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!
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!
It's supposed to save money in the long run, of course MS will be cheaper at first because you don't have to cope with defeating the vendor lock-in if you stay with Windows but it matters what happens a few years down the line.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Looks like government job to me:
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?
It's supposed to save money in the long run, of course MS will be cheaper at first because you don't have to cope with defeating the vendor lock-in if you stay with Windows but it matters what happens a few years down the line.
Additionally, the money they use will be channeled to local companies (which means more jobs, improvement of local skill pool, making it cheaper to repeat such transitions in other cities).
Definitely beats shoveling the money to american robber baron company by any stretch.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
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.
I don't think you read the relevant bits. The project was put on hold a few years ago for patent legality research. And, they are doing a "soft migration" in which relevant open source applications are being installed on Windows to gear up the user base for the switch. Just pulling the rug out from under all the users quickly is stupid and will generate nothing but backlash. I read the OSOR page, and it seems they know what they are doing and doing it well. I drive a Mercedes, and I can say that Germans don't half ass things. Speculatively, I would say the cost is so high because the city most likely dug themselves a hole by developing loads of software that is Windows specific. But, they are doing the right thing here by getting their technology independence. In 10 years from now, their operating costs will be amazingly low since they will ditch millions in MS tax, have a user base acclimatized to Linux, flexible applications, and knowledgeable admins. This should be an example and business case to other governments and large organizations that they too can save themselves tons of cash by just going through the pain of undoing "easy decisions".
Wasn't this suppose to save money?
Not really. From the article:
"While the proprietary solution was deemed to be slightly more cost-effective over the full period, the strategic advantage of being free to take its own IT decisions led the city council to decide in favour of the migration to GNU/Linux. "
and also from the same:
"The Microsoft solution would have made it necessary to introduce an Active Directory system, which would have meant a strong lock-in and would have caused significant follow-up costs.
RT
You say this as if it's necessarily a bad thing.
It's a good idea to get things done as quickly as possible, generally speaking, but you should also give them as much time as necessary to do them PROPERLY.
Munich, it seems, was under no particular pressure to rush the project through and meet and arbitrarily-set deadlines so that shareholders would be satisfied or so that a C*O would be able to collect his bonus. Isn't it better to take a few more years and actually do the job well, in a way that will ensure the resulting "ecosystem" and infrastructure is going to last, than to rush it and have it all fall apart in 5 or 10 or even 20 years?
Of course, this is Slashdot, so chances are you're the libertarian sort who hates anything that's been touched by the "government". Which is fair enough, but you shouldn't confuse cause and effect: if you want to hate the government, do so because the things it does are objectively bad. If you automatically view everything the government does as bad for no other reason than that it's the government (which you hate) that did it, then you've got it backwards - you've slipped from reason into more or less blind ideology.
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.
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.
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.
From the article - this is a little more about the actual process:
Color me impressed. They've attempted to head virtually ever issue off at the pass. Migrating to Openoffice, Firefox and Thunderbird on XP was exactly what I did before migrating to Linux, and it's the only time I ever succeeded for more than say, a week or two. I think it's been nearly two years now for me since I began my own "soft migration" and no signs of going back. Another thing that impresses me is their "Linux Germ Cell" idea - get the IT departments up to speed slowly before rolling it out en-masse. Other people here have criticized the "only 10% rolled out" stat, but the last thing you want to do is roll out a mass linux migration without even understanding what the main bugs are or how to solve them, and you can guarantee that there will be a huge learning curve.
One thing I wonder about though - anyone with the ability to block something will do so if they perceive that their income stream is likely to be lessened somehow, either now or in the future. I hope this was anticipated. I can think of at least two solutions: make sure that these individuals are first identified and then either making sure they end up getting paid as much or more after the switch as they used to (and this is communicated to them earnestly)... or, they get purged right away, before they can block anything.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
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.
Okay, they want freedom to choose the software they want to use, but considering the state of OS email clients I'm not sure they really have any.
I disagree, but let's discuss.
I'm not trying to troll, in fact we looked at migrating our machines at work from Outlook to Thunderbird or another free app on Windows or Linux, but gave up in the end because none of the available clients could replace what we do with Outlook.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trolling. Of course every client will have different strengths and weaknesses. Likely Outlook can't replace everything existing Thunderbird users have either. The difference being, Thunderbird can be altered by individual companies while Outlook cannot.
For example, Thunderbird does not have any kind of default template support, so our users would have to remember to use the right template every time they write an email.
The real problem here is familiarity and skill of people implementing the system, not limitations of Thunderbird. In this instance you can use the externaltemplateloader extension to load a default template based upon the user. I'd never done it, but it took me all of 30 seconds to figure out how and a 5 minutes to test it and confirm it works. If you haven't hired someone competent enough to do a Google search to do your evaluations (or better yet someone expert in the field to consult) you are unlikely to succeed in any transition and will always fail back to the status quo.
We looked at Kmail too (not bad, but lacks group calendaring and is Linux only)
Kmail is fine for parts of a company standardized on Linux or for mixed deployments where you let users have a choice of clients because you're standardized on truly open and standard protocols. I've worked in such places and found it very liberating.
For us iPhone and Blackberry integration is important too which makes things that much harder.
Why? Both have good support for both standard and proprietary e-mail protocols. How does this make choosing a desktop client harder?
What I'm saying is that unless you are willing to do some coding yourself then the freedom of OSS is not really that liberating if the area you are looking at happens to be under developed.
Well, due to the nature of opensource and its use of standard protocols, you will tend to gain more choice with it, but then the real strength of opensource is the flexibility and cost savings. The advantage multiplies with adoption rates and the size of the deployment. If you're only deploying to ten users, it makes little economic sense to pay someone to implement a feature and add it to en existing OSS client, when compared to the licensing cost of a proprietary client. When you're talking about a deployment of 100,000 users it quickly becomes cost effective to hire someone to make needed changes or even have a full time developer working on a project and adding features and fixing bugs important to your company.
...but there is still a lot of important software we need that forces us to stay with commercial software.
For some instances this is certainly true, but I find that more often people simply think it is true and don't bother consulting anyone who actually knows. If you're seriously considering different applications for some purpose, don't just talk to closed source commercial companies, talk to open source commercial companies. Ask Redhat or Canonical what they have to offer and what the can do for you. It makes a lot of sense especially for new transitions. If you don't feel like paying them in the long term, you can always go it alone later.
One of the biggest problems with this sort of adoption is people try to sell it as short term cost saving measure, when transitions will always incur expenses. OSS is abo
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.