The State of Munich's Ongoing Linux Migration 203
christian.einfeldt writes "The Munich decision to move its 14,000 desktops to Free Open Source Software created a big splash back in 2003 as news circulated of the third-largest German city's defection from Microsoft. When it was announced in 2003, the story garnered coverage even in the US, such as an extensive article in USA Today on-line. Currently, about 60% of desktops are using OpenOffice, with the remaining 40% to be completed by the end of 2009. Firefox and Thunderbird are being used in all of the city's desktop machines. Ten percent of desktops are running the LiMux Debian-based distro, and 80% will be running LiMux by 2012 at the latest. Autonomy was generally considered more important than cost savings, although the LiMux initiative is increasing competition in the IT industry in Munich already. The program has succeeded because the city administration has been careful to reach out to all stakeholders, from managers down to simple end users."
Both sides of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the blog from Floria Schiessl, project leader of the LiMux distro and the Munich migration: http://www.floschi.info/ [floschi.info]
Here's a blog from someone who believes the Munich migration was a failure: http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
From reading both, I tend to gravitate towards the failure side. It's 2009 and only 10% migration? Wasn't this suppose to save money? It's a frigging embarrassment! How are you suppose to point to Munich as an example of free and open-source software working on a city scale when they can't even implement it in a reasonable time-frame?
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that this is a government project. Not really known for coming in on time and under budget, are they?
My guess is that it could have been handled better, but they look to be over the hump.
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Waaaah! Asus Slapped Linux in THE FACE! Sob! Somebody call the Waahmbulance!
Linux dreamers have faith that Linux is more than just a niche product for hobbyists and power users.
Mr. Babcock then goes on for like another 3,000 words, explaining how Microsoft, which makes over a billion dollars profit each month needs to follow the Linux model, which makes zero. Good luck with that!
Now maybe, in your opinion, that's criticism, in mine it's trolling
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like government job to me:
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
It's supposed to save money in the long run, of course MS will be cheaper at first because you don't have to cope with defeating the vendor lock-in if you stay with Windows but it matters what happens a few years down the line.
Additionally, the money they use will be channeled to local companies (which means more jobs, improvement of local skill pool, making it cheaper to repeat such transitions in other cities).
Definitely beats shoveling the money to american robber baron company by any stretch.
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:0, Insightful)
You must not have read beyond the first post in that failure blog.. and you are the second one in this thread to post the failure blog.
That writer is a fucktard troll. In fact, if you scroll down past the Wahmbulance story you will find out that "Switzerland acknowledges there is no alternative to Microsoft."
Back on topic - it is entirely possible this migration was not handled well. Either way, you are a fucking douche.
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:4, Insightful)
From the blog:
According to vice director SchieÃYl, an upgrade of the then-existing Windows NT4 operating system to Windows XP would have been as much as two million euros cheaper.
Hmm I wonder how they arrived at that figure? If the blog said Windows 2000 to Windows XP then I might concede however NT4 is normally used on servers (it's a bit expensive for the desktop) I would have expected NT4 to Windows 2003. Are we talking servers here or the desktop and why XP did not Microsoft want firms to upgrade to Vista? Even if the figure they gave is true well that is Government for you and for a city like Munich then 2 million Euros is not that much for a one time cost..
The biggest obstacle to installing a Linux Distribution on the desktop is actually middle management not the rank and file worker. If your business has locked themselves into Microsoft solutions then shifting to Linux solutions is going to be hard be it server or desktop and in many ways expensive because there are many proprietary Microsoft solutions that make integration with other operating systems difficult. It must be noted that this is not the fault of other operating systems but of Microsoft, after-all it is not as if Linux solutions hide their API's and source code.
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
From reading both, I tend to gravitate towards the failure side. It's 2009 and only 10% migration? Wasn't this suppose to save money? It's a frigging embarrassment! How are you suppose to point to Munich as an example of free and open-source software working on a city scale when they can't even implement it in a reasonable time-frame?
I think you got got labeled flamebait, not that I agree, because your conclusions appear unreasonable, namely that you are measuring the project on criteria which do not match the project's own stated goals.
First of all: Munich was said that the their goal is not to save money in the short-term, but to gain 'autonomy' from a single supplier. The savings, if any, are to be realized in the long term.
Second: Schedule and cost overruns are (unfortunately) normal for projects this size and complexity. What is your idea of a reasonable time scale anyways? With some searching I can probably identify other similar sized projects which eventually succeeded, in spite of serious schedule overruns. BTW: The sound byte that only 10% of the workstations have been migrated in X years doesn't scale to mean that it will take 9 * X more years to complete to rest of them. I know you didn't state this, but the LimuxWatch blog implies this in many of their schedule slip lists.
Third: There is more at stake than producing Linux-based work stations and a support infrastructure for Munich. This is a first of it's type project, meaning a major public-sector open source deployment on the desktop. If this succeeds, then the lessons learned will form the basis for other similar projects. In other words, don't be surprised if LimuxWatch blog has a hidden agenda.
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't this suppose to save money?
Not really. From the article:
"While the proprietary solution was deemed to be slightly more cost-effective over the full period, the strategic advantage of being free to take its own IT decisions led the city council to decide in favour of the migration to GNU/Linux. "
and also from the same:
"The Microsoft solution would have made it necessary to introduce an Active Directory system, which would have meant a strong lock-in and would have caused significant follow-up costs.
RT
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:4, Insightful)
as alot of people finding out in these tough times its hard to put food on a table if you give your work away for free
If work was being given away for free, the budget would be a tad smaller, right?
I repeat: buying Microsoft licenses is *not* going to improve economy. It only improves Microsoft profits.
Re:Doing OK, in spite of bumps in the road (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, you must bear in mind that Munich is a pioneer in even attempting to replace a major Microsoft based infrastructure with open source software. They are having to to do everything from scratch, which I'm sure increases the cost.
That's what you'd call an early adoptor, they usually pay more, but definitly in this case, everyone, especially the other german government agencies that will adopt it too, will benefit.
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:4, Insightful)
whats wrong with a company making a profit?
Strawman.
It's not just "a company", it's Microsoft. If you don't know why Microsoft is special, I recommend a few more years in the internets before proceeding with commenting on tech websites.
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
whats wrong with a company making a profit?
Nothing, but there are different way to achieve a profit
.
In the case of Microsoft there are recognised problems with the morality of their business model.
It's the client who has (should have!) the liberty to go along with a particular business model and Munich has made it's decision not to follow the Microsoft ways.
Some claim there is no morality in business but especially when public monies are involved you better review that opinion.
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole Munchen idea was NOT about how much the company's involved making money. It was about the CONSUMER paying less money.
You know - I always think it is strange that these arguments are all about how the company's are driving well, but not how the consumers (and that are you and me and the man in the street - make no mistake) are served well. I do not care a bit if Microsoft gets money or gets a lot more money. However - I DO care if it is MY money. Open Source software is cheap, so it is a big bonus for me as consumer. I do not care if Ballmer gets a lot of money - as long it's not my money. Result? If I buy some Microsoft software I shoot myself in the foot. Most consumers - and that's most of you and certainly me - are better off with Open Source software. Simple...
Try to see all this from a consumer point of view.
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Munich might not be Rome but a thousand years old structures are what you grow up with, the same is valid for the continuity of the administration.
So who is going to complain about a few years of software migration especially when the goal is greater independence?
Most importantly, why is he posting in English? (Score:5, Insightful)
To whom is that blog directed? (a blog that started barely 6 months ago).
Not to the German public it seems.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google, Red Hat and others must be shitting their pants ...
Nothing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless your company is a "protection" racket Mafia or something similarly ethically dubious (like abusing your monopolistic position in a market for example).
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is pretty tame compared to such shining Linux example blogs as Groklaw and BoycottNovell.
There's plenty of bias to go around.
Moving at the Speed of Light (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conclusions
"There are perhaps two main lessons to be drawn from Munich's experience. The first one is that such a large-scale migration requires careful analysis and planning, as well as a clearly defined goal. It bears repeating that in Munich this goal is the strategic independence from software suppliers. Lower IT costs are a welcome side-effect, but autonomy is more important."
I see no failure. I see people thinking outside the Microsoft box. People who are interested might actually read and understand. http://www.osor.eu/case_studies/declaration-of-independence-the-limux-project-in-munich#section-12 [www.osor.eu]
I don't believe that anyone in the Linux world has ever suggested that migrating to Linux is completely "free", or even that it saves money in the short term. It most definitely saves tons of money in the long run. To suggest otherwise amounts to FUD.
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, they want freedom to choose the software they want to use, but considering the state of OS email clients I'm not sure they really have any.
I disagree, but let's discuss.
I'm not trying to troll, in fact we looked at migrating our machines at work from Outlook to Thunderbird or another free app on Windows or Linux, but gave up in the end because none of the available clients could replace what we do with Outlook.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trolling. Of course every client will have different strengths and weaknesses. Likely Outlook can't replace everything existing Thunderbird users have either. The difference being, Thunderbird can be altered by individual companies while Outlook cannot.
For example, Thunderbird does not have any kind of default template support, so our users would have to remember to use the right template every time they write an email.
The real problem here is familiarity and skill of people implementing the system, not limitations of Thunderbird. In this instance you can use the externaltemplateloader extension to load a default template based upon the user. I'd never done it, but it took me all of 30 seconds to figure out how and a 5 minutes to test it and confirm it works. If you haven't hired someone competent enough to do a Google search to do your evaluations (or better yet someone expert in the field to consult) you are unlikely to succeed in any transition and will always fail back to the status quo.
We looked at Kmail too (not bad, but lacks group calendaring and is Linux only)
Kmail is fine for parts of a company standardized on Linux or for mixed deployments where you let users have a choice of clients because you're standardized on truly open and standard protocols. I've worked in such places and found it very liberating.
For us iPhone and Blackberry integration is important too which makes things that much harder.
Why? Both have good support for both standard and proprietary e-mail protocols. How does this make choosing a desktop client harder?
What I'm saying is that unless you are willing to do some coding yourself then the freedom of OSS is not really that liberating if the area you are looking at happens to be under developed.
Well, due to the nature of opensource and its use of standard protocols, you will tend to gain more choice with it, but then the real strength of opensource is the flexibility and cost savings. The advantage multiplies with adoption rates and the size of the deployment. If you're only deploying to ten users, it makes little economic sense to pay someone to implement a feature and add it to en existing OSS client, when compared to the licensing cost of a proprietary client. When you're talking about a deployment of 100,000 users it quickly becomes cost effective to hire someone to make needed changes or even have a full time developer working on a project and adding features and fixing bugs important to your company.
...but there is still a lot of important software we need that forces us to stay with commercial software.
For some instances this is certainly true, but I find that more often people simply think it is true and don't bother consulting anyone who actually knows. If you're seriously considering different applications for some purpose, don't just talk to closed source commercial companies, talk to open source commercial companies. Ask Redhat or Canonical what they have to offer and what the can do for you. It makes a lot of sense especially for new transitions. If you don't feel like paying them in the long term, you can always go it alone later.
One of the biggest problems with this sort of adoption is people try to sell it as short term cost saving measure, when transitions will always incur expenses. OSS is abo
Re:A success? Some people disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I like to bash Microsoft, that doesn't completely answer his question. Even if there are more pro-Microsoft posters on Slashdot, does it mean that those posters are shills? Maybe their claims are justified.
Re:Both sides of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
No. They migrated the applications first. In addition they replaced bad, old applications for administrative processes with new ones, which are designed to work with modern administrative processes. That's what it taking so long. Also they are training their stuff.