Slashdot Mirror


Munich Council: To Hell With Linux, We're Going Full Windows in 2020 (theregister.co.uk)

The German city of Munich, which received much popularity back in the day when it first ditched Microsoft's services in favor of open-source software, has now agreed to stop using Linux and switch back to Windows. If the decision is ratified by the full council in two weeks, Windows 10 will start rolling out across the city in 2020. From a report: A coalition of Social Democrats and Conservatives on the committee voted for the Windows migration last week, Social Democrat councillor Anne Hubner told The Register. Munich rose to fame in the open-source world for deciding to use Linux and LibreOffice to make the city independent from the claws of Microsoft. But the plan was never fully realised -- mail servers, for instance, eventually wound up migrating to Microsoft Exchange -- and in February the city council formally voted to end Linux migration and go back to Microsoft. Hubner said the city has struggled with LiMux adoption. "Users were unhappy and software essential for the public sector is mostly only available for Windows," she said. She estimated about half of the 800 or so total programs needed don't run on Linux and "many others need a lot of effort and workarounds." Hubner added, "in the past 15 years, much of our efforts were put into becoming independent from Microsoft," including spending "a lot of money looking for workarounds" but "those efforts eventually failed." A full council vote on Windows 10 2020 migration is set for November 23, Hubner said. However, the Social Democrats and Conservatives have a majority in the council, and the outcome is expected to be the same as in committee.

13 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't this continutally come up for Munich? by Miser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Roll the clock back six months, didn't I read about this before?

    I give it 10 days for another article to come out saying "No, we're staying with Linux."

    I am always suspicious of things like this because someone is probably getting paid by Microsoft (nothing as obvious as cash, more like items of tangible value) to do the switch.

    Also, first post? :)

    1. Re:Doesn't this continutally come up for Munich? by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am always suspicious of things like this because someone is probably getting paid by Microsoft

      More likely the city is playing for a good price in the transition. It's not useful to deny the reality that the Windows ecosystem is easier, more complete and more familiar than the Linux one. Moving to Linux means limitations in software and hardware. Limitations mean that you cannot do your work as easily as in Windows.

      A single city, even a behemoth like Munich, is not enough to change that reality. When (if ever) we get a big country committed to Linux we would see drivers being developed for all kind of peripherals if they wanted to enter into tenders, software being adapted (a replacement for Exchange, hopefully), schools teaching with it... But until then the advance is going to be a glacial one, and only major mistakes by Microsoft are going to change that.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    2. Re: Doesn't this continutally come up for Munich? by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This.

      They have lived with work-around for 15 years, half their applications won't run on Linux - their workers deserve a stable, robust work environment.

      --
      Ken
    3. Re: Doesn't this continutally come up for Munich? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      lived with work-around for 15 years, half their applications won't run on Linux

      In 15 years, any _their_ (as in bespoke) applications could have been rewritten 3-5 times in their entirety. And any _someone_else's_ (as in licensed) ones definitely had been replaced 3-4 times at the least, by incompatible versions if not by different vendor's apps.
      To keep a "won't run on Linux" state throughout the above, is plain impossible without deliberate sabotage.

      On the other hand, to sabotage their own infrastructure for fun and profit is their inalienable right. The voting public decided to saddle themselves with these guys, they fully deserve the results.

    4. Re: Doesn't this continutally come up for Munich? by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why can't Linux be easy?
      I mean seriously, I think this illustrates very clearly why there has never been a "Year of Linux on the desktop" no matter how much we all want it.
      Linux on phones ala Android is incredibly popular because it's *easy*, even if some security ground was given up to make it so.
      There needs to be an enterprise friendly and home user friendly Linux that "just works" and has common business tools and home time wasters that regular folks use and want. Only then does it have a Hell's chance, and even then it's doubtful because of inertia.

      Ubuntu very nearly has this licked, largely stable system, particularly LTS, easy repo installs including closed source blobs (even if you hate them, they increase usability, and thus potential market adoption), and widely available with broad platform support, but even with that it hasn't cracked the desktop.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re: Doesn't this continutally come up for Munich? by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I concur. Linux should be easy.

      "Linux" isn't hard. What becomes hard is when you're dealing with other agencies that use proprietary products. Or there a specialized task that you need done that is only solved by a proprietary product. If you're on Windows, you throw a little money at it to buy the product, and you're done. On Linux you're.... what, booting up a virtual environment to run Windows? Paying a contractor to write a replacement, which is expensive, time-consuming, may not work, and may not be legal? When all you need to do is write a report to send other people in the city... hey, no problem. But once you need niche solutions for niche problems, your options dry up.

      Linux has a "the chicken or the egg" problem. Without a sizable desktop user pool in whatever industry you're trying to switch over, all these proprietary products won't be written for Linux. Without proprietary products, industry is handicapping themselves by moving to Linux. It's a tough problem to solve, and that's why it hasn't really been solved yet.

  2. Re:Social Democrats... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, someone like you would probably call them communists.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  3. That's what the Linux community never got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She estimated about half of the 800 or so total programs needed don't run on Linux and "many others need a lot of effort and workarounds."

    Different scenario but the small (about 50 ppl) co I work for looked into and rejected Linux for the same reasons.

    What the Linux community needs to understand is people need real world problems solved. They do not need yet another reskin of the login screen, or Desktop Environment #933. They need Photoshop (NOT gimp!). They need their real accounting package (NOT gnucash). They need the applcations which drive real work in the real world, not some inferior hard to use and not very capable substitutes.

    THIS is what holds Linux back on the desktop. People ask, "But will it run the software I need?" and the answer often comes up "No". You want to drive Linux adoption? Fix the real problems people have, rather than forking yet another distro or DE and things people don't need or care about. I know that's harder. I know it's not as "fun". But that's what is needed if you want us to use this thing.

  4. LiMux ... Bigest mistake of Munich by williamyf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And before I have to duck for cover, I'll have to say I favoured Munich move to FOSS, I used it as a case example advocating for similar moves (while also pointing out the errors, of course). I've been to Munich (Siemens Training OMC-S, great memories from Kunstpark-ost), and I love the city and its people.

    If you are going from Closed source to open source, there are a few pitfalls to avoid.

    First, for a project like Munich, the LAST thing you replace is the Desktop OS of Users. You first replace the apps. And DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER a rip and replace strategy.

    You replace the apps it in waves, using your chosen crossplatform FOSS alternatives (I understand Munich did something along this lines).

    And ALSO for each wave you have a SWAT/Crack team on the Helpdesk specificaly dedicated to help the users master that specific wave of the transition.

    And ALSO adequate training for each and every wave to boot (and the training for each specific wave has to be done BEFORE the wave starts, and for Every employee)

    Remember, for us techies, changing from IE11 to Firefox, or from word to Libreoffice writer may seem easy, but for a public servant who was trained as, say an administrator or lawyer, it may not come so naturaly.

    First you start with the low hanging fruit of things like Your users' browsers (perhaps with a creative use of a plugin like "use IE here", prepopulated with suitable lists) and PDF viewers/generators.

    Then along Comes Powerpoint (please notice that I said Powerpoint, not Office), with the trick of setting up PowerPoint Viewer as the default PowerPoint program and things like publisher.

    Then comes the turn of Word. This will be a problem because all the damaged formats. Here Word Viewer and your SWAT transition team will prove invaluable...

    Then comes a hard nut to crack. Excel. But by now, your users should have the perception that changes from Comercial SW to FOSS are not "that hard", and that the SWAT Team has their back.

    Then, comes the boss fight: Exchange Server. Please remeber that exchange server is not only email, but also calendaring, and many of those functions are still unmatched by FOSS alternatives. Let alone migrating the historic data stores....

    After all apps are more or less migrated (Including rewriting web apps to be crossbrowser, creative use of wine for some custom apps, directing user to web interfaces of certain packages instead of using custom clients), is the turn (finally) of the OS itself.

    And here is were I explain why LiMux was a mistake. If you have limited resources, why on earth would you squander thoise resourses doing your own distro? And with NO commercial support to boot!

    Instead they should have choosen a specific distro as prefered parthner, working with them on the distro (trying to steer them to a mutualy agreable middle ground) and then making a complementary package to further customize the distro. In the UE alone there are two well known players (Mandriva and Suse in alpha order). One of then (Suse) is even in your home country. Surely there are many more...

    But nooo, for some reason, someone decided to re-implement the weel (without commercial support), henceforth LiMux.

    Here in Venezuela, the same happened, instead of using an already created distro, they created something called Canaima (a distro to be used for both Desktops and Servers), with no commercial support, and is just a re-spinig of debian, squandering precious resources...

    I am sad to see Munich retreat back to Windows. But I can also understand why they do it, and some of the mistakes they made along the way....

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:LiMux ... Bigest mistake of Munich by encad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was not even the reason to give throw it under the bus. Most of the specific use cases were already moved to linux, they had reimplements their forms systems to use libre office and some of the software that could only be used on windows was available over remote desktop, their own client was a modified Ubuntu LTS Version and they were on their way to implement a Linux Groupware Solution (Kolab, I think) to get exchange functionality, especially for the higher ups, as they wanted to have it on their smartphones.

      Then MS started to move their Headquarters to Munich and the city council to lobby to replace linux. They asked Accenture (!!!) to check, if change was necessary and the non-public part of the report told that the IT Mismanagement was a much bigger factor than any hardware/OS/Tools Issue at hand.

      The public part was used to make Limux scapegoat for everything and tasking Microsoft to create a single client solution, damn the cost.

      The cost must be ridicules, because now their solution and the cost are "secret", but some people already estimated what the new hardware for windows 10 might cost (as they could use Limux on very very old machines) and that covers not even all the cost for new software licenses for stuff they had already build in Limux.

      This is more politics and corruption than technical merit.

  5. Re:Pet Windows Programs by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exchange offers a lot of organizational-level management tools (e.g. revoking email privileges for a fired employee while retaining their emails for reference by their replacement) which are sorely lacking in open source mail servers. I despise Outlook and haven't touched it since my first contact with it in the 1990s. But I used to run a Unix-based mail server, and I totally understand why Exchange is so popular with companies.

    What's going on here is a failure of open source to provide the tools the customer wants. Companies and organizations (charities, government) want these sorts of email management tools. But open source coders are very individualist and generally aghast at the idea of a manager having that sort of power over "your" email. So they don't put any work into adding those sorts of capabilities even if that's what the customers want.

    Meanwhile, the customers are so desperate for said tools that they're willing to pay good money for them. Microsoft steps up and says they'll gladly take your money in exchange for creating these tools. And the open source community sneers at the entire thing even though they've basically driven the organization to Microsoft by refusing to provide the tools the organization needed to operate.

  6. Re: Microsoft hegemony by F.Ultra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no 800 programs. The real story is currently paywalled at lwn.net but the geist of it is that Microsoft just moved their German HQ to Munich and the current mayor of Munich has been pro Microsoft for years.

  7. According to TFS/TFA, they're doing it wrong by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > their workers deserve a stable, robust work environment.

    Agreed.

    > half their applications won't run on Linux

    A common, and fatal, mistake. They're trying to keep using Microsoft Exchange and 300 other Windows programs, on Linux. That's certainly the wrong way to do it. It works about as well as trying to run all software made on and for Linux, but run it on Windows.

    If you're going to run on Windows, run software developed for and on Windows - IIS, Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server, Edge, etc.
    If you're going to run on Linux, run software developed for and on Linux - Apache httpd, Cyrus imapd, MySQL, Chrome or Firefox, etc.

    You wouldn't say "I'm switching from Ford to Chevy" and then try to run a Ford alternator, water, headlights, etc in your Chevy truck. Yet that's what so many people try to do when they "switch" from Windows to Linux. They switch out the bare OS, not the whole thing.

    My companies have been running purely on Linux since shortly after Windows 95 came out and it works beautifully, because we use Linux software in a Linux way, we don't try to run a Microsoft-centric network, doing things the Microsoft way, on a Linux kernel.