So does this mean that WE finally have THEM by the balls?

It would be nice for the OS community to serve back what it's been receiving. I'm thinking
of the patent trolls, copyright oppression, DCMA takedown notices and the like.

Fantastic. An App Store puts democracy back into the hands of the ordinary citizen.

In fact, I think open an account right now, and buy myself a congressman.

From reading both, I tend to gravitate towards the failure side. It's 2009 and only 10% migration? Wasn't this suppose to save money? It's a frigging embarrassment! How are you suppose to point to Munich as an example of free and open-source software working on a city scale when they can't even implement it in a reasonable time-frame?

I think you got got labeled flamebait, not that I agree, because your conclusions appear unreasonable, namely that you are measuring the project on criteria which do not match the project's own stated goals.

First of all: Munich was said that the their goal is not to save money in the short-term, but to gain 'autonomy' from a single supplier. The savings, if any, are to be realized in the long term.

Second: Schedule and cost overruns are (unfortunately) normal for projects this size and complexity. What is your idea of a reasonable time scale anyways? With some searching I can probably identify other similar sized projects which eventually succeeded, in spite of serious schedule overruns. BTW: The sound byte that only 10% of the workstations have been migrated in X years doesn't scale to mean that it will take 9 * X more years to complete to rest of them. I know you didn't state this, but the LimuxWatch blog implies this in many of their schedule slip lists.

Third: There is more at stake than producing Linux-based work stations and a support infrastructure for Munich. This is a first of it's type project, meaning a major public-sector open source deployment on the desktop. If this succeeds, then the lessons learned will form the basis for other similar projects. In other words, don't be surprised if LimuxWatch blog has a hidden agenda.

Over the years I've read a great deal about various efforts to belittle and undermine it. The Munich Limux Watch blog seems like an attempt to systematically discredit the entire project. I'd love to find out who's behind it. I doubt it's directly supported Microsoft, but I'd wouldn't be surprised if there is some business interest, perhaps a disgruntled IT supplier or even a public sector employee who doesn't want their desktop system changed, behind it. Perhaps some clever Slashdot reader can find out more.

Don't be surprised that there are unexpected costs on a project of this size and complexity. Think about similar projects in the (semi-)public sector, some of which had factor 10 cost overruns and were abandoned (for example: Denver airport luggage processing system). In the end, the ability to actually complete the project, even if years late, and the long-term cost savings will determine its real success. [See my signature below]

We shouldn't expect Limux to have an instant pay back. Even though the operating system is free, the installation scripting, customization, roll-out, training and support have real costs, which will take years to amortize. The gain will only be in the long-term when the infrastructure to support Limux is in place and saves from not having license costs associated with forced upgrades are realized.

Further, you must bear in mind that Munich is a pioneer in even attempting to replace a major Microsoft based infrastructure with open source software. They are having to to do everything from scratch, which I'm sure increases the cost.

Munich's Limux project is a battleground for Microsoft. It it succeeds then it will become the model for similar initiatives. This could make non-Microsoft desktop systems a real alternative for large institutions. This is Microsoft's disaster scenario, and could ruin their monopoly hold on the marker. They might even have to, gasp, compete.

That Gaussian curves are a poor model for unlikely events has been known for quite some time. This is best explained by Nassim Taleb in the following books:

• Fooled by Randomness
• The Black Swan

His main thesis is that the markets are essentially random and are basically impossible to predict in any meaningful way. Further there are unlikely unknown unknowns can cannot be predicted until the they occur, usually with disastrous consequences.

Michael Crichton actually dropped out of medical to become a full time writer. He had a solid understanding of basic science and this is reflected in his books. That said, he wrote science fiction, which means that the science only needed to be good enough to support the story, and not be provably correct.

A common theme in Crichton's books is the human element in technology. The villains in his books are often those who unerringly believe in the application of advanced technology to 'fix everything', without considering the unintended side effects that could occur.

A typical Crichton book starts with some genius who invents an advanced technology, and then all goes to hell as the unintended side affects cascade into near disaster. The conflict is often between the technology itself and normal people who have real trouble dealing with the dangers it causes.

His earlier books are very much better than the later ones. I suspect that Crichton got co-opted by Hollywood once got the contacts to get contracts to write screens plays for big name directors (e.g. Spielberg). You can see the transition, as the later books, like Jurassic Park, are actually written like screen plays.

Crichton wasn't afraid to promote his politics in his books. The Rising Sun has a strong political statement, nearing on the 'Japan Bashing' that was prevalent in the press at the time. It's saving grace was a good plot and some interesting characters. Had he not been so insistent on blowing on his political horn, it would have been a better book.

My biggest disappointment with Crichton was State of Fear. The book was essentially a anti-global warming manifesto. The huge list of bibliographic entries reinforces my opinion that his primary goal was trying to debunk global warming rather than write a fictional work.

Whatever happens, we win! After eight years of the Bush
administration, the world is much worse off, and now that
it's coming to end, much of the rest of the world is going
to collectively sigh with relief.

While Bush & Co. are not directly responsible for the 9-11
attacks, with their hubris and mismanagement, they certainly
succeeded in making a bad situation much worse. Many countries
are suffering due to the US's inept diplomacy and military
policies. The current administration has also been the role
model for many despots, rolling back hard won freedoms in
countries where democracy has yet to set strong roots.

The blame for the recent economic meltdown can also be laid
at Bush's feet. The massive tax cuts and deficit spending,
combined with poor oversight of the financial situation
has led to today's mess. Enron should have warned us about
what was to come.

For me, here in Switzerland, it doesn't really matter who wins,
the main thing is that the current administration is out. It
may actually be better to have a republican president and a
democratic house/senate, in order to prevent the excesses
that are likely to follow if the Democrats gain control of
everything. I seem to remember reading that the US government
functions better when the executive and legislative branches
are controlled by different parties.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a return to multilateralism
and sensible financial policies.

As usual, after a regime change, the pendulum will swing the
other way and, unfortunately, the US tendency is that it will
probably swing too far. So be careful what you wish for!