Slashdot Mirror
The State of Munich's Ongoing Linux Migration
christian.einfeldt writes "The Munich decision to move its 14,000 desktops to Free Open Source Software created a big splash back in 2003 as news circulated of the third-largest German city's defection from Microsoft. When it was announced in 2003, the story garnered coverage even in the US, such as an extensive article in USA Today on-line. Currently, about 60% of desktops are using OpenOffice, with the remaining 40% to be completed by the end of 2009. Firefox and Thunderbird are being used in all of the city's desktop machines. Ten percent of desktops are running the LiMux Debian-based distro, and 80% will be running LiMux by 2012 at the latest. Autonomy was generally considered more important than cost savings, although the LiMux initiative is increasing competition in the IT industry in Munich already. The program has succeeded because the city administration has been careful to reach out to all stakeholders, from managers down to simple end users."
Sorry to break it to you but that whole "blog" smells like troll to me...
The project will not be complete until they have a logo with Tux the Linux Penguin lofting a good German beer.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
Here's the blog from Floria Schiessl, project leader of the LiMux distro and the Munich migration: http://www.floschi.info/
Here's a blog from someone who believes the Munich migration was a failure: http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
From reading both, I tend to gravitate towards the failure side. It's 2009 and only 10% migration? Wasn't this suppose to save money? It's a frigging embarrassment! How are you suppose to point to Munich as an example of free and open-source software working on a city scale when they can't even implement it in a reasonable time-frame?
Waaaah! Asus Slapped Linux in THE FACE! Sob! Somebody call the Waahmbulance!
Linux dreamers have faith that Linux is more than just a niche product for hobbyists and power users.
Mr. Babcock then goes on for like another 3,000 words, explaining how Microsoft, which makes over a billion dollars profit each month needs to follow the Linux model, which makes zero. Good luck with that!
Now maybe, in your opinion, that's criticism, in mine it's trolling
I agree!
I'm wondering if they have a percentage of the city employees who, after using Linux at work, have migrated over to Linux at home?
Over the years I've read a great deal about various efforts to belittle and undermine it. The Munich Limux Watch blog seems like an attempt to systematically discredit the entire project. I'd love to find out who's behind it. I doubt it's directly supported Microsoft, but I'd wouldn't be surprised if there is some business interest, perhaps a disgruntled IT supplier or even a public sector employee who doesn't want their desktop system changed, behind it. Perhaps some clever Slashdot reader can find out more.
Don't be surprised that there are unexpected costs on a project of this size and complexity. Think about similar projects in the (semi-)public sector, some of which had factor 10 cost overruns and were abandoned (for example: Denver airport luggage processing system). In the end, the ability to actually complete the project, even if years late, and the long-term cost savings will determine its real success. [See my signature below]
We shouldn't expect Limux to have an instant pay back. Even though the operating system is free, the installation scripting, customization, roll-out, training and support have real costs, which will take years to amortize. The gain will only be in the long-term when the infrastructure to support Limux is in place and saves from not having license costs associated with forced upgrades are realized.
Further, you must bear in mind that Munich is a pioneer in even attempting to replace a major Microsoft based infrastructure with open source software. They are having to to do everything from scratch, which I'm sure increases the cost.
Munich's Limux project is a battleground for Microsoft. It it succeeds then it will become the model for similar initiatives. This could make non-Microsoft desktop systems a real alternative for large institutions. This is Microsoft's disaster scenario, and could ruin their monopoly hold on the marker. They might even have to, gasp, compete.
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
As Microsoft strives to migrate their core technologies from the desktop onto the Web, so too is their propaganda machine migrating from the established press to the informal social web. Microsoft shills are invading social web sites everywhere - in forums, discussion groups, comments to news items, edits to Wikipedia, manipulation of search engines, comments to blogs - posing as innocent participants to promote their agenda and counter wide spread complaints about their shady marketing practises. Even in the comments section of blogs by Microsoft employees on their own corporate site they employ sock puppets to say the things the author felt inappropriate to say directly. They race to place their shill postings at the top spot in the comments section of news and blogs, or perhaps they are given advance notice enabling them to do this where they are a sponsor.
The evidence is here on Slashdot for all to see, without embellishments from me. What I say here is amounts to only a digest of hundreds of postings by others. A careful investigator can see for himself the evolution of discussions on Microsoft related issues, especially those accusing them of their usual hard ball tactics. As one reads from Slashdot's historical record on through to recent times, the evolution of Microsoft's efforts to pervert Slashdot's discussions becomes readily apparent. Microsoft's ambition is to twist internet discussions around a full 180 degrees until these discussions become a platform for propaganda from Microsoft's "Ministry of Truth". A study of the comments of the shills posted here can be cross-correlated with postings on other sites. Their pattern of saturating a discussion with shill postings, and the repeating of mindless memes becomes obvious. Their harassment, ridicule, and suppression of criticisms is designed to intimidated those who would speak out against them. They seek to establish and enforce a discipline of giving Microsoft "fair treatment" and their propaganda the same consideration and respect a real person would deserve.
In the process they are destroying Web 2 as we know it. This insidious attack on the infrastructure we rely upon to form our opinions in a complex world has both a direct and an inhibitory effect on free speech as a side effect.
We must stop this while it is in its infancy. Once it fully established, it will become much more difficult to root out, and other ruthless corporations, organizations, and even governments will want to emulate the success of Microsoft's campaign. This is the nightmare vision of the end of the social internet as we know it.
whats wrong with a company making a profit?
Nothing, but there are different way to achieve a profit
.
In the case of Microsoft there are recognised problems with the morality of their business model.
It's the client who has (should have!) the liberty to go along with a particular business model and Munich has made it's decision not to follow the Microsoft ways.
Some claim there is no morality in business but especially when public monies are involved you better review that opinion.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Nothing. Of course MS wants to make a profit, and good luck to them. But I don't work for them, so MS profits don't benefit me.
This whole Munchen idea was NOT about how much the company's involved making money. It was about the CONSUMER paying less money.
You know - I always think it is strange that these arguments are all about how the company's are driving well, but not how the consumers (and that are you and me and the man in the street - make no mistake) are served well. I do not care a bit if Microsoft gets money or gets a lot more money. However - I DO care if it is MY money. Open Source software is cheap, so it is a big bonus for me as consumer. I do not care if Ballmer gets a lot of money - as long it's not my money. Result? If I buy some Microsoft software I shoot myself in the foot. Most consumers - and that's most of you and certainly me - are better off with Open Source software. Simple...
Try to see all this from a consumer point of view.
To whom is that blog directed? (a blog that started barely 6 months ago).
Not to the German public it seems.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
RedHat had a 30% revenue increase. Last year. How many other IT companies were able to accomplish that (maybe except for Apple)? DUH.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
This was on the internets yesterday: http://blogs.computerworld.com/digg_dug_buried_how_linux_news_disappears
From the article at http://www.osor.eu/case_studies/declaration-of-independence-the-limux-project-in-munich#section-12/
Notice it was delayed by patent FUD. Software patents are not valid in the EU.
Notice also that they are implementing it in stages, using Open Source on top of Windows and only some departments installing Linux at a given time. It has a time line going to 2012 for completion. Incremental migration is pretty normal on large projects.
Conclusions
"There are perhaps two main lessons to be drawn from Munich's experience. The first one is that such a large-scale migration requires careful analysis and planning, as well as a clearly defined goal. It bears repeating that in Munich this goal is the strategic independence from software suppliers. Lower IT costs are a welcome side-effect, but autonomy is more important."
I see no failure. I see people thinking outside the Microsoft box. People who are interested might actually read and understand. http://www.osor.eu/case_studies/declaration-of-independence-the-limux-project-in-munich#section-12
I don't believe that anyone in the Linux world has ever suggested that migrating to Linux is completely "free", or even that it saves money in the short term. It most definitely saves tons of money in the long run. To suggest otherwise amounts to FUD.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
As much as I like to bash Microsoft, that doesn't completely answer his question. Even if there are more pro-Microsoft posters on Slashdot, does it mean that those posters are shills? Maybe their claims are justified.
You're right, he did not document it well, but take a look at "uassholes" reply for some nice commentary by one of the people running Digg about how there is definitely an astroturf program in place to bury articles critical of Microsoft there. Personally on Slashdot I've made a lot comments about MS's antitrust abuses in various articles and I noticed in such articles there are often dozens of comments from a handful of users whose posting history shows they only post in articles discussing Microsoft or Linux and always expressing the same view. I don't have any proof that these posters are in fact astroturfers, but if not they have a lot of time and very, very limited interest here. They generally only reply to highly modded posts ignoring everything else including replies to their comments. Further, I notice that comments I have which can be construed as critical of MS's practices are often modded to +5 for several days, then modded down significantly afterwards once the article is off the main page. Maybe it is simply normal behavior I don't understand, but I'm highly suspicious.