Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Maß Is Empty: Munich Switching Back To Windows After ~14 Years With Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    One of huge Munich problems was their "distro of choice" - custom LiMux that was scarcely updated and looked hideous. If they chose professional distro like RHEL or SLES and negotiated some good deal (would be way cheaper than MS deal) with respective companies for support, they'd have much better experience than with their in-house distro.

    Comment


    • #32
      From: [email protected]
      To: [email protected]
      Subject: Sending documents to Microsoft encumbered organisations

      https://help.libreoffice.org/Common/Export_as_PDF

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by arakan94 View Post
        One of huge Munich problems was their "distro of choice" - custom LiMux that was scarcely updated and looked hideous. If they chose professional distro like RHEL or SLES and negotiated some good deal (would be way cheaper than MS deal) with respective companies for support, they'd have much better experience than with their in-house distro.
        Yeah, exactly what I was saying all these years. Doing your own distro is hell, just use something good and supported. SUSE is from Germany, for crying out loud, they probably even could do on-site support.

        Comment


        • #34
          Well they didnt make their own distro from scratch.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by molecule-eye View Post
            There is a real problem with libreoffice compatibility issues, and while there is Office 365, it's no replacement for Word. Still, I doubt it was so bad they couldn't just live with the few compatibility problems they had here or there.
            It's not simply a matter of "a few compatibility problems". Windows does user management in AD and if you're required to (electronically) sign your documents, things get complicated. Then there's the issue of the calendar and notifications which no open source suite has cracked (or even attempted) yet.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by theghost View Post
              The sad thing is, München is a only part of a much bigger problem:

              http://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/...-on-microsoft/

              Almost all governments in Europe are dependant (and more important, become increasingly dependant) of Microsoft.
              It's pattern from local authority to EU authority.

              The problem is, politicans here don't understand that they give money (from taxes) and data (from citizens and governments) into the hand of one single non-EU corporation, that lives from vendor lock-in. It's insane...Maybe other countries (outside the EU) are more clever.
              Don't buy that excuse ever, they understand everything..., they just choose to put more money in their pockets. If you only knew how contractors "get jobs" in car industry you would know how things work, usually only CEO's/directors benefit from it, they push "public tender" for a job of contractor, then contractors present their offers, but it is not best offer that wins, but the contractor who give most money to the board of the directors or specific director..., that contractor invests millions (in directors pockets) for billions of revenue, contractor is happy, directors are happy, and everything si fine huh? That's how most if not all big companies work, even if it's not of owners interest or knowledge for that matter (owner trusted to the wrong people, or if it's public company, well... it is trusted to wrong people). That problem exist since the first deal was made who knows when in some aincent civilization and to this day no one yet found proper solution for the problem of corruption.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by leipero View Post

                Don't buy that excuse ever, they understand everything..., they just choose to put more money in their pockets. If you only knew how contractors "get jobs" in car industry you would know how things work, usually only CEO's/directors benefit from it, they push "public tender" for a job of contractor, then contractors present their offers, but it is not best offer that wins, but the contractor who give most money to the board of the directors or specific director..., that contractor invests millions (in directors pockets) for billions of revenue, contractor is happy, directors are happy, and everything si fine huh? That's how most if not all big companies work, even if it's not of owners interest or knowledge for that matter (owner trusted to the wrong people, or if it's public company, well... it is trusted to wrong people). That problem exist since the first deal was made who knows when in some aincent civilization and to this day no one yet found proper solution for the problem of corruption.
                This problem is self-correcting in free-markets. Businesses that suffer from internal corruption / embezzlement are forced to charge more for their product and/or yield less profit. This is because the corruption / embezzlement creates an additional cost for the business. Over-time this gives a competitive advantage to competing businesses which have less of these problems. As-such the businesses which have these problems will lose market share and become weak and less attractive to both consumers and investors. This creates a net-positive efficiency gain for the market as a whole.

                Governments are naturally monopoly entities, so the market force described above does not apply. If you are a voter and your vote is meaningful, you can reduce corruption by voting for smaller governments. For example: if your government handles bin-collection and recycling, vote to remove that function from your local government. The demand for this service will remain, so in its place you will get numerous free-market solutions to the bin-collection and recycling problems. The free-market solutions will evolve a better service at a lower cost with less over-all corruption (as is the case with all markets which are more free).

                My suggestion cannot remove the problem of corruption and embezzlement. It will simply reduce it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                  Phoronix: The Maß Is Empty: Munich Switching Back To Windows After ~14 Years With Linux

                  There are a lot of reasons to love Munich from Augustiner to the wiesn and Bavarian culture, but their leading use of Linux / open-source software via their LiMux initiative that began in 2003 is no more...

                  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ack-To-Windows
                  This is sad news.

                  From what I have read on TechRepublic, around 15,000 desktops were migrated to LiMux, an Ubuntu derivative (if you believe Wikipedia) and initially a customized version of OpenOffice but later switched to LibreOffice. Ok, the underlying Linux distribution (Ubuntu and hence Debian) can be very stable. What changes were brought by "LiMux" do not seem to be widely known. I agree with the change to LibreOffice from OpenOffice based on my own experiences with both. And then there may be applications that help run the city that vendors only release for Windows. As for there being any quid pro quo between the city and Microsoft, everything is allegation (like all the Hollywood scandals and Russia influence stuff) until it's proven in a court of law (unless some EU commission says it's cool, right?), but if "shady deals" were made, I hope German justice will be swift and strong against the wrongdoers.

                  What I see Linux not doing is almost everything that Microsoft has done over the decades to encourage and increase "mindshare" in Microsoft products. Microsoft runs a testing program (that outside manufacturers probably pay for to get stuff tested); not so with Linux (you test your own and hope it works with everyone elses). Microsoft encourages and even publishes books on the most current OS and apps; not so with Linux, and if you find them they are for older versions. Microsoft has expended great effort to make "desktop management" an easy task ("paper MCSEs" anyone?); Linux requires programmers to make different apps (Foreman, Chef, git, etc.?) work together to achieve the same thing. Microsoft has poorly documented, if at all, many of the protocols and document formats it uses; Linux thrives on "open source", but that's not enough to win the campaign.

                  In a "Zen like thought", Microsoft is a closed fist punching through a board; success. Linux "desktop dominance" is a open hand trying to shove individual fingers through a board; failure.

                  If Linux wants to achieve "desktop dominance", the entire Linux community from top to bottom has to come together ("closed fist") and work like a single unit ("closed fist") on some things, like compatibility, current documentation & How-To guides, interoperability across vendors and apps, "ease of use" features, and understanding the (SMB & enterprise) target market's needs on the desktop. Linux will need to either match (or exceed) Microsoft's efforts, or Linux has to "build a better and less complicated mouse trap". And Linux dudes, just saying it's better don't make it better ("talk is cheep") and the burden of proof will be on you, not Microsoft, in the SMB & Enterprise markets. It would help matters if Microsoft would provide public documentation for it's "closed formats and protocol usage".

                  As for myself, I have used both Windows and Linux over the years, and with numerous "certifications" in both, and even worked as a planner/buyer involved in OS & server related purchasing. I have found many things to dislike about Windows and many things to like about Linux. Personally, I have 3 Windows desktops left to migrate in my "world" as everything else, about 3x as many platforms, are Linux. So I am not a Linux hater and not a M$ fanboy. I am only a retired person that sees how the Linux community could do a better job at achieving a "dream" goal.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
                    It was also unproven and unverifiable that they would actually spare some money with Linux and LibreOffice. They "saved" 12m EUR by switching to OSS, but at the same time, the project cost 14m and took 10 friggin' years of work. Whoa, that's some serious savings indeed.

                    Morale of the story: don't make decisions with emotions. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
                    How much of that 14m cost would have been there anyway?
                    Switching back to Windows for 49,3M EUR is that what you would call an emotional decision?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post

                      This problem is self-correcting in free-markets. Businesses that suffer from internal corruption / embezzlement are forced to charge more for their product and/or yield less profit. This is because the corruption / embezzlement creates an additional cost for the business. Over-time this gives a competitive advantage to competing businesses which have less of these problems. As-such the businesses which have these problems will lose market share and become weak and less attractive to both consumers and investors. This creates a net-positive efficiency gain for the market as a whole.

                      Governments are naturally monopoly entities, so the market force described above does not apply. If you are a voter and your vote is meaningful, you can reduce corruption by voting for smaller governments. For example: if your government handles bin-collection and recycling, vote to remove that function from your local government. The demand for this service will remain, so in its place you will get numerous free-market solutions to the bin-collection and recycling problems. The free-market solutions will evolve a better service at a lower cost with less over-all corruption (as is the case with all markets which are more free).

                      My suggestion cannot remove the problem of corruption and embezzlement. It will simply reduce it.
                      Not to degrade conversation of this thread/topic with off topic stuff, but I did read free market economic theories and lsiten tons of speakers on the topic, and actually bought into it for a breif moment in my life..., however, I did returned to common sense . Not that other theories are much better tho...

                      Free market solution will always evolve in monopoly of corporation, we can argue about this but we are going off topic, and there's no reason to believe I could convince you otherwise, and there's no way you could convince me to believe in what you wrote, so we would waste our time and time of those who read it .

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X