Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Pioneer Munich Debates Report That Suggests Abandoning Linux for Windows 10 (techrepublic.com)
As an open-source software pioneer, Munich spent years moving away from Windows, but now politicians are debating a report that suggests the city could eventually abandon Linux. A report on TechRepublic adds: If the authority ruling Germany's third largest city backs proposals to make Windows 10 and Microsoft Office available across the council, it would be a significant step away from open-source software for an organization once seen as its champion. Over a nine-year period starting in 2004, the council moved about 15,000 staff from using Windows and Office to LiMux -- a custom version of the Ubuntu desktop OS -- and other open source software. At the time, Munich was one of the largest organizations to reject Windows, and Microsoft took the city's leaving so seriously that then CEO Steve Ballmer flew to Munich to meet the mayor. Now a report commissioned by current mayor Dieter Reiter to help determine the future of IT at the council has outlined a project to make Windows 10 and Microsoft Office available to all departments, and give staff the choice about whether to use Windows or LiMux.
RTFA! They had used a custom version of Ubuntu so they were likely doing the support themselves with a custom setup tuned to their environment and on that level (15 000 desktops) it was likely cheaper. The larger problem is: What happens when someone sends you a document that your version of OpenOffice doesn't like or you need software that doesn't run on Linux? Libre Office file compatibility still isn't 100% (mostly there compared to word, chokes on PowerPoint sides and doesn't do VBA ever)
And that is where it comes down to use cases. Linux has a lower total cost on the desktop when it does everything you need it to. But if you need something that Linux doesn't have software for, the lower cost just doesn't matter.
Yes, I know how Ubuntu and Debian work, as someone who does debian packaging as part of his job. And I also know that "patches to a few dozen packages," as well as managing changes coming in from an upstream distribution, could easily be a full time job for me. So again - you're still looking at requiring hiring engineering talent & running internal infrastructure and resources, for your "free" operating system. That makes it "not free."
Again: headcount = not free. Administering Windows for 120 users probably wouldn't require more than 1 or 2 people, too, and probably you could hire IT staff a lot cheaper than you could handle a couple developers capable of customizing an entire repo. You can debate relative costs, but you cannot get away with claiming that "Linux = $0" and "Windows = $INFINITY" when you're comparing costs. There are specific costs associated with both. You can pay less on Linux licensing, but you're probably going to pay more in the headcount needed to support it, because you need people with deeper technical skills. You can pay more on Windows licensing, and get your headcount a lot cheaper for support, because your Windows desktop support can fall back on Microsoft support when they hit something beyond their skill level.
I politely emailed him back saying that I had a problem with it, because it was in a non-standard, MS proprietary, format and please could he send it in the ISO standard ODF format instead. He did. It worked.
MS formats don't even transfer from one computer to another if you have different printers. Windows is NOT fit for prime time. Its just that some people don't know, and a whole lot of the others were bribed.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII