Munich, Germany realizes that deploying Linux was a disaster, going back to Windows

Back in 2004, Munich, Germany decided that they were going to switch to Linux (specifically, LiMux) as their primary operating system and drop Microsoft's Windows operating system. At the time, the decision was said to be cheaper, more reliable and politically correct for the city and this would be the on the same scale as the Berlin Wall falling for politics but for IT.

But ten years later, and we must say that running for ten years is quite the achievement, the city is realizing that the move has not materialized in the way that they had envisioned a decade ago. A city official said that no matter what organization he talked to within the city, they all explained that their productivity was suffering because of the Linux system that they were using.

By 2011, Germany was supposedly running LiMux on more than 9000 machines.

Issues arose when the Linux OS users tried to work with those outside the city and they were unable to share files easily with those on other applications. More so, the idea is generally that Linux setups are cheaper than a Microsoft solution as you do not have to pay licensing fees but what Munich experienced is that Linux was much more expensive. Why is it more expensive? That's because the city had to hire programmers to build out functionality that they needed and then had to pay the staff to maintain the software.

The city is now in the process of jumping back to a Microsoft solution and is now converting those 9000+ machines back to Windows.

Source: Sueddeutsche.de | German flag via Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

HP's $199 Chromebook killer spec sheet leaked

Next Story

Apple looking to bring a lot of convenience to the standard USB plug

176 Comments

Please Login or Sign Up to post a comment.

Simplezz, please GTFO. I only came in to tell you to get out (tongue smiley in text).

What the hell are you doing on a Windows-oriented news site? NeoWIN is owned 40% by Stardock. Guess what they do: create WINDOWS SOFTWARE.

You have no business here. All you do is bash anyone who says anything negatively about Linux in whatever way. You're like a Palestinian sitting in a Jewish synagogue and being offended when the Jews say anything they don't like about Palestine. Or vice versa. I'm not partial to that.

You are WASTING YOUR TIME HERE.

NO ONE is even LISTENING to you.

Get it through to that thick skull of yours. You are defiling threads and some people are foolish enough to still argue with you. None of it gets through to you. It doesn't matter what anyone says, you don't listen to any arguments anyway. You're basically responding to everyone who has any credibility invested in this story, as if it is your holy duty to purge the world of nonbelievers.

Maybe the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a better place for you, could allow you to take a break and relax some. While you are at it: join the Church of the SubGenius while you are installing SLACKWARE and take note of its message: RELAX.

Converting the entire world to Linux fanboyism doesn't seem to me like the activity of someone who is actually very content with the current situation he finds himself in. Neither were the missionaries of past centuries as they waged their holy war on any native people that didn't yet bend to "the will of Jesus". Many a people were forcibly converted, their children stolen from them, their lives and livelihoods taken away, and forced into economic slavery and substance abuse. If you had half a brain, you would realize that what you are doing is OBSESSIVE. And it is RESPECTLESS. People are entitled to their own opinions even if they BELIEVE THIS STORY.

Even if they believe a story that is false, yes. They have a right to that. The world won't burn overnight if people believe a story that is false. Linux won't miss its realistic opportunities and chances because people believe a story that is false.

And you know why? Because the truth asserts itself eventually anyway.

As is currently happening in this Munich story.

The truth is asserting itself that what they have been trying was unsuccessful and that it has been a waste of time and effort and it is time to get real and own up to what has been going on.

And if you had even a single grain of confidence in Linux you would realize that the REALISTIC POTENTIAL of Linux would make itself known ANYHOW even if a few idiots would tell some lies.

And since you apparently feel that the potential of Linux doesn't speak for itself (which means you have no confidence in Linux at all) you are now trying to convert people to believe something that is not readily apparent to them.

Because if you did believe in Linux you would relax and sit back and let the truth speak for itself. And you have so little confidence in that that you feel that you need to help "the truth" a little bit. Which basically means you have no faith in desktop Linux at all, no matter how hard you profess the contrary position.

Someone who is CONFIDENT is someone who is in control, both of himself and of the situation. You are in control of neither.

You are like a fire fighter trying to extinguish some very dangerous and risky fires. You think Linux is a fire-proof bunker but your actions indicate that you really feel it is a paper house.

And you feel that a single article like this can turn the tides against the onmarch of Linux. A single article on a Windows-oriented news site. Is so threatening. That it can destroy Linux's potential. That's your real feeling. That is really what you fear.

The Christians of old (and they still feel that way) were NOT secure in their faith. That is WHY they wanted others to believe, so badly. Because if someone else believes in this thing they want to be true, well, maybe they can believe in it themselves too. And if there is not any soul left who doesn't believe this thing they want to be true, then perhaps the fear of it not being true will leave them.

If you are dependant on the agreement of other people for your own feeling of security then it means you are totally insecure yourself of the thing you are professing.

And it means you are betting on the wrong horse. Simple as that.

Now, let me just sign out again before the moderators burn my house down, because that is what usually happens. It's a brick house though and they have only very tiny flamethrowers, but I don't like scratches and burn marks on my walls.

BYE.

before all windows boys start to retweet this obvious wrong article
maybe read this :

http://www.techrepublic.com/ar...e-and-move-back-to-windows/

knowing microsoft moved it's headquarters to munich and that the mayor had a big role in this it's easy to see that redmond is pushing hard to get a food inside again. All FUD is welcome.
I can't imagine btw being productive on windows 8
and what there mail problem is i don't get it use zarafa or zimbra with zpush

Trikke76 said,
before all windows boys start to retweet this obvious wrong article
maybe read this :

http://www.techrepublic.com/ar...e-and-move-back-to-windows/

knowing microsoft moved it's headquarters to munich and that the mayor had a big role in this it's easy to see that redmond is pushing hard to get a food inside again. All FUD is welcome.
I can't imagine btw being productive on windows 8
and what there mail problem is i don't get it use zarafa or zimbra with zpush


It says a lot about this site that even after proving this article is completely false, they continue to leave it as it is. Talk about disinformation. If there was any doubt this site is anti-Linux, that's been dispelled now.

You can tell who the Linux haters are on this site just by reading the comments. Little do they know that their schadenfreude is wasted on a factually wrong article.

simplezz said,
You can tell who the Linux haters are on this site just by reading the comments. Little do they know that their schadenfreude is wasted on a factually wrong article.

It's pretty obvious who the Linux lovers are as well.

Was contacted about this article translating wrong, but to clarify we aren't saying Windows is cheaper, we're saying (like the source) that OVERHEAD is cheaper. The main issue was compatibility outside of Munich where other departments were not using Linux, and turnaround for support for their Linux platform and apps (plus file sharing outside of it etc).

It seems to me that the main issues are that the title is clickbait and that the actual story has already been disproved by the Munich city council, not the translation of the original article.

It also doesn't help that the author made up stuff on his own that wasn't mentioned at all in the original article *shrugs*

Regardless of whether Munich might eventually switch back to Windows or not, the article feels heavily opinionated.

Hmm no, there's indeed no disputing that "From Microsoft to Linux and back" is the translated title of the linked article :/ the issue wouldn't be with the original article but with the one here.

*Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you should modify the article, I'm just commenting on what's in my opinion actually wrong with it since the subject of complaints was brought up.

With us being prominently Microsoft oriantainted, this is pretty good news, so to spin it that way shouldn't be a total surprise?

Being a Microsoft oriented site I expect a focus on Microsoft oriented news with special focus on those that are positive, but you can do so while still being as factual as posible.

The thing is, saying
"The city is now in the process of jumping back to a Microsoft solution and is now converting those 9000+ machines back to Windows."
is just plain wrong. What is acutally happening is that there will be an independent committee of expertes evaluating, how big of a problem Linux really is and if it's worth going back to Windows. They are far from having made a decision and the "city official" - the 2nd mayor, also said that he *might* consider the move back if the committee recommends it.
Regarding the title: the german version implies there might be a change back to Windows, but your title makes it a fact - which it just isn't.

Btw I really hope they do make the change back.

Steven P. said,
Was contacted about this article translating wrong, but to clarify we aren't saying Windows is cheaper, we're saying (like the source) that OVERHEAD is cheaper. The main issue was compatibility outside of Munich where other departments were not using Linux, and turnaround for support for their Linux platform and apps (plus file sharing outside of it etc).

The problem is, the source is a single person (newly elected major) whose opinion isn't representative of the Munich council. He's a self-confessed fan of Microsoft and the ubiquitous proprietary alternative (MS Office). The timing is also suspicious because it coincides with Microsoft moving their headquarters to Munich.
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/co...shields-limux-against-mayor

All in all, this article doesn't represent the facts at all. It should be updated to reflect the Munich council's response so at least it's balanced. Even Peter Bright of Ars, who's extremely pro-Microsoft provided some balance.

Steven P. said,
With us being prominently Microsoft oriantainted, this is pretty good news, so to spin it that way shouldn't be a total surprise?

It would be good news for you if it were true, but it isn't. The original source as I mentioned earlier doesn't reflect the opinion held by the Munich council, and they are the ones who decide these matters, not a newly elected corrupt major who's in bed with Microsoft.

And even if we were to accept the original source has weight, which we don't, then this Neowin article is still manifestly fallacious because it reaches conclusions that don't exist in the original source. Unless this site is resorting to telling blatant lies and spreading disinformation in order to promote the Microsoft agenda? This is a new low for this site.

simplezz said,
Even Peter Bright of Ars, who's extremely pro-Microsoft provided some balance.

and even he calls Neowin's reporting "simply wrong here", http://arstechnica.com/civis/v...9aca500a530d1b674#p27422507 , (which I'm obviously in full agreement with). Still a bit sad that such shoddy reporting is quickly picked up in other forums... although in the end I suppose Neowin gets what it wants at least in the short term, i.e. page hits...

Syrah said,

and even he calls Neowin's reporting "simply wrong here", http://arstechnica.com/civis/v...9aca500a530d1b674#p27422507 , (which I'm obviously in full agreement with). Still a bit sad that such shoddy reporting is quickly picked up in other forums... although in the end I suppose Neowin gets what it wants at least in the short term, i.e. page hits...

The difference is that Peter Bright says that Munich is "considering" changing back to Windows rather than it being a done deal.

German media is reporting that the city is now considering a switch back to Microsoft in response to these complaints. The city is putting together an independent expert group to look at the problem, and if that group recommends using Microsoft software, Deputy Mayor Josef Schmid of the CSU party says that a switch back isn't impossible.

simplezz said,

It would be good news for you if it were true, but it isn't. The original source as I mentioned earlier doesn't reflect the opinion held by the Munich council, and they are the ones who decide these matters, not a newly elected corrupt major who's in bed with Microsoft.

It won't be the council that decides either. It will be an independent panel, according to the source article. If any thing the council members will shill for Linux so they can save face from the original decision to switch to Linux instead of doing what's in the best interests of the city.

TMYW said,

The difference is that Peter Bright says that Munich is "considering" changing back to Windows rather than it being a done deal.

Many people are making the mistake of interpreting what the newly elected major said as what Munich intends to do. He doesn't have the power to switch back to proprietary Windows/Office without the council's assent. So it's irrelevant what he does or doesn't say. I guess the gambit of moving MS german headquarters to Munich was in vain after all. Sorry to disappoint Microsoft ;)

TMYW said,
It won't be the council that decides either. It will be an independent panel, according to the source article.

Actually the article quotes Schmid saying that if the experts recomended switching back to Microsoft, he doesn't consider that switch to be impossible.

At least that what a translator throws out, because I wouldn't be able to understand German even if my life depended on it:

"Wenn die Experten eine Rückkehr zu Microsoft empfehlen, dann ist das für mich nicht ausgeschlossen"

If they bother hiring an independent group of experts I'd guess that they would indeed either follow or at the very least take in cosideration their recomendations, but saying that a third party will be actually making the decision is kind of weird.

simplezz said,

Many people are making the mistake of interpreting what the newly elected major said as what Munich intends to do. He doesn't have the power to switch back to proprietary Windows/Office without the council's assent. So it's irrelevant what he does or doesn't say. I guess the gambit of moving MS german headquarters to Munich was in vain after all. Sorry to disappoint Microsoft ;)

Political leadership should never be the decision maker(s) for strategic platform initiatives. I always tell my clients to follow the data. ANY political agenda would steer them off course. Based on some of the analysis performed, the original ROI calculations that favored Linux were simplistic at best.

wingliston said,
And how come this isn't trending on Reddit? :D

Because the whole article is one big fat lie. Munich hasn't switched back to Microsoft, nor does it intend too. The GNU/Linux deployment has the full backing of the council. This is nothing but a newly elected major blowing hot air and rumour mongering because he's in bed with Microsoft. He doesn't have the power to unilaterally switch back, so it's a non-story.

There isn't a single reputable website running this so called story - because they actually researched it and realised that it's just some off the cuff remark by a corrupt impotent major.

Munich city council shields Limux against Mayor -- The council of the German city of Munich continues to support the city's open source IT strategy, and opposes the newly elected mayor and a deputy mayor, reports Heise, a German IT news site. CSU party members of the deputy mayor shrug off his negative comments as "an irrelevant individual opinion".

According to Heise, the city council will not abandon Munich's open source IT strategy. "We have no new position on this matter", it quotes SPD-spokesperson Bettina Messinger as saying. Earlier this month, Munich's new mayor, Dieter Reiter, also SPD, suggested he wants to change tack.

(...) "There always has been criticism", Councillor Messinger acknowledged. "But in the field of IT, that is nothing special." She denied that the city's new coalition is preparing a return to the ubiquitous proprietary system.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/co...shields-limux-against-mayor

It all makes sense now. A new Mayor comes in, is probably funded by Microsoft or Office / Windows resellers, and decides that the city should go back to Microsoft on a whim. Sounds like corruption plain and simple to me.

I know this was all a load of BS. I've heard positive reports only a few months ago about Munich. It made absolutely no sense.

Great work ian. Thanks :)

0--JLowzrif said,
Enjoy your BSOD Munich!!!

Meh. I've had crippling updates off of Linux in the past that rendered a system unusable too.

"But ten years later, and we must say that running for ten years is quite the achievement,"

It took 10 years for them to decide Linux wasn't for them? Definitely can't say they didn't give Linux enough time.

The Linux advocates will comb through the article looking for glimmers of hope, but the messaging here is clear. Linux has not been a success in Munich. I suspect all of Munich will be converted to Windows with a heavy cloud presence in Exchange and Office in short order. There is no hurdle with going from XP to Windows 8.1 in terms of a learning curve. The whole organization could be cut over in months.

shastasheen said,
The Linux advocates will comb through the article looking for glimmers of hope, but the messaging here is clear. Linux has not been a success in Munich. I suspect all of Munich will be converted to Windows with a heavy cloud presence in Exchange and Office in short order. There is no hurdle with going from XP to Windows 8.1 in terms of a learning curve. The whole organization could be cut over in months.

It has been a success. It's saved them millions so far. And much more in the future.

The complaints focus on file compatibility. Instead of mandating a government wide vendor neutral format like OpenDocument, they have continued to use Microsoft proprietary formats in conjunction with FOSS software such as LibreOffice. That's not going to do them any favours and people will inevitably blame Linux for not being compatible with Microsoft Office. When what they should have done is standardised on OD. Even Microsoft Office supports that format now. It's universal. There's absolutely no excuse for using Microsoft's vendor specific formats any more.

shastasheen said,
... I suspect all of Munich will be converted to Windows with a heavy cloud presence in Exchange and Office in short order. ...

Certainly not. The German law is pretty strict on using cloud services when it comes to dealing with personal data and they would never be allowed to use cloud service provided by a company outside the European law.

simplezz said,

It has been a success. It's saved them millions so far. And much more in the future.

It's actually cost them many millions more than if they had stayed on Windows. See? I can pull unsubstantiated claims out of my ass too.

the linux pundits will sure jump at this but let's face it: it is too late for linux to become a relevant desktop OS. the desktop market will remain windows because the app gap simply is too great. Linux, like windows before it, benefits from being bundled on devices on the mobile front but without this it simply cannot really stand on merits alone. So to all the critics of windows being de-facto only by bundling, well the same applies to android today and to the same result: pretty much nothing can challenge android at this point...except off course that the vision of linux as company agnostic failed with android since it very much exists to drive google's agenda and no other.

so will the linux purist rise up and challenge android next with a mobile OS that cuts ties to android's futures? Or have they learned from their defeat against MSFT that operating systems are only successful when a company controls their evolution instead of the community. Time will tell but all I can say is that:

No, this is not the year of the linux desktop.

The city is now in the process of jumping back to a Microsoft solution and is now converting those 9000+ machines back to Windows.

Not quite what I got from the article:


Therefore, the City will appoint an independent expert group. "If the experts recommend a return to Microsoft, this is not impossible for me," Schmid said.

So, no, there's nothing in there saying Munich is in the process of going back to Microsoft, only that a panel of experts will look at it. I just hope it's not decked out with MS stooges (happens quite often).

I'll wait until I get confirmation of this before jumping to any conclusions. I haven't seen this anywhere else, so I'm incredulous of its authenticity.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with reevaluating your options. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing your job. From what they say, the major problem is file formats that outsiders are using to exchange data with them... Which is pretty much why we wanted to standardize such things in the past. The real takeaway here is that the current standardization initiative is failing. This needs to be addressed anyhow as there are more and more non-Win/Office devices being used everywhere.

simplezz said,
So, no, there's nothing in there saying Munich is in the process of going back to Microsoft, only that a panel of experts will look at it. I just hope it's not decked out with MS stooges (happens quite often).

The original panel that decided on the move away from Microsoft must have been decked out with Linux stooges. According to the article, Josef Schmid, one of Munich's deputy mayors, is claiming that the original decision was politically motivated.

Geezy said,
From what they say, the major problem is file formats that outsiders are using to exchange data with them... Which is pretty much why we wanted to standardize such things in the past. The real takeaway here is that the current standardization initiative is failing. This needs to be addressed anyhow as there are more and more non-Win/Office devices being used everywhere.

Agreed. The UK has done just that. They have standardised on OpenDocument, so going forward, they won't have to retain compatibility with proprietary MS formats. This alone eliminates 95% of issues.

TMYW said,

The original panel that decided on the move away from Microsoft must have been decked out with Linux stooges. According to the article, Josef Schmid, one of Munich's deputy mayors, is claiming that the original decision was politically motivated.

And I wonder who's payroll Schmid is on? The timing of his comments are certainly suspicious. Just after the project has been completed but before the benefits have been fully realised.

simplezz said,

And I wonder who's payroll Schmid is on? The timing of his comments are certainly suspicious. Just after the project has been completed but before the benefits have been fully realised.

How is the timing suspicious? It's been 10 years since the project started, and 8 months since the project was been completed. Some of the benefits should have been realized by now, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. No firm cost savings have been announced, and users are still complaining. Sounds like a runaway success.

They've already mentioned how they saved money and it also has given them independence, and kept more money within their own city supporting it instead of giving it to foreigners.

Also the timing is suspicious because: http://arstechnica.com/busines...g-a-switch-back-to-windows/

Microsoft announced last year that it was moving its German headquarters to Munich. This move is planned to take place in 2016. While Reiter was involved in the deal that precipitated the move and describes himself as a "Microsoft fan," he says the criticism of LiMux is unrelated.

Not to mention it is clear that the city council is pro-LiMux, it is the new mayor is against it: http://www.heise.de/open/meldu...Buergermeister-2262506.html

Geezy said,
Also the timing is suspicious because: http://arstechnica.com/busines...g-a-switch-back-to-windows/

Not to mention it is clear that the city council is pro-LiMux, it is the new mayor is against it: http://www.heise.de/open/meldu...Buergermeister-2262506.html


It's coming together now. Newly elected major who has a Microsoft agenda (after Microsoft moved its headquarters to Munich) wants to reverse the successful GNU/Linux deployment that's saving the city millions. I think it's time to set up a petition to get this shill fired.

Geezy said,
Also the timing is suspicious because: http://arstechnica.com/busines...g-a-switch-back-to-windows/

Not to mention it is clear that the city council is pro-LiMux, it is the new mayor is against it: http://www.heise.de/open/meldu...Buergermeister-2262506.html

And Schmid is the one that was most vocal about the problems associated with Linux and the politically-motivated decision to move to Linux in the first place. So it's two out of the three mayors that want to dump Linux.

simplezz said,

It's coming together now. Newly elected major who has a Microsoft agenda (after Microsoft moved its headquarters to Munich) wants to reverse the successful GNU/Linux deployment that's saving the city millions. I think it's time to set up a petition to get this shill fired.

Saving the city millions? Citation, please.

TMYW said,

Thanks for the link. Now I know that the alleged savings were a completely joke. LOL!

Maybe, the Microsoft's commissioned report brings quite different figures (unsurprisingly, though).

Then again the Munich report is accounting for the expected expenses during the whole estimated length of the LiMux project, ie. while the report elaborated by HP is calculating the initial license cost of a migration to XP and Office 2003 the Munich report is also summing the later upgrade to Windows7 and Office 2007 (planning a partial migration of about half of the 15000 desktops before Dec. 2013), and the related hardware costs (they have currently not replaced any computer in the LiMux project).

Still the Munich numbers might very well be quite off (if my math skills are working, they seem to be calculating Windows desktop licenses at about €140 per computer).

In a best case scenario though (assuming that the €23M that Munich has reported as the whole cost of the LiMux project and that the €17M HP estimates a migration to XP would have costed were both factual) we would be talking about a €6M short term saving with the Microsoft option, although going with a soon (as of the date the LiMux project was finished) to go EOL operating system and Office suite.

ichi said,

Maybe, the Microsoft's commissioned report brings quite different figures (unsurprisingly, though).

Then again the Munich report is accounting for the expected expenses during the whole estimated length of the LiMux project, ie. while the report elaborated by HP is calculating the initial license cost of a migration to XP and Office 2003 the Munich report is also summing the later upgrade to Windows7 and Office 2007 (planning a partial migration of about half of the 15000 desktops before Dec. 2013), and the related hardware costs (they have currently not replaced any computer in the LiMux project).

Still the Munich numbers might very well be quite off (if my math skills are working, they seem to be calculating Windows desktop licenses at about €140 per computer).

In a best case scenario though (assuming that the €23M that Munich has reported as the whole cost of the LiMux project and that the €17M HP estimates a migration to XP would have costed were both factual) we would be talking about a €6M short term saving with the Microsoft option, although going with a soon (as of the date the LiMux project was finished) to go EOL operating system and Office suite.

The problem is that the analysis done for the report was parochial at best. That is why Microsoft is disputing these numbers.

In this report, the alleged cost savings is 100% due to avoidance of licensing fees and avoidance of buying new hardware. That's it. All of the ancillary costs (e.g. migration, training, optimization and testing, etc.) were deemed to be identical for either scenario. What nonsense!

There was also no analysis done on productivity gains or declines. Even if they claimed there would have been a productivity gain by using Linux, the analysis would have been far more credible. Of course, having this kind of analysis is probably too much to ask if they can't even do any real analysis on the ancillary costs that I mentioned above.

Hell, they even effed up the easy part of the analysis--the hardware. Even if it's true that staying on Windows would have required replacing 11,000 of the 15,000 existing computers immediately, which seems like a load of crap as it is, all you're doing is deferring the hardware replacement costs by staying on Linux. It's not like computers magically last forever because of Linux.

So you can't just dump 100% of the hardware cost in the Windows column. Computers are assets, so the actual "cost" that needs to be added to the Windows column is the depreciated amount due to making the capital purchase sooner rather than later. This extra cost ultimately ends up being a wash another 5 years down the line. It's not like the system requirements for future versions of Windows is going to increase at a more rapid rate than that of Linux. Whatever hardware they might have purchased for Windows 7 most certainly would have been powerful enough for Windows 8 and even Windows 9.

ichi said,

Still the Munich numbers might very well be quite off (if my math skills are working, they seem to be calculating Windows desktop licenses at about €140 per computer).

It looks like it was €2,646,240 for Windows licenses. I can't tell if it that's for 15,000 machines or 11,000 machines or 7,500 machines. Even if it's for all 15,000 machines, that's €170 per machine, which is a grossly-inflated number.

Also, the Office licenses were calculated at €280, which is about what you'd pay retail.

TMYW said,

It looks like it was €2,646,240 for Windows licenses. I can't tell if it that's for 15,000 machines or 11,000 machines or 7,500 machines. Even if it's for all 15,000 machines, that's €170 per machine, which is a grossly-inflated number.

I take it as 15000 XP licensed that would have been installed starting on 2004 plus 7500 Windows7 licenses to upgrade half of the desktops starting on 2011.

I don't remember right now if they were also planning the costs if an Office upgrade.

Focusing on VALUE instead of cost would have been a better goal. The reality is that Linux is designed by geeks for geeks, not for real end users. As such, this was destined to be a problem. Say what you want to about Windows, reality is that it is designed for end users. I'm not bashing Linux. if it were to come out with an end user oriented gui, that is accepted in the marketplace and gets a large amount of oems to distribute it, then there will be more success and then this scenario could turn out to be more positive.

Clearly, there is a large dissatisfaction with Windows 8x in the marketplace. Now is the time for this to happen. I haven't seen anyone capitalize on this at this point in time. I now use Mac instead of Windows due to my iOS dev work, but I am still over in Windows a lot.

wow talk about shoddy clickbait "journalism". Do youself a favour and actually research things before writing an article which is so vague its not even funny. Reductionist? very much.

Perhaps Linux can learn a valuable lesson. There is a huge market dissatisfied with how they are being treated or ignored by Microsoft, most recently with its Windows-8. Will Windows-9 solved the problems? If not, Linux, why not provide the "hand holding" necessary to help people make the switch?

The file sharing problem is not really their fault. Three are file type standards for almost anything. Its not GNU/Linux fault that many dont follow them.

In the other hand, the article is vague at best. What functionality was needed to be coded? Not saying it wasnt necessary, but that info could give us a better insight.

I'm guessing they'll be a prime customer of Windows Threshold (it'll take them a while to roll out the conversion to Windows, so Threshold will be fully released and polished by the time they get to implementation). As such, they will likely be very pleasantly surprised by how much faster, more stable, and more powerful Windows has become in the last ten years. :-)

Right, but can it go from success to disaster in only eight months? That does not make sense. Someone, and maybe both sides, is putting a huge spin on this.

techfreak said,
Right, but can it go from success to disaster in only eight months? That does not make sense. Someone, and maybe both sides, is putting a huge spin on this.

And it became a success after years and years of difficulties and cost overruns? Perhaps the article that you linked was a little bit more "optimistic" than reality.

fiftytwoeighty said,
Didn't you hear that the PC is dead?

Didn't you hear that PC sales are expected to grow over the next year, Intel posted record sales for PC processors, PC's outsold consoles for gaming, etc?

Max Norris said,

Didn't you hear that PC sales are expected to grow over the next year, Intel posted record sales for PC processors, PC's outsold consoles for gaming, etc?

My bad. I didn't include the commensurate emoticon to denote sarcasm. ;)

fiftytwoeighty said,

What emoticon do I use for sarcasm?


Sarcasm depends mostly on auditory inflection. If you are being sarcastic in writing, it is probably best to add some form of visual hint so that readers understand that you are being sarcastic. One well known hint is placing /s at the end of your message.

Grizzl said,
Could you please change the headline? The current version is a lie.

The translated title in the article reads: "From Microsoft to Linux and back".

TMYW said,
The translated title in the article reads: "From Microsoft to Linux and back".

which is almost, but not *quite* as misleading as matter-of-factly stating that Munich is "going back to Windows", which is simply inaccurate.

At least with Neowin's "unprofessional journalism" tagline you used to know what to expect...

Headline is blundly speaking wrong!
There some political discussion whether Linux was a good idea.
Decision to reverse has not been taken.

Seeing how any software they were building should've been cross platform I don't see how this is a problem. Many people that are in it use Linux on a fairly basis and can interact with the windows word fine. LibreOffice and Open Office support office perfectly fine in my experience.

If you wanted to figure it out you could. Instead users are bitching cause they aren't use to it. I think it cost companies more money to build specific software for XP then 7 then 8 instead of building a cross platform piece of software that is not OS dependent. This way the software works on no matter what version of windows versus "our copotate app was built for XP and the upgrade to 7 means a whole redesign / recode because so much has changed and blah blah blah".

I don't think using a Linux desktop now is a problem. Most office workers check email and use office. Both work fine on Linux. Not seeing a problem besides proprietary company software

Sikh said,
Seeing how any software they were building should've been cross platform I don't see how this is a problem. Many people that are in it use Linux on a fairly basis and can interact with the windows word fine. LibreOffice and Open Office support office perfectly fine in my experience.

If you wanted to figure it out you could. Instead users are bitching cause they aren't use to it. I think it cost companies more money to build specific software for XP then 7 then 8 instead of building a cross platform piece of software that is not OS dependent. This way the software works on no matter what version of windows versus "our copotate app was built for XP and the upgrade to 7 means a whole redesign / recode because so much has changed and blah blah blah".

I don't think using a Linux desktop now is a problem. Most office workers check email and use office. Both work fine on Linux. Not seeing a problem besides proprietary company software

You're assuming that, "office workers" have very simplistic needs and that, "coding" for a Windows solution is required to meet the needs of the business. More than likely, there are many use cases for a wide range of users and user groups that are considerably more complex and most line of business solutions for Windows will not require coding.

Sikh said,
Seeing how any software they were building should've been cross platform I don't see how this is a problem. Many people that are in it use Linux on a fairly basis and can interact with the windows word fine. LibreOffice and Open Office support office perfectly fine in my experience.[...] Most office workers check email and use office. Both work fine on Linux. Not seeing a problem besides proprietary company software

Yeah, right. Several years ago people in the company I work for were given an option to install Linux instead of Windows. It was not long before we learned (the hard way) that under no circumstances OpenOffice should be used to edit our PowerPoint presentations (in case you're wondering: after editing a .pptx in OpenOffice it will no longer open in PowerPoint and cannot be repaired).

Sikh said,
Seeing how any software they were building should've been cross platform I don't see how this is a problem. Many people that are in it use Linux on a fairly basis and can interact with the windows word fine. LibreOffice and Open Office support office perfectly fine in my experience.

If you wanted to figure it out you could. Instead users are bitching cause they aren't use to it. I think it cost companies more money to build specific software for XP then 7 then 8 instead of building a cross platform piece of software that is not OS dependent. This way the software works on no matter what version of windows versus "our copotate app was built for XP and the upgrade to 7 means a whole redesign / recode because so much has changed and blah blah blah".

I don't think using a Linux desktop now is a problem. Most office workers check email and use office. Both work fine on Linux. Not seeing a problem besides proprietary company software

That is true for simple documents, but with more complex, richer documents, and I'm talking about diagrams, comments, graphics in general I still experience compatibility issues between MS Office and Libre Office, basically when you open the document you get two different layouts so it's hard to work in groups especially when your document must be only a certain number of pages, ecc.

I agree with the rest of your message, and that is my personal experience, even someone who has just started using Linux can perform tasks, although simple tasks, but office clerks are not usually required to perform more complex tasks.

Most likely out of the 9k machines, only a handful (lets say 1000) need windows for proper capability. Lets all be honest, the government is heavy users. So when we are talking about professional documents or powerpoints, that doesnt pertain to them. We can all agree that 90% of all office works just need a Office Suite, they barely use majority of the tools office use.

Now im going to have to admit that some of the advanced stuff that I never used in excel and am starting to now is very handy and shows where office shines, but thats what office has. Thats why I believe libre office and open office have features the majority of the userbase would want / use. The advanced features can stay with office.

Also you can run office in crossover and wine. So anyone with a linux deployment can keep the linux desktop OS and installer one of the two above containers to run office. Crossover runs office flawlessy. Wine isnt too bad either

I agree with you.

In the past I worked for the public administration, and only a couple of sectors, I'm talking about less than 10 people (I'm not counting the IT guys) actually used advanced features of anything, including MS Office, especially Excel and Access; the rest of us would just use Word for writing very standard letters or reports and Excel to keep track of stationery stuff, and a couple of times in a year we would use PowerPoint, they didn't even use Outlook because they used an internal webmail system.

Most people there would have actually benefited from a walled garden, closed and somehow dumbed down OS, they had the peculiar ability of messing up Windows almost on a quarterly basis, amazing.

As for Office/Libre Office compatibility I can bring my personal experience, I'm a pretty hardcore Word user, I use it to create flyers (since most people don't have Publisher I rarely use it when I have to create promotional material), graphic-rich material, reports, publications, ecc, when I share those files with a friend who uses LibreOffice we always get compatibility issues, basically he can't see the proper layout, spaces in particular are messed up (I'm on Office2007 and he uses the latest version of LibreOffice on Ubuntu).

I remember Wine from my Kubuntu days, I used to run Football Manager through Wine, but we're talking about something maybe a little too advanced for people who can barely modify a pre-writter letter on Word and use Facebook.

Probably 10 years ago it was the right decision due to budget and also the article states for politically correct reasons it went with LiMux. If Budget X is say 2 million then the initial upfront costs appear to tip it towards LiMux but its hard to gauge over a 10 year period the overall costs for support and programming to meet the needs of the users and the government itself. They realized it and tried to maintain it but there comes a point in which they have to stop the bleeding and it seems that point is now. Linux over the past 10 years has not really evolved that much. I know they don't have the backing like Apple or MS to continue development and push it out faster but its been really a slow evolution for them over the years. That's my personal opinion. So there is right or wrong just what I personally have seen. I like Elemental OS then again it reminds me of OSX. I run it to play around but Win 8.1 and OS X Yosemite are my main OS's right now.

MS is happy with this news I am very sure and they can toss to the press the "WE TOLD YOU SO" about the overall costs for supporting LiMux/Linux.

Google docs have experienced the same. hard to complete with Windows and Office for corporate and often times personal. Even for being free it hasn't moved the needle in a very long time.

mrmomoman said,
Linux over the past 10 years has not really evolved that much. I know they don't have the backing like Apple or MS to continue development and push it out faster but its been really a slow evolution for them over the years. That's my personal opinion.

Thats not true, the Linux kernel is the biggest collaborative project in computing history, it has had more people working on that any other project, since 2005 over 10000 people has been active in the development of the kernel, and 75% of them are paid to do it. A new major kernel is released about every 2-3 months, and there are hundreds of patches committed every week. Each patch can be a new feature, a bug fix, or improvements of existing code. Apple or MS is not even close to shipping stuff this fast, it took MS almost a year to go from W8 to W8.1, and OS X has a yearly release schedule.

This is only the kernel tho, things like desktop environments and all that other stuff is not included in the kernel. This is also true for both Windows and OS X, many of the people working on those things have probably never contributed to the kernel, so there is also a lot of people working on the other software that is typically included in Linux Distros.

Linux does not lack backing, the top 10 contributors are the following: Red Hat, Intel, Texas Instruments, Linaro, SUSE, IBM, Samsung, Google, Vision Engraving Systems Consultants and Wolfson Microelectronics.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org...al-linux-development-report
http://www.linuxfoundation.org...al-linux-development-report

Backing in the millions is not backing in the billions. I know that new major kernels are released periodically and updated. I am not saying that. I have been using Linux for many years but I am speaking from a consumer view point of Linux and its not that mature as a desktop OS hence the lackluster adoption rate. It's not bad but up until recently it hasn't been that user friendly for many people. I have installed many of them in virtual machines to help out clients when I consulted in the past that wanted to see what it was all about and none of them wanted to use it after the evaluation period was over. It's not an important sample in the overall scheme of things but this article also reinforces that same notion.

Frequent updates over major changes are not the same. Many of the "SKINS" if you will mimic OSX or Windows 7.

I do not wish to see Linux go away but it's not going to be a major player in the desktop community anytime soon. 10 years ago it was supposed to be the next HOT thing. You think the adoption needle has moved that much since in the desktop OS market?

well, moving from linux to windows would be a lot easier than moving from windows to linux

does linux have a system center configuration manager product? which offers more than just dumping a static image on a hdd

if they did move to windows, 9,000 machines could be imaged overnight

glen8 said,
....

No, but there's chef, puppet and a whole host of other deployment scripting automation tools out there. Plus most Linux distros have some package management system.

deadonthefloor said,

No, but there's chef, puppet and a whole host of other deployment scripting automation tools out there. Plus most Linux distros have some package management system.

The level of expertise to manage Puppet is going to be a significant shift from that of System Center. While both could function in a similar fashion for many of the same use cases, SCCM will provide more built-in features with higher levels of integration without custom scripting. Yet, you can still customize an SCCM environment to extend capabilities if desired. Further, finding someone to manage SCCM vs Puppet would be considerably easier given the mind share and adoption level.

glen8 said,

...

It's not about tools being integrated, it's about people not half assing the job. There are some tools excelent tools in Red Hat that SuSE won't ever use and viceversa. I'm pretty sure that people that can configure a big Microsoft deployement have no real issues configuring a similar Linux one. It's the low level IT guy that serves a certain location, or possibly is the night shift. The onlyreal problem with Linux is some developers don't give a s**t about fixing some stuff if it is really the fault of some other library than their own. Instead of sidestepping the problem or providing a temporaryfix they'll just forward the bug to said library developers and you'll have to wait a whole new cycle before the fix hits you. Some won't even fix/change behviours on other platforms that they have the program out for, they'll just point you to that platform and tell you to ask for changes there. These are symptoms of only some projects, usually the smaller ones are far more agile. Proprietary and open core developers are even worse, they will not fix your problems, add that fix or functionality to a new version, lock it down even more and then sell it to you at a premium.

I used to work for a company that could have used group policy or some system center configuration manager, but someone had the bright idea to use a program that would wait for the computer to log on to the network run a script log back off, copy some files, log back on (or it would copy the files on the second login). And those files were just some links and maybe a template or two. i won't give the name of thecompany, i'll just say they sued Microsoft for trademark infringement some time ago.

Once again a horribly misleading headline, as it has *NOT* been decided (yet) to go back to Windows...

The city is now in the process of jumping back to a Microsoft solution and is now converting those 9000+ machines back to Windows.

False.

Go read the second paragraph of the source: "The city checks the exit from Linux and a return to Microsoft . Corresponding plans confirmed Deputy Mayor Josef Schmid (CSU) of the SZ. "

bdsams said,
Go read the second paragraph of the source: "The city checks the exit from Linux and a return to Microsoft . Corresponding plans confirmed Deputy Mayor Josef Schmid (CSU) of the SZ. "

Yes. They're basically conducting a feasibility study and are seeking advice from a group of experts. They have not ruled out returning to Windows *IF* that did in fact turn out to be the recommendation. But I don't know about you, to me anyways that's not the same as already being in the process of converting every machine back to Windows…

bdsams said,
Go read the second paragraph of the source: "The city checks the exit from Linux and a return to Microsoft . Corresponding plans confirmed Deputy Mayor Josef Schmid (CSU) of the SZ. "

Checking is not processing. they just think about the revert it maybe in the future

New Munich Mayor says the decision was "political" and that free software was actually more expensive than Windows (right...). So, he wants to set up a "panel of experts" to back these assertions which fly in the face of everything the city has learned.

Anyway, the city council already called this person "an irrelevant individual" https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/co...shields-limux-against-mayor and will continue to support the city's open source IT strategy.

bdsams said,
Go read the second paragraph of the source: "The city checks the exit from Linux and a return to Microsoft . Corresponding plans confirmed Deputy Mayor Josef Schmid (CSU) of the SZ. "

I'm sorry Brad, but your entire article is misleading. Especially your conclusion at the end, which is a complete fabrication.

bdsams said,
Go read the second paragraph of the source: "The city checks the exit from Linux and a return to Microsoft . Corresponding plans confirmed Deputy Mayor Josef Schmid (CSU) of the SZ. "

Turns out that this article was click-bait BS after all. The newly-elected Major who's quoted in the original source has an agenda (special interests). The good news is, the rest of the council is still supporting the GNU/Linux platform.


He told Heise that a switch back to the proprietary systems would be dimwitted, now that the migration has been completed, saving the city over ten million euro otherwise spent on proprietary licences.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/co...shields-limux-against-mayor

Credit goes to ian for finding this information.

"the city had to hire programmers to build out functionality that they needed and then had to pay the staff to maintain the software." Differs from windows how??

exotoxic said,
"the city had to hire programmers to build out functionality that they needed and then had to pay the staff to maintain the software." Differs from windows how??

windows would have already had the functionality ;-)

glen8 said,
windows would have already had the functionality ;-)

They were likely talking about rewriting third-party software, not about built-in OS features.

francescob said,

They were likely talking about rewriting third-party software, not about built-in OS features.

probably, but having used linux for a good number of years I wouldn't rule it out lol

francescob said,

They were likely talking about rewriting third-party software, not about built-in OS features.

Like Active Directory integration? Open LDAP does the job but the tight integration between Windows and AD is a key advantage that would be difficult to replicate.

Yet I'm pretty sure some articles claimed it still was much cheaper overall since they didn't have to change their older hardware. Did they lie all the way long? Or did they just figure out that the OS overhead nowadays is nothing compared by the resources required by something common like a web browser? Anyway with a deployment that small they would have hardly been able to properly distribute the investments/costs.

I don't think it was because of the cost of the hardware/software. I believe it was just to do to humans not getting along with changes. Probably all of the workers (old and new) spent their entire life working and studying on Windows back in school/home and just didn't get along with Linux; resulting in a hit to the worse to their work.

More likely it was their linux programmers still not understanding that most users expect an identical (cloned) Windows interface, not some random poorly-configured KDE mess from hell. I have seen many offices running with thunderbird, chrome/firefox and openoffice (on Windows) without any issue at all, hell breaks loose usually only when the shell is replaced.

I don't know LiMux obviously but I've used Kubuntu in the past, a friend helped me set it up and in a couple of hours I was able to do whatever I wanted with it.

Unless you're using a software which is not available for Linux, and you have to run it through Wine and possibly lose some funcionality, any common Linux distro is not that hard to use, I mean, what do government office clerks do all day? They probably check e-mails, write simple letters, use simple spreadsheets, nothing you can't do with Thunderbird and Libre Office, as long as it's not too complicated or too interconnected with Windows.

I think they've tried to replicate some internal software, I guess public administration runs on proprietary software to manage database, sensitive data, forms, typical bureaucratic stuff, and maybe they weren't able to create a software for LiMux that had both the same efficiency and functionality as its proprietary counterpart that I'm assuming they used on Windows.

Maybe for some reason their internal system had to communicate with outside systems that run on Windows and so they had troubles.

I have a friend who wants to work in 3D design and CAD, and he insists on using only Linux and freeware software, he can't get a job because what he keeps having compatibility issues with both MS Office (he uses Libre Office) and CAD and Design software (he uses Blender, but he's not that good at it yet), he too is thinking about switching back to Windows, he's been very bluntly told that he's just wasting his time with free software and there's a reason why everybody uses Windows and MS Office. I actually was surprised by that, I imagined that 3D designers worked with Macs but apparently I was wrong.

Going from Office 2003 to office 2013 here required lot of training. We had to pay a 3 days training to everyone and even then some people still complain about office 2013 which is well office with a new ui ...

Gabe84 said,
I don't know LiMux obviously but I've used Kubuntu in the past, a friend helped me set it up and in a couple of hours I was able to do whatever I wanted with it.

Unless you're using a software which is not available for Linux, and you have to run it through Wine and possibly lose some funcionality, any common Linux distro is not that hard to use, I mean, what do government office clerks do all day? They probably check e-mails, write simple letters, use simple spreadsheets, nothing you can't do with Thunderbird and Libre Office, as long as it's not too complicated or too interconnected with Windows.

I think they've tried to replicate some internal software, I guess public administration runs on proprietary software to manage database, sensitive data, forms, typical bureaucratic stuff, and maybe they weren't able to create a software for LiMux that had both the same efficiency and functionality as its proprietary counterpart that I'm assuming they used on Windows.

Maybe for some reason their internal system had to communicate with outside systems that run on Windows and so they had troubles.

I have a friend who wants to work in 3D design and CAD, and he insists on using only Linux and freeware software, he can't get a job because what he keeps having compatibility issues with both MS Office (he uses Libre Office) and CAD and Design software (he uses Blender, but he's not that good at it yet), he too is thinking about switching back to Windows, he's been very bluntly told that he's just wasting his time with free software and there's a reason why everybody uses Windows and MS Office. I actually was surprised by that, I imagined that 3D designers worked with Macs but apparently I was wrong.

Apple has been systematically dropping support for many key applications that they were once defined by. For example, they stopped releasing updates for Final Cut Pro several years ago. That used to be the benchmark for video editing that was only available for Mac. I know old school Mac guys that are well beyond the point of being disillusioned and are moving over to Windows.

Gabe84 said,
(...)

I think they've tried to replicate some internal software, I guess public administration runs on proprietary software to manage database, sensitive data, forms, typical bureaucratic stuff, and maybe they weren't able to create a software for LiMux that had both the same efficiency and functionality as its proprietary counterpart that I'm assuming they used on Windows.

Maybe for some reason their internal system had to communicate with outside systems that run on Windows and so they had troubles.

(...)

Here in France, I have seen many in the public sector and in banks relying on intranet systems (web based apps, through the browser). They could almost use iPads to get the job done (you see my point). I really don't understand why the underneath OS causes so many troubles to them. I agree with the fact that Microsoft provides elegant solutions to the enterprise (despite their outrageous licensing schemes). In this case though, I hardly see why they could not handle their stuff through properly designed web based software, eliminating the workstation OS issue at the same time.

"More likely it was their linux programmers still not understanding that most users expect an identical (cloned) Windows interface, not some random poorly-configured KDE mess from hell. I have seen many offices running with thunderbird, chrome/firefox and openoffice (on Windows) without any issue at all, hell breaks loose usually only when the shell is replaced."

Seriously, look at the outcry when MS changed the start menu on Windows. Imagine switching the entire GUI.

Wow... it's not like everyone already told them so and there was already other places who tried and and had the experience that they spent 10 years getting... and you still see new counties and such proclaiming they're going to do this and save money and all that crap despite every years there's multiple stores like this from others who have tried already.

It's no cheaper, it's not "easier" or as easy.

I'm not a programmer, just curious. How much does it cost to pay competent coders for custom software? 9000 machines with windows xp, then windows 7, would run about $20 million just for licensing right? $2M a year for coders could pay about 40 coders full time? It seems like that could work, on paper, so why is it so hard to implement?

You can't do your accounts like this. In 2004 they already had Win XP, so they would only be migrating to Win 7, which at $140 at Newegg would account for 1.2 M (and this is probably high for the amount of licenses). 1.2M in 10 years equal 120K/year, which pays for 2 software engineers in the Munich area. So, if they needed 10 software engineers to maintain and develop their software (a number which is probably very low for the amount of systems that probably are available), they would be spending 5 times more than the windows licenses. And it only goes up from there.

Now, there are other things to consider, like AD and Windows Server licenses. But then, the number of software engineers I used is too low for the size of the company.

sviola said,
You can't do your accounts like this. In 2004 they already had Win XP, so they would only be migrating to Win 7, which at $140 at Newegg would account for 1.2 M (and this is probably high for the amount of licenses). 1.2M in 10 years equal 120K/year, which pays for 2 software engineers in the Munich area. So, if they needed 10 software engineers to maintain and develop their software (a number which is probably very low for the amount of systems that probably are available), they would be spending 5 times more than the windows licenses. And it only goes up from there.

Now, there are other things to consider, like AD and Windows Server licenses. But then, the number of software engineers I used is too low for the size of the company.


umm...windows wont even cost that much due to volume licensing.

Thats an excellent question. From the outside of the development space, development looks to be simple. The ugly, dirty truth is that development is very complicated and requires a very high level of commitment that most end organizations do not have. MSFT has thousands of people involved in the development of Windows. There are a ton of features involved. These systems, whether Windows, Mac, Liniux, iOS, Android, whatever, are incredibly complex and always require much more work than anyone wants to admit to.

sviola said,
You can't do your accounts like this. In 2004 they already had Win XP, so they would only be migrating to Win 7, which at $140 at Newegg would account for 1.2 M
It's amazing how people seem to think that licensing 9000 copies of Windows in a large IT environment would equal buying 9000 licensed copies at an online retailer.. I'm pretty sure the volume licensing deals MSFT would hammer out for environments like this would come down to way below $100 per machine.. Probably closer to $50 if that much. Also deploying to those machines through Active Directory Directory Services would probably be a breeze and complete WAY sooner than doing the same with 9000 machines running linux.

$20M for 9,000 computers would be $2,222 per computer. Where do you get that number from??? Even paying for Windows and Office with Software Assurance for 10 years would cost less than half of that!

paulheu said,
It's amazing how people seem to think that licensing 9000 copies of Windows in a large IT environment would equal buying 9000 licensed copies at an online retailer.. I'm pretty sure the volume licensing deals MSFT would hammer out for environments like this would come down to way below $100 per machine.. Probably closer to $50 if that much. Also deploying to those machines through Active Directory Directory Services would probably be a breeze and complete WAY sooner than doing the same with 9000 machines running linux.

I don't believe volume licensing pricing is the same as Newegg's. I used it as an example to counter the $20M figure the op used. I even put in parenthesis that the value was high for the amount of licenses. The point in my post was that the cost of the software engineers are much higher than licenses.

Well lets think, it's not just the Windows licences but the server licenses and then add on to that 9000 CAL's and if they had Exchange 9000 CAL's for that and finally Office licenses so it soon adds up.

Depicus said,
Well lets think, it's not just the Windows licences but the server licenses and then add on to that 9000 CAL's and if they had Exchange 9000 CAL's for that and finally Office licenses so it soon adds up.
Still less than Linux.

Well you don't have to BUY any licenses if your on a volume subscription, you do not buy CALs for apps, you buy them at bulk, they are called Core CAL and gives access to windows servers and Windows applications like Exchange, Lync etc.)

If your org is over 250 PCs or Users (up to you to Count what is cheapest) you get an Enterprise agreement that even more beneficial. If your org is large enought you do not even have to buy from a reseller, you would get a dedicated MS Account Manager that can give you whatever discout you would like.

As already been said here Enterprise licensing is done a WHOLE different compared to how windows home is licensed..

Also note that the savings the idiots put together where just bogus, I've read the papers for germany and it just said "we will save millllions"

Anders Johansson said,
Well you don't have to BUY any licenses ...you buy them at bulk

Also note that the savings the idiots put together where just bogus, I've read the papers for germany and it just said "we will save millllions"

So do you need to buy something or not....

Ok if you read the papers then please direct us to that quote as I suspect a bit of embellishment here.

A good consultant will never blindly recommend one OS over another, having worked on a few large scale government contracts there are departments that in no way could they function without Windows and this was a 5000+ install. Another install of 3500 used Remote Desktop and thin clients. Some installs I've seen you wonder why they use Windows at all when all they do is use terminal emulation for accessing their systems.

Gnome said,
I'm not a programmer, just curious. How much does it cost to pay competent coders for custom software? 9000 machines with windows xp, then windows 7, would run about $20 million just for licensing right? $2M a year for coders could pay about 40 coders full time? It seems like that could work, on paper, so why is it so hard to implement?

Not sure where you get the $20m licensing for 9000 systems from. $2,222 per copy of windows? Who pays that much?

With volume discounts and Office 365, you're looking at maybe $1.5m or so.

The IT director, or whoever dreamt up that silly idea should be fired

Did nobody learn from the openoffice fiasco?

Whatever you think about Microsoft, they rule in the enterprise.

Good new for MS. Can only imagine the hell the IT staff went through in terms of supporting the OS, as well as having the devs write specific code for it. Pretty much this is why everyone should be sticking with MS - no matter what your opinion of them is, they've are proving time and time again they can be hard to live without in the corporate world.

Hello,

It has been my experience that changing infrastructure like this doesn't save money, merely shift cost elsewhere. The original article is in German, which I don't read, and despite using machine translation, it doesn't seem to explain how much more the costs were to Munich. Does anyone have an idea?

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

goretsky said,
Hello,
It has been my experience that changing infrastructure like this doesn't save money, merely shift cost elsewhere. The original article is in German, which I don't read, and despite using machine translation, it doesn't seem to explain how much more the costs were to Munich. Does anyone have an idea?

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky


The official sources I've heard from have always described Munich as a success and that millions have been saved vs Microsoft software.

According to that article (I had to translate too because my German is terrible), it claims that additional costs were incurred because of having to hire programmers. I find this strange, because there's free software out there for almost anything. And even if bespoke work needs doing, it would have to be done on Windows as well. Perhaps the article's suggesting that Windows has off-the-shelf software that does the same purpose and is therefore cheaper.

I'd take this article with a pinch of salt if I were you. This is the first time I've heard of it, and it's not featured anywhere else. It may or not be true. One thing's for certain, Brad didn't read the entire source, because if he did, he'd realise that they aren't just suddenly switching back to Microsoft.

I think the real issue wasn't that it was a bad idea, it was that not enough other companies followed suit. Open source is all about collaborative effort. A company running about 9,000 computers is simply no large enough to do all the development needed to make Linux a viable cooperate desktop solution. If 20+ similarly sized companies did the same thing, and contributed to the projects they used, those combined resources probably could have come up with something workable.

Nick H. said,
Well you can't say they didn't try their best to stick with it. 10 years isn't a bad run.
Actualy, they needed 10 years to roll it out, it has been completed just a couple of months ago.

FloatingFatMan said,
I hate to say I told you so, but.... Well... I kinda did! :p

I wouldn't put any stock in this article. I've yet to see any official confirmation of this, only hearsay from a single website.

I really do hate to say I told you so, I am not ending that statement with a smile. When I first hard they planned to move to Linux I suspected they would run into these problems, but hoped they would overcome them. I am actually sad it didn't work. Don't get me wrong, I like Windows, but I would like to see alternatives as well.

Linux servers are tried at true and work very well. Linux Workstations don't work for 4 main reasons. It is a chicken and an egg thing, if enough people move to Linux, these issues would eventually be resolved as more resources get devoted to making Linux work.

1: User interface of included utilities falls short of their Windows counterparts. You can't expect people to drop to a command prompt or edit config files anytime they want to do something slightly more than super basic functionality.
2: Landmark applications like MS Office have decent open-source counterparts, but the UI is often hard to learn and clumsy compared in comparison.
3: Next to no 3rd party support for anything you might want to do.
4: No real workstation management solutions out there.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Linux is inherently unable to do these things. I am just saying that to date there has been almost no emphasis on developing them.

simplezz said,

I wouldn't put any stock in this article. I've yet to see any official confirmation of this, only hearsay from a single website.

Good point. I found this article, which sound much more believable:
http://www.geek.com/microsoft/...-linux-for-windows-1602234/
"As Munich struggles to sort out their software mess, a new independent reviewer will re-examine the city's systems and recommend a new path. Mayor Josef Schmid says switching back to Windows is definitely an option and wonders whether the initial change had more to do with taking an ideological stance than it did with saving taxpayer Euros."

sphbecker said,

Linux Workstations don't work for 4 main reasons. It is a chicken and an egg thing, if enough people move to Linux, these issues would eventually be resolved as more resources get devoted to making Linux work.

I use Linux as my main OS for both recreation and work. I also know businesses that exclusively use it. So no, Linux workstations do work, and are superior to Windows. For one thing, businesses don't have to worry about malware, viruses, rootkits, and other nasties. Just ask the NHS how much that recently cost them.

sphbecker said,

1: User interface of included utilities falls short of their Windows counterparts. You can't expect people to drop to a command prompt or edit config files anytime they want to do something slightly more than super basic functionality.

In a business setting, that's a job for the IT department (administration). As it is in Windows. All of which can be done remotely with SSH. Regardless, modern distros don't require cli knowledge. Everything can be done with a GUI. If something goes wrong on Windows, will an ordinary user know how to run commands from the console, fix the registry, or delve into the filesystem and edit the hosts file? No, that's an admins job.

sphbecker said,

2: Landmark applications like MS Office have decent open-source counterparts, but the UI is often hard to learn and clumsy compared in comparison.

The complaints levelled against FOSS software like LibreOffice in a business setting, have nothing to do with the UI, and everything to do with file formats and compatibility. None of which should matter if a government or business standardises on a vendor neutral format like OpenDocument. The UK government is doing exactly that. Problems arise when you continue operating with proprietary Microsoft formats and expect everything else to work flawlessly with it. Outside users can open the free and open VNF's with a variety of software, from easily accessible web software such as Google Docs, to fat clients like LibreOffice, GnomeOffice, KDEOffice, and a host of other free and open source software.

sphbecker said,

3: Next to no 3rd party support for anything you might want to do.

There are lots of companies out there providing GNU/Linux support. If you're talking about off-the-shelf third party software, then there's usually a piece of open source software that does the same job.

sphbecker said,

4: No real workstation management solutions out there.

There are. One's on github right now:
http://labs.opinsys.com/blog/2...f-linux-destops-with-puavo/

Then there's Novell's ZENworks. But really, all you need is a Linux sys admin and ssh. No need for expensive GUI tools when you have a powerful GNU/Linux cli. I can understand that you need them on Windows. Five minutes in Microsoft's clunky console is enough to drive anyone to insanity.

sphbecker said,

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Linux is inherently unable to do these things. I am just saying that to date there has been almost no emphasis on developing them.

That's because you come from a Windows mentality. How do you think businesses run vast GNU/Linux server farms?

sphbecker said,

Good point. I found this article, which sound much more believable:
http://www.geek.com/microsoft/...-linux-for-windows-1602234/
"As Munich struggles to sort out their software mess, a new independent reviewer will re-examine the city's systems and recommend a new path. Mayor Josef Schmid says switching back to Windows is definitely an option and wonders whether the initial change had more to do with taking an ideological stance than it did with saving taxpayer Euros."

Hardly resembles the language in this Neowin article does it? Besides, there have always been quite a few vocal Microsoft partners (resellers) who were ruffled by the decision to dump Microsoft software in the first place. This is just a continuation of those criticisms.

The problems with compatibility could be resolved by standardising on OpenDocument as the UK government has. Trying to create/edit MS proprietary formats in non-MS software is always going to be problematic.

simplezz said,

That's because you come from a Windows mentality. How do you think businesses run vast GNU/Linux server farms?

Sorry man, but a GNU/Linux server farm is just a tiny bit different than thousands of end user desktops.

The other factor that you didn't touch on at all is that the City of Munich has to comply with German & maybe EU, security, privacy, contracting standards. So while there may be plenty of proficient Linux consultants out there, can they comply with the standards? If the city has to implement a specific set of security and privacy rules the money they save on the platform likely goes right out the door to pay for a one off solution to implement the rules in their unique environment. More money up front to pay for Windows/Office, but far more off the shelf solutions for making sure the environment is in compliance.
If there were more cities doing it, then it wouldn't cost as much, but that's not the case. Too bad because if this had panned out it would have forced Microsoft to compete.

sphbecker said,
I really do hate to say I told you so, I am not ending that statement with a smile.
Look at that emoticon in your comment. LOOK AT THAT EMOTICON! I see a smile there you treacherous double-crosser!!! :angry:

Edited by Pluto is a Planet, Aug 18 2014, 8:46pm :

simplezz said,

I wouldn't put any stock in this article. I've yet to see any official confirmation of this, only hearsay from a single website.

I think they're just saying they are looking at their options and Windows is just one of them. Hopefully they will adopt Slackware Linux though.

If they're thinking of dropping Linux due to the costs and problems involved in it... Why on Earth would they choose another distro that will have the same problems and will cost them even more to have their customisations added in again?

Bonkers, sheer bonkers.

Simplezz,
Dude, I am on your side here, I want Linux to succeed. As someone who users Linux heavily, everything I said was a honest assessment of its state. Keep in mind that when I talk about Linux as a workstation, I am not talking a person using it, I am talking about using it in a large enterprise.

If you want to have an honest discussion you should avoid making statments that are provably wrong. The following, for example...

--"For one thing, businesses [using Linux] don't have to worry about malware, viruses, rootkits, and other nasties." Anyone making this statement does not understand how malicious software works. It either runs within the design of the OS as instructed by a user (which, Linux provides no protection ageist), or it takes advantage of flaws in the OS or subsystems, of which both Windows and Linux have had numerous flaws discovered and patched.

--"Regardless, modern distros don't require cli knowledge. Everything can be done with a GUI." Anyone who has used Linux for more than 5 minutes knows this is not true.

--"The complaints levelled against FOSS software like LibreOffice in a business setting, have nothing to do with the UI, and everything to do with file formats and compatibility. " If you use LibreOffice for more than the basics, you quickly learn it is not near as easy to use as modern versions of office, it is closer to Office 2003's interface, which is not easy to use or learn. I have it installed on every computer I own, so I know this first hand.

--"Problems arise when you continue operating with proprietary Microsoft formats and expect everything else to work flawlessly with it." Microsoft Office formats stopped being proprietary in 2007. Compatibility with Office is one of the things that LibreOffice does amazingly well.

--"There are lots of companies out there providing GNU/Linux support. If you're talking about off-the-shelf third party software, then there's usually a piece of open source software that does the same job." Driver support, yes, off the self software, not so much. And the, I am sure you can find an Open Source alternative, argument might sound nice, but when looking for business software, it is simply not true, not even a little bit true.

--"Then there's Novell's ZENworks. But really, all you need is a Linux sys admin and ssh. No need for expensive GUI tools when you have a powerful GNU/Linux cli." Novell is dead as heck and everyone knows it, but you are right, it does provide that functionality if you don't mind investing in a company that will likely close its doors soon. If you think SSH/CLI is the answer to workstation management, then you don't have large business in mind. There is a HUGE difference between remotely managing a workstation, and a managed workstation. (hint, the difference is one requires a person's time, the other does not).

Anyway, I really don't mean to argue, like I said, I am a big fan/user of Linux both personally and professionally. I just have to call out misinformation when I see it.

I think Linux already has succeeded. Success doesn't always have to be about market share. If it's actively supported and is a viable option for people, I like to think of it as a success. Being profitable would also be a factor but not really in the case of something that's free.

sphbecker said,

Good point. I found this article, which sound much more believable:
http://www.geek.com/microsoft/...-linux-for-windows-1602234/
"As Munich struggles to sort out their software mess, a new independent reviewer uwill re-examine the city's systems and recommend a new path. Mayor Josef Schmid says switching back to Windows is definitely an option and wonders whether the initial change had more to do with taking an ideological stance than it did with saving taxpayer Euros."

"a new independent reviewer uwill re-examine the city's systems and recommend a new path"... is exactly the point: it will cost them more still!

simplezz said,

Then there's Novell's ZENworks. But really, all you need is a Linux sys admin and ssh. No need for expensive GUI tools when you have a powerful GNU/Linux cli. I can understand that you need them on Windows. Five minutes in Microsoft's clunky console is enough to drive anyone to insanity.


That's because you come from a Windows mentality. How do you think businesses run vast GNU/Linux server farms?

Business also run vast Windows server farms. In fact I personally run several of them, easy peasy.

I guess you simply don't know much about Windows, certainly not judging from the clunky console remark.

From somebody who has extensive experience in both Windows and GNU/Linux, I can tell you that powershell beats the ###### out of bash, period.

Having said that, stuff like sccm isn't just a fancy gui, and the stuff that you can do with it is not matched by the competition.

Munich was GNU/Linux only claim to fame on the desktop, and has been used as an example that it is a viable desktop operating system, the fact that it took 10 years to convert in itself is proof that this project wasn't a success.

This story seems to confirm that it's not all great in Munich, and I have no doubt the tax payer's money hasn't been well spent.

FloatingFatMan said,
I hate to say I told you so, but.... Well... I kinda did! :p

Can I see your quote on that please? :p

simplezz said,
Clearly this guy has an agenda. Perhaps Microsoft or some subsidiary funded his election campaign? Wouldn't surprise me.

That's just silly. Maybe he just has a preference, kind of like how you have a preference and I have a preference? Nobody is paying us anything.

Enron said,

That's just silly. Maybe he just has a preference, kind of like how you have a preference and I have a preference? Nobody is paying us anything.

It makes little difference because he doesn't speak for Munich or the council majority. His comments have been described as:

an irrelevant individual opinion

Which means that GNU/Linux is going nowhere, and Munich will continue to save millions in licensing. Ideally we want a file format standardisation based on OpenDocument for the whole of Germany and the rest of Europe. That would really get the ball moving and kick out proprietary Microsoft formats.

simplezz said,

Which means that GNU/Linux is going nowhere, and Munich will continue to save millions in licensing. Ideally we want a file format standardisation based on OpenDocument for the whole of Germany and the rest of Europe. That would really get the ball moving and kick out proprietary Microsoft formats.

They might save on licensing, but they're going to end up spending more on a custom solution. As for a standard file format, Microsoft already supports OpenDocument, so I guess the FOSS community needs to catch up with itself. No need for the blind hate and "kicking out Microsoft"

sjaak327 said,
From somebody who has extensive experience in both Windows and GNU/Linux, I can tell you that powershell beats the ###### out of bash, period.
I've used both as well, and while maybe PowerShell as a programming language is better than bash, you also have to look at the command line tools that come with Windows...

I typed up "mkdir /?" and it came up less-than-the-default 25 line per screen of documentation. Not to mention how much empty space it included. Meanwhile, running man mkdir gets you something at least 3x that size (with actual options you can pass in) and directs you to even more complete documentation.

By the way, I'm curious. Since there is no DOS (and effectively no runlevels), how did you solve the problem with no fullscreen command line environment? Last I heard, you needed to have Windows XP to use (or install Windows XP drivers on a Vista system to emulate) a fullscreen command prompt. This is something that literally bugs me as I use Windows on my own machine and perhaps you have a solution to help me out...

You could have used get-help mkdir -detailed or get-help new-item -detailed and it would give you more documentation.

I have not solved that problem, as to me that isn't a problem. Use the ISE to get a maximized command prompt.

simplezz said,
Just ask the NHS how much that recently cost them.

From reading the above article, it'll cost the NHS a lot more to switch to Linux and some clever programmers to write and maintain the software to communicate with the BT spine and the 3rd party software providers, then train the staff to use a new computer system - there's enough NHS staff who cant use the systems that have been in place for years, there is already far too much waste in the NHS and they don't even have enough funding to upgrade from WinXP. What the NHS and other financially crippled organisations need is proven software solutions that work, the article above is suggesting that Linux is not this solution, and that is not even thinking about cost.

I'm not saying Windows is better than Linux or anything else that prefers an o/s, reliability is the key, and until someone spends the time/money/programming skills etc on Linux it is never going to be reliable enough or popular enough for mainstream use, and if/when it does get to that stage watch the malware/virus'/rootkits rise and end up with the same old problems which do not need to exist with carefully implemented security and better educated users.

SteveCac said,

From reading the above article, it'll cost the NHS a lot more to switch to Linux and some clever programmers to write and maintain the software to communicate with the BT spine and the 3rd party software providers, then train the staff to use a new computer system

That's always the argument of the incumbent. 'It's very expensive to move away', 'third parties won't support you', 'staff need to be retrained'. It's all complete nonsense. The amount of money the NHS wastes on licences, maintenance (Virus removal), and EOL extended support is colossal. Then there's cost of upgrading to the next version of Windows, which will require all new computers and hardware.

And talking about retraining costs, have you seen someone trying to use Windows 8's metro UI? Or the ribbon Office? No retraining costs there for sure LOL.

The NHS shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money propping up foreign mega-corporations like Microsoft. It's time to follow the Munich and French example by ending this costly and proprietary software dependency cycle. All governments and businesses around the world need to do this.

SteveCac said,

- there's enough NHS staff who cant use the systems that have been in place for years, there is already far too much waste in the NHS and they don't even have enough funding to upgrade from WinXP.

So your answer is to continue using expensive proprietary software? There's never been a better time. We need to conserve resources, not waste it on Microsoft software licences and unnecessary hardware replacements.

SteveCac said,

What the NHS and other financially crippled organisations need is proven software solutions that work, the article above is suggesting that Linux is not this solution, and that is not even thinking about cost.

Yeah that virus infection that recently hit them really proved the viability of Windows software. These organisations are financially crippled precisely because they pay for something that is otherwise available for free. It's pure insanity. Munich has saved millions so far, and that deployment has only finished for a few months. The incumbents will always argue that the cost of switching is higher than maintaining the status quo. That's their only argument. Because once someone does switch and realises the benefits, they'll never come back to Microsoft again. Linux is an existential threat to Microsoft and its resellers.

And now that the UK government is mandating the vendor neutral format OpenDocument universally, it's the perfect time to make the full push away from Windows and proprietary software.

SteveCac said,

I'm not saying Windows is better than Linux or anything else that prefers an o/s, reliability is the key, and until someone spends the time/money/programming skills etc on Linux it is never going to be reliable enough or popular enough for mainstream use

So I guess all those server farms and supercomputers run Linux because it isn't reliable? lol. And plenty of time, money and programming skills are spent on Linux. Red Hat is a billion dollar corporation that develops Linux exclusively. And it's just one of many that do.

SteveCac said,

and if/when it does get to that stage watch the malware/virus'/rootkits rise and end up with the same old problems which do not need to exist with carefully implemented security and better educated users.

People have been saying that for years. It's never happened. Linux is ubiquitous. It runs your router, your TV, your Fridge, the Internet, supercomputers, smartphones, tablets, desktops, and everything in between.

It's often forgotten that GNU/Linux was designed with security in mind from the start, like the original unix. Windows on the other hand was not. That led to a whole malware and virus ecosystem developing. That has never happened on Linux. We have peer reviewed repositories / app stores, and a strong security model.

The reason malware/viruses can't persist on Linux is because it's not a homogeneous environment. And software usually comes from repositories / stores. Even Microsoft has realised the virtues of that approach and is trying to push it in Windows.

Edited by simplezz, Aug 19 2014, 3:11pm :

simplezz said,
We have peer reviewed repositories / app stores, and a strong security model.

Interesting use of a pronoun. Explains everything about the desperate nature of your posts in this thread.

TMYW said,

Interesting use of a pronoun. Explains everything about the desperate nature of your posts in this thread.

You know you have won an argument when your opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks.

simplezz said,

You know you have won an argument when your opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks.

It's only an ad hominem if you think what I said is an insult. Do you deny that you have some sort of tribalist connection to the Linux community, and take it nearly as a personal affront if people are under the impression that Linux isn't successful?

simplezz said,

That's always the argument of the incumbent. 'It's very expensive to move away', 'third parties won't support you', 'staff need to be retrained'. It's all complete nonsense. The amount of money the NHS wastes on licences, maintenance (Virus removal), and EOL extended support is colossal. Then there's cost of upgrading to the next version of Windows, which will require all new computers and hardware.

And talking about retraining costs, have you seen someone trying to use Windows 8's metro UI? Or the ribbon Office? No retraining costs there for sure LOL.

The NHS shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money propping up foreign mega-corporations like Microsoft. It's time to follow the Munich and French example by ending this costly and proprietary software dependency cycle. All governments and businesses around the world need to do this.


So your answer is to continue using expensive proprietary software? There's never been a better time. We need to conserve resources, not waste it on Microsoft software licences and unnecessary hardware replacements.


Yeah that virus infection that recently hit them really proved the viability of Windows software. These organisations are financially crippled precisely because they pay for something that is otherwise available for free. It's pure insanity. Munich has saved millions so far, and that deployment has only finished for a few months. The incumbents will always argue that the cost of switching is higher than maintaining the status quo. That's their only argument. Because once someone does switch and realises the benefits, they'll never come back to Microsoft again. Linux is an existential threat to Microsoft and its resellers.

And now that the UK government is mandating the vendor neutral format OpenDocument universally, it's the perfect time to make the full push away from Windows and proprietary software.


So I guess all those server farms and supercomputers run Linux because it isn't reliable? lol. And plenty of time, money and programming skills are spent on Linux. Red Hat is a billion dollar corporation that develops Linux exclusively. And it's just one of many that do.


People have been saying that for years. It's never happened. Linux is ubiquitous. It runs your router, your TV, your Fridge, the Internet, supercomputers, smartphones, tablets, desktops, and everything in between.

It's often forgotten that GNU/Linux was designed with security in mind from the start, like the original unix. Windows on the other hand was not. That led to a whole malware and virus ecosystem developing. That has never happened on Linux. We have peer reviewed repositories / app stores, and a strong security model.

The reason malware/viruses can't persist on Linux is because it's not a homogeneous environment. And software usually comes from repositories / stores. Even Microsoft has realised the virtues of that approach and is trying to push it in Windows.

Ok, where shall we start.

Sorry mate but on finances you are just wrong. Yes, it may be the best time to change but the finance departments will take one look at the cost and throw it out. You may think it is rubbish but that is your opinion, real world says that if you cant get the finances, its not going to happen and the NHS along with multiple other organisations will not pay out this expense unless the business case is 100%, which it can never be now when this article surfaces. Think that is just my opinion? Ask someone in finance, it will not happen. You seem very anti-microsoft with your arguements but seem to be pointing them back at me for some reason, but my arguement is based on the real world cases of running a business/organisation. Any case you can make for changing to Linux are sadly undone by this German government, a real world case.

Sadly for every anti-Microsoft fan and Linux fanboys out there, keep pushing, it may happen. Just dont rely on the virus/malware/rootkit arguements because popularity will bring these. Until Linux ups its game, it is not going to happen.