Minnesota Moving To Microsoft's Cloud
An anonymous reader writes "The State of Minnesota is apparently the first state to move into the cloud, agreeing on a deal to have their messaging and collaboration services delivered through Microsoft's Business Online Productivity Suite. The thing the article doesn't tell you in detail is that the agreement precludes the use of open source software, which could have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. And once such a large organization goes Microsoft, it's difficult to go back. Isn't it interesting that these developments occur right before elections, as senior officials are trying to keep their jobs with a new incoming administration? What do you think, Slashdotters? Is this a good move for Minnesota? Or a conservative move that bucks the trend of saving money and encouraging open government and transparency by aligning philosophy and practice with at least the option of utilizing open source software?"
And once such a large organization goes Microsoft, it's difficult to go back.
You need a large, thick, vertically and horizontally integrated businesses to handle large customers. But actually, unbeknownst to you, the average person has been going Microsoft for much larger, er, longer than you realize. Imagine the confusion that would ensue from switching to Linux - a Windows user who is used to tasks being performed for them on the bottom of their desktop may find themselves confused that the tasks are all on the top and they have to do much more work themselves.
"lady, I never go into any place I can't get out of"
The cloud is a great idea combined with standard formats for data (XML, whatever). IT overhead is a headache. Running servers is a pain.
The data is the important thing, not how it's manipulated. This point needs to be beaten into people.
If you're foolish enough to move into a third party cloud without standardized data formats.. or a way to get out..
You'll wish being ambushed in a bar by spies was the worst thing that could happen :)
..don't panic
Just a wild guess, but I'd say that it's because you don't need to pay to use it.
Use MS software, and your boss will see it as MS's fault when it breaks. Use alternatives, and it'll be your fault. It's the 21st century analogue of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
The thing the article doesn't tell you in detail is that the agreement precludes the use of open source software, which could have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Before I saddle up the war horses, can you provide a citation?
This is a serious allegation; tying arrangements are dangerously prosecutable under antitrust laws, as Microsoft should remember.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
What do you think, Slashdotters? Is this a good move for Minnesota?
Hmmmm... I've studied the data carefully and considered the pros and cons, taking account of the prevailing trends and allowing for all the variables. Based on my analysis I predict that the Slashdot consensus will be that going all Microsoft is not a good move.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
You can't just compare the upfront costs. What are the on-going support costs? There's even an open source tool to calculate TCO: http://www.tcotool.org/index_en.html
Probably less than the cost of being locked into no-shop clauses in an MS agreement.
Such a non-compete clause is most likely an anti-trust violation if TFS is correct.
I'm from Duluth, MN and I say GACK! At one point, there was a state legislator who attempted to set into law, open document formats. Black suits showed up and ......bzzzzt!
But really, does this mean I have to now own proprietary applications to view public documents? Thanks for so much you've left us Pawlenty.
While those are valid points, we're talking about a cloud here. You don't see what OS you're dealing with if you don't want to.
For example, take salesforce.com. That is entirely based upon RedHat Enterprise Linux. It used to be Solaris/Sparc, but they found that x86 was much cheaper. They serve 88,000 companies with 1,500 Dom0 servers. And the cool thing is that they've integrated mobile devices (phone and pads) with their cloud. So you can handle your apps from your office PC, or smart mobile system. That's one heck of a competitive advantage for businesses.
And the funny thing is that I had a debate recently with a rapid Microsoft zealot who gave me the usual (outdated) MS hype about how Linux was a rip-off of UNIX, yada, yada. He was also a solid zealot for salesforce.com. He shut up after I mentioned that salesforce.com was a Linux shop, and his beloved tech was running on Linux.
The numbers above come from a recent RedHat dog-and-pony show about their new Cloud technology. They trotted out a guy from salesforce.com, and these are the numbers that he gave.
Now, I'm wondering where that leaves Suse and Ubuntu in the Cloud space. They can do like RedHat and hire Wipro to write their semi-proprietary Cloud stack. Or they can go with Open Stack and give NASA and Rackspace a hand with their Open Source Cloud.
How could switching to an entirely incompatible platform have saved taxpayers millions?
I'm sure you're just trolling and I'm going to look silly for biting, but OBVIOUSLY it saves money because none of the staff would know how to use Linux so they'd all leave to get other jobs and you'd save millions by not replacing them.
If you RTFA, they are switching from existing Novell and Exchange Servers and consolidating to Exchange. Moving from on-premise to the cloud for Exchange should be seamless and reduce the cost of local administration and on-going hardware maintenance and software patching.
A few years ago Minnesota was looking at mandating open standards for all government operations. Now they have taken a huge step towards vendor lock-in. This move will lock up Minnesota's history for decades to come. At the same time it will make the state's operations far less reliable.
The article comments that Minnesota is switching over to something businesses have found great success in for years. As someone that has to use BPOS at work I must say the system is incredibly unreliable. We have had email simply disappear into a void. The service is slow. It frequently stops working for hours at a time. We have had other email delivered hours after it was sent.
We had to disable rather important functionality in order to migrate over to BPOS as we are not allowed to customize anything. Now we have users doing things by hand which used to be automated.
Before we switched over to BPOS I considered email as trustworthy and reliable as most utilities. My employer has structured the company with the assumption that email will be a reliable communications medium. With BPOS in place it is a burden on our organization.
yeah right.
i'm sure tim pawlenty (whose claim on history will be having given minnesota's infrastucture budget to his rich pals in the form of high-bracket tax reductions - with predictable impact on, particularly, the I-35 bridge) and michelle bachmann are more than happy at your retconning of history.
hubert fucking humphrey? from the 1960's? you asshat.
You mean like training people to use Windows 7? Converting Visual Basic stuff to "dot net"?
I guess this news should have floored me but it doesn't. We have an entrenched administration that has the mantra "No new taxes" which has a nice sounding ring to it but the result has been less pretty (like a major interstate bridge that just decided to fall into the Mississippi river). I was drivng down the freeway today and the truck was bouncing around so badly I had to slow down (and I was not speeding).
How does all this relate to moving to the Microsoft cloud? I am sure the state is getting a low cost price to get them in the door. Once hooked the price will go up and it will need to be paid and some other service will be asked to do more with less. Maybe the old lady in the nursing home will have to cut back on someting like drugs or catheters. Maybe a school will have to put off buying science textbooks (for the tenth year in a row).
Excuse me? Please do not relate any of Minnesota's Values to Michelle Bachmann. She is the worst kind of politician who has no intelligence what-so-ever. She continues to be elected by an extremely gerrymandered district that has had no real competition on the right and wouldn't elect someone from the left unless literally directly paid to do so. Minnesota aside, any words that come from her mouth have a tendency to be as hollow as her head and can not be trusted. She is an agitator and a crowd pleaser who we can only hope will somehow manage to lose an election so she can go wallow with her tea party friends somewhere outside of our state. She may make her direct electors proud but the rest (majority) of the state laughs at them and are embarrassed to be represented by her.
Probably because even if you used Microsoft software in the past, you had to change formats for their own software. Remember when 2007 couldn't open 2003, until all the backlash, then they finally decided to introduce translation. A shame that a government would be shackled to a company known for their insecure software and their greed. But probably that state has too much money, and taxpayers were requesting to have higher taxes.
In general, you're correct. But here we're talking about civil servants, who never get fired for anything short of criminal malfeasance.
It's not "wasteful spending" when the money is going to one of you close corporate buddies.
My guess is that the state of Minnesota already has developed custom software in-house that depends on the Microsoft platform. You migrate to a Microsoft cloud if your existing software is already locked into Microsoft platform. That's only natural. At any rate, the whole cloud computing concept is very simple: let someone who is good at running data center do their job.
You could very well argue that redeveloping the software to base on an open-source platform might be a better plan in the long run, and I would tend to agree with that. But the redevelopment will surely cost the state some millions of dollars more in the short run.
You also probably don't realize that software costs money to develop. Even when the software is offered to you for free, someone, somewhere is paying for it. That's because someone has to spend time doing something. In order to sustain the livelihood, that person needs to eat, drink, pay rent, and once in a while use medical help. When software gets open sourced, the person is donating his time and effort and has absorbed the cost of writing the software.
And don't forget that free software is not really about the cost. It's about the freedom to learn from the software, to modify the software, and to distribute your modifications.
I once had a signature.
You do need to pay to get support. There is absolutely no way any corporation, including the government, would ever run business critical apps without support. Get real.
I'm not sure your so-called point...
Bachmann isn't from Minnesota, she's from inside Glenn Beck's Love Boat fantasy.
As a Minnesotan I too am dismayed that we would be leading this transition. No matter what the proposed savings might be, it will certainly cost money in the short term. We don't have any money, but a $4B hole in the budget to fill for the next biennium. Recently we had some flooding in the southern part of the state, and it looks like we will have to borrow money to cover any aide we might want to spend on this emergency. Let some other state be the guinea pigs and see if the savings pan out. By then the economy might recover and we can get competitive bids for the services offered. Like many fads in IT or business (anyone remember Six Sigma) it does not pay to be the first on your block adopting the fad.
We have a managed dedicated server from Pair Networks that handles our company websites and email. (We have a few more that handle our E-commerce Platform). We access our email through IMAP with Mac Mail, iPhones, iPads, Android phones, Outlook, and thunderbird. We looked at Google apps and the dedicated server was cheaper for our company (4 full-time, 6 part-time employees). Two years and we've not had any noticeable problems. I think I had to call tech support once to get the machine reset that took a whole of 5 minutes on the phone from the time I dialed until the server was rebooted and working again.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I ised to do IT support when I was graphic designer for a very small firm (3-10 employees depending of the needs). We had our very own Exchange server, but only the boss used the calendar and contact features. When our server finally crashed, we outsourced our Exchange services for our one boss for a couple bucks a months, outsourced web servers to a datacenter for peanuts a month, including backups and kept our big fat pipe to ourselves. It made my life easier, saved the company the support budget and made our one server more efficient to serve our big fat multimedia files and daily backups. The exchange server relied on a different domain, but that was the only inconvenience...
Tomorrow is another day...
1) Installing the system cleanly in one stretch without rebooting ...
2) Having working hardware without resorting to CDs (so many notebooks don't have CD drives these days) or downloading drivers
3) Playing media in less common formats, such as Matroska for instance, right from the start in a default installation
4) Having a fully working usable system from the start, without having to hunt for applications after you install the operating system
5) A repository of software where you can easily search for the functions you need and install them with a single click of the mouse
6) A "start" menu organized in a functional hierarchy instead of by software vendor
7)
Oh, wait, you only asked for three examples.
It does not surprise me one bit. Our Governor is a slime who only about 1/3 support and many of those only because of his party affiliation. (3rd parties upset results often here.) He's been doing the whole "no new taxes" thing for his whole term and its only ended up hurting us as well as word games where they actually raised taxes in other ways. Then we have our ROADS -- that bridge that fell down was ours -- which took a voter initiative to get the road funds used ON ROADS! (before the bridge fell, but not fast enough... the bridge fell while they were fixing it.) I wouldn't be surprised if MS bought his support since he wants to run for President or VP.
I used to know a state IT guy - a unix guru. You can be assured that they have some great experts for intelligent planning who were not the deciding factor. I will have to reach him and see if they cut his job since he did do some email servers among the 100s he managed.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Source article from the summary
Officials said the state did not seek bids, or requests for proposals, for a cloud computing system as Microsoft hosted suite was already a standard part of the earlier large licensing contract signed to consolidate the messaging systems.
training and support for new programs = Unknown since it depends on if you do a FLAG DAY type cutover
Never worked at any large organizations have you? The cost of software licenses is trivial compared to the costs in time and lost productivity anytime you introduce a change in the workflow. Doesn't matter if this is switching to a new program, introducing a new program, or even an upgrade from the previous version to a new version. Case in point, we hired a new Sr. developer who had his IDE of choice. Cost: $249. We used an opensource IDE. We're paying him roughly $70 an hour all said and done. How many wasted hours of time learning the "free" opensource IDE does it take to cover the cost of that license? If switching to the "free" opensource IDE costs more than 1 day of productivity, it's cheaper to buy the program. (which we did). This looks like its a change in the background, from a users perspective they'll probably still be using Outlook, it's just the settings are a little different. The end user won't notice anything different in their workflow. They used Outlook before, they'll continue using the same program here.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
True, but open document formats do, and MS has a reputation for being a pain in the ass to access with software they didn't develop recently.
Microsoft really DOES have good enterprise tools. If you don't know about them all that means is you haven't worked with it in a large enterprise. That is not useless. It makes things easier to manage, which means less support costs. Never underestimate how much personnel can cost. If you save $1 million per year on licenses going open source, but have to hire 20 new support staff costing $70,000 each (remember people cost more than just their base salary, have to account for benefits, taxes, and so on) to support it you've lost money, even if there is no retraining/productivity loss.
I'm not saying that would be the case here, I haven't studied their setup and don't care to, but then neither have the knee-jerk "OSS is cheaper!" folks. Sorry, but it may not be. It is complicated. In any setup you have to study what they have, what they need, what it would take to change, and so on. ALL costs have to be considered. You can't only look at license or hardware costs and ignore staff or training costs.
So just because OSS doesn't have upfront costs doesn't mean it is free.
We've seen that where I work. We do Windows, Solaris, and Linux. It isn't really optional, we do education and research that needs all of them. Fair enough, but let me tell you getting a central system that works with all three has not been easy. It cost a fair bit of money (in the form of Sun Directory Server and IDsync) and a lot of development by our staff. It was worth it, since we need it, but there was real cost, and ongoing cost to support it. On the other hand Active Directory just works. Does what we need right out of the box. In fact the Windows side runs all on the AD, that just syncs to LDAP. Yes, we have to pay for Windows licenses, but there is something to be said for the features that come with it.
I'm quite sure that OSS can work for a large enterprise because there are plenty of examples where it does. However glibly assuming it is easy or costs less is stupid. The needs to the organization have to be assessed, and you have to factor in ALL costs. You may discover that in some situations the answer is it actually costs more. What you save on licenses you lose in other areas.
They are a cuckoo that has pushed its way into the "nobody gets fired for buying IBM" mentality without providing the service that gave IBM the reputation.
The reality is such stupid stuffups as not even getting ping right when they had the source coded as a gift, divide by zero errors when they tried to go mission critical, devices that shut down due to leap years and the malware swamp we suffer from today. If you ask ME it's not a good Vista to look at.
I still use their stuff but there is no point pretending that it is the best available.
A $40k per year Linux admin is unheard of. The average is almost $90k, $10k more than the average Windows admin. That's great if you're a Linux guy, not so much if you're a business trying to save money.
You missed something: A business only needs 2/3 to half as many *nix admins in most cases - a competent admin can automate the vast majority of what is normally required (or expensive via third-party toolsets) in a Windows-only environment (for instance, compare SCCM vs. an in-house YUM server.)
Factor in the costs of re-training all your staff...
More FUD, and for two reasons:
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Trouble Pawlenty, whose Indian name is Chief Tumbling Bridges, does not want to spend a penny, nor help anybody except the 157 million/billionnaires who he caters to. this is not a "big vote" for cloud computing, but he probably thinks by getting rid of infrastructure, he can get rid of more of the state government. it's foxes for the hen house.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You pay for a copy of Windows and you get 10 years of guaranteed patches from the date of release. Not too bad over all.
Obviously you don't sign the invoices for Microsoft products. You don't just pay for a copy of Windows server. You pay for the sever, then for CALS besides the seat licenses for the products that connect to that server. With MSFT you pay and pay and pay. Their prices, their upgrade schedule, their partners.
With RedHat you pay for annual service at the level you want. Or you can go with something like ClearOS and get updates and patches handled for you for less than $250 year or go with CentOS and do it yourself.
You don't get those options with M$. Stop apologizing for greedy corporate fucktards.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
this 'new-fangled' leenux
Not just Linux, even this argument is getting really old now.
Then once the smallest problem crops up, people would go "Why did you switch to such a rubbish system? We should have gone Microsoft" - again irrelevant of the change in problem amount.
Unfortunately this is very familiar. Yet, this "rubbish system" question can sometimes be eased by rasing attention to the rubbishness-list of Windows itself. There are several annoyances that people don't even realize since they have grown more and more tolerant towards Windows, given they were never given the option or the opportunity to use anything else. Awareness needs to be raised that blind acceptance is not the way to go anymore. Of course this is a harder task than it sounds, still, I'd really want to see those countless open source "evangelists" (what an idiotic job description) make a freaking better job.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Minnesota cannot 'move'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
Be seeing you...
Are you retarded, or just trolling/FUDing?
The article you linked to doesn't mention any OSS alternatives, nor any support costs/availability of anything. (Also, Mashable is the best you could come up with for a source?)
What the article you linked to (titled, "Major University Dumps Gmail Over Security Concerns") actually discusses is that the University of California in Davis just stopped their pilot roll-out of Gmail due to concerns that it wasn't secure enough. In actuality, its not clear if Davis would even be allowed to use Gmail at all, as the article notes, "[school officials said] outsourcing e-mail may not be in compliance with the University of California Electronic Communications Policy."
Later in the article it mentions that other organizations (such as the City of Los Angeles) are adopting Gmail. The whole thing is hardly damning of Gmail, and doesn't even mention OSS.
Mods: Don't just assume that someone's citation backs up what they're saying. Parent is off-topic and not particularly insightful.
For me, I can say that when my previous employer switched over to Gmail for our email it was a huge boost to uptime, and a dramatic drop in cost compared to the (unfortunately) poorly supported in-house Linux-based OSS email server and the Exchange server we were quoted.
Bill
I did some searching online, and can't find the answer - do the MS cloud version of Office apps require that the client be IE on Windows? Or does access from browsers other than IE on platforms other than Windows work (even if not as well integrated)?
I have no doubt that at a minimum, MS built it such that the user experience is degraded somewhat on other browsers/platforms (think Outlook Web Access), but if in fact everything functions, it could actually indirectly enable migration of desktops to other platforms, since it addresses the oft-voiced "MS Office compatibility" issue.
Wouldn't that be ironic, if the MS move to cloud-based services finally ushers in the Year of the Linux Desktop?!)
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Michelle Bachmann is the representative for a very specific part of Minnesota. This part does not include the Twin Cities metro area. The VAST majority of us Minnesotans are routinely horrified by her words and actions.
I'd love to vote against her, but it's just not worth moving to St. Cloud.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
While I know for a fact it's possible to have a whole farm of Windows servers run well - I've seen it happen - I haven't seen it recently.
I've seen Windows systems go wrong, I've seen admins who show no interest in figuring out why that is - let alone actually fixing it, but instead go with the old "Retry, reboot, reinstall" mantra. I am 90% sure that the reason Windows admins are cheaper is because the incompetent morons are pushing salaries down for everyone, and hiring managers can't tell the difference between an incompetent moron and someone who knows what s/he's doing.
He is doing everything he can to position himself as a GOP presidential candidate. He likely did this because he knows that certain hard-core conservatives view free software as a stepping stone to socialism. Costs to the state are irrelevant if the decision improves his stance in the eyes of the GOP.
He has already shown a willingness to crap all over the state constitution in the name of keeping up conservative appearances, so this really should surprise anyone.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Whoever wrote the TFS doesn't fucking live in Minnesota, that's pretty certain. The DFL has run Minnesota for the past eon.
No, what is clear is that you don't live in Minnesota - or haven't for the past few decades. The current conservative idiot ("Teflon" Tim Pawlenty) is just the latest in a string of ever-more-conservative governors going back to the 80s. Look at the past three governors:
Based on the trend it is likely that the next governor of MN will be Pat Buchanan, as a late write-in. Really there are few states excluding Texas that are more conservative than Minnesota currently, and Pawlenty has worked hard to change that.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
> The Munich transition is taking ages.
As it should, or rather, must. At least one of the failures which I listed appears to have been caused by bad planning and not having a reasonable goal --- in the case of Munich, the goal isn't hitting a given finish date, or immediate savings of money, but rather, independence from lock-in. Whoever got that to be understood to be the goal of the project was a genius, because it's one of the only goals for such a project that I can think of which Microsoft couldn't possibly undercut.
> It's been thwarted
You keep using that word. It's a bad choice for such a discussion, because a search of meanings using Google gives a list which varies from "blocked, obstructed" to "defeated, disappointingly unsuccessful". I can agree that Microsoft blocked the transition for at least a year with FUD about Linux infringing its software patents, so the first definition would be OK. But for sure the transition isn't "disappointingly unsuccessful".
> The other failures are a problem that shows that the FOSS community
Actually, I think a very good case can be made about the other failures not involving the FOSS community whatsoever, but rather being the result of bad management on the part of the organizations thinking about transitioning. In fact, I think if your transition plan depends on the FOSS community doing anything specific for you, it's obvious you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.
Managing IT in large organizations there are many other considerations than just the license cost. In fact the license cost is small part of overall cost for liftetime in product. Some things that are also important - available support (many open source projects have none, or through forums/email only) - usability / user training (many open source projects unfortunately are more difficult to use than the commercial products. Comparing Office 2010 for example to OpenOffice, in terms of ease of use I think Microsoft Office is miles ahead) - on going maintenance (Most commercial products have limited number of updates and updates mainly focus on security/bug fixes until a major release every 1-3 years. Open Source projects tend to add features rapidly with major releases very frequently) Now in this case they are also moving to cloud which eliminates need for many of their backend infrastructure which was probably very expensive to maintain, and now will just pay for the amount of users on the system. Unlike having your own infrastructure were much of it may be under utilized and you are just paying for electricity/hardware/data centre space that is wasted. So I think this is probably more cost effective option the route they are going.