Linux-friendly Munich: Ja, we'll take open source collab cloud The Linux-friendly burghers of Munich are rolling out their own open-source groupware cloud, bucking the trend for going public. The German city has selected Kolab Desktop Client and Kolab web Client for more than 14,000 Linux PCs, surviving Windows PCs and a generation of mobile devices under a four-year project called MigMak …
"That's just stupid. No company wants to kill potential customers except possibly Philip Morris."
My point was that if someone at Microsoft could just press a button and have Munich disappear, they would be strongly tempted. As for customers, Microsoft doesn't have customers in Munich - or at least not in its municipal government. And I imagine a number of companies and private individuals have reflected that if their government can save money without any loss of services, they could do so too.
"Munich's mayor, Christian Ude, said in 2012 the switch from Windows to Linux had saved the the city more than €4m in one year alone."
Rather misleading to quote just 1 year ongoing costs.
A review by an independent vendor (HP) came to the conclusion that between them and IBM, it has actually cost ~ €30 million MORE than sticking with Windows over the last decade!
"A review by an independent vendor (HP)"
Ha ha - i haven't laughed so much for ages! Thanks!
http://store.hp.com/UKStore/Merch/List.aspx?sel=PBDT
Which one of those PCs is available, from that page (no customisation /etc required), without MS software? Which one of those PCs is available, using default customisation options, with MS software removed and replaced by a Linux distro, with the price reflecting the retail price of the software accordingly?
>A review by an independent vendor (HP)
Are you serious? HP is Microsoft. 99% of their products run Windows and Micro$haft software.
He's what a M$ or a vendor pushing M$ products report will always include:
1. ** Retraining costs associated with migrating to Linux. This is basically where they claim all those additional costs will come from.
It's completely bogus though. Every new version of Windows or M$ Office requires retraining, and some might argue are even more of departure from the normal workflow paradigm than switching to Linux/Libre Office. Metro and the Ribbon alone are so far removed from the previous versions that the Linux desktop and Libre Office software are much easier to pickup. Thus it's more costly to retrain in M$ and their every-changing and radical UI overhauls than to go FOSS.
2. ** Document conversion costs. This is another bogus claim. How many times I've seen incompatibilities between different versions of M$ Office file formats. Safe to say, M$ doesn't include those costs in it's assessment of continuing to use its products.
Then there are the savings associated with migrating to FOSS:
1. Licence fees. There are none for software like LibreOffice.
2. Retraining costs are lower going from XP to desktop Linux than from XP to 8. The same applies going from M$ Office 2003 to LibreOffice than 2007+. Metro / Ribbon changes are so alien to users, it's like starting from scratch, whereas, the FOSS option is very familiar.
3. Hardware can be repurposed. There's no need to buy all new hardware when FOSS has lower system requirements than Windows.
4. No risk of malware, rootkits, NSA backdoors. The NHS just recently was infected with malware on their XP systems. You can bet that M$ never includes those costs when it sponsors ROI reports about migrating to FOSS.
5. Vendor neutral standards like ODF, and the plethora of office suites which implement it, guarantees future accessibility, and competitive prices for support contracts.
6. Security. All code can be audited unlike proprietary products from Micro$haft.
1. The product might be free, but paid support costs are generally higher. As is the TCO. For instance you can manage Office setting for tens of thousands of users centrally via Group Policy. For freeware office solutions, you generally have non enterprise ready solutions like local flat text config files.
2. You don't need to migrate Office file versions. It just works. With the freeware products you get all sorts of compatibility and editing problems.
3. Current versions of Windows outperform Linux on the same hardware (e.g. faster Open GL, faster copy of a large file - latest benchmarks of Ubuntu vs Windows 7)
4. You still have a risk of Malware and being hacked on Linux. Just look at where Linux is actually used like Android - 99.9% (actual figure) of mobile Malware is on Android. Or at Webservers - you are several times more likely to be hacked running a Linux based webserver than a Windows Server based one....
5. Office has supported ODF (and the far more commonly used OOXML) since Office 2010.
6. All Microsoft OS and Office code can be audited on request by government (or enterprise) type organisations.
FUD
"1. The product might be free, but paid support costs are generally higher. As is the TCO. For instance you can manage Office setting for tens of thousands of users centrally via Group Policy. For freeware office solutions, you generally have non enterprise ready solutions like local flat text config files."
Speaking from actual experience? or theory, hearsay, or is this what you [would] do?
"3. Current versions of Windows outperform Linux on the same hardware (e.g. faster Open GL, faster copy of a large file - latest benchmarks of Ubuntu vs Windows 7)"
Yep. On specific hardware, not generally.
http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=74
"4. You still have a risk of Malware and being hacked on Linux. Just look at where Linux is actually used like Android - 99.9% (actual figure) of mobile Malware is on Android. Or at Webservers - you are several times more likely to be hacked running a Linux based webserver than a Windows Server based one...."
There is still a risk of malware/hacked on Linux, a fool thinks they're immune.
However, Android is a layer on top of Linux and the malware you talk of applies to Android. It's like blaming Windows for a Firefox vulnerability.
"6. All Microsoft OS and Office code can be audited on request by government (or enterprise) type organisations."
They can audit the code that's actually being executed? So people are able to audit, then build+run the exact code that's been audited?
> All Microsoft OS and Office code can be audited on request by government (or enterprise) type organisations.
If only you could do that with (ahem) open source code... and if only you could be sure that you are compiling the very same code that you have audited, with a compilation toolchain that is itself auditable.
And who knows if one day we might even be able to modify ourselves those bits of code that haven't passed our audit.
God, I can't believe all that I'm missing by sticking to (ahem) open source software.
"1. The product might be free, but paid support costs are generally higher. As is the TCO." -- As opposed to the cost of the licenses AND the support costs. It's a little something called supply and demand, which currently is heavy on the demand side if you go Linux.
"For instance you can manage Office setting for tens of thousands of users centrally via Group Policy. For freeware office solutions, you generally have non enterprise ready solutions like local flat text config files." -- So it's not just a point and click method. Stop being lazy. Group Policy? Use SCCM...
"2. You don't need to migrate Office file versions. It just works. With the freeware products you get all sorts of compatibility and editing problems." -- Because M$ implementation of ODF is purposely flawed. I haven't seen an issue between true ODF compliant softwares.
"3. Current versions of Windows outperform Linux on the same hardware (e.g. faster Open GL, faster copy of a large file - latest benchmarks of Ubuntu vs Windows 7)" -- Using drivers that M$ has demanded are not fully Linux compatible.
"4. You still have a risk of Malware and being hacked on Linux. Just look at where Linux is actually used like Android - 99.9% (actual figure) of mobile Malware is on Android. Or at Webservers - you are several times more likely to be hacked running a Linux based webserver than a Windows Server based one...." -- You can't compare apples and oranges here. You whole arguement became invalid when you mentioned Android.
"5. Office has supported ODF (and the far more commonly used OOXML) since Office 2010." -- Um, no they haven't. See my comment to point 2.
"6. All Microsoft OS and Office code can be audited on request by government (or enterprise) type organisations." -- Seet Jesus in a chariot driven sidecar... You actually BELIEVE that the code that can be examined is the actual production code? Or that the anyone could say anything about it IF they did find something? I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like you to take a look at...
I like how the M$ trolls have had to change tack because they can't use the "It took them 10 years to make it (mostly) work" arguement. It took them 10 PLANNED years to make it work. That's what they don't bother to say when they are trying to shove a M$ license down your throat.
You sir, are a shill.
1. Yes, Licensing costs are lower. Support costs are higher. Does anyone know where Redhat gets its money?
2. This argument is false compared to Windows 7.
3. This argument is also false. Categorically.
4. This is a pompous argument. Apache is the most viable source of malware delivery today.
5. Nuts to this. If a vendor supports their own AND neutral standards, your argument lumps them in with proprietary vendors as well. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
6. WHEN they get around to it. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/21/kde_bug_quashed/
Good news, everyone! KDE cookie-scoffing bug smashed after 10 years ...
You can puff out your chest in pride over this one.
> 1. Yes, Licensing costs are lower. Support costs are higher. Does anyone know where Redhat gets its money?
For Linux licensing costs can be zero, support costs can be zero. Yes, Red Hat has commercial support costs, others have optional support costs. Munich is not using RHEL for its desktops.
> 3. This argument is also false. Categorically.
Wrong. There may be specific individual cases where Windows can be shown to faster, other cases where Linux trounces Windows.
> 4. This is a pompous argument. Apache is the most viable source of malware delivery today.
I agree that yours is a pompus argument. If deliberate malware delivery is the aim of the site then it may well be more likely that Apache will be used. That is like arguing that Ford vans lead to more robberies (because there are more of them).
"Good news, everyone! KDE cookie-scoffing bug smashed after 10 years ..."
The 'bug' was so trivial nobody had even noticed it
From your ref :
"The flaw in the free-software environment is best described as a glitch or irritant rather than anything serious, but it did cause some systems to forget their web cookies after a reboot or shutdown"
Do you know how long I leave some of my desktops between reboot or shutdown ?
The citizens of Munich are lucky that Microsoft doesn't (yet) have nuclear capability.
MS do, however, have heaps of paid shills, as we've seen from the ODF proposal here in the UK: It's been a while since I've seen so many of them in one place, and they're not even being subtle about it either (easy to poke holes in their story, though). There's a whole eco system that has to learn new skills, though, let's see what happens there.
Here in the UK, it appears Cabinet Office has started a serious political storm with ODF. MS knows full well that one implementation that works will topple the whole house of cards, and may even undo the con job they ran on the schools (rope them in with educational discounts, and then removing that discount). I bet you can't park In Westminster for the lobbyists trying to change the interpretation of the consultation. I suspect none of them will see much of the coming weekend..
Well done to Munich, proving that it's not just Nurnberg that can claim "Vorsprung durch Technik" :)
"The German city has selected Kolab Desktop Client and Kolab web Client for more than 14,000 Linux PCs, surviving Windows PCs and a generation of mobile devices under a four-year project called MigMak"
The user base are complaining and fighting for access to the "extra" 30% of computers that have access to a version of Office that actually works and has Outlook installed - and this is the latest attempt to deliver something vaguely useable....
MS-Orifice has been increasingly problematic over at least the past decade. When we used MSO-2003, a customer used to send in docs also created in MSO-2003. However, our install would not read many of the submitted documents. To solve the issue, I would often load them into OpenOffice, save as MS-Office, and then our MS-Office would read them. As for the latest MS-Office... the interface is a total fustercluck! I've used a lot of application suites, and none have had such terribly-designed user interfaces. Radical changes often take adjustment, but good ones do make the advantages clear, after a while. A year with MS-Office 2010 have made clear to me that ergonomics were nowhere near the designer's minds when this turd was polished.
"24 million.."
My mistake it's 35 million !
"Success! 35 million students in over 50,000 schools throughout Brazil are now enjoying 523,400 new computer stations"
"The Brazilian Ministry of Education chose the free Linux operating system as the platform, calculating the projected long term benefits this choice will bring to the Brazilian economy."
http://userful.com/products/case-studies/brazil-case-study
Yes that link is worth a read.
"On average, schools using Windows in Latin America have reported spending 40% of the value of their computer purchases on software licensing fees. Embracing Linux and Open Source software frees up this spending so that schools and ministries can provide more students with computer access for the same budget. Virtually every Windows application has a free equivalent for Linux and because of the stable and secure design of Linux, less intervention by IT support staff is required to resolve virus issues and keep the computers running properly. Selecting MultiSeat Linux not only ensures lower deployment costs, but also sows the seeds for a future local ICT economy that isn't locked-in and dependent on a foreign monopoly."
>On average, schools using Windows in Latin America have reported spending 40% of the value of their computer purchases on software licensing fees
..... it's less than $40 a seat to license every MS product for school use - unless they're only spending $100 a seat on hardware there's something obviously wrong with that statistic or that money is going on non-MS licenses...
It probably only exists because of FLOSS dev tools, and these sadly aren't core applications in UK schools, but the prices on https://www.dreamspark.com/Institution/Subscription.aspx will probably surprise most readers....
> it's less than $40 a seat to license every MS product for school use -
That is PER YEAR and also PER EVERY SEAT. If you have an Apple or a Raspberry Pi they will charge you for those too*. It is a 'discount' by a convicted monopolist.
> here's something obviously wrong with that statistic
Only with your fundamental lack of understanding.
> or that money is going on non-MS licenses...
Obviously no one should even think of giving money to anyone other than Microsoft, that would ruin MS's aims of running the world.
* In NZ they managed to kill that clause.
>If you have an Apple or a Raspberry Pi they will charge you for those too*.
Raspberry Pi are not counted, nor is older hardware [anything that doesn't meet current OS minimum spec].....curriculum Apple seats capable of running MS Software are of course counted. In the UK the vast majority of schools use this arrangement (directly and indirectly) because it is cheaper and easier than supporting, maintaining and auditing a hotch-potch of often half-baked solutions.
>Only with your fundamental lack of understanding
Yawn. I also posted the link to Dreamspark which is a much cheaper option for 3rd world countries like Brazil.....or UK schools with the capability to be selective, which in truth is very few.
> In NZ they managed to kill that clause.
References please.....I doubt the failure there was any different from the reasons it has failed to make an impact here in the UK...with the added inconvenience schools in NZ had to actually pay for them.
"Maybe not but 70000 French police, 24 million Brazilian schoolchildren and lots, lots of other projects - it's starting to stack up."
24(35) million (very poor) school children that wouldnt have bought a Windows license each anyway.
Linux adoption is smaller than Microsoft's growth in sales! Even 'stacked up' Linux adoption is to date tiny and insignificant.
24(35) million (very poor) school children that wouldnt have bought a Windows license each anyway.
Well done, that's EXACTLY the argument why avoiding MS is worth it. They did that in Spain too. The fun bit is that these children will grow up not being locked into the "must buy Microsoft" syndrome that enables MS to extract tax money from citizens on a global scale, who end up paying twice: once to have it in government, and again to have it at home so they can actually access what the government is sending them.
Now imagine what happens when these kids grow up and get involved in business? Who will work more cost effective, you think?
This post has been deleted by its author
"I know that this is only a Munich project but it could be in the process of establishing a precedent for others to come."
Also (slightly but significantly different) an existence proof that the thing can be done. All over the world, others will be thinking "So they pulled it off. Maybe we should think about a similar move".
Perhaps especially so for the ones that are historically Certified Microsoft Dependent but have seen which way the wind will be blowing in the next few years, and want to be ahead of the migration game rather than at the back of the queue.
It is, apart from a few mad laws (e.g. being responsible for all activity on your network - hence no free Wifi; heavy restrictions of vehicle customisation) but then they aren't the only country with quirks like that.
It certainly appears have a less corrupt government than the UK, but then I'm not an expert on German politics.
If I could speak German, I'd move.
If I could speak German, I'd move.
There is the occasional unintentional comedy you have to be aware of, though.
I had many years of NHS dental work replaced by decent German stuff, and it started with the thing I hate most about dentistry: injections in my mouth. Seeing my evident look of apprehension, the dentist stood there holding the injection and said in a TV-perfect German accent: "Zis iz not goink to hurt".
I more or less fell out of the chair laughing..
NB: I do like driving through it, legally and somewhat safely, at tyre limit speed when the road conditions allow though.
I occasionally do, but in my car the fuel consumption is over 50l/100 at 270km/h, whereas it's 10l/100 at 130km/h. In other words, you only gain in speed in between refuelling :). Having said that, it's rare I find the occasion anyway as you need to have about 4..5km of visibly clear road ahead for safety reasons.
Are you seeing this? This is how you get shit done. This is how you stimulate competition and innovation. If you buy MS Exchange from Company A or Company B makes no odds; you are still buy MS Exchnage; there is no competition and thus no need to inter-operate or support open standards.
Yes, yes, yes; the ODF proposal (not that that precludes the use of MS Office in any shape or form). It's not enough. You need to start *now* with projects to ditch lock-in software.
To the fact that competition exists. Just as IBM did successfully a couple of decades ago, by decoupling their major product divisions. Getting their business and server software to work well on other OS platforms would be a start. This would improve software quality and resilience also, by removing undocumented and proprietary hooks between the OS and application and network layers which shouldn't be there in the first place.
Getting Active Directory to fully support Linux and Apple products, as well as the main mobile platforms would also be relevant.
I've used Linux on the desktop, server and embedded platforms for years, but Microsoft still has some excellent products. And they really can't afford to restrict the market for these products to their own OS platforms.
"Getting Active Directory to fully support Linux and Apple products"
It has done for years. Kerberos / LDAP are standards that can be used in any modern OS. The failing here is that Linux was not designed with the enterprise in mind, see for instance: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2008.12.linux.aspx
"as well as the main mobile platforms would also be relevant."
Again - it does already. See: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/how-microsofts-mdm-strategy-embraced-android-and-ios
"The failing here is that Linux was not designed with the enterprise in mind"
For Pete's sake. It originated as a server OS and was *born* with server OS characteristics. And that means enterprise.
AT&T -> Unix -> ... -> ... -> -> Linux
Windows was not born as an OS at all, but as a windowing framework.
"The failing here is that Linux was not designed with the enterprise in mind..."
To the extent that that is true, neither was any other operating system - without exception. Certainly not Windows, which was initially designed to be as cheap as possible while still performing a few of the more superficial user-oriented tasks of an operating system. Since it swallowed a lot of VMS code (or at least design) in the shape of Windows NT it has been somewhat more robust, but even full-fledged VMS wasn't "designed with the enterprise in mind". It was designed to extend the kind of tasks previously performed by RSTS and RSX11 to a 64-bit memory space - those tasks being mainly scientific, engineering, and low- to mid-level administration and database work.
The only operating systems that have any claim at all to have been "designed with the enterprise in mind" are, of course, IBM's. Which is why they have always been far and away the best suited to that environment.
"The only operating systems that have any claim at all to have been "designed with the enterprise in mind" are, of course, IBM's. Which is why they have always been far and away the best suited to that environment."
But then if we go back far enough...
Which is probably the reason why IBM and other mainframe vendors, who's OS's date back into the 50's and 60's are enterprise ready, because it was the only market back then.
> who's OS's date back into the 50's and 60's are enterprise ready, because it was the only market back then.
That is just not true. The original markets for computers in the 50s and 60s were: military - ENIAC was designed for the US Army; University - see Columbia and Manchester and many others; Scientific - eg NACA.
The first computer designed and used for a commercial environment was LEO - Lyon's Electronic Office. It ran the ordering and delivery systems for the Lyon Teashops, and the payroll.
Re: Computer market in the 50's and 60's
Obviously I was a bit too hand wavy in using the word 'enterprise'. However, the fact is that only organisations that could afford the rather high prices mainframe computers commanded along with all that went with them were in the market, so vendors designed for that market. OS's such as IBM's OS/390 can therefore point to many decades of development and refinement (however that doesn't prevent them from being a bugger to work with - try setting up a geographically distributed Parallel Sysplex...).
Those who remember those times (as you do and I do, as many others do) are seeing some similarities with Microsoft's current arrogance driven by its historic monopoly. The decline will take longer with Microsoft than it did with DEC because there is a whole global Certified Microsoft Dependent ecosystem out there whose businesses are at risk when Microsoft fall. But anyone who claims it can't happen is only fooling themselves.
@Tom Welsh
"Just as DEC cut its own throat 30 years ago by restricting the market for its excellent software to its own hardware platforms. It's the nature of the beast".
I was part of a largish team that implemented DEC's ALL-IN-1 in the research and engineering divisions of a very large nationalised industry. At the time the product was truly excellent on VMS, PDPs, DECmates - Even the "Professional" POS stuff was almost OK.
Now comes the bit that it is relevant. Even though we had a lot of DEC kit we stayed well away from the semi-proprietary Rainbow as we were putting in IBM ATs and PC Clones everywhere running DOS. Most of this was held together with DECnet and Novell. So it was necessary to run ALL-IN-1 under DOS. DEC's PC ALL-IN-1 DOS product was poorly implemented. It crashed, sometimes you could only get it to work if you booted from a vanilla DOS floppy as it did not seem to like networking software or Expanded/Extended memory drivers.
We eventually pulled all of this and, at vast expense, eventually replaced the WP side with WP5x; e-mail/messaging happened through generic clients; terminal emulation went to another vendor; and most of the rest, like time management, we did ourselves.
A real shame, this was years ahead in a corporate environment, I sometimes wonder what would have happened if DEC had made DECnet free and spent more efforts on generic PC client-server products. It might have slowed or stopped the rise of MS into networking and servers - MS products at the time were not up to scratch (PC/LAN Manager), and they could well have killed the relatively poor NT3x Server line that came later.
Yep, Microsoft seem to be flailing around while their core business degrades, just like DEC did...
" I sometimes wonder what would have happened if DEC had made DECnet free and spent more efforts on generic PC client-server products."
Did you ever hear about DEC's NAS client and server products? From the later VAXes through to the Compaq era, if you bought a DEC VMS or UNIX server-class box it typically came bundled with a NAS licence (NAS = Network Application Support). So the stuff effectively was free. And the client licence was typically bundled with client systems of various flavours.
DECnet, TCP/IP as transport, and various application protocols on top (NFS, Pathworks/SMB, etc).
Read more at e.g. the first couple of pages of http://h30266.www3.hp.com/odl/vax/network/nas83c/nas_vax_over1.html (back in the day when software came with usable and relevant documentation).
See the end users of the Munich's 'open source wonder project' banging on about how much they love using the heath robinson IT effort that has been imposed on them
or
See any independent audits of these supposed 'four million in savings'
or
Get to hear exactly how much Munich still spend on MS licensing. (Hint, if you remote in to a windows PC from a Linux box, MS will still charge you for a windows license).
I suspect in reality the whole thing is a vanity project for a few senior civil servants. Paid for, in spades, by the suckers that are the tax payers of Munich. High fives all round!!!
Bring on the down votes as I have cast doubt on the only 'Linux on the desktop' customer that I or the freetards have ever heard of.....
"See the end users of the Munich's 'open source wonder project' banging on about how much they love using the heath robinson IT effort that has been imposed on them"
Well we didn't get to hear how many we super-excited to see Windows which was also imposed on them. The end-user really won't care beyond "Does this work?" and "Can I get my stuff done?" IT is almost always imposed on the end-user.
If you want "Heath Robinson" then you really do want Windows and MS. It wasn't that long ago that Excel (to pick one) behaved in a different way to all other Office programs. Remember the Bluetooth stack? Jesus Christ, what a fustercluck. Windows networking is still a fustercluck!
"See any independent audits of these supposed 'four million in savings'"
"independent" in the same way as the MS-funded FUD? Which is funny. When MS start paying for FUD, you know they are shitting themselves. FWIW I am pretty sure Munich has release their costings. Feel free to read them and offer critique.
"Get to hear exactly how much Munich still spend on MS licensing. (Hint, if you remote in to a windows PC from a Linux box, MS will still charge you for a windows license)."
I don't think they RDP in, I think they have a few Windows boxen kicking around for certain uses.
"I suspect in reality the whole thing is a vanity project for a few senior civil servants. Paid for, in spades, by the suckers that are the tax payers of Munich. High fives all round!!!"
As opposed to bending over and taking what MS has to offer? Maybe Munich will be a failure. Maybe it will be a success. From a certain point of view it doesn't matter, it matters to try. All those years ago, if people hadn't tried MS-DOS then MS would be nowhere.
"Bring on the down votes as I have cast doubt on the only 'Linux on the desktop' customer that I or the freetards have ever heard of....."
Clearly your ears are closed. Extramadura and French Gendarmerie. That's without looking anything up. Most in-flight entertainment systems are GNU/Linux. Does that count as a "desktop"? Not sure. Many weapons systems are now GNU/Linux due to fears over Windows' security, I am sure they have UI but don't know if you'd count that as a desktop.
If we drop the "desktop" requirement, then we can safely state that the majority of computing devices on the planet to day are running Linux (but not always GNU). Servers are still mostly GNU/Linux.
If you look beyond the Outlook/Excel button-pushers, it's not a Windows world. It's a free world (even Darwin is at least open). A world MS is scared of, which is why they do their utmost to not implement standards and poison the well. They know they can't win a fair fight.
"When MS start paying for FUD, you know they are shitting themselves."
Except that HP never publiched the report. Even though it showed that the supposed savings were in fact complete bollocks that completely ignored the costs of the migration project.
The reason that MS are not 'shitting themselves' is that the Munich project has shown that to make such a move takes over a decade, leaves 30% of your users having to still use Microsoft to get any real work done, provides an inferior solution in terms of capability and compatibility with most common business applications and above all doesnt save any money in any reasonable timeframe.
In fact across the whole of Europe the only similar notable project is for the French police - which is a very niche and limited environment - and for them might make sense (likely far more than Munich ever did).
"it matters to try"
Well I can agree with you that someone needed to - and it demonstatrated that for most environments. there is no significant benefit in doing so - at least in the short - medium term. Otherwise every CIO would be heading for the 'better mousetrap'. But pretty much no one is.
"Most in-flight entertainment systems are GNU/Linux. Does that count as a "desktop"? "
No. More a 'kiosk'
"Except that HP never [published] the report."
MS really do hate freedom, openness and accountability; don't they? I am sure there are points to be argued but until MS publish their report in full, we can't fully assess their conclusions.
"The reason that MS are not 'shitting themselves' is that the Munich project has shown that to make such a move takes over a decade"
Which proves what a bad idea it was to go with MS in the first place.
"leaves 30% of your users having to still use Microsoft"
For now.
"provides an inferior solution in terms of capbility and comptibility with most common business"
You mean supporting ISO standards? Gosh, which company doesn't support proper ISO standards? The name is really familiar, I'm sure it'll come to me. IMHO, OOXML is not a "proper ISO standard" given how it was ratified and the complete obtuseness of the documentation.
"doesnt save any money in any reasonable timeframe."
Please cite you publicly available evidence, please.
"In fact across the whole of Europe the only similar notable project is for the French police"
At the moment. The UK government is making noises with their standards proposal. I think the whole XP-expire deadline is causing people to re-think how they work.
Maybe more adoptions will come out of Munich, maybe not. But what is wrong with getting some actual competition in the market place? Nothing, other than causing MS to panic.
"MS really do hate freedom, openness and accountability; don't they?"
It is Microsoft that involved a third party here. I don't see Munich providing audited proof...only a project team keeping themselves in a job for the last decade!
"Which proves what a bad idea it was to go with MS in the first place."
It proves what a bad idea it was to migrate to Linux and how unsuitable it is.
"For now."
For a decade, with no signs of change in the near future.
"Please cite you publicly available evidence, please."
http://www.itworld.com/open-source/337658/microsoft-wont-release-study-challenged-success-munichs-linux-migration
"At the moment. "
Yes - across the hundreds of million of employees in the whole of Europe. Pretty much no one one wants Linux.
"The UK government is making noises with their standards proposal"
The UK government is considering mandating the use of ODF - and the most capable product that supports that out of the box is - Microsoft Office!
"Nothing, other than causing MS to panic."
This isnt even remotely causing MS to panic for the reasons above. If anything it has consolidated their position in the enterprise.
"It is Microsoft that involved a third party here".
By "third party" I take it you mean HP, one of the biggest sellers of Windows PCs in the world? One so fanatically attached to Redmond that until it was recently forced to see reason, it offered only Windows 8 on new computers?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
"I don't see Munich providing audited proof...only a project team keeping themselves in a job for the last decade!"
I don't see MS doing that either.
"http://www.itworld.com/open-source/337658/microsoft-wont-release-study-challenged-success-munichs-linux-migration"
You merely cite the non-release of data, that doesn't back up your claim. In case you have forgotten your claim was: "doesnt save any money in any reasonable timeframe."
Please cite your evidence.
"Pretty much no one one wants Linux."
Factually incorrect. Most people use Linux every single day. Do you even know what Linux is I wonder.
"The UK government is considering mandating the use of ODF"
Wrong. Try reading the actual proposal.
"and the most capable product that supports that out of the box is - [Libre|Open]Office!"
FTFY.
"I don't see MS doing that either."
Microsoft are not the one in a position to provide it.
"Please cite your evidence."
Here you go if the press commentary was not evidence enough: http://www.scribd.com/doc/122167337/Studie-OSS-Strategie-der-Stadt-Munchen-v1-0-Zusammenfassung
"Factually incorrect. Most people use Linux every single day."
Accurate. That doesnt mean that they want it. If you want to swap pedantry, let me qualify it to 'Almost no one wants Linux on the desktop'.
"and the most capable product that supports that out of the box is - [Libre|Open]Office!"
HAHAHAHAHAHA - you are really that uninformed that you think that those products even come vaguely close to Microsoft Office? It's like comparing a Robin Reliant to a BMW. You get what you pay for...
> Here you go if the press commentary was not evidence enough:
Was this document put there with the conset of the publisher? I'd be interested to know the details in this as my german is really not very good. For example, are they really say that you can run XP professional on a really crap 300Mz cpu with 128MB ram and Debian needs a much higher spec machine and a 5GB disk? Also, how does Debian require more resources than Debian. And this is just the bit I understand, maybe the rest of the document is nonsense?
"That doesnt mean that they want [Linux]."
Strange, all those Android sales must be fictional.
"'Almost no one wants Linux on the desktop'"
That's a different statement. It really is becoming clear you don't know what Linux actually is. And I'll put it you you that most users wouldn't give two shits if Linux was or was not on their desktop. It is the applications and the UI which matters more to them than the kernel.
"you are really that uninformed that you think that those products even come vaguely close to Microsoft Office?"
That wasn't the statement, was it? It was about ODF support. If you wish to discuss what supports what, that which one is best really depends on the use case. Did you know, for example, that LibreOffice Calc can off-load processing on to the GPU? That might make is a better fit than Excel for some use cases.
Eh, how does an article based on a press release statinging that the report won't be published count as evidence? Evidence is something that can be examined, reviewed and concluded upon, a few tidbits of what someone who works in MS decides to put in a press release is not evidence.
> Except that HP never publiched the report. Even though it showed that the supposed savings were in fact complete bollocks that completely ignored the costs of the migration project.
You are correct that HP never published the report. Microsoft did release small parts of it, the bits that seemed beneficial to them. Without the full report it is impossible to see what assumptions HP made or why their 'costings' are so different to what actually happened in Munich.
It is known, however, that the HP 'costings' made the assumption that Munich would have bought new computers every 3 years (which is usual for Windows users) whereas, in fact, Munich did not. Linux ran perfectly well on the existing computers (while Windows would not).
So HP were massively wrong in that one area, and most likely in many other invalid assumptions as well.
If that 'report' were to be published it would be torn apart and shown to be complete uninformed nonsense, just as your support for it is.
> leaves 30% of your users having to still use Microsoft
I understand that there are about 10% of users that still have Windows machines, plus another 20% of users who _occasionally_ need access to applications that run on Windows.
But they are not using "Microsoft", they are using legacy applications that happen to only run on Windows.
"The reason that MS are not 'shitting themselves' is that the Munich project has shown that to make such a move takes over a decade" - I stand corrected. They ARE still trying to use that agrument.
They PLANNED for it to take that long. They had several disparate IT groups within their overall orginization that had to be corralled because they all setup their Wintel environments "their way".
Would you trust a major overhaull like that if it took them significantly less time?
"we can safely state that the majority of computing devices on the planet to day are running Linux"
Really? I can believe that there are more computing devices running some version of Linux than some version of Windows; perhaps just the Android devices outnumber Windows (Android is based on Linux). However, there are a huge number of embedded computing devices that are too simple to run even an embedded Linux: in microwave ovens, (non-mobile) phone handsets, pocket calculators, bank cards, ...
Is it 50 thousand million ARM processors that have been made so far?
"Really?...there are a huge number of embedded computing devices that are too simple to run even an embedded Linux"
Yeah, sorry; I wasn't really thinking of embedded systems, just things that us humans usually interact with (desktops, tablets, phones, servers etc).
If we took every single thing and added em up - I'm really not sure what OS would come out on top (or if what came out on top would even qualify as an OS). But it sure as shit wouldn't be Windows!
'Tis a pity you ate your brains for breakfast and defecated them in that ugly screed ...
By all accounts, the Munich transition exists as a remarkable achievement; more so, given the intense pressure and FUD unleashed by MS.
Meanwhile, unchecked MS corporate arrogance, avarice, and alienation are achieving their own rewards: revulsion, rejection, and public alienation.
"Meanwhile, unchecked MS corporate arrogance, avarice, and alienation are achieving their own rewards: revulsion, rejection, and public alienation."
I know a company who is looking at junking their desktops to replace them with RasPis (or similar low power, thin-client). At the moment they'll back on to a Terminal Server (so still Windows) but they'll save licensing fees on the clients (which are only used to hit TS anyway) and make energy savings.
Quite a neat idea really and a good transitional position.
I say "transitional" because their back-end stuff (databases etc)...yeah, that's not Windows either.
>Get to hear exactly how much Munich still spend on MS licensing. (Hint, if you remote in to a windows PC from a Linux box, MS will still charge you for a windows license).
MS may charge if you require more Client Access Licenses (CALs) than are bundled with the version of Windows you are using. but these are different to a "Windows license".
The point isn't whether Munich are or aren't still buying MS licenses, but whether the environment they are creating is more suited to their needs than one based wholly on proprietary off-the-shelf products.
NB. I assume the reason you are consistently posting as AC across El Reg is because either you don't really like Microsoft and hence are playing devils advocate or you are being paid. The question is do you have the balls to step into the open? You may find that when you find the courage to stand on your own two feet the quality of your contributions and the responses significantly improves!
I assume the reason you are consistently posting as AC across El Reg is because either you don't really like Microsoft and hence are playing devils advocate or you are being paid. The question is do you have the balls to step into the open? You may find that when you find the courage to stand on your own two feet the quality of your contributions and the responses significantly improves!
Ah, so that's why you don't use a first name/last name handle then?
Maybe some people like posting without having to change account for it? Some like privacy, you know, and as long as their arguments stack up I don't think it's any of your business. Having said that..
I assume the reason you are consistently posting as AC across El Reg is because either you don't really like Microsoft and hence are playing devils advocate or you are being paid.
Pardon? I have yet to hear of ANYONE who needs payment to go against Microsoft. To me, that alone is an interesting indication - only MS needs to pay people to state things. For instance, I saw a post somewhere decrying LibreOffice not being a patch on MS Office - well, especially since the ribbon was introduced I have found LibreOffice a LOT more effective for document creation than MS Office - it accelerated a trend I noticed years ago. If Microsoft really wasn't so bothered they would just sit this one out instead of buying every square inch in the press..
" I have yet to hear of ANYONE who needs payment to go against Microsoft"
It's the way you argue against proven facts, without having any conflicting evidence of your own.
You've either fallen for the all FUD, or you have some vested interest in Microsoft.
You seem too intelligent for the former. Or you just like to have a good old bicker.
>Ah, so that's why you don't use a first name/last name handle then?
I like others generally use a handle so that it is easier to establish a viewpoint and to follow a discussion. A side effect is that people can build up a picture of one's interests, opinions etc. this combined with a quick Google does mean that people can find the real person behind my handle...
The problem with "AC" (and the way the El Reg have implemented it), is that there is no way to distinguish posts from one AC to another within the comments to another particular article. So it is pure guesswork whether the AC I'm responding to now is the same AC I was referring to in my previous post in this thread!
>Maybe some people like posting without having to change account for it?
Yes there are time's that "AC" is useful ... however your argument/point really needs to stack up within a single comment.
Given the amount you seem to be posting as AC, perhaps two browsers might be helpful - I've tended to use IE/Chrome for 'work' and Firefox for 'play', and so enabling the use of different default profiles on various sites... But that begs the question: do you prefer to lob stuff over the fence or actually engage in an argument.
> banging on about how much they love using
No. Because it is 'just a computer they use for work'. It does the job.
> audits
Now there is another saving: not having Microsoft audit the licenses.
> (Hint, if you remote in to a windows PC from a Linux box, MS will still charge you for a windows license).
Another good reason to dump Windows.
10 years ago, precisely to deal with the concerns we are seeing with the NSA, GCHQ and back doors.
It's all part of the KDE ecosystem - though it's available for other desktops (for some reason KDE never seems to get the coverage c.f Sanity now: Gnome 3.12 looking sensible)
Kolab, from Swiss company Kolab Systems, was developed by the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI).
It looks like Germany is putting in their own backdoor and people are happy to do it because it is not Microsoft... well played Germany, well played indeed.
Are you or anyone else going to audit the code and all future code that the BSI and their shadow companies have submitted for free? No? I thought not.
If a group of independent experts cannot audit source code BEFORE it is deployed then how do you know if it has a backdoor? I do not think the BSI would put in a backdoor right away due to the mistrust caused by the NSA/GCHQ, but I think they will add one in the future when things have settled down. After all, security agencies are all after the same thing - the collection of as much information as possible.
Open Source != bug/virus/backdoor free
"Open Source != bug/virus/backdoor free"
I agree, but at the same time the whole source is available. Do you suggest that intelligent programmers maybe using software tools are incapable of finding a backdoor. ? That forensic malware experts are incapable of detecting untoward traffic ?
Sure, it's possible, but between closed-source binary and open-source I know what I'd take and in fact I do take
Do you suggest that intelligent programmers maybe using software tools are incapable of finding a backdoor. ?
I do not suggest such a thing but are they looking for a backdoor? Can the few experts searching for bugs keep up with every update that is released? Just because a person is an intelligent programmer doesn't mean they can spot every bug/backdoor. They might want to smack the original coder around a bit for poor coding but even the best programmer doesn't know everything. Besides, people come up with new ways to hack into things everyday that the experts haven't even thought about.
That forensic malware experts are incapable of detecting untoward traffic ?
Malware experts can detect untoward traffic coming or going from any OS.
Sure, it's possible, but between closed-source binary and open-source I know what I'd take and in fact I do take
Since they have never looked at any of the code, to 99.9999% of Linux users out there, open source is the same as closed source - Unknown.
I do not care about one OS over another, each has it's pros and cons. What gets me is that people claim there is a backdoor in Windows due to it being closed source but they have never found one and they refuse to believe there is a backdoor in Linux because it is open source and "could" be reviewed by experts.
"people claim there is a backdoor in Windows due to it being closed source but they have never found one"
You're presumably not grown up enough to remember the NSAkey story? Microsoft's denials look a lot less plausible this year than they did back in the day.
And this "auditing" that MS are offering: does it include ALL the OS code, including the DRM/anti-tamper stuff which is likely to be considered "trade secret"? 'Cos that'd surely be a lovely place to hide a back door.
"they refuse to believe there is a backdoor in Linux because it is open source and "could" be reviewed by experts."
"Could" be, has been, and almost certainly will continue to be. It's not a certain guarantee, but some folk might understandably think it's more of a guarantee than the commercial option offers.
>Whereas with OSS, the backdoors are included for free!
I think you didn't get that quite right: the claim was "the FBI paid contractors to insert backdoors", so hardly included for free...
However, many of the backdoors that utilise stack overflow conditions to circumvent security etc. can be said to have been included for free, as these are largely put there by poor programming and review practises...
> It looks like Germany ...
No it doesn't look like it. Mostly because the BSI is not what you probably think it is. What you might be thinking about is the BND.
BSI: Acronym of three medium-length German-looking words.
BND: Abbreviation of one really long unmistakeably German word.
I cannot wait to see how well or poorly a big, all Linux enterprise will run after 10+ years of supporting custom programs (where the programmers have left), some desktops are updated some are not, added features, Linux viruses created due to bigger Linux footprint, etc. I guess we shall see...
This thread is a classic!!!! The whole reg 'Linux on the desktop' crowd are out, frothing at the mouth, egging each other on and persuading them themselves that THIS will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Unfortunately, very soon someone will post something along the lines of 'Ubuntu is better than Denbian' and civil war will break out.
Anyhooo, what strikes me is that the example customers that the freetards cite are all public sector.....
Now why would that be?
Oh yeah, that would be because they get to drink from the teat of tax payer money, They can spend and spend and spend and spend and the money never runs out and they are never held accountable.
In a private sector company, the CIO of Munich would have been fired WAAAYYYY before he had the chance to waste all that money.
Oh yeah, that would be because they get to drink from the teat of tax payer money...money never runs out and they are never held accountable.
Do you mean us, tax payers, that have to support Microsoft and their fat proprietary brethren with our own money for Schools, government institutions and pretty much everything that follows? No accountability indeed when this money is swallowed by the private giant leech from Redmond, WA.
"In a private sector company, the CIO of Munich would have been fired WAAAYYYY before he had the chance to waste all that money." -- Waste which money exactly? the money used to support/use Linux or the money that would be used to support/use Windows? It's all the same money, they chose a less costly route.
"Anyhooo, what strikes me is that the example customers that the freetards cite are all public sector....."
Posting this from my corporate Linux laptop. This company has 10K+ employees. The distribution is centrally managed and fully supported by corporate IT. They also offer Windows and fruity machines. We get to choose.
Anon because enough revelations about my identity.
I don't know what is it to you mate, is it really worth your while to spend time here baiting the other posters?
I don't care if you do that, but you're not contributing anything useful or insightful. Critical, adversarial views are alright, but in your case it's just plain bollocks after bollocks and you probably know it.
Should all those AC posts¹ be reported?
¹ Not mine, preferrably! I've been a long time AC-only poster, for no particular reason other than I like my posts being confabulated with those of others, but I try to keep things civil most of the time.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
