Slashdot Mirror


How Munich Abandoned Microsoft for Open Source

An anonymous reader writes "TechRepublic has the story behind Munich City Council's decision to ditch Microsoft Windows and Office in favor of open source software. The project leader talks about why the shift was primarily about freedom, in this case freeing itself from being tied into Microsoft's infrastructure and having control over the software it uses. He talks about how the council managed to keep such a large project on track, despite affecting 15,000 people and spanning nine years. He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail."

294 comments

  1. To München! by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A new set of verses is needed: In München steht ein Linuxhaus

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:To München! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITYM: "doch Windowshäuser müssen raus".

      Full new text:

      In München steht ein Linuxhaus, [In Munic stands a Linux house]
      doch Windowshäuser müssen raus, [but Windows houses must be removed]
      damit in dieser schönen Stadt [so that in this nice city]
      das Lock-in keine Chance hat. [the lock in has no chance.]

      Doch Microsoft ist informiert, [But Microsoft is informed]
      Steve Ballmer hat schon intrigiert, [Steve Ballmer has already intrigated]
      weil sonst zu leicht ein jeder sieht, [because otherwise everyone sees too easily]
      dass es auch ohne Windows geht. [that you can do without Windows.]

      Und im Microsoft-Hauptquartier, [and in Microsoft's headquarters]
      da fliegen Stühle mit Mach 4! [there chairs fly with Mach 4!]
      Skandal, Skandal im Münchner Amt, [Scandal, scandal in Munich's office,]
      Skandal, Skandal im Münchner Amt, [scandal, scandal in Munich's office,]
      Skandal, Skandal um Linux! [scandal, scandal about Linux!]

  2. bribery by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The question is, how they managed to do this despite of Microsoft Economical Power. How they avoided bribery of the involved politicians?

    --
    -- --
    1. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The question is, how they managed to do this despite of Microsoft Economical Power. How they avoided bribery of the involved politicians?

      Countered with photos of the politicians with young Nazi boys?

      What?! You started it!

    2. Re:bribery by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lol, only on Slashdot. Modded to +4 for paranoid ramblings about bribery...

    3. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bribery is illegal so it would be unlikely to hit it.

    4. Re:bribery by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Germany apparently isn't completely rife with corruption, unlike the United States. That's how.

    5. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The question is, how they managed to do this despite of Microsoft Economical Power. How they avoided bribery of the involved politicians?

      You're looking at a cultural decision, not a political decision. RTFA.

      "If you are only doing a migration because you think it saves you money there's always somebody who tells you afterwards that you didn't calculate it properly," he said.

      and a little further down:

      Munich is used to forging its own path. The city runs its own schools and is one of the few socialist, rather than conservative governments, in Bavaria.

      Peter Hofmann speaks about Munich's open source migration at the Linux Tag conference in Berlin. Becoming independent meant Munich freeing itself from closed, proprietary software, more specifically the Microsoft Windows NT operating system and the Microsoft Office suite, and a host of other locked-down technologies the city relied on in 2002

      Even Ballmer took time from his Winter chair-throwing training to go speak with gov officials. Knowing that the words "do not lose to Linux" were said, you can be damn sure he tried everything from price cuts to hookers and drugs*. (*hookers and drugs not available in all areas, some restrictions may apply)

    6. Re: bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is actually a major proof of the low corruption in Bavaria.

    7. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bribery is illegal

      Many forms of bribery are legal, Gerhard Schröder (former Chancellor of Germany) retired to a managing position at Gazprom after ensuring it would be the main provider of gas for Europe for the near future and the whole FDP received millions in donations for supporting tax reductions favouring the hotel and gastronomic industries. Both lost a lot of political trust and nothing else, Gerhard Schröder pulled it before retiring so he does not care, the FDP already thin on substance got voted out of parliament on the last election, which means they got to stay in power for years after pulling that stunt and only barely missed the 5% requirement for participation. No punishments where handed out by the government and what could it have punished with everything being "legal"? Politicians write the laws and the laws regarding politicians tend to favour them and their alternative money sources, you are not a career politician in Germany unless you have at least one lucrative non descriptive position in the industry.

    8. Re:bribery by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems that in Germany bribery is outlawed instead of renamed to "lobbying" as in other countries.

    9. Re:bribery by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Simple: The conservative party who were the only ones to vote against this were in the minority. The centre-left party, the green party and the GLBT folks voted for the Linux transition. It was a vote for long-term indipendence against short-term planning and a matter of principle.

      I had dealings with the LHM back then and I do fully believe they haven't saved a single cent on the transition. There were hordes of IBM and SuSE consultants stampeding through the halls and they hired a bunch of permanent employees for this. In fact MS made them a couple of offers which as it turned out they could refuse. They hadn't planned on saving money so special deals by MS were not that juicy.

      The frustration of the MS sales reps(there were even rumors monkey boy himself traveled to Munich) must have been immense. Munich back then was still running NT and a lot of their servers were Suns. In short it must have been the big cahuna back then.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    10. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And of course paranoid ramblings about NSA assassinations and by the way Bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme... These all get modded up to +5 Insightful...

    11. Re:bribery by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Simple: The conservative party who were the only ones to vote against this were in the minority. The centre-left party, the green party and the GLBT folks voted for the Linux transition. It was a vote for long-term indipendence against short-term planning and a matter of principle.

      And thats the difference between Germany and the US. In the US there are only two parties Right and Righter, so there no balancing effect.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    12. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Desktop Linux has never been a credible threat to Microsoft's dominance, the threat was that someday the desktop Linux community may abandon its collective navel-gazing ways and infighting to actually produce a product that appealed to end users (not greybeard elitists) with real feature benefits. Ultimately this never happened and instead Linux moved on to incredible success in the mobile and embedded markets that Microsoft failed to adequately address for so long, the mobile Linux community (well really only Google) did what the desktop Linux community has always failed to do: Build an overall objectively better user experience.

      Even given the many chances desktop Linux had it failed time and time again, it was briefly sold on desktops, laptops and netbooks but nobody wanted them and the reason is that it wasn't actually any better than Windows for users' tasks however when you look to Android Vs Windows Mobile (not Windows Phone) you see that Android is better for users' tasks and that is why it completely steamrolled Microsoft in that area, by being better, not just by existing as a somewhat comparable alternative.

    13. Re:bribery by gweihir · · Score: 1

      This is not the US. Bribery of politicians has actually consequences for both sides (the former German president is currently investigated for s suspicion of having taken a bribe...) and quite a few people in Munich believe in other things than money.

      Also, have you tried working with an MS PC in comparison with a well-set-up and supported Linux one? Nobody wants to go back after that experience...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:bribery by bakes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had dealings with the LHM back then and I do fully believe they haven't saved a single cent on the transition

      Maybe they didn't save anything on the transition, but do they expect to save overall costs/expenses in the longer term?

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    15. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded to +4 for paranoid ramblings about bribery...

      Sometimes paranoia is a sensible response to the situation.

      German government calls security within Windows 8 "unacceptable" – continues switching their machines over to Linux Do you trust Microsoft’s latest operating system, Windows 8? If you are the Federal Republic of Germany, the answer to that question is "no". Last week internal documents from IT professionals within the government showed a strong rejection of the new operating system calling it "unacceptable for the federal administration and the operators of critical infrastructure".

      The German government feels technology within the latest operating system create a dangerous backdoor that could allow access to confidential information.

      Microsoft faces US scrutiny over bribery allegations Microsoft is facing increasing scrutiny from America’s Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that its executives paid bribes to win business around the world.

    16. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bribery is illegal so it would be unlikely to hit it.

      Feds Probing Microsoft Over Foreign Bribery Charges

      "U.S. officials are investigating whether Microsoft offered bribes to foreign clients in exchange for software contracts, according to the Wall Street Journal"

      http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416800,00.asp

      Of course Slashdot does not consider this to be news, because they're being paid not to.

    17. Re:bribery by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Lol, only on Slashdot. Modded to +4 for paranoid ramblings about bribery...

      Yes, Microsoft does not bribe as much as threaten, coerce and extort.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    18. Re:bribery by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They way they can do it in future is to invoke the argument that every piece of Microsoft software from the US is HIGHLY likely to have been influenced by the NSA which is an arm of the same corporate industrial complex.

      The Snowden revelations underscore the argument that the US government is utterly corrupt, engages in economic espionage, and that the EU should put serious and sustained effort into avoiding "enemy" software.

      The statements above can no longer be considered even remotely controversial. Anyone in the EU who advocates Free and Open Software has been given the perfect advocacy tool.

      Any time anyone advocates the use of Windows for EU government or business functions, hit them hard and relentlessly with the security argument. There being zero logical support for trusting what you cannot verify, they lose.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    19. Re:bribery by Cammi · · Score: 0

      Probably because most of the corruption was destroyed during WWII?

    20. Re:bribery by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Who hasn't been caught with young Nazi boys...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    21. Re:bribery by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having a *better* user experience is not what matters, Apple have offered a better user experience for many years and yet they are still a small niche...

      It's extremely hard to compete against an entrenched supplier, being better and cheaper isn't enough you have to fight to get noticed and this is very difficult especially when there aren't large organisations putting money behind advertising. People have to know about and give your new system a fair try before they will realise it's better, getting people to give it a try is the hardest bit.

      The phone market was very different, buyers were already used to competition between different software suppliers, and used to buying a new completely different phone when their contract expires so its very easy to get people to try your new system.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    22. Re:bribery by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The question is, how they managed to do this despite of Microsoft Economical Power. How they avoided bribery of the involved politicians?

      Because a lot of the people in power are from the Green party, not ex-bankers/lawyers.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The words are perhaps inflammatory but it's definitely not paranoid. One of the issues that Open Source has is that even though it is free (or perhaps because it is free), there is very little money for marketing, sales people, corporate hospitality, flights and invitations to various conferences and marketing events, donations of computers to worthy causes as long as they come with the right operating system installed etc.

      I'd be surprised if any incentives that Microsoft makes available are illegal but that they exist is unquestionable. This is true for most business.

    24. Re:bribery by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      the mobile Linux community (well really only Google) did what the desktop Linux community has always failed to do: Build an overall objectively better user experience.

      And the "really only Google" bit is why. Linux as created by "the Linux Community" has never been a big success in any user facing application. But various products, with user interfaces built by companies have.

      It seems that there are fundamental reasons why FOSS communities are really bad at UIs.

    25. Re:bribery by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The phone market was very different

      Have you considered that there are no overarching rules. That the washing machine market is different from the soda market. That the automobile market is different from the computer software market.

      There are no general rules to be learned from what happened in the desktop market. There is no inevitability of an entrenched monopolist. And there are no general rules to be learned from the mobile market - which has already been through several points of seeming stability before being overturned with something different.

    26. Re:bribery by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      As TFA says, maybe they saved, maybe they didn't. It really depends on how you count. They seem to be happy with the move though.

    27. Re:bribery by Alioth · · Score: 1

      But the nation saves as a whole. While the overall cost may be the same, instead of all the money going to the United States in the form of licence payments to Microsoft, quite a bit of the money is remaining in Munich and at least Germany because instead of money just being sent away to Microsoft, it is being paid to local employees - who in turn are spending most of their money in Munich and Germany, therefore regardless or not of any *direct* cost saving, Munich as a whole is better off.

    28. Re:bribery by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The frustration of the MS sales reps(there were even rumors monkey boy himself traveled to Munich) must have been immense. Munich back then was still running NT and a lot of their servers were Suns. In short it must have been the big cahuna back then.

      Did they move those Suns also to LiMux? I believe LiMux is Debian based, which should run on Suns. So if they included that in their migration, not only would they be free of Microsoft, they'd be free of Oracle as well

    29. Re:bribery by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Believe me, whatever Munich does stays in Munich. It will not be adopted by the Bavarian gov since even if they are seated in Munich they hate the city administration with a passion. Opposing parties. OTOH the mayor of Munich ran for office in Bavaria and failed as he was expected to. And even if Bavaria adopted LiMUX it wouldn't be used on a German federal level. But this time not because of opposing parties. It's something even worse: sister parties.

      Ain't highly federal gov structures a hilarious thing? Honestly, who needs imported sitcoms if you have politics.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    30. Re:bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, they are saving, already:
      (German) http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/19149/linux-in-muenchen-ueber-10-millionen-euro-gespart.html

  3. Re:Let me guess by shentino · · Score: 0

    It's easy to win if you can cheat and get away with it.

    Microsoft is renowned for anticompetitive tactics and I think it was even caught using secret APIs to give its own software a competitive advantage on its system.

  4. Long-term costs by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail.

    Meh... maybe.

    FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal. If you have an office of 50 people who were all hired already knowing Microsoft's products, you can expect significant retraining costs that might exceed what you'll save on licensing.

    Of course, managers who are focused solely on the cost will decline any training investment, figuring that it's similar enough to older Microsoft offerings that there should be no problem. Then when the users complain that they don't know the software, they blame the software for the failure.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Long-term costs by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have),

      HAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh.

      I speak from experience when I tell you you're dreaming if you think government has training procedures. We have a training group and my area (the IT side) does more to train end users than they do. We keep wondering why we're paying these people when everyone comes to us with training questions.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, that was part of the reason for the whole thing.
      They'd have to retrain their Office 2k/2k3-on-WinXP users for Office 2k7-on-Vista anyways.

    3. Re:Long-term costs by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Umm, the licensing costs are perpetual in many forms. So at no point ever can training costs go above the licensing, it's just a matter of how long to recoup. In addition, the benefits from always having the most up to date version of the software adds additional things in favor of not using MS products.

      Long term licensing is never a viable solution, it's just a lot of people don't like to look at long term economic impacts.

    4. Re:Long-term costs by unixisc · · Score: 2

      When they need to be retrained on Windows 8, they'll definitely prefer Linux or a BSD, which have options of Windows like UXs

    5. Re:Long-term costs by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually this is a good point. My wife works for an insurance company. People there are just expected to know how to use a computer and MS Office by extension. They never receive training and the results are half can barely turn their machines on, the other half spend all day running around doing everyone else's work. We seem to expect people need training with FLOSS products, but expect them to just know what they're doing with MS products.

      It's shameful really, I've spent many an afternoon banging my head on my desk while trying to talk someone through the ribbon interface because they were just expected to know what to do when Office 2007 first came out.

    6. Re:Long-term costs by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because you live in America, rather than an advanced, industrialized country with a well-run government.

    7. Re:Long-term costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of the costs that MS always puts into their calculation is the cost of retraining for open source but puts $0 into retraining costs for Windows and Office migrations even though newer versions do require some retraining. As was noted in the report, there was actually less retraining for OpenOffice as it was closer to MS Office 2000 GUI than the newer ribbonized versions of Office that they would have deployed. Don't get me started on much Win 8 retraining will cost.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually wrong on two counts.

      1) You assume that one does "training" once, and then you're done. That is simply not true. You have turn over which requires continual retraining. You get new versions of the software, which then require retraining. Supporting open source software in a production environment is most certainly a continual cost.

      2) Everyone thinks that they can somehow just get the software for free. It doesn't work that way. The people who are creating/maintaining the open source code still have to get paid, just like everyone else on the planet. In some way, shape or form, people still have to pay for open source code or the open source code go stagnate and eventually disappears. One very typical pattern than happens is that the people who thought they were getting something for free find themselves in the position of having to hire (and therefore, pay) teams of developers who then maintain the open source code to suite their needs (bug fixes, feature extensions, etc). Not only do they have to hire, manage and maintain this internal team and the tasks they are doing, that team then has to somehow coordinate with all the other completely independent teams who are trying to maintain the same code base. It is a major headache. So they end up having to pay for the software *and* having to manage a team to do the maintenance work on the code and have to continuously interact with other completely independent teams (instead of being able to delegate that work to a company which sold them the software). That is all pure overhead, real world, cost which people end up taking on in order to get that "free" code.

      The bottom line is that FOSS is actually quite expensive to use in a business environment for real world production purposes and carries additional challenges and headaches beyond what one encounters when purchasing a software package from a third party. It only makes sense, really, when one comes back to the real world and realizes that everyone has to get paid for their work, or the work doesn't happen.

    9. Re:Long-term costs by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) You don't think this happens with propreitary software? The end-users still have to learn the software, whether you train them or you require them to come "pre-trained."

      2) This is bullshit. I don't think you realize how much FOSS is written/maintained with no expectation or want of compensation. These people do it because they like doing it - and generally they feed themselves doing something else.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Long-term costs by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal. If you have an office of 50 people who were all hired already knowing Microsoft's products, you can expect significant retraining costs that might exceed what you'll save on licensing.

      From what I've seen, small businesses won't have training infrastructure in place. Software needs to be able to be configured and used by people with little or inadequate training on the software or related technology. Large businesses do have dedicated training, but this is industry-specific. For example, insurance companies will have extensive training on policies and procedures so adding software/IT training is straight-forward. This is because the business lends itself to having a lot of people doing the same job, at the same location. But it won't work as well for, say, a retail chain. That's because while they have a lot of people doing the same job, there's only a few at each location.

      What I've found to be by far the biggest cost in IT is support though, not training. I worked a contract out of a hospital that was switching over to a new electronic records system. Despite each employee receiving close to 60 hours of training each, on-site resources at each hospital given an additional 40 hours of training on top of that for more in-depth training, the whole thing detonated on the launch pad. The reason for the failure was that, although plenty of training had been given on the user interface and what-not, hospitals are highly specialized in how they process things; every department had its own unique process. And it resulted in a support nightmare that caused their entire organization's IT to seize like an engine without oil. Everybody, at every level of IT, was manning the phones for close to a month. There were no patches. There were no deployments. There was no new equipment being installed or upgraded. Everyone basically got kicked to tech support and pulled long, long hours, with queue depths that would summon images of the Krakken when viewing them.

      While this was a proprietary solution sold with the promise of higher automation, lower operating costs, and compliance with all applicable laws... when the tires met the pavement, those savings were dwarfed by the support costs, which continued to be high for the next six months post-launch. They anticipate replacing it in 7-10 years. But in those six months, all the potential savings for the rest of its expected service live, vaporized under the heat of support costs.

      This is not an atypical situation; most IT projects fail in this fashion. Open source doesn't change this. Zero cost software would still only reduce the total cost of ownership by perhaps 7-10% in a best-case scenario. If you want to save costs in IT, worry less about the software and more about the strength of your project managers. Ultimately, your organizations ability to rapidly respond to changing user needs and have a broad IT skillset across your department's labor force, will do more to help your bottom line than any technology or software you will ever purchase.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    11. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nurse! He's out of bed again!

    12. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope you're trolling, 'cause you had me there for a second.

    13. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means Mordor...

    14. Re:Long-term costs by fermion · · Score: 2
      Which is why everyone freaks when something like Ribbons comes out.

      It would be nice if we could train people, maybe in high school, to use technology and not just how to use a specific version of technology. I learned to use a computer, so when the different spreadsheets came out I was able to pick them up. Never have been able to pass a MOS certification, but I can use MS Office. Students now have to pass such a certification, but have trouble using Google Docs. So what has really been accomplished?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    15. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The thing about ribbons is that they happened not long after Microsoft's ridiculously massive campaign explaining how switching to non-Microsoft software is financially infeasible because the UI is not exactly the same and therefore would require staff-retraining expenses that would exceed and savings you'd get from not having to pay Microsoft licence fees.

    16. Re:Long-term costs by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      Wetter you train or not is irrelevant. The cost will either go in inefficiency or in training. Training is cheaper in the long run. Been there done that on a different level but it's all the same.

      Just putting a new copier in an office is a nightmare if you don't provide a short training coupled with a reference sheet.

    17. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same here. It also extends into the mobile devices they are given, be it an iPhone / Blackberry / Nokia thing / whatever. I'd be amazed if half the staff could work their TV or blueray player at home. Documentation doesn't work - these people can barely read. Training is quite good, but needs to be on-going. The 2 weeks face-to-face we spend teaching people how to use the computers is great, but after a month or so they start to forget many things. Then, something changes - a system gets upgraded or whatever - but the face-to-face training doesn't happen again. We've got a mix of Mac OS X, Windows 7 and Linux systems. According to the pie chart on my logging systems, Windows systems account 78% of the support calls, of which 82% are category 1 (first line / basic support / how-do-i-turn-this-on kinda stuff). So far we've found people take to the Linux systems better - they just find them easier to use, faster and they are more productive. We don't call them "Linux" or "Windows", we use department task titles for the systems, so many people have no idea which OS they are using.

      As for Windows 8. Well. Thats just a fucking nightmare. We're simply not rolling that out any time soon, if at all ever.

    18. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my high school (graduated about 6 years ago now) we did the same. I was in special arts classes though so we added Adobe Everything to the list and 3D Studio Max, etc, but everyone learned office and everyone had to type up essays one way or another. Never heard of certification being required.

      I really don't get how you can have passed a certification in any program but be unable to pickup Google Docs. Do these people live in the third world and only have access to a computer 1 hr a day to study for certification?

      Besides if you attend college and especially university, you will have to learn how to use *something*. Probably not exactly you learned in high school...

    19. Re:Long-term costs by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, I very much remember that argument. A few years ago we were evaluating Office 2007, my boss at the time thought we should switch us over to Open Office, but was shotdown with the "training is too expensive, it'll be easier to stay wtih office" argument. Not six months later we had an Office 2007 upgrade crammed down our throats and all hell broke loose, but it wasn't all bad. It was funny the managers that advocated staing with MS Office and wouldn't even entertain the idea of using something else were the ones that had the hardest time adjusting. It was pretty sweet to watch them sweat when they had to ask for help from the people they right out refused to hear out because the adjustment would have been too hard to make. We're on office 2010 now, but some of the same mangers *still* haven't figured out the ribbion interface. Karma is awesome.

    20. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they live in Germany, what was your point?

    21. Re:Long-term costs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Umm, the licensing costs are perpetual in many forms. So at no point ever can training costs go above the licensing.

      Bullhockey.

      Worked counterexample: myself, and Linux.

      Amount spent on licenses: zero.

      Amount spent on training: About 40 of Her Majesty's finest pounds.

      40 is above zero, isn't it?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Long-term costs by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't get me started on much Win 8 retraining will cost.

      I can't imagine. Does the interface work by doing Tai-Chi moves?

      How many times do I have to tell you, it's "flower growing through snow" to open a file; you had your left hand the wrong way up - that's "badger with two dicks fucking a pigeon".

      Huh? Oh, it deletes your entire HD and kills your cat.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Long-term costs by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      The point is that in advanced, well-run countries like Germany, the government (at different levels, this is about a city government) actually does this in an effective and sensible manner, which is why Munich was able to successfully switch to open-source software and save a lot of money. In crappy, corrupt countries like the USA, we get expensive debacles like the current Healthcare.gov disaster where big projects are given to political cronies and provided vastly inflated budgets, and disaster ensues.

    24. Re:Long-term costs by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Can you name any of these so called well-run governments? I've worked for a couple of different govts and know people who've worked for a couple more and the story is the same across the board.

    25. Re:Long-term costs by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Time to up the Thorazine, maybe add a little Haldol.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re:Long-term costs by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Yeah where I work we are all expected to know English. There's an ugly French guy in corner who has no friends and he says French is actually a more expressive language, and that if everyone learned to speak French the company would be better off. So a a handful of people did take French lessons, yet most people still speak English. I just don't get it.

    27. Re:Long-term costs by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Which is why everyone freaks when something like Ribbons comes out.

      It would be nice if we could train people, maybe in high school, to use technology and not just how to use a specific version of technology.

      snip

      So what has really been accomplished?

      People are people. And while the computer has ended up everywhere, that also means it is becoming a mature technology.

      The object, the goal, is to get something done. That might be a memo, a publication, a presentation, or a spreadsheet. The basic tools and documents of commerce.

      The object is not to re-learn the way to perform those functions every few years. After years spent doing the office functions in one way, suddenly having ribbons, and worse, balls in the upper left corner that have no apparent function other than decoration. When users ask how do I open a document, you tell them, and the response is either "WHAT?" or "You have to be kidding", it might tell you that you aren't heading in the right direction.

      One person told me that the Office ribbon was like changing his keyboard keys around. Yeah, the new configuration worked, but he was spending a lot of time trying to figure out what was going on instead of doing his work. Which is where the software people sometimes go wrong. Computerized spreadsheets or publication are freaking awesome. People like new things being added, greater capabilities being added, Faster processing being added. People don't like things that just get in the way being added.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re:Long-term costs by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Meh... maybe.

      FLOSS changes the costs. You spend more in training, but save on material. If your organization already has significant training procedures to accommodate big processes (like, say, a government would have), you'll probably come out ahead on the deal.

      You also have to spend on support and maintenace, whether that is you managing a development team internally or whether you contract development work out to 3rd parties.

    29. Re:Long-term costs by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The City of Munich government, apparently.

    30. Re:Long-term costs by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Don't get me started on much Win 8 retraining will cost.

      Beyond demonstrating the difference between launching programs from the start screen vs the start menu and the shutdown procedure I doubt it's going to make much of a difference the majority of people. It's not like your applications suddenly work different.

    31. Re:Long-term costs by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      Having grown up in a time when personal computers were just starting to get popular, you start to realize that some people will never be more than Foundation trilogy-style technopriests due to a deep and abiding fear of things they don't understand that literally paralyzes them into monkey see, monkey do behavior where technology is concerned. They are taught to click that icon, then that file thing in the gray bar and then "open" and then that folder name, then that file. Change that folder name or move it into subcategory somewhere right in front of their eyes and holy cow there's a problem. Move the entire file menu into a pretty windows icon button and it's brown trousers time. I'm not sure if it never occurs to them that there's some kind of a generalized process or scheme that they're following that could actually help them if they understood it at just one level of abstraction deeper or if they're just not actually capable of understanding things that way.

      I see less of it now but still run into it even in younger people who've been around tech all their lives.

      It's kind of like people who never truly learn to read properly. Beyond basic consonant use, words to them are mostly a series of letters they associate with words they speak rather than there being any real pattern to how the sequences of letters actually inform the sounds most of the time. My last name for instance is similar in vowel/consonant construction to "hatter." I'd say about half the time when somebody has to speak it out loud they screw up their eyes and think and then what comes out is "hater." It makes my wife, who is a human Oxford-English dictionary (including pronunciation keys) batshit.

    32. Re:Long-term costs by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I still struggle with the ribbon, and I'm a techie. It's just stunningly unintuitive to me.

    33. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really the kind of mental defective that is completely confused by any kind of change? You can actually be put in front of a Windows 8 PC and have absolutely no idea what to do and no cognitive ability to even begin to work out what you might have to do? Somebody as braindead and institutionalized as you has no hope on anything different anyway.

    34. Re:Long-term costs by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      To get a government job in Spain, all you need to do is pass an exam and get lucky. Your experience on the field doesn't even matter. They also drop you directly into the job, with some more experienced coworker giving you the basic gist of things and where things are stored and such, and that's pretty much it.
      Sure, America has a lot of things to deserve bashing, but I don't think that specific thing is worse than here in Spain for example. Here government workers are the type of guys that can nail an exam, but aren't able to do the job, thus our infrastructure is pretty rotten thanks to sheer incompetence.

    35. Re:Long-term costs by Windwraith · · Score: 2

      No bad feelings or anything, but your post is kinda funny (in a good way).
      Just to be a bit of a dick and to play devil's advocate (in good fun, please don't take it personally).

      Worked counterexample, myself and Linux.

      Amount spent on licenses: Zero.

      Amount spent on training: Zero.

      I am the kind of guy that likes to tinker around, so I got to know Linux's guts pretty fast and without training wheels (the amount of times I hit the proverbial road were staggering, I am not gonna lie, but it was all controlled systems a backup away from restoring function). Then again it took me about a year of tinkering around to master the intricacies, if you were needing it for a job, or to obtain a certificate again for a job, then yeah, your post is doubtlessly and unmistakably true.

    36. Re:Long-term costs by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I never said Spain was an advanced, industrialized nation. Spain had a friggin' dictator until a just few decades ago. Even Mexico has a better track record than that!

      Spain sounds a lot like Mexico as far as qualifications, BTW. In Mexico, you don't need an engineering degree to be an "engineer", you just get the job (because of nepotism/cronyism), and work under some more experienced person for a while. From what I hear, all the professional jobs are like this (and this isn't just in the government, this is private industry). No wonder Mexico has never produced much of value. Cronyism is a recipe for failure. Too bad America seems to be devolving to this too, at least as far as the government is concerned.

      And as far as infrastructure rotting, it sounds like you're on par with America there. Our infrastructure is crumbling too, though it's largely because we'd rather spend all our money on military misadventure (along with government healthcare websites set up by overpaid cronies).

    37. Re:Long-term costs by westlake · · Score: 1

      2) This is bullshit. I don't think you realize how much FOSS is written/maintained with no expectation or want of compensation. These people do it because they like doing it - and generally they feed themselves doing something else.

      But is this true when you look at the marquee FOSS programs like Firefox, OpenOffice/Libre Office and so on? How many of these big name projects are almost wholly dependent on the work of full time paid developers?

    38. Re:Long-term costs by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You can actually be put in front of a Windows 8 PC and have absolutely no idea what to do and no cognitive ability to even begin to work out what you might have to do?

      Yes, because shit like draging from / to regions of the screen with no visual cue that such an option is present is a prevalent design clusterfuck. Hell sometimes it's just a corner or edge. WTF? It's an uninformative back-asswards abortion of a user interface.

    39. Re:Long-term costs by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, the same small businesses will have the same non-existent training when MS decides to change up the interface for reasons known only to them. For example, when finally migrating away from XP.

      If your staff is going to be stumbling around in the dark either way, you might as well pick an OS that doesn't cost you a license fee on top to upgrade.

    40. Re:Long-term costs by couchslug · · Score: 1

      FLOSS can change the cost indeed, if it's audited.

      Long term costs of using Windows software include certain NSA and other US government backdoors. The Snowden revelations mean that the expectation of these is completely reasonable.

      US commercial software can no longer be trusted and it is negligent for governments, businesses, and individuals not wishing to be pwned to run it. At all. Citizens of non-US countries should do everything they can to end the use of US commercial software including Microsoft products if they value their freedom.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    41. Re:Long-term costs by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      If your staff is going to be stumbling around in the dark either way, you might as well pick an OS that doesn't cost you a license fee on top to upgrade.

      Just because you're in the dark and stumbling about doesn't mean it cannot help a great deal to know where you are and what's around. Only people who have never had to go to the bathroom without waking anyone up would say something so terribly unenlightened. Suggesting that choosing an OS they're unfamiliar with when they're already blind and tripping over themselves is like saying that navigating a house you're familiar with and navigating one you aren't is the same thing.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    42. Re:Long-term costs by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you have only ever used XP and then one day you are confronted with Windows 8, it *IS* already an OS you are unfamiliar with. Gnome2 might well seem more familiar.

      As for taking the analogy too literally, I don't stumble in the dark. I routinely walk around in the dark because it's just not that hard. If there's any ambient sound you can even hear when you approach a wall. Then again, I'm told I don't make sound when I walk. That might explain why people jump.

    43. Re:Long-term costs by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

      Yes, because shit like draging from / to regions of the screen with no visual cue that such an option is present is a prevalent design clusterfuck.

      "Like the draggon
      To the regions of the screen
      The shit"

    44. Re:Long-term costs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are you really the kind of mental defective that is completely confused by any kind of change?

      Are you really the kind of feckless nonce that thinks change for the sake of change is good?

      You can actually be put in front of a Windows 8 PC and have absolutely no idea what to do and no cognitive ability to even begin to work out what you might have to do?

      Never tried, but it's unlikely, since I worked out (with a lot of cursing) how to use the horrid ribbon interface on word.

      But why should I have to? I could probably learn to drive a car that had the pedals swapped round, but what would be the point?

      In any case, there are plenty of non-technical users who couldn't.

      Now go put on your beret, Joe 90 glasses & skinny jeans and go drink moccachoccacostalottalattes with your UX buddies. The grown-ups are talking.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:Long-term costs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Explain to me how you'd know what commands do what. No, it's not man; that tells you the options, flags etc. when you already know the command.

      Something like a Que book is perfect for getting you up and running. Still have it somewhere. Came with CDs for RH 5 (not RHEL 5!), something else, and Caldera. I wander what happened to them.

      In any case, my intent was to debunk poetmatt's point that licenses cost more than training, just one of many flaws in his rambling post.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    46. Re:Long-term costs by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That was a good one. Corruption is rampant in Bavaria.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    47. Re:Long-term costs by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Except in the case of Office switching to 2007, it'd be more like being forced to switch from US English to Middle English. It's still English, just considerable different. Whereas switching to OpenOffice would have been more like switching from US English to UK English. Just learn to spell colour correctly and you're good.

      BTW, I'm Canadian. Ever notice how the French is known as the language of love and not the language of engineering and science. It takes twice as much French to express half as much content because you're busy trying to indicate how you feel rather than what you know. That being said it's a nice language if you're trying to court a girl. Italian also works well, but stay away from German, that sh*t's scary.

    48. Re:Long-term costs by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I speak from experience when I tell you you're dreaming if you think government has training procedures.

      I'm afraid your experience is only valid for your particular corner of the government in the country you happen to be in.

    49. Re:Long-term costs by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      To get a government job in Spain, all you need to do is pass an exam and get lucky. Your experience on the field doesn't even matter.

      Spain's unemployment rate is 26%. Any employer can thus afford to be picky about who they recruit.

      You say it's just a case of passing an exam and "getting lucky", but why would they pick randomly when they don't have to. Makes no sense. Seems more likely that you have a dubious opinion.

      Here government workers are the type of guys that can nail an exam, but aren't able to do the job

      Are you perhaps lacking in the qualifications needed for employment?

    50. Re:Long-term costs by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Actually, English is quite a good analogy for Microsoft Windows/Office. It has a lot more words (functionality) than French, which it has got from embracing and extending from many other languages.

      The difference is, Microsoft's desktop monopoly is heading towards irrelevance. Whereas English is still on the path towards monopoly.

      Some might think Chinese might reverse the monopolisation of English. But the Chinese haven't been able to standardise on a single language even in their own country. Fragmentation problem.

    51. Re:Long-term costs by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I don't think you realize how much FOSS is written/maintained with no expectation or want of compensation.

      And the FOSS software primarily developed by those people is generally worth the money you pay for it.

      The important FOSS software is developed primarily by people who're employed to develop it.

    52. Re:Long-term costs by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Training is not so cut and dry... Going from MSO 2003 to MSO 2007 or later is a bigger change than MSO2003 to OOo.

      Users are also not as stupid as people make out, sure they will likely complain if you change the software from under them but at the end of the day they have to do their job so they will put up with whatever you give them. Users often detest the software they're forced to use at work, the idea that users are perfectly happy with existing commercial software and will suddenly have big problems with open source is a fallacy.

      Not so long ago users got along just fine with wordperfect for dos, they learned how to use the keyboard shortcuts because their jobs demanded it. If you gave people latex they would get used to it after an initial period of complaining, and you'll find that your staff help each other with such things.

      As recently as a couple of years ago (and possibly still today), office workers at a large retail store near here were expected to read work related emails using the text based pine program... Users did so without problems, and such an interface had the side effect of severely reducing the risk of email borne malware.

      Companies frequently implement new software and provide no training whatsoever, users are simply expected to pick it up as they go along. Lots of companies have bespoke applications for which there is no publicly available training material or courses. And while some software is potentially extremely complex, most users don't ever touch the majority of features and have no reason to ever learn them.

      When it comes to long term costs let's face it, most common software has done everything users need for many years... MSO1997 can serve the needs of the vast majority of office workers, web browsers have changed a lot under the hood but the UI has changed very little, email really hasn't changed either.

      The best thing for business is software where at least the interface users see remains consistent, and only gets updated with under the hood improvements and security/bugfixes. For an OS you want a consistent UI, with underlying performance improvements and hardware support... For an office suite you want the existing feature set and UI with just bugfixes, and for a browser you can improve the rendering engine to support new standards while keeping the UI consistent.

      MS seem intent on constantly changing the UI, and part of that is down to users not wanting to fork out for upgrades if they can't see any visible changes. But in this case what benefits vendors most certainly does not benefit users, which is why vendors also want to move towards a subscription model.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    53. Re:Long-term costs by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Amount spent on training: Zero.

      Only true if your time is worth nothing.

      Then again it took me about a year of tinkering around to master the intricacies

      Wow! A year is a hell of a lot of money spent on training when you account for the cost of time. More money than most people will spend on training in a lifetime.

      For sure, if tinkering and learning Linux is your hobby, then it's free. But that describes a tiny minority of the potential users of Linux.

    54. Re:Long-term costs by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well the idea that you need an engineering degree to be an engineer isn't an ideal situation either...

      It is quite possible to scrape through a degree course while being incompetent at the job.
      People with degrees don't necessarily have any real experience, and could easily be incompetent as a result.
      The requirement to have a degree discriminates against those who lack the financial resources to go to an appropriate university.
      It is quite possible to obtain degrees through corruption too.

      What you need is a more pragmatic system, where people get the job based on their personal ability and will to learn, not based on the bits of paper or friends they acquired.
      And everyone who's just starting out should work under someone more experienced, it is extremely useful to learn from someone experienced on the job.

      I don't know about other areas, but for technical roles i would much rather recruit someone who's spent their time hacking in their parents basement because they have a genuine interest in the subject than someone who has crammed their way through a bunch of exams because they see money at the end of it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    55. Re:Long-term costs by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      1, This is no different to proprietary software. Or in many cases no training is done and users are expected to just get on with it, which can also happen in both cases.

      2, Most software is very mature at this stage, it's unlikely that you will need many new features. Stagnation is actually a good thing with mature software, because in many cases the changes a vendor would make at best don't benefit you and at worst are actually detrimental to you. Just look at all the users running old versions of windows and msoffice for an example of this.

      That said it's better to have the option there should you ever need it, and with open source you always have the option to develop the features you require yourself. You can also pool your resources with other users who have similar requirements to you, which is basically how proprietary vendors work only your cutting out the profit for the middlemen and thus doing things more efficiently.

      You also don't have to manage a team to maintain the software, you always have the option of paying someone else to supply and maintain the open source software for you, again this is an option thats available to you but that you don't have to use. You have a choice of multiple suppliers too, something that proprietary software rarely gives you.

      The bottom line is that while all software *can* be expensive, FOSS always offers more flexibility than proprietary software and there is no inherent advantage whatsoever in single-vendor proprietary software over open source.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    56. Re:Long-term costs by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Many companies maintain software for many reasons other than a direct desire to sell that software for profit... The idea that the only way to get compensated is to sell the software is ridiculous.

      Some write code for their own use, and then contribute that code to others. It's worth it because you need those changes, and you don't lose anything by allowing others to use them too.
      Some write software because it helps them sell other products or services - classic example being hardware drivers.
      Some write software to learn, for fun or because its part of their studies.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    57. Re:Long-term costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Are you really the kind of mental defective that is completely confused by any kind of change? You can actually be put in front of a Windows 8 PC and have absolutely no idea what to do and no cognitive ability to even begin to work out what you might have to do? Somebody as braindead and institutionalized as you has no hope on anything different anyway.

      Are you some kind of MS apologist excusing them for really bad UI choices that many design experts have criticized? For example the original login screen for Win 8 has no clue that tells the user how to log in. There is just a picture of a fish. There are YouTube videos of novices clicking like mad at every little thing on the screen just to log in. How in the world are they supposed to know that dragging the login window down from the top is how you get to the login screen? There simply is no clue. Also why didn't MS simply show this login screen to begin with? Why force the user with an additional step of dragging down a screen just to login? These are the idiotic design choices that people hate about Win 8.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    58. Re:Long-term costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Have you actually worked with Win 8 because it doesn't seem like you have? Win 8 has many subtle and not so subtle changes. For example changing the desktop wallpaper. Windows since forever: Right click on the desktop and then select option. On Win 7 they named it "Personalize" but XP and before "Properties" . On Win 8: Right top corner -->Settings -->Change PC settings --> Personalize. First of all there is no visual clue that the right corner does anything. Users have to remember it. Then they have navigate through multiple screens to make a change. Then there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen ignoring that uses for decades have had windows which they could resize individually. It's like MS forgot about these things called "windows" in a product named "Windows".

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:Long-term costs by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Rambling post, huh?

      I was referring to windows having licensing costs, not Linux. Training costs exist but they aren't ongoing for open source.

      Remind me how much it is to obtain windows, and then keep it on computers, and how much the servers cost, and the additional software required, etc etc. The costs go on and on.

    60. Re:Long-term costs by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Have you actually worked with Win 8 because it doesn't seem like you have? Win 8 has many subtle and not so subtle changes. For example changing the desktop wallpaper. Windows since forever: Right click on the desktop and then select option. On Win 7 they named it "Personalize" but XP and before "Properties" .

      Changing the desktop wallpaper on Windows 8 is exactly the same as on Windows 7, right-click and select 'Personalize'.

      First of all there is no visual clue that the right corner does anything. Users have to remember it.

      There's a video tutorial when you first log in.

      Then there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen ignoring that uses for decades have had windows which they could resize individually. It's like MS forgot about these things called "windows" in a product named "Windows".

      ummm....no, that's just wrong. What applications were you using on Windows 7 that Windows 8 requires you to run fullscreen? I think you would be hard pressed to find one much less "every", all the applications I used on Windows 7 work the same on Windows 8.

    61. Re:Long-term costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Changing the desktop wallpaper on Windows 8 is exactly the same as on Windows 7, right-click and select 'Personalize'.

      That's might be a tweak on your system but MS says nothing about "right-click". So either you have customization on your system or you are fibbing.

      There's a video tutorial when you first log in.

      So you have to remember something on a video instead of having a feature self-discoverable. What kind of idiocy is that in a GUI? What if it's not your computer?

      ummm....no, that's just wrong. What applications were you using on Windows 7 that Windows 8 requires you to run fullscreen? I think you would be hard pressed to find one much less "every", all the applications I used on Windows 7 work the same on Windows 8.

      Wow. It seems you've never used Win 8. Everything I open on Win 8 takes the entire damn screen. Just watch this video on how to change the desktop as one example. The settings menu takes the whole damn screen.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    62. Re:Long-term costs by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Note that I also said that his post was *unmistakably* true if in terms of requiring that knowledge for a job. Also read the disclaimer at the very top of the post. But sure, I'll play along.

      I also "lost" time learning advanced algebra and maths and music theory. That I don't need for anything, but look at me in the eye and tell me it's not interesting.

      Anyway, geez, not everyone in slashdot has a computer-related job. I am a pastry chef, and my time is worth a lot...inside my workplace. I can't demand money for resting or sharing time with others because I want to, in my free time.

      Anyway, the point is, I earn enough to live comfortably and keep my family running, and I am an artist at heart (which is good for my profession), there are lots of time consuming things that I do that you might find pointless, but they provide entertainment, practice, enjoyment and idea outlets (and you meet people and even get fans). I don't consider my "time not earning money" to be lost time at all.
      The only time I consider lost is when I pass out, because of my narcolepsy, and that makes me lose free time. Now that's a real loss of time, honestly.

    63. Re:Long-term costs by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Retrain? Just get the Zorin version of Windows. A couple minutes fooling around and you're back to work. Or, maybe Mint.

    64. Re:Long-term costs by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's might be a tweak on your system but MS says nothing about "right-click". So either you have customization on your system or you are fibbing.

      No, and this demonstrates that you have not even used Windows 8 and therefore do not know what you are talking about, so just stop your idiocy. For changing the desktop wallpaper you can go through the steps outlined in the link or you can do it exactly as you do on Windows 7 which is to right-click the desktop and click "Personalize". But you haven't even used it which is why you don't know this.

      So you have to remember something on a video instead of having a feature self-discoverable. What kind of idiocy is that in a GUI? What if it's not your computer?

      Yes, just like any training but once you've learned it it's easy, in fact in 8.1 they added additional visual cues to help with this.

      Wow. It seems you've never used Win 8. Everything I open on Win 8 takes the entire damn screen. Just watch this video on how to change the desktop as one example. The settings menu takes the whole damn screen.

      Wrong again, if you want to use Windows 8-specific stuff - which is the Metro UI - then yes that stuff is full screen, but why would you want to do that? There's no need to do that, it's optional, if you want to just use the applications like you did on Windows 7 then they work in exactly the same way. So again, what programs did you use on Windows 7 that forces fullscreen on Windows 8? Photoshop? Lightroom? AutoCAD? Nope, all work the same as Windows 7.

    65. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example changing the desktop wallpaper. Windows since forever: Right click on the desktop and then select option. On Win 7 they named it "Personalize" but XP and before "Properties" .

      that continues with windows8. see here: http://windows8themes.org/changing-the-wallpaper-in-windows-8-for-a-personal-desktop.html
      it appears to be you who has not used windows8.

    66. Re:Long-term costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No, and this demonstrates that you have not even used Windows 8 and therefore do not know what you are talking about, so just stop your idiocy. For changing the desktop wallpaper [slashdot.org] you can go through the steps outlined in the link or you can do it exactly as you do on Windows 7 which is to right-click the desktop and click "Personalize". But you haven't even used it which is why you don't know this.

      You keep saying that it does, yet you have presented absolutely no proof. None whatsoever.

      Yes, just like any training but once you've learned it it's easy, in fact in 8.1 they added additional visual cues to help with this.

      That's not training. That's having to remember something that should have been self-discoverable. Design experts like Jakob Nielsen have said specifically

      In practice, the charms work poorly — at least for new users. The old saying, out of sight, out of mind, turned out to be accurate. Because the charms are hidden, our users often forgot to summon them, even when they needed them.

      Second we are talking about 8 not 8.1 as not everyone has the ability to update.

      Wrong again

      Do you even click on the links I provided? It seems your response to everyone thing is "Uh-uh. Not it's not," but don't seem to provide any proof. Watch the video. The settings menu takes the entire screen. This is a fact.

      , if you want to use Windows 8-specific stuff - which is the Metro UI - then yes that stuff is full screen, but why would you want to do that?

      What? If you want to change a setting in Win 8, you have to use Metro. Even if you could use third party software to replicate functions of Win8, that's even worse as it you had to use third party software to do things that the OS should have done.

      There's no need to do that, it's optional, if you want to just use the applications like you did on Windows 7 then they work in exactly the same way. So again, what programs did you use on Windows 7 that forces fullscreen on Windows 8? Photoshop? Lightroom? AutoCAD? Nope, all work the same as Windows 7.

      I don't use ANY of those programs. It seems that all your responses to criticisms about Win8 is that since it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be true. The real world out there with everyday users disagrees with you. Design experts disagree with you.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    67. Re:Long-term costs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I was referring to windows having licensing costs, not Linux.

      And you said so where, pray tell? I'm not a mind reader and even if I was I don't have a microscope.

      Learn to fucking write already.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    68. Re:Long-term costs by exomondo · · Score: 1

      You keep saying that it does, yet you have presented absolutely no proof. None whatsoever.

      Here, proof that not only do you not know what you are talking about but you are also incapable of using google. So you haven't even tried the thing you are so opposed to, your arguments are invalid.

      Do you even click on the links I provided? It seems your response to everyone thing is "Uh-uh. Not it's not," but don't seem to provide any proof. Watch the video. The settings menu takes the entire screen. This is a fact.

      The settings screen isn't even in Windows 7 you idiot, it was an addition in Windows 8. You obviously have never even used the OS as you stated there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen, which is again demonstrably false.

      What? If you want to change a setting in Win 8, you have to use Metro. Even if you could use third party software to replicate functions of Win8, that's even worse as it you had to use third party software to do things that the OS should have done.

      What setting? If you had actually used it - which you haven't - you would know that settings can still be changed through the control panel just like on Windows 7, so again your argument is invalid.

      I don't use ANY of those programs. It seems that all your responses to criticisms about Win8 is that since it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be true. The real world out there with everyday users disagrees with you. Design experts disagree with you.

      It doesn't matter, that is proof that your assertion that Windows 8 insists every program runs fullscreen is false. But what programs do you use? Hrm? What programs do you use that Windows 8 requires you now run fullscreen? Oh right you've never used it before which is why you're making such stupid claims, fool. Your responses clearly demonstrate that you haven't even used it, so why would you purport to be knowledgeable on something that you clearly are not?

    69. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Training costs exist but they aren't ongoing for open source.

      Open source stuff changes all the time, of course training costs for it are going to be ongoing.

    70. Re:Long-term costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really the kind of feckless nonce that thinks change for the sake of change is good?

      no.

      Never tried

      of course you havent, you are just the sort of person to pass judgement on something you know nothing about and make assumptions because you are too lazy to try anything different.

    71. Re:Long-term costs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Here [windows8themes.org], proof that not only do you not know what you are talking about but you are also incapable of using google. So you haven't even tried the thing you are so opposed to, your arguments are invalid.

      I have tried Win 8 and I loathe using it. Every time my roommate asks me how to do something in Windows 8, I tell her how to do it in Win 7 and it's won't work. So she has to look it up on Google. She asked me to change her background. Right-click didn't work is all I know. She asked me to add a printer because she couldn't find the "Control Panel". But you are so blinded by facts that you are willing to discount anything that goes against your love of Win 8.

      The settings screen isn't even in Windows 7 you idiot, it was an addition in Windows 8. You obviously have never even used the OS as you stated there is Win 8's insistence that every application be full screen [slashdot.org], which is again demonstrably false.

      Wow, you are dense. My point was things take the full screen in Win 8 for no reason. Why do settings need to take the ENTIRE screen? You only confirmed my point.

      It doesn't matter, that is proof that your assertion that Windows 8 insists every program runs fullscreen is false. But what programs do you use? Hrm? What programs do you use that Windows 8 requires you now run fullscreen? Oh right you've never used it before which is why you're making such stupid claims, fool. Your responses clearly demonstrate that you haven't even used it, so why would you purport to be knowledgeable on something that you clearly are not?

      EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM I OPENED ON HER MACHINE USED THE ENTIRE SCREEN. She made no changes to settings. So you retort that your machine does it differently most likely because you've tweaked it. So what? You!=everyone. I used Win 8 long enough to keep using Win 7.

      But my original point is that all new systems require retraining. Especially if you are going from Office 2000 to Office 2003 or Win 7 to Win 8 as there was drastic change between the UIs. You can't refute that can you, apologist?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    72. Re:Long-term costs by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I have tried Win 8 and I loathe using it. Every time my roommate asks me how to do something in Windows 8, I tell her how to do it in Win 7 and it's won't work. So she has to look it up on Google. She asked me to change her background. Right-click didn't work is all I know.

      Rubbish, it works exactly as it does on Windows 7, I even provided a link demonstrating it, are you really that retarded? What does right-click do then? If nothing then her mouse is probably broken.

      She asked me to add a printer because she couldn't find the "Control Panel". But you are so blinded by facts that you are willing to discount anything that goes against your love of Win 8.

      No, I have no love for Windows 8, you only assume that because I disagree with you. Control Panel is there, you just have to search for it, then it works just as it did on Windows 7. The problem is clearly not that you couldn't find Control Panel, it's that you didn't look for it, you lack the mental capacity to do anything if it isn't staring you in the face.

      Wow, you are dense. My point was things take the full screen in Win 8 for no reason. Why do settings need to take the ENTIRE screen? You only confirmed my point.

      Obviously for tablet form-factors, but they don't have to take fullscreen as you can snap them side-by-side or alternatively change settings just as you would in Windows 7 through Control Panel. Yes getting to it is a bit different, but why are you acting as though that is the end of the world?

      EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM I OPENED ON HER MACHINE USED THE ENTIRE SCREEN.

      Example? You still fail to provide any example. There is no Windows 7 application that will take up the entire screen on Windows 8, that is a fact but you are so angry you try to refute facts anyway. So again, what programs were you using on Windows 7 that take up the entire screen on Windows 8?

      She made no changes to settings. So you retort that your machine does it differently most likely because you've tweaked it.

      Wrong again, in your case it is simply PEBKAC, I linked to a page detailing how to do it and it's the same as Windows 7, your inability to follow simple instructions or repeat the actions of doing it on Windows 7 on Windows 8 is your failing.

  5. Incredible information about the logistics by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing that blew me away is they had a much more advanced set of issues to deal with than a typical bureaucratic office would. The custom macros and apps isn't something that a normal company would be hung up on. That would imply to me that so long as your office can find equivalents of their core applications (whether it be accounting or graphics software), the rest shouldn't be so difficult to overcome. I've always rolled my eyes at the idea of a real-world migration for company of significant size.

    Here's an interesting tidbit from the article about how Microsoft inflated the costs of their migration to put a negative spin on the project:

    A team of just 25 people at Munich develop, roll out and provide final support for the Ubuntu-based LiMux client. A larger number of people look after the everyday administration of the city's PCs but far fewer than the 1,000 people cited in the Microsoft/HP report as implementing the LiMux project.

    Another hidden benefit is even if your project doesn't look like it'll pan out, if you make it high-profile enough you know you can use it to leverage a better contract with Microsoft if you decide to stick with Windows.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Incredible information about the logistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another hidden benefit is even if your project doesn't look like it'll pan out, if you make it high-profile enough you know you can use it to leverage a better contract with Microsoft if you decide to stick with Windows.

      THIS THIS THIS!

      Oh yes.

    2. Re:Incredible information about the logistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that blew me away is they had a much more advanced set of issues to deal with than a typical bureaucratic office would. The custom macros and apps isn't something that a normal company would be hung up on.

      You're quite wrong with that last bit. One of the big things sticking out is IE6 for exactly this reason -- custom activex. Another is lots and lots of vba glue in excel and other places. Certain companies are more or less made out of that.

      Also, don't forget they are big; this is the entire city bureaucrazy we're talking about. Lots of custom little temporary solutions cooked up over the years that then became entrenched are a fact of life and with these guys, they had that on top of twenty two IT organisations (each probably well larger than a single person) serving some 15k seats. So yeah.

      That, I suppose, is what a large part of the setback in time came from: Not just taking stock, but running into a lot more variety that needed to be dealt with properly. Now that they have done that, I would expect them to have a far more robust infrastructure and lots fewer hard-to-track-down subtle interop problems that come from all sorts of weird scriptery doing their oblivious little things.

      You can see it in the small core of toolsmiths that provide software solutions for the entire show. From what little I know, I think they did a bang-up job and I would've loved to've been part of building that out. Oh well. This thing they have ought to make disaster recovery that much easier too. I wonder if they've tested that.

    3. Re:Incredible information about the logistics by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The thing that blew me away is they had a much more advanced set of issues to deal with than a typical bureaucratic office would.

      The Ernie Ball company, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings that does $40m/year business, transitioned completely away from Microsoft and has almost no proprietary software after being attacked by the BSA. "I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses, We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly" its CEO Sterling Ball said, and added that the transition was a breeze. He says

      It's the funniest thing--we're using it for e-mail client/server,
      spreadsheets and word processing. It's like working in Windows. One of the analysts said it costs $1,250 per person to change over to open source. It wasn't anywhere near that for us. I'm reluctant to give actual numbers. I can give any number I want to support my position, and so can the other guy. But I'll tell you, I'm not paying any per-seat license. I'm not buying any new computers. When we need something, we have white box systems we put together ourselves. It doesn't need to be much of a system for most of what we do.

      But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you start adding up service, support, etc.

      What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever they want.

      The myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft.

      I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without Microsoft is a story.

      It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical.

  6. Subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words they made their decision based upon vague subjective factors - e.g. fear of loss of control rather than the objective criteria of saving money.

    1. Re:Subjective by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      Given past behaviour it seems a pretty objective fear. Same would apply to any project, proprietary or open source, that doesn't offer migration paths for data.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    2. Re:Subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The desire to save money is, however, subjective. Freedom is not "vague," however. If you use proprietary software, you're not the one in control.

    3. Re:Subjective by DMJC · · Score: 1

      Given windows 8's bad interface, I'd say they were right.

    4. Re:Subjective by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      The cloud is useful for two things and two things only:

      1. Additional offsite backup.
      2. Scalable processing.

      Office 365 can fuck right off.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Subjective by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      You can still use Windows 7 for a long time.

    6. Re:Subjective by tepples · · Score: 1

      That or use Classic Shell to give Windows 8 the important parts of Windows 7's interface.

    7. Re:Subjective by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Open source is not about saving money, is about having control, knowing what you run, modify it if you need, being the actual owner of your files and devices. Besides that, reality made their worst vague subjective fears into an objective nightmare.

    8. Re:Subjective by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You seem to have no clue how professional IT management is done...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Subjective by sjames · · Score: 1

      There's nothing subjective about it. Had you read TFA, you'd see that they spent a good bit of effort rooting out the vendor lock-in and killing it. It was obviously real.

      Then, to top it all off, they saved money. The fact that MS has cooked spreadsheets that claim otherwise (well cooked but the flaws are visible if you dig) shows that even the financial side can get fairly subjective.

    10. Re:Subjective by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Something being vague and subjective actually makes it MORE of a risk from a security and business continuity standpoint... Cost is well understood, and easy to assess the negatives of higher costs...
      Making your business dependent on something you have no control of is very dangerous, you need to be able to have as much control as possible, you need to know how your data is stored and you need to have an exit strategy - that is a plan in place should the existing infrastructure fail or need to be replaced for whatever reason. Using software controlled by a single supplier is a HUGE risk in this scenario, especially when YOUR data is stored in formats also controlled by that supplier and which are difficult to migrate to something else.

      What if your supplier goes bankrupt? What if they discontinue the product you depend on? What if they change the product in ways that are detrimental to your business? What if your supplier decides to expand into your area of business, becoming your competitor? What if they decide to increase prices? What if they stop supporting the version you currently use?

      All of these are risks which are outside of your control and difficult to manage, if you have the sourcecode under a suitably liberal license then the worst case is that you can maintain it yourself or pay someone else to do so. Wether you do or not depends on other factors such as the importance of the software/data, the size of your organisation, how many others are in the same boat and can pool resources etc but having the option available means that you are always better off than with proprietary software where you don't have these options at all.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Subjective by kermidge · · Score: 1

      No, actually not - they spent nigh five years analyzing the ever-loving shit out of all it - the 22 separate departments, the specialized VB macros in each department's use of Excel, the lack of easy exchange of documents withing the city government, the creaky and idiosyncratic nature of a hodge-podge of hardware from desktops to servers, and so on. It really helps to read TFA, btw.

      After, and all the while, looking at what they had, they focused on what they wanted to end up with - a government able to talk inter-departmentally, a supportable environment of existing hardware and new OS and office software with the rather obvious desire to get the job done, not just to have a neat project to play with. The accompanying theme was to have the freedom from licensing constraints, the flexibility to tailor everything to their needs, and the ability to support everything as much as reasonable in-house. Saving money, while certainly a consideration, was not the driver, but rather a pleasant consequence of good thinking put well into practice. The freedom of being in charge of their own IT infrastructure was not a trivial consideration.

      I say they did an admirable job of all of it. Heresy or no, the article is worthy of the reading.

  7. Re:Let me guess by livingboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For that reason I used to send my course work as pdfs. I used Libre Office or Google Docs for editing and converted final documents to pdf format.

    So MS Word couldn't change layout when document was opened by the teacher.

  8. reasons... by zlives · · Score: 1

    "He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail."

    so just to say FU MS?

    1. Re:reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail."

      so just to say FU MS?

      Yeah, that struck me as well. If the monetary reasons aren't there, MS will remain entrenched essentially forever.

    2. Re:reasons... by SargentDU · · Score: 4, Interesting

      @zlives ... No, for freedom, is how I read it. They had older machines that worked fine with Win2K but would not work well with XP or newer, so they decided to migrate to Linux for the freedom from having to do as their Computer Operating System Company demanded. This way, they could upgrade the hardware as they saw fit to upgrade.

    3. Re:reasons... by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree w/ him. It's important to do the right things for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.

      If one just talks money here, the costs involved in training people on FOSS alternatives would get incurred, and invariably be higher short term. The real selling point ought to be the shift of control from software vendors to consumers. In this case, since it's a government, it's somewhat easier, but the whole idea behind it is that companies - be it Microsoft, Apple or anyone else can't dictate version changes or upgrades. If it is FOSS, then the consumer becomes a de-facto owner and gets to decide when, if at all, they upgrade, what they upgrade, any training schedules thereby incurred and so on. In other words, they get to plan when to budget for changes in computing environments.

      Ultimately, the savings there are quantifiable at any point in time, but over time, the savings may not be there since one has to sometimes upgrade computing environments, whether it's on the schedule of an ISV or a consumer. That's why arguing about saving money is not a good approach. A better one is about shifting the control on any software transitions, and thereby budgeting schedules, from ISVs to consumers, thereby enabling them to plan better for it.

    4. Re:reasons... by powerpopolon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail."

      Note that he doesn't say migrating to FOSS doesn't save money in the end. What he says is that if your migration project gets accepted only on money saving grounds, since cost estimations are very subjective, at one point some Microsoft-friendly bureaucrat with sufficient political weight is going to come up with an Excel spreadsheet "proving" the FOSS migration doesn't save money, and then kill your project.

      so just to say FU MS?

      That's one way to put it. But then it was MS who told them "FU dear customer" first, as in "NT and Office 2000 are dead so now you must buy XP and 2003 and if you need new PCs to run them too bad for you. By the way if you want authentication to really work well you must buy AD servers to replace your current directory system". It's about you being the one who decides on your IT strategy instead of having your monopolistic software supplier telling you what to do. It looks like a reasonable reason to migrate. It was the primary reason they gave and it saved their project from being killed by bogus cost studies.

    5. Re:reasons... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      . If it is FOSS, then the consumer becomes a de-facto owner and gets to decide when, if at all, they upgrade, what they upgrade, any training schedules thereby incurred and so on. In other words, they get to plan when to budget for changes in computing environments.

      Now, that's a bit of an exaggeration there. If it's FOSS, AND you're in a large organization with lots of expensive manpower or lots of money that can manage their own versions of whatever software we're talking about, then sure, MAYBE you have that kind of control. In all reality, most people and organizations can't operate on their own schedule for FOSS upgrades because it is very likely that something will break if not updated properly. In reality, I'm happily running a 12 year old MS OS on all of my boxes with modern applications running on top of it. It would be impossible to run a 12 year old FOSS OS with modern applications.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:reasons... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bingo. I've see the same thing with companies using Quickbooks as their accounting software. When you're first starting out, you don't know much about running a business or business accounting, and Quickbooks is really tempting because it's easy to use and popular enough that all the CPAs out there are familiar with the reports it'll generate at tax time. So most small businesses start using Quickbooks.

      As they grow, some of the warts behind Quickbooks start to show up. You've started using it for your payroll, but Quickbook phases out payroll support after two years, forcing you to replace your perfectly functional version of QB with an expensive new version if you want your payroll to still work. The new version is frequently bloated enough that you also need to buy a new computer to run it. Eventually you say "Screw them, I'm just going to replace my accounting software." Then you discover that there is no way to extract your past accounting data from QB to import it into new software. It's your data, but you do not control it. QB does. They've trapped you in their ecosystem with forced bi-annual upgrades.

    7. Re:reasons... by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      I gathered from the article that the whole point was more, "Don't try to justify it in terms of savings or you will fail the second you hit a snag and it seems cheaper/easier to just go back than retrain anybody or do some research into some alternative you need."

    8. Re:reasons... by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      Someday you'll discover the magic of virtual machines.

      Every computer I've owned for the past 25 years, from an old MS-DOS 6 XT machine to a recent Scientific Linux build, are all running happily in VMs on my Gentoo workstation. With their applications intact, too. My last Windows box was a Windows 2000 machine, still happily running today as a VM.

      Your 12 year old MS OS is probably long past its expiration date and likely harvesting viruses like a tuna trawler if it's on the Internet. The combination of FOSS and VMs frees me from the planned obsolescence of a MS OS and their modern desire to report in to Redmond on a regular basis.

    9. Re:reasons... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Aside from virtual machines that ShoulderOfOrion mentioned, 12 year old FOSS can be run, if the source codes are available. And whoever said that everything has to be upgraded? If something like, say LO, works for one @ version x, why would there be the need to update to version x+n? Just keep applying security patches where needed, and keep running. Also, what you mention is more of a Linux drawback - FreeBSD/PC-BSD, which doesn't deprecate compatibility or features, wouldn't have that issue.

      The 12 year old MS OS that you are referring to hits an expiry date sometime next year, after which there are no more bug fixes, and even anti-virus availability would be questionable. Modern applications - particularly 64-bit ones - won't run on them.

    10. Re:reasons... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      How good is GNU Cash at this point?

    11. Re:reasons... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      That doesn't fix the problem that I was describing. Gentoo needs to be perpetually updated, as well, actually *increasing* the complexity and headache and expertise required to get stuff done.

      No, the 12 year old MS OS is still working just fine. Of course, I'll be forced to update all of my systems soon, but once every 12 years or so is more than reasonable, and I don't consider a once-every-12-years upgrade cycle to be burdensome at all.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    12. Re:reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am trying to figure out how would some one justify the ROI when it takes 9 years to implement something that won't save money...

    13. Re:reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so just to say FU MS?

      That's exactly what Sterling Ball did when the BSA raided the Ernie Ball guitar string factory. "I refuse to do business with someone who treats me badly," he said.

  9. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering they've been on OOO for 5 years... doubtful.

  10. "always likely to fail" by toygeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    Which is it? "Always" or "Likely"?

    Pairing those two words together like that is always likely a mistake.

    1. Re:"always likely to fail" by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Always likely.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:"always likely to fail" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize he isn't a native English speaker, don't you.

    3. Re:"always likely to fail" by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      If I drop a rock, it's always likely to fall to the Earth based on past observations.

      However, in the event of Really Unusual Circumstances, it could go up. We can't conclusively say things will never go up, but we've seen a large enough sample to indicate that it most likely probably will travel down. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:"always likely to fail" by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or, instead of attempting grammar pedantry, we can realize that he's saying there is no case in which this approach has a probable outcome of success. That is, all cases are likely to fail - this approach always likely to fail, no matter the situation.

      Whether you agree with this assessment is another issue.

    5. Re:"always likely to fail" by sjames · · Score: 1

      If I am holding something and suddenly let go, it is always likely to fall. However, if an astronaut lets go, it is only sometimes likely to fall. The rest of the time, he is in zero G.

    6. Re:"always likely to fail" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I roll a fair die, the result is always likely to be less than six.

    7. Re:"always likely to fail" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this context, it's likely never a mistake.
      We're observing a two-step construction: every time (always) I do this, the result will probably (likely) be that. I don't see a mistake.

  11. Breaking the chains by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that everyone (except MS) are extremely happy to break the chains of monitoring licenses and making sure that their accounts are paid up etc.

    If I were the CFO of a company I would love to answer the call from some MSDN "certified" bunch of losers call wondering where their renewal check is and I could then tell them that they can go to hell.

    But now in these post Snowden times I would be extremely wary of any corporate data where a Microsoft OS has access to my data. How much state sponsored corporate espionage has been taking place with the cooperation of MS? None, Some, Tonnes?

    Any foreign company competing with politically connected US corporations on billion dollar deals should take a long hard look at any US based OS and think, "Might the US government be grabbing my data in their National Interest?"

    In some countries Cisco has been seeing huge drops in sales. I suspect that there is much more of this to come as it can be hard for a huge company to just throw their network gear out the window and replace it at the drop of a hat. But I also suspect that directives have been issued that all US gear is to be gone ASAP.

    1. Re:Breaking the chains by Curupira · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Replying to undo a wrong moderation (tried to mod +1 insightful, accidentally clicked on -1 redundant). In a related note: WHY, Slashdot? Why do you still don't have an easy undo button for 10 lousy seconds?

    2. Re:Breaking the chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WHY, Slashdot? Why do you still don't have an easy undo button for 10 lousy seconds?

      Why can't the editors spot dupes? Why can't they spell? Why can't Slashdot support unicode?

    3. Re:Breaking the chains by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not like there were people _busted_ for trying to subvert Linux and likely people who weren't caught. Linux is _totally_ secure dude - trust me!

    4. Re:Breaking the chains by blackiner · · Score: 2

      The difference is that you have the Freedom to find and fix any flaws in Linux.

    5. Re:Breaking the chains by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I knew the Snowden impact was going to be huge -- not because suddenly politicians would be activated because people "woke up" -- but because medium-sized companies will suspect either rightly or wrongly that "hey, maybe some of that spying affected us in a trade negotiation or lost technology?" The politicians care now, because the MONEY cares.

      And then you will see US corporations care about security like the auto company cares about Gas Mileage; they have no choice. Either show you are secure and you stand up to NSA or you don't get the sale.

      NOW it matters. Some fat cat might lose a chunk out of their wallet -- and there will be outrage!

      The damage won't be to US security -- but the economic damage will be in the tens of billions of dollars of lost sales.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    6. Re:Breaking the chains by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. Complete rubbish. Good luck with the army of $200k/yr math/CS geniuses you'd need to go over every line of code. And you can get the source to Windows and do the same.

      Unless you are a large corporation or a government you do not have the resources to do much but install it from some repository "somewhere" and hope nobody hacks you. And even 99% of governments or large corporations don't sit there and go over even a moderate percent of the code to confirm it's secure. Sure you can harden it considerably but ultimately there could be 50 obscure holes, intentional or not.

    7. Re:Breaking the chains by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I had mod points yesterday, but now I don't.

      I did not use them responsibly and they went away.

      I suggest all of you urge the Slashdot to give you your money back.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:Breaking the chains by blackiner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are entirely missing the point. You do not have the Windows source (sure, SOME people can get this, most cannot), and even if you did have it you wouldn't be able to build or distribute it. You are entirely at Microsoft's whim, and they are legally bound to comply with the US government. You seem to think a complex black box built by people at the governments whims, without any ability to fix the internals if something is wrong is somehow more secure than a complex transparent box that allows you to fix the internals.

    9. Re:Breaking the chains by clovis · · Score: 2

      And you can get the source to Windows and do the same.

      Are you talking about this? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
      I'm not sure what you meant by "you can get the source", but it does not apply to this reader nor hardly anyone else on Slashdot. Does your statement depend on some unusual definition of "you" or "can get"?

      However I have had a copy of various variants of Linux's code since near the beginning as well as the compiler's code and apps, and I've read most of it as have many, many people. I doubt there's a need for an "army of $200K math/cs geniuses".

      However, your point about the security of the repository is important as repositories have indeed been hacked in the past, and I can't claim that all attacks were discovered.

    10. Re:Breaking the chains by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      And when will beta.slashdot.org be rolled out?

    11. Re:Breaking the chains by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good point, but I think for US corporations demonstrating good IT security is no longer sufficient. Now that it is common knowledge that the NSA can, and sometimes will, show up with a "national security letter" and demand customer data, nothing short of a change in US law will repair the lost trust.

      Because laws under which US companies can legally refuse to cooperate with US intelligence services will be needed to exclude the scenario that said intelligence services simply compel delivery of the data.

      I guess the combined industry lobby will eventually be able to get those changes, but in the meantime the economic damage will be unavoidable even for US corporations that are otherwise good at security.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    12. Re:Breaking the chains by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      Totally secure? That's a bit strong. It is, however, fair to say that subversive code in Linux is far more likely to be spotted by someone not employed by an NSA collaborator than in MS.

    13. Re:Breaking the chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never, I hope

    14. Re:Breaking the chains by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      Just because open source devs seems smarter, doesn't meant they're paid any better. Hell, I'll bet they're typically paid less. A consequence of actually enjoying the work and not having to work as late perhaps.

    15. Re:Breaking the chains by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      When will beta have an option to go to a parent post ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    16. Re:Breaking the chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen personally a case where a foreign government chose LibreOffice over Microsoft because of the Snowden effect. Right, wrong, misinformed, paranoid, or wise, it has an effect.

  12. Re:Let me guess by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Funny

    They will shit their pants when they see the open office suite completely messing the layout of the documents.

    If it takes nearly a decade, they must be pretty constipated.

  13. Our public transportation never got the memo by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 2

    Tens of millions spent on new screens which provide less information than the old flippy-type info on upcoming and incoming trains/subways and they're down all the fucking time. ALL the time. Usually with the typical NT error message in a grey box on a blue screen. Or there's a dump and some module names.

  14. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're German, they didn't vote for Obama, and they've had a universal healthcare system for decades longer than Obama has been alive.

  15. Re:Let me guess by Charliemopps · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lol, the fact that you're still using ANY office suit tells us how out of touch you are. Word and Excel documents are dead...

  16. Re:Let me guess by Amouth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you are thinking about the Exchange server filesystem api. for exchange server 2003 and performance reasons exchange would replace the file system io with a special customized for exchange version. A few competitors complained that this was unfair, i think the final verdict was if they wanted "fair" they where free to write their own drop in replacement for the filesystem i/o

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  17. Re:Let me guess by mlts · · Score: 2

    That is my question... how does a large organization like a German city function without Exchange or being beholden to a SaaS for E-mail and other items? Some larger organizations (IBM) have their own infrastructure, but for a lot of things, Exchange is the only game in town once a place expands beyond what a single mail server can handle.

    Is there a reputable F/OSS utility that is a drop-in replacement for Exchange (especially with dealing with multiple mail databases and e-Discovery rules) that has "earned its bones" in the enterprise? I've read about a few, but after a few months, they seem to drop off the planet, or get very poor reviews.

  18. Re:Let me guess by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    There were patches scattered throughout the Windows 2000 source code leak, all with comments along the lines of "Putting this in for the Office team". That was one of the big discussions around here back in the day when that story broke.

    The GP is probably taking it to far saying they were doing it for deliberate competitive advantage -- all of the comments that I read sounded like standard bug-fixes -- but it's hard to dispute that Microsoft obviously has an advantage over Libre Office when trying to track down bugs in the O/S that cause problems with the office suite.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  19. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "They will shit their pants when they see the microsoft office suite completely messing the layout of the documents."

    -FTFY

  20. Re:Let me guess by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Lol, oh teh noes! A company optimized its own software for..it's own software. Quick, call Brussels!

  21. Money v. Freedom by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The project leader talks about why the shift was primarily about freedom, ... He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail.

    I think that is the core difficulty in advancing the use of F/LOSS (in the US at least). We are so culturally indoctrinated to see money, and the single-minded pursuit of it, as the measure of success that it is institutionally difficult to grasp sacrificing money in the short run for freedom; regardless of the impact on our bottom line, society, or the larger economy in the long run. The American mindset believes freedom is good in theory, but fails to see that economic success is coupled to choosing freedom -- in a broader sense than the freedom to screw your putative customers -- over short-run revenue.

    Wow, those are some seriously run-on sentences. Bite me, ... ummm, Sklansky and Malmuth? ... Case and Shiller? ... Black and Scholes? ... Ah, yes, I remember! Strunk and White! That's it. What was I talking about?

    1. Re:Money v. Freedom by melikamp · · Score: 1

      From my anecdotal observations, it has been a long-standing effort in the free software community to de-emphasize the monetary impact and to bring to the front the political impact. While I don't consider it a mistake, I also think that there is absolutely no shame in bringing economic factors into view.

      The final test would be to do an actual TCO study, which is very hard to do, given that most programs are just too different in their free and non-free incarnations. For example, libreoffice is not a free version of M$ Office: it has different features, different requirements, different compatibility relation with other software, and different uses. On the organizational level we find that a typical company uses many pieces of software, some of them free and others non-free, and they all work with each other in some way, and none can be easily swapped out with a free or non-free alternative.

      All of these issues can be overcome, however, and in the meanwhile, it is easy to argue that we should expect free software to be cheaper (in TCO terms) than non-free software.

      The development should come out to be cheaper, feature for feature. There are many ways in which the cost of developing non-free software balloons with no benefit to the users.

      First, non-free software vendors are constantly tempted to develop "anti-features" (they call them features, of course, but they are basically malware). The most successful of them do it with probability close to 100%. They have teams of people dedicated to reducing functionality (for example, tiered OS offerings), breaking compatibility (even with their own older software) to force upgrade, and inserting spyware. Last but not least, they have people whose only purpose is to make software "sexy", so that it can be sold to chaps, even though it is stuffed with malware. Enter graphical interface over-design and marketing expenses. All of this takes real money out of the development budget, and sooner or later the costs are passed on to the users.

      Second, they treat the source code as a trade secret, and consequently have to spend money to provide a fitting level of security, starting with physical access to the production hardware, and ending with checking one's credentials every time the code is accessed. As non-free software projects get bigger, they have to take the trust factor into account, so they prevent most programmers from accessing most of the code. They introduce even more expensive access control at this point, and most of their programmers are less efficient than they could have been, because they are prevented from understanding how the software works. And the debugging has to be done in the house: unlike free software projects, they are unable to crowd-source it, which would allow to shift some of the cost onto the early adopters and volunteers.

      Third, we don't have to limit ourselves to just the direct cost of developing the software. What about the cost of educating the very programmers who develop the software? These people expect to be paid enough to match the investment they've made into education, so reducing the cost of educating programmers should lower the TCO as well. The impact is hard to quantify here, but I am willing to bet that making people understand how a free OS works (understand it enough to write great software for it) is cheaper than making them understand how a non-free OS works. Why would we expect anything else when non-free vendors spend money to prevent free education? As the guardians of the trade secrets, they have the de facto monopoly on "teaching" people how to write around their dumb OS. So we should expect them to charge the monopoly prices. Compare it with a free OS situation, where you can go to the free market and find thousands upon thousands of people who understand how a free OS works, all in competition for your educational dollar.

      Want a feature added? Why would you expect a monopolist developer to do it cheaper?

      Want to transition away from a piece of softwa

    2. Re:Money v. Freedom by Pherdnut · · Score: 2

      All non-free software is a rip-off and a scam, and I am convinced we should be able to prove it.

      I agree with the majority of your post but I've always had an issue when people take it to this extreme. Is it maybe reasonable for a game developer to not give anybody and everybody permission to distribute their single-player PC-only game whose design assets alone cost millions to create? Is it even responsible to distribute the source of a web app that handles confidential user information? Is anybody who works for a non-free software company collaborating in a scam?

      The Free Software Foundation kicks ass but if all the software of the world was free (yes I mean not as in beer but there is no real distinction for certain types of apps) there'd be little motivation for a lot specific types of software to have been made at the level of quality we've enjoyed in the first place.

      Software isn't always just code. It's often composed of intellectual properties and other concerns that can't be protected if distributed freely. Actors like getting royalties for having their likenesses spread all over creation. Artists don't like having their distinctive works appropriated without being credited.

      And what is a web-site but an app that's being distributed from one source only?

      Coming from a web background, the idea of building a non-Free app using Free tools doesn't bother me one wit as long as you give back by contributing useful tools you developed in the process or giving feedback/support on the ones you used.

      IMO, free and non-free apps are just a part of the same ecosystem. An Office Suite that let you rapidly port data for use in its various apps would have been a loonnnng time coming originating as an open-source endeavor. But there was serious money to be made there, which is a great motivator to find a way to get multiple teams on very different projects to learn to play nice together. This is not something open source communities collaborating between projects are necessarily famous for.

      But as an alternative, a free version of an office suite also happened a lot sooner because MS has been a total douchebag about its software by turning interoperability into handcuffs. As long as OO has any kind of marketshare MS can only take the douchebaggery so far and I'd argue that free software has already directly and indirectly pushed them to make some positive changes. Everybody wins. As free tools and communities mature, non-free vendors will be forced to respond in kind and I suspect we'll all continue to win even more.

      So don't see it as an adversarial thing. It's a relationship. A really fucked up dysfunctional one but that happens to produce a decent kid mostly by accident.

    3. Re:Money v. Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom is also freedom to choose Windows over Linux. And this projects is everything else but "freedom" it forces closed source LiMux upon users throats. Where is freedom in that?

    4. Re:Money v. Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue about money is that proprietors can easily promote gratis versions of their software as bait to get users addicted to the system. Investing money into developing a partially functional free software may cost a premium amount of money. Training users to use free software may also cost a premium amount of money. In the short term, using a fully functional proprietary software program can very well be cheaper than the short term costs of bringing in a free software system into a business. Why is this important? Many businesses are too short sighted to see that the cost of free software and freedom is too high and that they're all familiar with the proprietary software system. They don't care about the freedom to modify their software because they are taught the one and only way to software: the proprietor controls the software and if you don't like it, it's too bad.

      This is why we do not promote the cost of free software. It could very well cost nothing because nobody pays for the cost of the license. It could very well be expensive as the cost of software development and user training would be expensive. Instead, we promote freedom: the freedom to control the software and the freedom to distribute the software implicitly.

    5. Re:Money v. Freedom by melikamp · · Score: 1

      I do not believe I am taking it to the extreme. Software vendors that sell us cat in a bag are the ones taking it to the extreme--in their case, of douchebaggery.

      Is it maybe reasonable for a game developer to not give anybody and everybody permission to distribute their single-player PC-only game whose design assets alone cost millions to create?

      Notice that my argument above is not concerned with art in general, but since you bring it up, let me tear into that. You are talking about a game, and I'll assume that it's a work designed for pure entertainment. (An educational game, even when it includes expensive art, can and should be developed on taxpayer money, and should be free because all education should be free (as in freedom).) And with this kind of art, we have a major difference from the software as usually understood: its value is entirely subjective, and if it is not available, then any other kind of art can be used to duplicate its function, which is to merely entertain. Forget art even. One can pet a cat or stare into the fire or smoke something, and be just as entertained as by any video game out there. So what you seem to be saying is, let's give everyone censorship powers, so that they can sell them to capitalists in mass, so that capitalists can sue anyone who dares to compete with them in the market, all of that just so that we can have a CERTAIN KIND of entertainment? Like $50 million movies and games, I mean? IMHO, this is a TERRIBLE deal for us, both as consumers and as citizens. It is not even clear that big-budget titles would disappear in the absence of copyright. Some game designers are already collecting donations for non-free games, and are successful. If anything, people would be more willing to support a free project, so I fail to see what we have to gain by keeping up the censorship and the intellectual monopolies that come with it.

      Actors like getting royalties for having their likenesses spread all over creation.

      Um... Professional actors who want to monetize notoriety should be happy every time people talk about them, let alone share clips of them to get their friends addicted as well. The more famous and well-known they are, the more opportunity they have to make a buck. They absolutely do not need any censorship powers.

      Artists don't like having their distinctive works appropriated without being credited.

      Here I agree wholeheartedly: everyone should have the right to be credited appropriately. This is the only restriction a copyright law should be able to enforce. If the only requirement for re-distribution of a creative work is to provide a correct credit, then it cannot be considered censorship for any practical purposes. This right, I think, should be protected about as much as the current copyright lasts: lifetime and a half of the author or so. All other restrictions on re-distribution have to go. To say it in a different way, the only license a copyright should be able to enforce is the BSD-like license. Copyleft wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't be needed either, as it's basically just a middle finger for the scammers who would build on free software, but refuse to share. Copyleft serves its purpose well, but educating the consumers about the nasty nature of non-free software to the point where they start boycotting it for rational and/or selfish reasons would work even better.

  22. Re:Let me guess by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

    Sure they are, there Johnny Future. You are truly "Guy who tells everyone how out of touch they are for 'still' using things that _everyone_ still uses."

    Let me guess, those losers using PC's are so out of touch for still using them. Oh, and car drivers? Pfft, why I just saw a flying car prototype so you're totally a 1930's loser if you still drive cars maaaan!

  23. Re:Let me guess by wumbler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many years ago - maybe in 1995 or 1996 - I worked on a team that wrote a load balancing software. We did some in-depth performance measurements of a few web servers, which also included web servers running on Windows NT. We finally also wrote our own little test server. We concluded in our tests that the listen-queue length on NT could only be set to a certain maximum amount (maybe 5, or so) by anyone using the official socket API that was available. However, magically, Microsoft's own web server (IIS) was able to utilize a longer listen queue.

    Clearly, Microsoft is not beyond using secret APIs to ensure a competitive advantage for their own software.

  24. People act as if this is optional by dtjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The comments here are about the difficulty, the expense, the problems with user acceptance, etc. All of those imply that this sort of change is somehow and optional thing that they can choose to do...or not. In actuality, however, this change is both mandatory and inevitable...and only a matter of time. Maybe next year, maybe in 5 years, or maybe in 10 years but every single enterprise will eventually be forced to make this switch as Microsoft evolves and changes ('implodes' is the word that comes to mind) as it tries to maintain growth and earnings while trying to continue selling the same thing to the same places that already have purchased more than they will ever need.

  25. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You mean MS Word messes up the layout of nice documents made by the LibreOffice standard ? Shouldn't you dump MS Word then ? Can you really work with a company that messes up standardized documents ? Are they idiots or what ? Too much rain in Redmond or something ?

  26. Re:Let me guess by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kerio Connect is pretty good.
    The webmail interface is far Superior to Exchange web.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  27. Re:Let me guess by Amouth · · Score: 2

    I've only found a few with the same functionality as exchange, and i can say that they are not free. while they have "community" versions, to get full exchange functionality you end up having to pay licencing fees to access and use it, and in the end it is borderline cost effective vs exchange. (yes the licenses are cheaper but support and experienced techs aren't)

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  28. Re:Let me guess by jones_supa · · Score: 0

    No, I just happen to live in the real world.

  29. Re:Let me guess by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exchange may, to the end user, do what it does well, but i can tell you right now the Exchange 2010 server I just installed is likely to be the last one. What a fucking nightmare. I'm so tired of installing groupware that is nothing more than a badly stitched together bunch of spare parts where every solution to a problem seems to involve uninstalling and reinstalling IIS, and praying to the Web Server Gods that your partially malfunctioning mail server doesn't completely crap out. Everything about Exchange is fucking awful, and if there are any Redmond engineers or programmers reading this, all I can say to you is that I hope you die of awful awful diseases.

    It's fucking ludicrous how bad Exchange is, how resource hungry it can be, and how simple fucking things like setting up a fucking mailing list or putting in some decent anti-spam tech (which doesn't amount to a rolled up version of SpamAssassin with some proprietary web pages and costs a bazillion dollars a seat) turns into a fucking nightmare. Fuck I hate Exchange. Hate it... hate it... hate it... hate it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  30. Re: Let me guess by simplexion · · Score: 1

    VMware Zimbra

  31. Re:Let me guess by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Oh, so we should all just throw our hands up and give up? Because the establishment doesn't have room for us?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  32. Re:Let me guess by slugstone · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points. :-)

  33. Re:Let me guess by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Of course not. I certainly didn't mean it that way.

  34. So they didn't save money? by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "He also warns against organizations justifying the shift to open source software on the grounds that it will save money, arguing this approach is always likely to fail."

    In my town we had a Linux "advocate" that insisted we should ditch MS and Apple for Linux to save "millions per year" in our local school district (our entire IT budget was less than $3M/year) - he felt that by proving Linux ran on 10 year old hardware in his basement, that meant we could use 10 year old hardware in the classroom...

    His argument found no traction with anyone, he felt (among other things) that there was no need for central management of 1,500 desktops & laptops, that our robust networking infrastructure could be replaced by unmanaged switches, and our seven campus WiFi network could be served with an infinite number of $40 routers flashed with WRT, etc.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:So they didn't save money? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the "I do this at home in my hobby time, and this is what I know, so therefore it must scale perfectly and infinitely and be applicable to all problems" crowd.

      When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

    2. Re:So they didn't save money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But people who have at least done things at home know a lot better than clueless managers and bean counters.

    3. Re:So they didn't save money? by Pav · · Score: 1

      If the skills aren't there to do this and/or your users don't have the support... well, don't go there. Still, Linux is already in schools (at the very least in large printers, SANs and other devices, not to mention cloud stuff) so things are moving that way even if it gets outsourced from under school I.T.

    4. Re:So they didn't save money? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually they did save money. What they said is that you can't make that the leading justification for the switch because sooner or later monkey boy or his minion will show up with a well cooked spreadsheet that appears to show that you won't save money (this year).

      As for the guy in your town, he sounds like a kook. Linux probably could have been a win there, but not under his direction. Inexpensive APs running linux can certainly be a win, but for just a bit more than the WRTs you could get a better platform with a high quality radio and enough CPU to do some real network monitoring/management.

      I can't imagine why he thought replacing perfecvtly good managed switches with cheap unmanaged ones could save money at all, much less that it was acceptable from a network stability standpoint.

  35. Re:Let me guess by fritsd · · Score: 1

    If you're scared about the correct layout of your documents, why don't you try out some test documents first, or push your own documents through the officeshots.org round-trip test suite? And be sure to complain if something doesn't render your correct ODF document properly.

    N.B. I have seen in the past that not all test engines are on-line all the time.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  36. This is how you switch to Linux in the workplace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Employees,

    We will be switching from Microsoft/Office to Linux and $FOSS_OFFICE. Whining about this change will not be tolerated. You must learn how to use the new system. Period. That is all there is to it. No complaining allowed.

    Sincerely,
    The person who can fire you

  37. past abuses may have also been a factor by clovis · · Score: 1
  38. Wishful thinking. by westlake · · Score: 2

    Maybe next year, maybe in 5 years, or maybe in 10 years but every single enterprise will eventually be forced to make this switch as Microsoft evolves and changes ('implodes' is the word that comes to mind) as it tries to maintain growth and earnings...

    Microsoft is doing extraordinarily well in the enterprise market and talk of an implosion is nonsense.

    Commercial Licensing revenue was $9.594 billion, with a gross margin of $8.801 billion. This is growth of 7 percent and 8 percent, respectively. SharePoint, Exchange, and Lync all achieved double digits growth, and multi-year licensing revenue was up 8 percent.

    Commercial Other revenue was $1.603 billion and had a gross margin of $0.275 billion, growing by 28 percent and 161 percent, respectively. Cloud revenue was up by 103 percent, with both Office 365 seats and Azure customs both increasing by triple digits. Two thirds of Dynamics CRM customers are now opting for cloud deployments.

    Windows Division notional revenue is up 4 percent at $4.581 billion, but operating income is down 20 percent at $2.242 billion. This shows just how significant the impact of the decline of the PC market is, as well Microsoft's continued failure to capture any significant share of the tablet market.

    Server and Tools revenue was up 11 percent to $5.052 billion, and operating income was up 17 percent to $2.026 billion. In contrast to the Windows Division results, this shows the much greater resilience of the purely enterprise-focused offerings.

    Microsoft posts record Q1 revenue, increased operating income: Windows OEM revenue sharply down, but enterprise sales buoyant.

    1. Re:Wishful thinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And the fees to the customer have risen by 15%-50%.

      Think they will continue to tolerate such crap?

  39. Nine Years? by tgd · · Score: 0

    Hope someone lost their job over that ...

    No matter what technical solution you end up with, if it takes you nine years to switch to a new platform, you can be pretty damn certain where you ended up isn't where you want to be or should be.

    1. Re:Nine Years? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Hope someone lost their job over that ...

      No matter what technical solution you end up with, if it takes you nine years to switch to a new platform, you can be pretty damn certain where you ended up isn't where you want to be or should be.

      Yeah. Whoever tied them into a Microsoft contract that took nine years to escape from should be fired, pilloried, drawn and quartered, staked out on a fire ant hill, etc.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    2. Re:Nine Years? by tibit · · Score: 2

      This was a planned process and it took time for a reason. They did this slowly but surely. That's the only way to do it without blowing your budget many times over. I hope you recall that big software rewrites almost universally fail. This is a big infrastructure rewrite, it'd fail too if it were done in a "let's just rip it all at once" fashion. It's the same reason you need to be wary of many a company that grows too fast - usually it's internals can't keep up, and it'll eventually fail. Many companies failed just for not artificially limiting their growth. Southwest Airlines is a shining example that sometimes just artificially clipping your growth at 8% annually is a good thing to do :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  40. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I get the frustration but if you have ever designed an API which can be used by thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of developers with different level of competence, you would think very carefully about this number. While I am not a fan of Microsoft (I do not own a single computer running a Microsoft OS and I have quite a few computers) , I feel confident saying that the quality of developers building their IIS core was certainly way better than an average developer found in the wild. I can easily think of another criticism if they did allow higher numbers - that they do not know how to design public APIs for use by typical developers.

  41. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That healthcare must not be very good, you clearly need treatment. You seem to confuse a European country's choosing to use FOSS with the United States choosing to use socialized medicine.

  42. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I put it as a requirement that students submit in pdf.
    I don't want to spend time trying to figure out what version of whatever they used to make it.
    And the students can use whatever they want: word, libre office, latex, notepad, whatever.

  43. Re:Let me guess by Talderas · · Score: 1

    I know. It's like my company over over 2000 users isn't going through and migrating to Exchange 2010 and Office 2010. It's not like we had constant problems with receiving emails with winmail.dat files until we upgraded from Thunderbird to Outlook. It's not like our customers and vendors are constantly sending us .docx files.

    Hell the entire sector my company is involved with must be ass backwards.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  44. Don't hold back by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tell us how you REALLY feel about Exchange. We can take it.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:Don't hold back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's absofuckinglutely right. Microsoft turned Exchange into a flaming piece of shit with Exchange 2010. Microsoft did everything possible to over-complicate and obfuscate administration of Exchange with 2010, other than put a Windows 8-like interface on it. What you can't get to in the GUI, they put in that command line powershell POS that was made by someone who never used DOS or Unix and only knew Visual Basic. I hope to never upgrade or install another Exchange server. Unfortunately the only viable solution is probably to migrate to Office 365 which Microsoft is still figuring out how to package and price correctly. And before anyone mentions Gmail or Google Apps or whatever the hell they're calling it this week, no, please, just STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.

    2. Re:Don't hold back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before anyone mentions Gmail or Google Apps or whatever the hell they're calling it this week, no, please, just STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.

      Translation: We're so far up Microsoft's ass that the only way we get any fresh air is when Ballmer farts.

  45. Re:Let me guess by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Sucks for you, but as an end user paying for Exchange, it's most certainly worth it. Exchange ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  46. Re:Let me guess by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For that reason I used to send my course work as pdfs. I used Libre Office or Google Docs for editing and converted final documents to pdf format.

    So MS Word couldn't change layout when document was opened by the teacher.

    This whole "Nothing else formats like Genuine Microsoft" thing is pure garbage.

    I have never depended on a word processor to maintain constant pixel-by-pixel formatting. That's not what they're for. The only reason that Word documents don't routinely re-arrange themselves (the way they used to) every time you transport a document to a machine with a different printer/set of fonts is because virtually all word processing today is done with a standard set of scalable fonts. Word itself, like many other GUI apps that handle formatted text delegates a lot of the raw typesetting to the video card and the selected printer driver. When most fonts were hardware fonts, that meant some serious re-arranging was commonplace.

    If you want precise placement of text, don't use a word processor, use a page layout program. And create a PDF.

    And if you want basic formatting to be preserved but pixel-precise isn't important, don't use a word processor like it's a typewriter and jam in manual spaces and carriage returns by dumb brute force, use styles. No, it won't be as immutable as PDF, but at least what re-arranging does happen won't look like crap.

  47. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still better than Lotus Notes.

  48. Until microsoft decides to make it "not work". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With some minor "security" patch.

    1. Re:Until microsoft decides to make it "not work". by tepples · · Score: 1

      Microsoft didn't feel a need to issue such a "security" patch for desktop Windows 8, so why would it issue such a patch for desktop Windows 8.1?

  49. You can't get the source to windows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not without LOTS of money first.

    Even then, you cannot rebuild it to see if it is actually the same code that is in use on the system.

    So access to the code is useless for verification.

  50. Re:This is how you switch to Linux in the workplac by plopez · · Score: 1

    Dear Employees,

    We will be switching from Windows 7 to Windows 8. Whining about this change will not be tolerated. You must learn how to use the new system. Period. That is all there is to it. No complaining allowed.

    Sincerely,
    The person who can fire you

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  51. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is getting a paycheck in your imaginary Office Suite lacking world. You come talk to us when you start paying taxes(i.e. have a job), mmmkay?

  52. Kubuntu by JRiddell · · Score: 1

    This is one of the major rollouts of Kubuntu and it's lovely they are working with us Kubuntu developers. We have a bug squashing party in the offices of the company incharge of this at the weekend which is a great way to work together.

  53. Re:This is how you switch to Linux in the workplac by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    Dear Employees, We will be sticking with Windows XP and IE 6. Whining about this change will not be tolerated. You must learn how to tolerate this ancient system. Period. That is all there is to it. No complaining allowed. Sincerely, The person who can fire you

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  54. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Postfix. It is what serious organisations use.

  55. Re:This is how you switch to Linux in the workplac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Boss,

    You can take this job and shove it! No whining will be tolerated. You will have to make do without my expertise. Period. That is all there is to it. No complaining allowed.

    Sincerely,
    Your ex-employee

    [See that sounds just as idiotic as your comment. In truth we need each other. Though if you are going to be a jerk, I will find somewhere else to work. And because I am one of your better employees, good luck in trying to get by with those who have nowhere else to land.]

  56. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does paying taxes involve using an office suite?

  57. Re:Let me guess by bmajik · · Score: 1, Informative

    I cannot speak to the specific issue you mention for at least three reasons

    1) i'm not authorized to talk about it
    2) I am not technically familiar with those parts of those products
    3) I wasn't at MS yet back in 95/96

    That said, what I can tell you _now_ is that product engineering groups spend effort on complying with previous court rulings that limit our usage of APIs that aren't publicly disclosed. The specifics depend on the products and product versions in question.

    As far as how my product (Visual Studio LightSwitch) is impacted directly; as part of our release process we run some tooling that makes sure our code isn't calling APIs its not supposed to be calling.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  58. Re:Let me guess by Sique · · Score: 2

    Sometimes it helps to wonder for a moment, if you really need Exchange functionality, or if this is just a) overkill and b) forcing the organisation in a direction you didn't intend anyway.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  59. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You admire the East German health system?

  60. 9 Years Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has it already been 9 years?

    I wonder how the city of Largo Florida is doing these days?

  61. Even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you go to a library in Munich there are good chances that you will find a CD on the counter. It's properly branded to the colors of the city and labeled "Linux für München". Ubuntu 12.04 Ihr Open Source Betriebssytsem (Your open source OS). It comes with a leaflet explaining the why open source is an alternative (open code, security, working on old computers, free) and why the city bets on open source (the LiMux project). Here's a picture: http://bit.ly/HXTODz

    I find it very intelligent from the city to promote free tools to empower its citizens. An example to follow.

    PS: I took the CD because I wanted to post this somewhere for people to know how far Munich has gone with open source. Thanks to /. and TechRepublic for giving me teh perfect opportunity.

    1. Re:Even better by hughk · · Score: 1

      They should give it to one of Munich's biggest banks which is having a nightmare transitioning between Win XP and Win 7.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  62. Re:Let me guess by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    I feel confident saying that the quality of developers building their IIS core was certainly way better than an average developer found in the wild.

    Why is it a pile of shit, then?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  63. Re:Let me guess by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    And if you want basic formatting to be preserved but pixel-precise isn't important, don't use a word processor like it's a typewriter and jam in manual spaces and carriage returns by dumb brute force, use styles.

    As someone who was never taught to use a word processor properly, I used to do the former. It would fuck up even between different versions MS Office.

    I started doing the latter and it still fucks up between different versions of MS Office.

    I will admit that it fucks up slightly less than it does to/from OO.org, but not by much.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  64. Re:Let me guess by tibit · · Score: 2

    Word itself, like many other GUI apps that handle formatted text delegates a lot of the raw typesetting to the video card and the selected printer driver.

    It's amusing that you speak about it with such conviction yet it's all a fantasy, no less. Man, where did you get this "insight" from? Lest anyone be confused about it: fuck no .

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  65. Re:Let me guess by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Lol, the fact that you're still using ANY office suit tells us how out of touch you are.

    Oooh look at him, in his skinny jeans and his t-shirt with an 80's band that nobody had heard of even back then.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  66. Re:Let me guess by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    When you do this thing called "having a job" it often involves both of them.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  67. Hande hoch, Tommy Englander pig-dog! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Oh, so we should all just throw our hands up and give up?

    Mentioned it once. Think I got away with it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  68. Info on the software stack by Pav · · Score: 1

    I've played a little with GOsa and its non-Munich fork FusionDirectory over the years which I believe is a major part of the infrastructure of this project. GOsa is the graphical front-end of the LDAP directory and extra RPC glue. Supported services are many, though personally I've used it to manage Samba, Cyrus IMAP, Postfix, SOGo (groupware), DNS, DHCP, rsyslog, Squid, OS installation via OPSI (for windows) and FAI (for Linux - though I don't have this bit working satisfactorally yet). There are many more plugins I've never touched. Has anyone else played with it? A community outside of Europe needs to be build around this stuff so that people can get some support - it has all the setup pain of your average enterprise software. I hang out in #fusiondirectory on FreeNode (ie. IRC chat), and I believe there is a #GOsa also. These channels keep to European working hours usually (which makes life difficult for an Australian like me).

  69. Re:Let me guess by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    In my organization, the initial answer would probably have been "No, we don't need it." Decent open source LDAP and calendar servers with discrete apps would have been fine. But Exchange was installed because it had been paid for as part of the Backoffice/Outlook suite, and it's like a drug. Once you've got it, you can't get rid of it, even if 75% of its features never really get utilized. I once raised the possibility of going back to discrete scheduling and email solutions, and the response was pretty negative. "You mean we wouldn't use Outlook, or Outlook wouldn't quite function like it does now?" And that was that.

    But I'm done. I'm one of the managing directors of the company now, and I've put my foot down. This is the last version of Exchange we'll install. We'll either go with something like Gmail or with a managed Exchange service when we look at the next upgrade cycle in five years. This is the last time I build and manage any kind of in-house email system.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  70. Re:Let me guess by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's fucking ludicrous how bad Exchange

    THIS!

    When the hell are those damn FOSS slowpokes going to get off their asses and write their own fucking ludicrous substitute for Exchange?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  71. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by Algae_94 · · Score: 0

    I have one question: Why did you bother posting such off topic comments on this thread? There is a mod specifically for "Off-Topic" so no one will even read your rants. Go find a forum where people will be receptive to your message. Just yelling at people about things doesn't bring them over to your side.

  72. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to win if you can cheat and get away with it.

    Microsoft is renowned for anticompetitive tactics and I think it was even caught using secret APIs to give its own software a competitive advantage on its system.

    Everybody does that, Apple with its private APIs in iOS and Google with its private APIs in Google Play Services. Sure it is deemed "ok" because they arent monopolies but as far as "computers" are concerned Microsoft doesnt have a monopoly there either.

  73. Re:Let me guess by hairyfish · · Score: 2

    Sounds like the problem exists between keyboard and chair. Not one piece of objective criticism in your post, just a fanboy rant about how you couldn't figure it out even though tens of thousands of others seem to having it working just fine. Exchange is the best of breed product in it's class, and most people with half a brain seem to get to work better than you. How you got modded +5 is beyond me. Oh that's right, this is Slashdot, incoherent MS bashing is standard fare here...

  74. Re:Let me guess by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I got modded +5 because I'm not a sociopathic Redmond shill, shill.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  75. Re:Let me guess by hairyfish · · Score: 1

    Out of touch with what? You and your mum's basement? When you grow up and get a job you just might realise how stupid you once were...

  76. Re:Let me guess by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    No, I just happen to live in the real world.

    So do I. We keep a copy of Office around. But once you move away from it to OO, OO becomes the standard, and MSO becomes the outlier.

    The real world is not required to lock into Microsoft forever, and no escape is possible. Oddball changes for change sake, file formatting issues that make Office incompatible with itself, and interplatform issues that break office Documents make OO so much more of a real standard than MSO ever was.

    The Microsoft Office Real World might just become a world of the past for many people and organizations. Already has for us.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  77. Re:Let me guess by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Aehm, they are using Open Office templates? Using MS Office "templates" with OpenOffice would be pretty stupid.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  78. Re:Let me guess by exomondo · · Score: 1

    Yeah and today is so yesterday, like, get with the times!

  79. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normally I would ask followup questions to understand your issue but the fact that your post contains nothing but an angry childish comment it seems quite obvious you're just incompetent or a fanboy who will bag out anything that isnt your preferred system. Either way you just stay angry and we'll just ignore irrelevant people like you.

  80. Re:Let me guess by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

    I had a look at the link that you gave, but couldn't see any mention about "Putting this in for the Office team" that was apparently one of the big discussions. I did manage to find this, but it doesn't really show a smoking gun for widespread collusion between the Windows and Office development teams, especially because they also mention of specific code for Borland, IBM, and Symantec in that article.

    I think that the use of a few vague comments in the Windows source code leak as proof of secret API calls in Office is about as undamning as the focussing on a few instances of terminology in the CRU email leaks when trying to prove climate change is all one big conspiracy. If all the allegations were true, I would have expected to see more specific evidence.

  81. Munich Supports their own distro... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How Lovely! I really question some of the statements in the article for how to run a large IT deployment. First off, let me just say I co-engineered a custom Linux distro for my last company that was deployed to over 70,000 end user devices in a major US retailer that helps them run tens of billions in sales each year. So 14,000 is not that big of a deal to actually deploy if you are good at developing the tools to do it. My problem with this is the statement of how "they support themselves with the help of the community". There is a reason you buy support contracts and use distros that have good upgrade mechanisms. A great example is Ubuntu Desktop. They really are the leader as far as it goes these days. If you ran a major deployment, you should consider support so that when you test out the latest greatest patches and find a bug, you actually have someone to go to who is obligated and committed (contractually) to work on it. That's the main reason to buy support in FOSS. Same for running servers with RedHat as example. So they started creating their distro in 2004/2005 timeframe. If you recall where Ubuntu was in 2004/2005, upgrade in place to new levels was buggy and not working well. Patching could still cause issues and Linux was still growing up as a Desktop. Fast forward to today, they just finished deploying their image that was created years ago. What kernel does it run? Is it built off a distro they can merge patches from? Do they have a plan in place to do major upgrade and tested? My guess is no given they took 8 years to get the distro out. Also keep in mind having started a custom distro for point of sale and workstations for a large retailer, I know what goes into testing and lock downs. The sad thing is when employees that develop those distro's move on, good luck on finding their replacements. It's not even documentation or anything, but just a very specific skill set in creating custom distros. I really do hope they have a plan in place that actually uses a real Distro under the cover for theirs. Otherwise the'll be running the same un-patched workstations 10 years from now. You'd call them Munich the free and insecure at that point.

  82. Re:Let me guess by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

    As a web UI developer I can promise you there have DEFINITELY been no such shenanigans with Internet Explorer which has blown goats honestly at least since 2000 and probably since IE first actually had competition.

  83. Re:Let me guess by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

    So are not-root-canals when compared to root canals.

  84. How long before this happens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before this happens? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/207227/

  85. Re:Let me guess by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    shut up iis zimba.

    just provide a config option, if you think having a limit of five was a good idea.

    we all know that putting in #define limits was basically the whole idea behind some windows versions(so they could increase the number in those versions).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  86. Re:Let me guess by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

    Any office having trouble with a docx file in 2013 without the use of MSO is backward. Haven't had a problem opening in Google docs in years. Pretty sure OO's had that covered for a while too.

    Also, winmail.dat is 100% a Microsoft-manufactured problem. They translate certain types of attachments to a proprietary Outlook format for security concerns real or imagined on SEND rather than simply buffering with said Outlook shenanigans on receipt but not resend so nobody else has to put up with Outlook's slow-ass dinosaur app BS but Outlook users. To be fair to MS, I suspec the Microsoft TwoFace coin landed on the incompetent moron side rather than the one featuring the slightly less incompetent devious asshole that day or they'd be doing the winmail.dat thing with a lot more file formats.

    But fortunately that problem's already been compensated for with this plugin for Thunderbird. Found it at the top of my first Google. It's been out for a year. Maybe you should let your IT guys know before they get locked into... oh... too late aren't I?

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/lookout/reviews/

    Well at least when your users start pissing off some Thunderbird-using company that rightly identifies emails from clueless Outlook users as the problem, they can pass on that link so they don't have to pay money for the privilege of becoming a part of the same problem too.

  87. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I cannot speak to the specific issue you mention for at least three reasons

    Don't worry, your insight into a completely different project, owned by a different team, and at least a decade later is nonetheless useful.

  88. A tale of two german cities by liwee · · Score: 1

    Quite a dated article comparing the open source migration attempted by Freiburg vs Munich. There was also a slashdot submission on Freiburg

    1. Re:A tale of two german cities by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Reading the article, Freiburg did a half-hearted attempt to switch - staying w/ Windows, but switching to Open Office. Munich went all the way to Linux & Open Office. Had the Freiburg experiment succeeded, they'd still have been stuck w/ migrations tied to Windows - like being forced to go from, say, XP to 8. But Munich, by going w/ LiMux & Open Office, saw to it that the experiment succeeded.

      The city of Munich could try recouping some of its costs by selling this solution to other cities like Freiburg. Including the training & migration - earn all that money itself, so that what it spent on migrating can be recouped by helping a few other cities in either Bavaria or Germany as a whole migrate. On a different note, how is Spain's experiment @ Extremadura w/ Linux going?

    2. Re:A tale of two german cities by liwee · · Score: 1

      The city of Munich could try recouping some of its costs by selling this solution to other cities like Freiburg.

      Not really sure the Munich solution would make a difference in Freiburg. My guess is the leaders in Freiburg lack the courage (or ego?) to see it to the end. Unless a perfect / painless solution exist? Nah

  89. Re:Let me guess by rdnetto · · Score: 2

    My understanding is that they went with KDE. The KDE alternative to Exchange and Outlook is Kolab (server) and Kontact (client).
    It has some enterprise use, though I don't know if it has the features you mention.

    --
    Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  90. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Secretly... That's the key word I'm guessing you intentionally left out in your smug little post.

  91. Re:Let me guess by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  92. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Then it goes to show that obamacare has been implemented very badly... You don't get people in established EU countries who can't afford healthcare, it's simply provided. Obama wanted to implement a much better system than what he's ended up with, but the proposals got watered down due to political fighting.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  93. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fantastic rebuttal there with a falsifable account of the details. I can't wait to see the next time you wow us with evidence to prove your assertion.

  94. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooooh, that's a massive *one* case where there's been a problem.

    I wonder how many people would have to die due to not being able to afford insurance to offset it.

    I guessing you would probably say "It doesn't really matter how many, they're only poor/immigrants/elderly anyway..."

  95. The only way to win is to not play the game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would you like a nice game of chess?

    Exchange is only necessary if you think it is necessary.

    There are alternatives that work better. The different functions of Exchange are available, just not as a hodgepodge of functions pasted together.

    I've crashed exchange servers just be sending a message with an attachment. MS doesn't seem to know how to reject a message properly.

    1. Re:The only way to win is to not play the game. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Would you like a nice game of chess?

      Exchange is only necessary if you think it is necessary.

      There are alternatives that work better.

      Perhaps I was not direct enough. Yes, there are better alternatives. No, they aren't a Microsoft solution. But the Microsoft lovers need a "fucking ludicrous" substitute. Otherwise they are lost.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  96. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Decades? Social insurance and (more or less universal) health care in Germany go back to 1880ies and were, in fact, a part of a broader anti-socialist program.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  97. Re:Let me guess by hughk · · Score: 1

    When the hell are those damn FOSS slowpokes going to get off their asses and write their own fucking ludicrous substitute for Exchange?

    What people want is groupware of some kind backed by the equivalent of Outlook. Most people don't give a monkeys about Exchange, but complain when the normal functions aren't there. The issue is that Exchange interfaces are mostly an undocumented mess. When MS fix something, they then best connectivity (even with older versions of their own clients).

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  98. Re:Let me guess by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Word itself, like many other GUI apps that handle formatted text delegates a lot of the raw typesetting to the video card and the selected printer driver.

    It's amusing that you speak about it with such conviction yet it's all a fantasy, no less. Man, where did you get this "insight" from? Lest anyone be confused about it: fuck no .

    I got it from my job writing printer drivers for Windows, where it was my code providing the support.

    One of the apps that did this was Quattro Pro which had an extremely brain-dead (or pessimistic) on the differences between the page widths of "0", "00", "000", etc.. I likened my view of the app to the view from the bottom of the toilet bowl.

    And don't even get me started on what WordPerfect for Windows did!

  99. Re:Let me guess by Christopher_G_Lewis · · Score: 1

    ...

    As far as how my product (Visual Studio LightSwitch) is impacted directly; as part of our release process we run some tooling that makes sure our code isn't calling APIs its not supposed to be calling.

    Excellent product. Keep up the good work.

  100. Re:Let me guess by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I'm not kidding. If you're using flat documents as part of your business processes you're doing it wrong. I spend a LOT of my time getting companies we buy to abandon these horrible processes and move into a real database where their work is logged, archived, and is audit-able. We just turned an rather large company that we bought out of bankruptcy to profitability in 6 weeks by getting them into a real ticketing system. They went from an average SLA of a WEEK to under 30min. That's fucking progress. They were able to eliminate departments (sorry guys) wholes sole job was shuffling emails and word documents around. I've provided managers with real time reports that show them exactly how much work their employees have for the day, how much they've done, and what their projected workload is for the next 6 months. So far, everyone likes the new system (excluding the data entry people that got laid off) and I do this all day every day. I have a lot of titles but what my real job is, is removing the office suit from business processes.

  101. Re:Let me guess by bmajik · · Score: 1

    I'd mod you funny if I hadn't already posted.

    The OP insinuated that MS was still using undocumented APIs for competitive reasons.

    While I cannot authoritively refute that for all of MS past and present, I can tell you that at least for my product, we aren't doing that currently, and in fact, we are taking specific steps to not "accidentally" do it.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  102. Re:Let me guess by bmajik · · Score: 1

    Thanks! Glad you like it.

    Feel free to email me if you're willing to share your experiences with the product, and what sorts of problems you're trying to solve with it.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  103. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next...

  104. Re:Obamacare Death Panels by ffflala · · Score: 1

    They're German, they didn't vote for Obama, and they've had a universal healthcare system for decades longer than Obama has been alive.

    You must realize that these things you've listed are also Obama's fault.

  105. Re:Let me guess by tibit · · Score: 1

    Maybe in times of Windows 2.x, 3.x and the 3.x-driver-under-95 this could have been true due to device-specific font brouhaha. Once non-device-specific fonts entered the scene (either truetype or bitmap fonts), the device-specific driver wasn't doing any typesetting. You know that, so please, stop with the misinformation. The GDI layer was doing it all, merely consulting the device resolution. Yes, many applications did their rendering such that the device resolution mattered since the fonts were scaled to device pixels. This is still a far cry from "raw typesetting" done by the driver. I don't even know who the heck still uses device fonts. Maybe some braindead label printer people, I don't even know if modern GDI still supports this crap.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  106. Re:Let me guess by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    As I said, I did this for a living. So unless you are doing likewise or can point me to relevant Windows documentation indicating that they have dropped this practice, I'm going to have to disagree. Excepting cases where the printer driver renders to a metafile format, which was added at a later date to facilitate printing on network printers, the GDI system would typically render display pages in reference to the selected printer driver which, in turn typically employed the video driver as a graphics accelerator.

    Originally, the "printer driver" was technically a print renderer more than a true driver. Then some genius noted that most printers were pretty much alike except for the command and escape codes and constructed a table-driven "universal" driver.

    The reason for using the printer driver as the reference for on-screen typesetting was to reinforce the WYSIWYG behavior of the document composition, since the resolutions and capabilities of the video driver and printer driver generally differ and the ultimate goal was to get something that printed well.

    Almost all current printers are raster devices and thus ultimately all printed text has to be rendered into pixel patterns. This can be done in one of 3 ways:

    1. By having the application or a font-rendering subsystem construct a brute-force bitmap image of the text and use the driver's bit-blit rendering. This is bandwidth-intensive on most devices.
    2. By invoking a hardware font built into the printer (fairly uncommon these days). That is, print a text string.
    3. By downloading a software font into the printer and invoking it as though it were a hardware font (print a string).

    Doing typesetting in complete ignorance of the target printer and its capabilities can give sub-optimal output. Even the smartest fonts like to know such things as pixel densities, whether variable-size pixels are an option, and similar refinements. This not only allows more precise determination of letter and word size, but also impacts kerning and micro-justification.

    This sort of functionality does date way back, but removing it would degrade the flexibility of the the page-formatting process and for all Microsoft's sins, I can't see them doing that.

    So in short, if you're going to be rude, I want tangible proof.

  107. Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    "Embrace, extend, and extinguish",[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  108. Re:Let me guess by hairyfish · · Score: 1

    Of course, everyone who disagree with you is a shill. Your argument is religious fundamentalism. No facts, just opinion and accusations of opposing points of view. Keep telling yourself that Linux on the desktop is almost there. Jesus loves you.