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."
80% By 2008? (Score:2)
Amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I can see, its not only not cost efective, its not even going to be complete. The project lead himself admits they can only migrate around 80%, theres also a quick gloss over the 12 month pilot extension because of unspecified 'problems'.
So slipping deadlines, increasing costs, less than complete and beset by problems. looks like a typical software project to me and not the poster child for migration som
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But most/all of the cost is consulting, of which a significant percentage will go to salaries to people locally.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto for a Vista upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. (Score:2)
When you stop paying for that you pay for local people's skills, not for marketing scams in order to milk the same code for all what is worth it selling it in who know how many unnecessarily diferentiated versions.
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what is meant when someone talks about independance in
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think you should actually try Linux before posting in a forum like this?
In case anyone is still wondering, keeping Debian systems and applications up to date is MUCH simpler than doing the same on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
So why exactly do you talk about "negotiating with the community to check changes into the public source tree" and other nonsense l
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of arrogance that keeps OSS on the fringes. Clearly I have not done OSS development - hence my questions. I have a minimal understanding of the OSS development model, and so I ask questions from the context of what I know, which is more traditional development. Apparently I have some reading to do so that I am *worthy* of conversing in this forum. Please forgive my naive and silly questions.
Oh, an
Re: (Score:2)
So, after you demonstrated that you never used a single linux install in your life and you have absolutely no clue about what yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it also depends on how comfortable you are managing your own distribution.
But they aren't managing their own distribution, they're managing their own customizations, just like many companies do with Windows, but with more options. They're using an existing Linux distro which is already kept up to date for them, and then rolling out customizations to it.
I frankly am skeptical that it makes sense to keep your own source tree and "hire a guy to fix a nasty bug" as the grandparent suggested, but
Re: (Score:2)
Munich has spent a considerable amount of time to develop these skills in the last years.
Also, employee turnover in this sector is very low. So once somebody works there, he seldomly leaves (and takes knowledge with him).
> frankly am skeptical that it makes sense to keep your own source tree
This has to be seen. Munich probably hopes that most of the changes go back into the upstream channel.
I also don't know how large the diffs are. May
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh ... that is exactly what I said up above (and for which I was called a fool), only I used slightly different words (I called it "negotiating with the community") - which amounts to essentially getting somebody to approve your bug fix in the public source tree.
Well, there is not usually any negotiation involved. You just submit a patch with an explanation.
So I wasn't far off base after all. In the end, either you have your own source tree (i.e. your own distribution, by which I mean not just config
Re: (Score:2)
How far of a tree you maintain really depends on what you're using and how much you customize it. If you're typically doing desktop deployments, most of the software packages you're going to be using will be mature and stable (Firefox, OO.o, KDE/GNOME, etc). Where I work, we have some odd bits of hardware here and there that require us to maintain a couple of kernel source trees to keep the hardware working.
If you want to follow the Microsoft model and run your own site-local update repository, it's sim
Re: (Score:2)
Using open-source software means that they won't be dependent on Linux, because the software can be ported to any other operating system (and likely already has), by the makers of the software, the makers of the operating system, other random people, or even people hired by Munich. Using software that saves to open file formats, like ODF, means that they have a wide variety of choices if OO or whatever no long
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you seriously trying to compare the adoption of a standards-compliant, free and open-sourced platform which guarantees backward compatibility and even compatibility with other standards-compliant platforms with the dependance on a platform which is as closed as it gets, has always compatible problems even with it's predecessor and even patched versions, has a history of very dangerous security problems
Re: (Score:2)
How many providers are there for Linux solutions? (Score:2)
SuSE (Novell)
Sun
IBM
HP
DIY (if you want to and can afford it)
and many others.
You can migrate a working solution from one provider to another when you want to, if you want to and you have competition for your custom which drives down costs.
With MS software you upgrade when they tell you to what they tell you in the terms that are most convenient to them because there is nobody out there that can provide an alternative solution (unless it has become a piece of cake to move stuff out of IIS or MS SQL serv
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:5, Interesting)
Costs: €0.00 (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you and I don't understand why so many people assume that a migration from a Windows infrastructure to an OSS one will cost €0.00? If Munich is going ahead and doing this in the first place they might want to make some fundamental changes to their IT infrastructure since they will be ripping the guts out it anyway. Take for example the proposition of replacing dumb Windows PCs that just stand around all day giving users access to a single application (Why pay a Windows XP license for every one of those PCs?) with Linux based thin clients. In this case they might be factoring the replacement of some quantities of computer equipment and infrastructure changes into that figure of €30 million. Then of course there are the costs of testing the whole system, the costs of writing custom software to aid in the migration of entire data bases, websites and other applications previously hosted on Windows 2003+MSSQL+IIS to open source platforms, porting custom made GUI applications/clients to Linux or replacing them with new webapps. I can see why the costs would go up but in the long run I agree with you that their costs should go down as a result of this measure if they handle the project properly which, admittedly, is asking a lot of a German bureaucracy. I would really like to see a financial breakdown and progress report of this project when they are done, this project is really interesting due to it's scale.
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's the only thing the application will run on? Unfortunatley it's not always possible to use an alternative.
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:2)
While I appreciate that there are some cases where it is impossible to move from Windows this is hardly the case 80% of the time. My example was aimed at a case where migration to Linux would be possible. I walk into businesses every damn day that that have several NT4/Win2K/WinXP boxes standing around giving people access to either a web app or some GUI client which these days is quite ofte
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:2)
Yes it is. You may need to write the alternative yourself, but if you're throwing 35m at a project a lot of things suddenly become possible.
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:2)
I wonder what the costs of upgrading to a current supported version of windows would have been?
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:2)
Cheaper than usual, if they had accepted Ballmer's bribe, but still more expensive (TCO) than switching to Linux.
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:2)
Plus all the subsidies like the opera, the East German social-integration costs, the legacy costs from their escapades of sixty years ago
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:2)
Re:Costs: €0.00 (Score:3, Insightful)
If restructuring a complete IT workflow system is at all as difficult as platform porting and restructuring a complicated computer program, then you need to resist the temptation of just "fixing things while we're in there anyway".
If things don't work later, then it's too hard to track down the responsible fix.
Re:holy not cost effective, batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many of the custom apps they're building on Linux will also be open source, and therefore available to the next government looking to switch. It could be that Munich is taking a _really_ big hit, but each organisation which follows the same path will find it progressively easier to switch.
I've often thought that commercial software vendors are taking an immense risk in not porting to Linux, thereby allowing the whole FOSS application stack on the platform to be developed without commercial-grade competition.
This sort of migration could start a cascade effect, where each successful adoption catalyses the next, and there are damn few commercial software houses prepared to take advantage of that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Being an european myself and in-the-know about the ways of social-democracy I have some nice theories indeed, but being less than IT--related I'll spare the rest of you.
Thats one big incentive... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (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), Mu
Even so, these do not really seem to be PCs (Score:2)
People eventually brought PCs into the home because they felt like they had some
Costs because of Windows-only applications (Score:2)
The cost are so high because somewhere between 100-200 third party applications have to be rewritten since these applications are currently Windows-only applications. Most of this rewriting will be done with Java, so it's just a matter of time when the next rewrite will come.
Only 80% of the computers will be switched to Linux because several of these third party applications can't be rewritten since it would be too expensive or no knowledge is around. There's some expectation that on
Small price to pay for openess in a democracy. (Score:2)
But no, the Windows apologists (I feel tempted to call them appeasers, since it is a nice little dirty word you can throw at your ideological oponents nowadays with marvelous results) never mention that there is a cost to be met there anyway, no matter which infrastructure one uses.
But I guess many US citizens (at least half of them) o no longer understand these finer points of good governance (hint: in a dem
Behind the scenes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Snarkiness aside, I think this is a cool project. It'll be interesting to see who else follows Munich's lead, and what ol' Ballmer aims to do about it. Maybe he'll chuck a chair (doh.. there's that snarkiness again... time for me to creep back into my hidey hole).
Re:Behind the scenes... (Score:5, Informative)
With the major and of course a majority in the city council backing this, they started a very gradual and careful way to change, with a halt since 2004 because they needed a risk analysis in the case that software patents would be installed EU-wide. The cost risk turned out to be pretty small, as for every patent there can be a workaround eventually, linux is based on code that is already known since the 60s, and some other reasons. In the mean time they made sure they had automated software install systems working, and other practical issues resolved. The big news now is that they will actually start with the first linux machines for office employees. First ones will be for office work that requires interchangeable software (word processor, etc), then more complicated office work will follow.
s/major/mayor (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
See here if you don't get it [wikipedia.org].
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
So they use the first 100-200 to learn and to develop deployment procedures etc. When that works, they roll it out to all the similar computers.
Just like in some smaller places, they use days to test something on one or two computers. When it works they spend an hour putting it on all 500 company desktops, most of the time just waiting for network transfers and rebooting.
Re: (Score:2)
Mayor's PC among the first (Score:5, Informative)
Just curious (Score:2)
Why Debian? Not that I'm implying that Debian is a bad distribution but isn't SuSE HQ practically in their back yard (Nürnberg) ?? Or has Novell uprooted SuSE development and moved the entire outfit to the USA ??
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)
See here:
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/dir/limux/english/
OK?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just curious (Score:4, Informative)
that site has general information about the Linux-Project and a link to this site:
http://www.ssrc.org/wiki/POSA/index.php?title=LiM
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, thanks for a very German answer :D
Secondly, while that is a nice a site and I say that because this project interests me and I did take a look at that Wiki, I was hoping for a more detailed business and financial oriented explanation than "They will be deploying not SuSE but Debian GNU/Linux, the freest of the Linux distributions." The word 'Debian' is mentioned only once on the pace you linked to.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time, there was no OpenSuSE like now.
cheers,
Rainer
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to have been a really bad marketing move by Ballmer. And I always thought the one thing Microsoft were really good in was marketing!
Re: (Score:2)
You, me and the rest of slashdot knew this for long - but at that moment, even the non-IT city-council members must have had one of these "WTF?"-moments.
MSFT had fobbed them off with tiny rebates over the years and now they looked like idiots. Like those first-year purchasing agents that are so proud of getting double-digit rebates on "list-prices", only to realize afterwards that
Re: (Score:2)
Just one more reason to admire this rethink. You might expect that they would move from the big name vendor to the biggest name Linux vendor they could get, but in the end the name doesn't buy you anything. What matters is that you're supported.
Re: (Score:2)
additional info (Score:5, Informative)
however, the main reason for the delays and the slow roll-out are that a lot of custom applications had to be ported and for some existing client/server apps interfaces had to be created from scratch.
cheers from Munich,
Andreas
They Tried (Score:5, Funny)
But Microsoft just couldn't get Longhorn ready in time.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Rhine... (Score:5, Informative)
Some Open Source headways in Europe, indeed, can clearly be seen in EU site [europa.eu].
Quite heartening indeed! Maybe the big conservative companies will finaly notice this trend. I am sure Microsoft did.
Re: (Score:2)
(Nice link to the EU site BTW!)
Difficult Switch Benefits Linux? (Score:2)
I do wonder whether we'll start to see Microsoft supporting these Open Standards as a way to ease the migration path back - supported of course by heavy subsidies on licensing.
The headline is mis-leading! (Score:3, Informative)
The sentence should read, "Munich Finally Starts Implementing Linux."
The embrace happened a few years ago. It's (Linux) implementation is what has just happened. By the way...does anyone know whether it's KDE or GNOME at the forefront here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The headline is mis-leading! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Too bad (Score:2)
Too bad. It probably played a big part in picking KDE over Gnome.
My guess it probably went something like this.
German guy: We need to move to Linux.
Expert: What desktop do you want to use?
German Guy: Umm... We want to use Linux.
Expert: No you have to pick which user interface you want for the desktop.
German Guy: What are my choices.
Expert: Well you have a lot of options but KDE and Gnome are the two most popular.
German Guy: Okay what is the difference
Re: (Score:2)
Octoberfest (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
p.s. Please pay me in Euro (and yes, I will even pronounce it "oi row" just for the brownie points) - the dollar is practically toilet paper these days.
Can I be the first to suggest... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chairs of Mass Destruction (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Intercontinental Ballmer Missiles (ICBM) incoming!
I didn't know that he could throw that far or that Aerons were viable WMDs.
A Big Gamble (Score:2)
On the otherhand, if they mostly don't like the experience then it will get rapidly and publicly tossed out by the next goverment, and will likely set Desktop Linux back 10 years in Europe.
Fran
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I honestly think it has something to do
Re: (Score:2)
I remember us smugly installing x-terminals everywhere to replace the PCs we had. It's the future! It's open! It's economical to run!
Within 3 years, several million pounds worth of x-terminals were junked and we were back with PCs. So much easier to get the software! People know how to use them! Easier to find support staff!
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are paying a fortune in licences where there are Free alternatives available.
Re:Linux urinals? (Score:4, Funny)
Your ToiletFlush(tm); license has expired. Please supply your Credit card details using morse code on the ToiletFlush(tm); button. The ToiletDoor(pat.pend.) will stay shut for safety reasons until you comply."
Re: (Score:2)
Another reason to upgrade to one of those toilets with the yin-yang 'low-flow/higher flow' buttons: you can use the two buttons to enter binary (higher-flow=1, lower-flow=0) instead of having to learn Morse Code. Computer geeks rejoice. Radio geeks need not upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current Windows-based urinals are susceptible to the Piss of Death attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats probobly where the cash is going, to train all the people (not just the users but the IT people, admins etc) and to provide support for it all.
Re:Curious to see how long openoffices works for t (Score:2)
OpenDocument specifications are available and anyone is allowed to implement the format, so it is up to Microsoft to make their software work properly.
The EU is not the government of Europe (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you said that in 1923, too...