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.
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!
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).
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."
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
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
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
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 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.
> 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.