Slashdot Mirror
The Man Behind Munich's Migration of 15,000 PCs From Windows To Linux
An anonymous reader writes "It's one of the biggest migrations in the history of Linux, and it made Steve Ballmer very angry: Munich, in southwest Germany, has completed its transition of 15,000 PCs from Windows to Linux. It has saved money, fueled the local economy, and improved security. Linux Voice talked to the man behind the migration: 'One of the biggest aims of LiMux was to make the city more independent. Germany’s major center-left political party is the SPD, and its local Munich politicians backed the idea of the city council switching to Linux. They wanted to promote small and medium-sized companies in the area, giving them funding to improve the city’s IT infrastructure, instead of sending the money overseas to a large American corporation. The SPD argued that moving to Linux would foster the local IT market, as the city would pay localcompanies to do the work.' (Linux Voice is making the PDF article free [CC-BY-SA] so that everyone can send it to their local councilors and encourage them to investigate Linux)."
At this point I am surprised that any government would trust a compiled OS that they can't effectively scan for any ease dropping code, intentional back doors or just vulnerabilities. Sure they can monitor the network to see if it is doing something obvious, but with a compiled OS it could be wide open to be compromised with either a back door or some code to send data off someplace and you would likely never know it. At least with Linux you can maintain your own verified version based on the source code. Of course even with wide open source code you get security issues... like openssl. But without the source code there could be a thousand of those types of vulnerabilities and only insiders at Microsoft could know about them. Maybe for most people it is a non-issue, but for governments and large corporations that level of pants around the ankles situation can have very big implications to national security and the economy.
This was not a decision based on cost, it was based on functionality - being able to invest in their platform and implement exactly what they wanted was worth the additional expense, in large part because they committed to investing the money that would have gone towards US license fees into the local economy.
Ken
Would seriously like a person or two to explain what exactly the reasoning behind this phenomenon is, if indeed there is any.
It's lack of pedantry.
Any large-scale deployment takes significant man-hours to achieve, but can be made easier through the use of imaging and common platforms. If I standardize on only a handful of models of computers then I can load-up the OS and build everything that I need for that OS on each model, then simply duplicate the drive over all of the others of that model, change the few things that need to be changed (name, network credentials, possibly some security hashes) and I'm done.
This is arguably even easier in Linux than in Windows because there are no particular licensing issues with just copying a Linux installation or with how many Linux installations are deployed. One's backend servers are now for updating and package management rather than for licensing.
And with Microsoft deciding to change their UI every few years now, coupled with competing UIs from Apple and Google, it's much easier to change people to a diffrent platform when they have to learn a new UI anyway. Had Microsoft kept variants of the Windows 95 UI going past Windows 7 then it would be harder, but with the Metro debacle it's a lot easier to make that change, and since most users won't go deeper than the UI anyway it's not so bad.
The hardest part is training the support staff if they've been Windows-centric their whole careers. Somehow just reiterating that everything-is-a-file isn't enough, and many professionals struggle to understand UNIX-style paths.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
... but they're also taking care of the citizens screwed by the XP-end-of-life:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/...
.
A few reasons:
1) People prefer easy to use names. "GNU/Linux" is an awkward mouthful, "Linux" is a nice simple name. For the same reason people refer to the "Tesla Model S" as "Model S", or simply a "Tesla", since the S is the more common model here.
2) "Linux" has been the most commonly used name from day 1, and that's not going to change, for the same reason that the public will continue to take "hacker" to mean someone who breaks into computer systems.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If only the linux community could come up with some kind of "packaging" mechanism that would make software deployment easier.
This "package" could be comprised of compressed files that the OS could then "copy" to relevant locations on the system. I don't want to get to Star Treked out but perhaps we could then send these "packages" over the network to computers, instead of manually copying the files on our tape drives like we do right now.
If only Red Hat or one of the other distros had a system like this in place, it would make Linux so much more competitive. Perhaps Microsoft has a patent on this new technology?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Open Source Advocates Angry at German Gov't Decision
May 13, 2011
The German Foreign Office first started using Linux as a server platform in 2001 before making Linux and open source software their default desktop choice in 2005. Most observers thought the move a success. However, the government will now transition back to Windows XP, to be followed by Windows 7, also dropping OpenOffice and Thunderbird in favor of MS Office and Outlook.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...
You conveniently left out this part of the article:
In the short term - they would have saved. However over the 10+ years since initial migration, they've saved and estimated 10 million Euros:
Here is an english article discussing that publicly released report. For the actual german report. see here
And you took that out of context. That was on the initial 5 year plan, where moving to linux was a big migration, while moving to windows XP from windows 2000 would have had far less impact.
So of course in the first years such a massive migration and education of your users costs more. But now 10+ years later they estimate they saved money (and that was also mentioned in the part where they mentioned that linux was more expensive. For the 5 year plan microsoft was cheaper, but strategically they were pretty sure linux would be cheaper after that).
And that was the reason to do it this way.
Same money to local people, not to corps that move profits thru double Irish with a side of Denmark , so they don't pay any local taxes.
Now you understand ?
They could have saved a lot of money just by threatening plausibly to switch to GNU/Linux.
Microsoft is known to be very forthcoming when people start considering alternatives. "We'll give you the Ballmers and Chains for free. You'll just pay for the thumbscrews later on. And you'll get a sweet deal for rack-mounted whatevers to boot."
For the same reason you ride an escalator up and down floor levels, you take aspirin as a pain killer, and you store your hot beverage in a thermos.
It's not a genericised trademark, per se, but the term "Linux" is now used to describe the whole, incorrect or not.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
So of course in the first years such a massive migration and education of your users costs more.
Yep, higher cost, but the money stayed in the local economy. IMHO, that's the most important aspect of all, even if it had cost more after 5 years.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
I think they made a smart decision that keeps their money in their borders, but the "calculations" as the main proponent of the migration used are really bent towards Linux.
Just one example would be that he considered the cost and effort to retrain people from Windows XP to Linux and the cost and effort to train people to already using XP to Windows 7 would be equal.
That's ridiculous.
Again, it's a smart decision, but not because of saving money - but instead keeping the money circulating in your own economy. It may ultimately save money due to increased tax revenues but that's a tough one to figure.
Loading...
Sounds like a straw man argument to me. Why would a single organization need a system able to run on many different configurations, when the goal of most organizations is to run as few configurations as possible?
Ezekiel 23:20
many professionals struggle to understand UNIX-style paths
Wait, really?
There are IT professionals who have trouble with the idea that /home/entropius/widgets is a subdirectory of /home/entropius, and so on?
1. Initial costs of staying with Microsoft's software were lower.
2. Customizable security was one of the pros of switching to Linux.
3. Initial costs were projected over 5 years.
4. 10 years have now past and the city made an assesment of cost. Conclusion was 10 mllion euros saved.
5. HP made there own analysis and concluded that the Linux conversion had cost the city 60 million Euros more. However, when contacted for their methodology and numbers for the analysis, they declined to provide the information.
yeh, right, just because all those problems never happen in windows!!
and it is really just the reverse of what you said. Linux support better older hardware, when it gives errors, is easier to debug and if you have any problem, is a lot easier to verify the system (file checksum, OS and hardware) remotely and clone and replace the faulty desktop if needed. If it is a HD problem, you can even create a fallback network boot to keep the user working (slower, but working) until someone replaces the HD.
Higuita
I think you have it reversed. The OS was originally called "Linux", and it included a kernel, GNU user space tools, MIT's X-windows system, some BSD api's, and later Apache web servers, etc. There was a Linux kernel, but also an entire Linux distro.
It was only years later that RMS tried to retroactively name someone else's project with his organization's name, and that's one reason there's resistance there. Now the Linux kernel has "kernel" dropped and people try to say "Linux" only refers to that part. Ok, whatever. It's just RMS politics. People can name their distro whatever they want. But don't pretend GNU/Linux is a more "correct" way to refer to anything-- it's just a brand.
E pluribus unum
It's not hard finding hardware with excellent linux support, even less so when you buy in the large quantities that the city of Munich do, you do realise that organisations of that size tend to have just a small set of laptop and desktop configurations they use, right? It is not like they randomly pick 10 different manufacturers and 50 models.
While there might be valid arguments against their move to Linux, your is definitely not one of them.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Nearly everyone fights change. In the absence of good reasons, MS will desperately push out slanted, factually incorrect studies with huge omissions. And it works. Local governments gratefully seize on these as the excuses to keep their old Windows systems.
Software is a big excuse. For example, somehow, computers in the public library can't simply be connected to the Internet, no. They have to have nannyware. On further inquiry, it turns out that such software has to be approved, and approval is a lengthy process. Naturally, the approved nannyware is Windows only. (What nannyware is there for Linux?) They will wax poetic about how they don't want the town to be sued because Little Johnny saw something inappropriate on a computer at the library. Yes, Little Johnny's eyes are why they can't switch away from Windows, even in the back office in city hall.
The most likely way to get the local politicians and bureaucrats to move on something like that is to make them more afraid of not doing it. Repeat, over and over, that Windows is much less secure. Ask them if they'd enjoy being sued because Big John had his passwords intercepted on a library computer. Or sued because hackers broke into their database and got all their information about property owners in the town. Would they enjoy being another Target? Saving money also gets their attention, but not as much as fear.
You'd think that the military, an organization that is under constant attack, would want more security than Windows has. Maybe more than plain Linux, maybe SELinux, or OpenBSD. Or make their own, which they can afford to do. But no. The soldiers are mostly young men who grew up with PCs that had Windows installed. The officers will argue that it is also important that soldiers be able to do their jobs, and that's why they have to have Windows, because that's what they know. Train them on other OSes? Never! The officers aren't experts with computers either, and will demand contradictory and downright stupid things of any proposed replacement. They will also want to be in control, and try to keep everything secret, thus virtually guaranteeing that any project they launch will fail. Though they have the resources, their ability to make their own is poor. Another excuse in the US is the home grown argument. MS is American, Linux is not. Who knows what hacks some foreigners might have inserted in Linux, as if, unlike MS's code, they can't check the source themselves, and as if MS never outsources any software engineering work or hires foreigners.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Like companies should do instead of outsourcing to other countries?
Outsourcing should be illegal, it's killing nice paying jobs (and the economy, but MBAs and PHBs don't think long-term anymore)
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
??? no scalable tools???
Where do you think Microsoft got theirs?
LDAP, Kerberos, DNS...
I've worked with UNIX systems for 40 years now. And with thousands of machines is trivially doable once there is an organization standardization to do so.
Perhaps Microsoft has a patent on this new technology?
Amazon has a provisional patent for this in the pipeline I hear.
Loading...
They were faced with a "massive" migration to either WinXP or Linux, on a cost-basis, MS was cheaper - functionality-wise, benefit to the community Linux was superior, and they choose Linux.
I didn't judge the decision, I simply reported what was written in the article. Personally, I think they made an excellent choice by keeping the money local, even if it was greater than the foreign (MS) option.
I discussed their decision, and when they made their decision Linux was the more expensive option and they took it.
Ken
Well, what drive is it on?
There's no worring about C: or D: or E: in Linux. It's all one filesystem.
Why is my thumb drive copied to the hard disk when I put it in?
What makes you think it is?
Why does Loinox use the wrong slashes?
Some might say that DOS/Windows is using the wrong ones because Unix-style paths' predate the use of "\" by Windows.
And with Microsoft deciding to change their UI every few years now...,
You've hit on what I consider to be Microsoft's biggest problem: they are no longer making basic functional improvements to their products. Instead, they are adding bells and whistles, and changing file formats to force upgrades (if your clients have ver XYZ+1, then you need it to read the default format of the files they send you).
To me, this indicates a change in attitude. No longer are they striving to put out the best software, they're churning revs to keep revenue up. It's a sign of desperation and it has been going on for several years, now.
Munich is in South-East Germany. Google Maps isn't that hard to use, is it? :)
Don't people in other countries have a right to work, too? Tribalism, faugh.
Not that it doesn't make sense for a city to consider its larger picture... it certainly does. Tax money shipped to the US is gone. If they spend the same money locally, some of it will come back to the city, particularly when you include the ripple effects from that money flowing around the local economy. So the net actual cost can be lower, even if it's higher on paper... and if the outlays are smaller and local, then the city benefits from both effects.
But refusing to pay foreign workers just because their foreign, even when it does make more sense economically, is just tribalism and we should stop it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yep, higher cost ...
No, lower cost. The higher cost was only short term. In the long term they saved money. Windows is cheaper in the short run because people already know how to use it, and more importantly, already know how to use MS-Office. So you save on training costs. But that is less true today. Where I live, the schools have all switched to Google Docs, so the kids will enter the workforce with little experience with MS-Office, but plenty of experience with tools that can run on any OS with a browser. So in the future, the break even time for switching will be shorter.
Munich is in the southeast of Germany.
You do realize that having stayed in the Windows camp, they would have one migration more, because they're (12 years ago) migration target Windows XP is unsupported.
You are WAY over simplifying the mystical licensing systems in Windows. It is one of the most confusing things to manage, and yes I know what I am doing.
Second, I never really understand this training with office products. The best training you can give anyone is to teach them to stop using office products becuase the last thing a company needs is a bunch of random content producers. Get your work into a content management system (and NO that is not Sharepoint), and force workers to only create content as it specifiucally relates to their job, and not via word processors and spreadsheets.
It's the intention and effect that outsourcing to other countries usually has. Namely:
Intention -- searching for those who will work for the least, in countries that have more relaxed environmental regulations and to avoid taxes
Effect -- increased localized unemployment, a "race to the bottom" on wages, damage to the environment and government budget crises
If you're outsourcing things because it makes sense -- i.e. not every country can produce their own efficiently -- then that's not a problem. Doing it for the other reasons is what causes vast problems.
Oh and for extra bonus craptasticness -- it's unsustainable in the long run.
No longer are they striving to put out the best software
I'm sorry, did I miss something? When were they ever trying to put out the best software? "Bottom line" has always been the bottom line with M$
> How hard do you imagine MS software licensing is?
With Linux I don't have to deal with this bullshit at all, ever.
They will deeply regret this once a weird error on a critical system pops up in a few years time, and nobody is around to give support.
Yeah, Munich is such a tiny little backwoods place that there's no way they'd ever be able to find someone who knows anything about Linux.
No, we should value our neighbor more than some remote individual in another country. Besides the ethical and moral considerations, there are practical ones as well. If your neighbor has a job, he will not have to steal from you to survive. there will be networks effects where the area improves as more people have moeny and spend it. look at urban renewal efforts where as people see improvements and have stable jobs they improve their properties and it encourages their neighbors to improve their properties. The reverse happens all too often as well.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
It does seem to me that a local government should have the welfare of the local community in mind. After all, that is really the purpose of government. If the local government can improve the quality of its services (Linux migration) and at the same time, build skills and direct resources to the local community, then it is a win-win situation.
That is the problem with corporations; they are only concerned with profit and not their workers or communities. They will sell their mother into slavery if it improves their bottom line (and their income).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Yes, China is such a bastion of a clean environment.
Then you end up with a CEO sitting in his mansion wondering why his home town has turned to crap and is now full of stinky homeless people and gang crime. Now if this CEO were willing to relocate to a third world country and impart his brilliant wisdom in all-hands meetings over there, things would be fairer. But if he wants to live in a first world country with first world quality of life then he needs to pay attention to his first world workers (or she as the case may be).
This is the fundamental problem I think, some of these companies want to keep the shiny building containing only upper level management with all other workers obtained from wherever labor is the cheapest. They never consider that maybe upper management could be outsourced as well.
They're also not always outsourcing to save labor costs. They are sometimes doing this to avoid local laws and regulations (and general purpose morality decisions). It would be a good improvement if US based companies were be required to abide by US laws even in their overseas activities.