Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Canton Abandons Linux Migration
An anonymous reader writes "The Swiss canton Solothurn has put a stop to their ongoing migration to Linux. [Original, in German.] The project started in 2001, and has been under harsh public criticism ever since. The responsible CIO resigned this summer. Solothurn plans to convert all desktop computers to Windows 7 in 2011."
Yeah, it clearly shows that OSS cannot compensate stupidity from the planners, and that it is very easy to put the blame on Linux instead.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Yeah, this story is pretty self-explaining... good work FOSS!"
Yes, this story is pretty self-explaining... but I question what does indeed explains.
It's almost a meme around here that "joe sixpack" simply doesn't pay attention to computers but here it seems there has been a strong campaign in press against the migration from the very begining as if it were a sensible issue for general public.
And then, this project has been cancelled when internal polls show that only around 10% of users -and it seems "end users" are implyied, not sysadmins, were dissatisfied and 80% were satisfied with the new environment (I'd bet that's and expectable turnaround for *any* environment change).
One should ask himself if there might be some kind of pressure from "other vendors with deep pockets".
It's obvious too that has been some managerial mistakes that, as such, could be an expected source of problems no matter what the migration path were as, per instance, towards Windows 7 instead of Linux. There has been problems that tough counted on the negative side of the migration seem indeed to be more on the side of the lackings from the preceding environment (like a closed database that ends up being difficult to transition -heck, that's why you are migrating: to avoid things like that to happen... from then on).
All in all it's an enlighting example... mainly about how carefully the "soft side" of a migration towards open source should be managed. As in "be prepared to withstand attacks from the older stablishment trying to regain its lost power -and licenses" or "people will take the problems with a Windows to Windows upgrade as a non issue -it might be because the name doesn't change, even if most of the environment so does, while in a Windows to Linux migration everything and the kitchen sink will be Linux' fault no matter what so you'd better choose very carefully your stakeholders and make sure they feel involved as a driving force".
By the way, any new news about Munich?
How the hell is Powerpoint the killer app?
I mean, seriously? I can see people being quite attached to their VBA Macros in Excel, their Access database with forms, or even just pissed off because Word and Writer don't have exactly equivalent formatting and their documents look like ass when opened by Office. But Powerpoint? It puts stuff up on a screen. So does Impress.
But unfortunately, that is precisely the rhetoric that the OSS community is accused of brandishing all the time. The bottom-line is people do not care about the principles of freedom of code and other Stallmanisms when they are at work (which may come as a surprise on Slashdot). There are certain applications for Windows that just don't have a replacement on Linux yet, period. I'm sorry you can't argue with that fact.
I know the beauty of Linux/OSS is that anyone can write a replacement app - but I am a molecular biologist with a research grant. I find it easier to purchase the Windows license (which is usually in built in the cost of the computer anyway) and the 5000 Euro worth of licenses I need, than to hire a Linux coder or write the programs myself - it costs more in hours that way. And I'd rather be doing molecular biology , which is my job and expertise, than to be figuring out the innards of the Linux kernel (OSS means I can). To be honest, Windows 7 is rather well-done in my opinion and that makes the move to Linux even less lucrative.
I believe this is the case in every situation where there is a organized system already in place and the computing has to merge with the existing framework - such as the bureaucracy at a city department, or a research pipeline.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
You seriously want a corporation to spend money developing something that their competitors will then get for free?
You don't understand how the corporate world works, methinks... such a proposition has absolutely no ROI at all, because it's unsellable. Corporate greed will win out over free software in this case. If it's that important, and you want somebody to buck up and put in the work to get it done, why aren't you volunteering your own time?
You can't fix stupid.
No amount of access to technology will solve these problems for 100% of the population. On the other hand it's completely legal to not hire those boneheads. Seem whoever Mr. Bitter here works for is part of the stupid. I feel sorry for the kid.
If I was a boss, or it was my own company, I'd implement Linux. Period. If people complained, they can get either accept it or get the hell out.
Try that style in public management and you'll be on the street before you even got to sit in your office chair. In the private sector, you can often be a hardliner because of the bottom line says you're profitable, nobody say how you should run this business (or LOB, division, department) because you know that best. Public offices often deliver quite intangible services which generally aren't charged to the customers like a private company would. And when it comes to private companies, in practice it's a very narrow chain of command to argue with.
In the public sector, very often your job is to justify the number of employees and your budget necessary. Why do we need X people and X million dollars to run a city planning office? And everybody from the press to politicians to interest organizations will butt in on the process. In the end it doesn't matter how efficient you run, it's how efficient it seems to be run. You could run an extremely tight ship with ten people and a $1 million budget but if you've given the impression this can be solved by a handful people on a shoestring budget, you will fail. While if you've convinced them that it really takes 50 men and a $10 million budget, you're golden.
Particularly when it comes to politicians, they are press tools more than anything. If the press requests a comment on their "outrageous Linux spending" then 99 out of 100 politicians will find a way to put themselves on the attacking end as they seem aggressive against government bloat and wasted money, which everybody agrees there's too much of. Very few want to stand up for the project and say this is money well spent, because they know there'll be little proof to show they're right. I'm sure you've figured by now that TCO studies can be written to give pretty much the concolusion you want, so you can end up with a political diaster that "everyone" agrees was a bad decision. The kind of studies Microsoft loves to pay for and whoever punched through Linux can't afford.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The trouble is, the people who whine most about having to use Linux, OpenOffice or just about anything else tend to be the people who haven't achieved a basic level of competence with the platform or package of their "choice" (such as it is). They just whine more loudly than the people who have the basic skills necessary to just get on with their jobs.