having said that though, if a few educational software companies ported there apps to Linux we'd happily switch.

Re:At our school (UK).....

[Trelane]

we buy OEM licences at £57 each with new machines

So half the price of each PC was Windows?!

Having said that though, if a few educational software companies ported there apps to Linux we'd happily switch.

Amen to that. What ever happened to "if you build it, they will come?"

Re:At our school (UK).....

[mgblst]

Incompetence, in the UK, with IT projects. But that is unpossible!

Re:At our school (UK).....

[mormop]

Yep, you got it. 50% of the price of each desktop PC we build is Win XP pro.

The problem we have is that companies like Crocodile Technology who make the best educational DT software won't make a Linux version unless there's enough demand. Of course there won't be enough demand until they make it so it's catch 22.

Worse still, the governments Building Schools for the Future program will tender school ICT provision out on a county wide basis to private companies. As the only people big enough to provide this are Microsoft and Sun and Microsoft have a significant majority of the schools market anyway there's pretty much no motive for any current educational software vendors to port anything.

I always believed that it was not the place of government to favour any single private vendor over another but BSF effectively seals Microsoft's educational monopoly in the UK.

Education, education, education was Blair's election slogan but I didn't realise he meant screwing it.

Re:At our school (UK).....

[Trelane]

Wow. I'm sorry, man. If only I could pitch in somehow, maybe maintaining the Ubuntu install. But the UK is quite a ways away from the midwestern USA.... :(

Kudos to you for installing Linux as a dual-boot!

Re:At our school (UK).....

[mormop]

LOL.....

Incidentally, lets put this in context.

£500,000 on 200 PCs. Assuming that each PC cost £250 which is believable we can assume £450,000 for non-hardware related stuff. £40-£50 an hour is what you'd pay for contrators around here so we'll go for £45 an hour which is enough for 10,000 hours and, I imagine, more than a full time council employee earns unless they're paid £80,000 a year. At 8 hours a day that's 1250 days which is 3.4 man-years.

It'd therefore take a three man Birmingham City IT dept team 1.14 years to install and image an OS, deliver and install 200 PCs to librarys and get them working.

As I imagine even the best frontline IT person in a council would be paid half the £50 an hour used in the calculation above you could easily double the size of the team or the time.

These people are being paid too much (or I'm not paid enough).

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

His comment perfectly reflects (what appears to be) the general concensus around here.

My question is, WHY does deploying Linux just absolutely have to be cheaper than deploying Windows? Granted many of the TCO (and other) studies end up being funded by Microsoft (or partners), but what rule carved in stone prevents Microsoft from being cheaper than non-Microsoft in at least some circumstances? If you deny it as even a possiblity then you are no better than these funded studies.

Re:mod parent up

[penix1]

This is why. Sit there for a moment and consider just what exactly is "Total Cost of Ownership"? In a nutshell it is hardware+software+training+support. You will always have the same formula be it Windows or Linux. So let's break it down...

Windows:
Hardware: $$$$ (As needed to support new OS)
Software: $$$$ (Yearly license fees)
Training: $$$$ (As you add new people. If you are going to save it may be here since Microsoft's dominant position in the market make it feasible that employees already know the system)
Support: $$$$ (Yearly or on an "as needed" basis)

Linux:
Hardware: $$$$ (As needed to support OS but older hardware will work and in fact may work better than newer hardware)
Software: ---- (No cost at all if you stay solely FOSS)
Training: $$$$ (As you add new people. Here is where the cost may go up)
Support: $$$$ (Yearly for the first few years then "As needed" basis. Cost can be high here to start but should go down as you progress)

So you see, right from the start you have a savings in Linux. The only way to save with Microsoft is if they "cheat" and undercut on their license fees. The assumption (often wrong) that is made in the Windows TCO studies is that training costs will be low since "everyone is likely to know Windows" already. It would be interesting to follow a large organization as they deploy Vista. By that I mean follow the TCO from day one. That will give you a huge clue on the true TCO.

B.

Re:mod parent up

[Stone Pony]

So the whole project costs $16 with Windows and $12 with Linux? Something tells me that these figures need firming up and may, in fact, just have been pulled out of thin air.

How exactly is Windows cheaper?

[Simonetta]

England must be a strange place. Because I can't understand how a free operating system like Linux can cost 100,000 pounds more on 200 computers than a proprietary system that costs $100 per computer when bought retail.

    Is Microsoft UK actually paying people to install Windows on their PCs? Is there some magic turning point where $100 (@60 pounds) becomes cheaper than free? Do English librarians actually know the concept of money?

    What is it? Training costs? It costs the same to train system administrators to run Linux as it does to run Windows. They are both systems that are equally complex.

    Is someone being paid off? Surely not in England! If I bribe an English library system to adopt an expensive proprietary operating system over a free one and the bribee comes right out and says that the free system costs 100,000 pounds more than the proprietary system, do the people in England just shake their heads and agree that it must be so because English librarians are just, so, ... correct.

    I'm just so clueless here. Could someone please explain this?

For Poms.

[chris_sawtell]

Birmingham is North of the Watford Gap, so what else can you expect?

Re:For Poms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical cockney. Like London borough councils never made a cock up of this scale. Just remember - Birmingham City Council is reviled by brummies as an utter waste of tax payers money. Their ineptitude is legendary, remember when they cancelled Xmas? They "rebranded" it as "Winterval". These are the kind of idiots trying a large scale migration. It doesn't come down to a linux vs windows issue, it's competant vs incompetance. They will make a pig's ear of the windows migration as well.

NEWS FLASH

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

News flash: I.T. projects sometimes run hugely over-budget and get cancelled. Linux is not magic pixie dust that solves this problem.

Oh wait, that's not news.

Going to court...it'll never happen

[Joce640k]

"The RIAA has to win every every court case because...."

The RIAA, like Microsoft will never actually go to court. As soon as it looks like they might lose a case they settle quietly, out of court, under NDA.

Oooh Oooh Oooh Conspiracy Theory Time

[dapprman]

There must have been a covert ops double agent for Microsoft/SUN on a grassy knoll outside the Birmingham Library with a targetting device to being the sattelite rays down on the heads of those unsuspecting techies who were not wearing their foil caps.

Ironically...

[Lovemoose]

The £100000 that could have been saved by moving to Windows would just about offset the pay of one council employee in an overpayments scandal that's been floating around Birmingham in the past few weeks. See http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost /news/tm_method=full%26objectid=18018775%26siteid= 50002-name_page.html for some of the details. With appalling mismanagement of council finances in general, it's no wonder they've done this too.

Hardware is pretty much the same.

[jotaeleemeese]

Software, as explained previously, is immensily cheaper if you use Linux.

So a Windows only solution starts with a substantial disadvantage when considering the last two items: training and support.

I have lots of experience giving, receiving and organizing training, for run of the mill products like OSes and desktop applications the rates are pretty standard regardless of the product, given the applications mentioned in the article, I don't see anything that would suggest using Linux would increase training costs enormously if at all.

As for support you can get many companies to take in bulk whatever you have, regardless of OS, and if you do it internally then you will not raise the salary of your techs just because now they have to support Linux (they may need training, but that should be budgeted yearly any way, so frankly I don't see how support would be a factor in a differential in price).

So the only way I can think of that a MS solution would be cheaper is if licenses, training and support are all offered in one package and then the price cut below cost in order to keep a foot firmly in the door.

Most companies can't afford to do this, unless somebody is prepared to lose money (or some of part of what they are offering is way overvalued).

Draw your own conclussions, but the only way I see this working is if MS offers a great deal for licenses (which are terribly overvalued, piracy and confussing pricing schemes pretty much probe that) and they do the support and training for cheap. Or they could strong arm the company providing the services to do so, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the persuade a company to lose money in a high profile company in order to keep a healthy business relationship in other projects mutually profitable.

Complete nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you are a corporate or institutional buyer this is a non issue, your provider will ensure all your hardware works or will give you the advice so you can go and buy hardware that works.

This nonsense about comparing the problems faced by a hobbyist with the ones faced by an institutional Linux adopter are frankly comparing apples and oranges. No, like comparing oranges and caviar. Or something like that equally nonsensical.

Astute observations

[WebCowboy]

People will not just use Linux because they don't want to. They don't care. They are not interested. They like Windows because it comes on their computers by default, "everyone else uses it," they didn't see how much it cost, and it looks pretty, even though underneath it's pretty ropey.

[...]

"We" do not need Linux (as only one flabour of *nix) to be pervasive, to replace one monoculture with another.

I've noticed something about personal computing that is quite disturbing and you've put the finger right on it. A lot has been said about how the IT "monoculture" has made us vulnerable to security compromises, viruses and such because the vast majority of PCs share the same platform with the same weaknesses, but it goes much furhter than that. The software monoculture has slowed progress and innovation very substantially. While hardware computing capability marches forward on Moore's Law, progress on the software side has almost ground to a complete halt. Let's look at a few five-year periods of recent personal computing history shall we?

1975 to 1980: Went from Altair (came standard with a few bytes of RAM, LEDs and switches for input) to Atari (800 came with 48K, had a full keyboard, 128 colour graphic display and multi-channel sound)

1980 to 1985: Went from Vic (and its you like competitors from Atari, Apple, TI, etc) to Mac (16/32 bit computing with desktop model GUI on high-res bitmapped display that you could go and buy at a mall)

At this point Microsoft's dominance starts to develop and the monoculture takes shape:

1985 to 1990: Went from Mac to Windows 3.0 (black and white GUI to...ummm...well colour GUI that was a but awkward to use)

1990 to 1995: Win 3.x to Win95 and NT (colour GUI to a prettier colour GUI and uhhh well I guess TCP/IP stack built in...whatever)

1995 to 2000: Win 95/NT4 to Win 2000 (nothing really notable...stability and scalability improvements)

2000 to 2005: Win XP (fisher-price theme on same old desktop.

What is most disturbing is 2001 to present: NOTHING AT ALL...we've been hobbling along on just service packs and patches. And the "great unwashed" JUST DON'T CARE. The only computer users who have enjoyed any innovation or notable improvements are those who are passionate enough about computers to see them as more than a tool and opt to run Linux or MacOS. Furthermore, because that market is so small any innovation that DOES happen happens slowly dur to either lack of resources or fear of being TOO different from the dominant monoculture so as to repel potential new users.

"We" should be quietly confident and work to improve "our" software, and when any of the Heathens feel ready to convert, we should offer them our patient and friendly support.

While I think you're observations are astute, your solution is far from the way to go. We can't merely improve our manners and accessibility towards newbies and be "quietly confident" becasue we'd never get on anybody's radar. Free software advocates have had "quiet confidence" and continuous improvement for decades now and it never stopped the formation of the Microsoft monooculture. We need to boost our volume considerably in the advocacy of Free alternatives to Microsoft (and even Apple, who have survived and are even thriving a bit from being very visible). We do have a few "loud" advocates, however they are idealogues like ESR and RMS--extremely intelligent and capable people but with eccentric personalities who are fringe thinkers. ESR and RMS are poor at marketing and PR and compromise and negotiation which means that if a person is aware of them at all they could be perceived as crackpots.

We need advocates that can effectively talk to the "common man". We need to shelve talk about the merits of the GPL and freedom and such for a PRODUCT-based approach. The philosophy discussion makes more sense amongst the newly converted, not for the unconverted. There are the Linux television commercials? The only notabl

Re:Astute observations

[turgid]

The task is monumental and our goals are sometimes unrealistic, but the world (in terms of computing infrastructure anyways) would be a far far better place with a significant market share of Linux (as in the double digits).

The world would be a better place with a significant market share of any sophisticated, well-designed and mature modern OS (i.e. anything other than Windows).

I'm losing my youthful idealism and exuberance now. In the past I advocated Linux and tried to help people to use it, but it as in vain. Nowadays, when people complain about their PCs and talk about buying a new one, I suggest buying a Mac. When technically-profficient people talk to me, I suggest Linux or BSD in passing, but I don't conciously advocate it. People like to whinge and complain, but it's too much hard work for them to learn something new.

The people who switch are the ones with a compelling reason. Most people do not have a compelling reason. They're used to dealing with Windows' inadequacies (time and money spent protecting it and fixing it).

It's very difficult to convince someone to switch unless they actually use something different and enjoy the experience. Most people will not try anything different. They will not invest the time or effort. They will not belive you, for the most part.

Absolutely ridiculous

[timjdot]

This is the most ludicrous posting yet. 1,500 desktops at roughly $4000 USD each?
Here's a realistic brakdown of what this would cost in the USA:
1) Hardware: $1000 (let's get something really nice) (Could be as low a $400)
2) Setup the template system. 1 month. Say, $15,000 in manpower
3) Dup disks. $50/PC is the going rate for assembly and SW load.
4) First boot each PC (clearly this could be coded but lets add in this anyways). Have the library staff follow the directions and enter a computer name. I'd venture to say most library systems in the USA already have people who have used Linux or Unix at least. Not like this is the first time they are using a computer or something run by a CPU! Say $50/PC.
5) Shipping to site. $50.
Grand Total $1160 per PC. And I'm sure they used crappy hardware so it would be more like $560/PC. If they are paying any more then fire the idiot in purchasing and the idiot managing the project. If they are paying less, then give the genius in purchasing free movie coupons and the genius manager a bonus.

That's just common sense.
TimJowers, http://www.serviza.com/ Open Source Linux Computers and Training Bundles