Slashdot Mirror
LiMux Project Has Saved Munich €10m So Far
Mojo66 writes "After project savings had been estimated to amount to at least €4 million in March, more precise figures are now in: Over €10 million (approximately £8 million or $12.8 million) has been saved by the city of Munich, thanks to its development and use of the city's own Linux platform. The calculation compares the current overall cost of the LiMux migration with that of two technologically equivalent Windows scenarios: Windows with Microsoft Office and Windows with OpenOffice. Reportedly, savings amount to over €10 million. The study is based on around 11,000 migrated workplaces within Munich's city administration as well as 15,000 desktops that are equipped with an open source office suite. The comparison with Windows assumes that Windows systems must be on the same technological level; this would, for example, mean that they would have been upgraded to Windows 7 at the end of 2011. Overall, the project says that Windows and Microsoft Office would have cost just over €34 million, while Windows with Open Office would have cost about €30 million. The LiMux scenario, on the other hand, has reportedly cost less than €23 million. A detailed report (in German) is available."
I hope the numbers hold water because that would make a great research case (all info has been public from the begining)
Look at it this way, can it be worse than Microsoft's switch to a ribbon interface? (And now brace for tiles...)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
But an incompetent Linux admin can cause far worse damage than an incompetent windows one.
I'm not sure that this is right. Certainly it depends on how you measure damage. In my opinion an incompetent linux admin will likely not have a functioning system whereas an incompetent windows admin is more likely to have an insecure system leaking information.
1) No you couldn't. Companies don't roll out to everyone in their company beta releases of windows.
2) Linux can be made to look like classic windows with themes. For the typical office worker, this would have been more than sufficient.
3) Switching to Office 2010 is required because the docx standard isn't supported in 2003. Keeping on Windows doesn't require not switching to OpenOffice. And Open Office opens different versions of Office documents more easily than Office 2010 or 2003. No need to install any compatability pack.
So, basically, you have to make shit up to make it appear that maybe they didn't need to retrain. Of course, if they didn't upgrade ANY software, they wouldn't have to retrain.
Then again, they would retrain their staff else why did they train their staff for WinXP? Or why would they train their staff on Linux and OO.o if they don't on Windows?
Basically, you're turning round and round and round making assertions MERELY so you can pretend that Windows is cheaper.
Why?
This is nice because it tells us that with a large migration to a Linux based desktop saves about 1/3. What does this tell us about the migrations that will follow or are not so big ? Different factors pull in different directions.
* Munich is big enough to demand that correspondents use file formats that they can support - this is more than about LibreOffice
* The cost software rewrites (special bespoke stuff) could be amortised over many users
* The overall project costs (design, IT staff retraining, ...) could be amortised over many users
* They are pioneers - those who follow should be able to use their blueprint, avoid the mistakes that Munich made
* They were probably getting large volume license discounts on propietary s/ware, more than smaller organisations would have got, so they saved less
What do you think ? What do you say when a customer asks how much they will save ?
The report seems to address that added cost for switching to systems the people were unfamiliar with. And, as already has been mentioned - people who stayed with Microsoft products have had their own training expenses!
Remember too, that the report addresses relatively short-term savings. Over the course of the next decade, the saving will increase dramatically. The people are going to need less and less training and retraining as time goes on. IT expenses will decrease, probably dramatically, for that reason. Retraining for upgrades will probably remain. You can only estimate those costs if you have a crystal ball or something to predict how Linux and Windows updates/upgrades are going to work out in the years ahead. But - there will be NO LICENSING fees associated with any of those upgrade.
And, if you scroll up to my earlier post, you'll have to consider the savings in virus infections and recovery, as well as the costs involved with leaking protected data, liability, etc. No, Linux isn't the end-all and be-all in computer security, but it's track record is superior to Windows, which should translate into tremendous savings.
"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
Open Office and Linux isn't *that* different for what the average person does with a computer. Most people can't remember where things are in Office and have to search or ask. So it doesn't matter if they're asking for Office or open office.