Munich Finally Starts to Embrace Linux 154
sankyuu writes "After years of rumor and vacillation over fear of patents, the city of Munich has decided to trickle in its first 100 linux terminals. The floodgates are scheduled to fling open by 2008, when 80% of government PCs should be running Linux."
holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:4, Interesting)
The current projected costs are 35 Million Euros (up from 30 Million) to convert 14,000 computers.
2,500 Euros per computer.
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:5, Interesting)
80% in 2 years? (Score:2, Interesting)
After reading all that, this seems like a lie:
"Schiessl said it would be impossible to migrate all users to open source, but that 80 percent would move across by between late-2008 and mid-2009."
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
Munich will be quick to offer practical migration services to other cities all over Germany. If even a few see the chance to save some money over the M$ option (many German cities, most importantly Berlin, are in big financial trouble), Munich will see its initial investments pay off very well.
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is that the government and the state institutions are the motor behind the adoptions in the private sector and personal use. By adopting open source solutions, Munich is incentivating the creation and growth of a local market for training, supplying and managing open source solutions. And having in mind that quite a few open source is produced in Germany (KDE, for example) then it is obvious that the people of Germany have a lot to win with that migration.
One other aspect to have in mind is that the money which Munich is paying isn't just for installing new software. Munich is paying the price for not being dependent on a certain platforms (windows) and certain software. It's like a drug addict paying for detox treatment. There are quite a few places that certain software was adopted and subsequently their business was built around it. Now, those solutions will have to be rethought and redone, which costs time and money to accomplish. Nevertheless, it does indeed pay off and pays off well.
On a side note, isn't it funny how the exact same FUD directed towards Ernie Ball's migration to Free/Open Source software is being used against Munich? And once again the FUDers will realize that the migration process, although it isn't always smooth, not only is perfectly possible but also ver positive for the organizations which adopt it.
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
> Are they planning on maintaining their own source tree
> for all applications and the OS?
IIRC, sort-of yes.
They developed their own Debian based "distribution".
On a 14k clients-scale, there are no out-of-the-box solutions anyway. Not in MSFT-land, not in Novell-land and certainly not in LNX-land.
So, you've got to do your own calculations to see what makes sense for you.
Munich made theirs, you'd make yours. Big deal.
A complete NT4->W2K3 replacement would not have been much easier, either - and XP is now little more than a legacy OS - they'd have to start rolling out Vista soon anyway.
Re:The headline is mis-leading! (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, I'm uncomfortable with that as an explanation. I'd like to see a comparison of what they need from a desktop environment, what worked in one and didn't work in the other, what users needs and what admins need, and make a reasoned comparison on that.