Forum Moderators: bakedjake
The switch will be the biggest PC defection to Linux ever, hurting Microsoft's efforts to keep Linux from gaining large PC customers, said Brendan Barnicle, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities in Portland.
I thought of another phrase but it's against the t*s
just "penguins ( four letters ) geeks" ...
ps .'nix has another more relevant meaning in French ;)
SUSE is apparently pretty big over there so maybe that's having an influence.
[edited by: borisbaloney at 3:36 pm (utc) on June 21, 2004]
Interesting that a relativly small city like Munich leads the way, while cities (and countries) where the economy of scale is larger, lag behind.Munich is large relative to most cities, not small (2.3 million residents). And it is not at all unusual that large organizations put off major changes until the case has been proven at smaller ones. The "economies of scale" of purchasing are one thing but retraining and placating affected constituencies-- the "costs of scale" are quite another.
So that said, other large organizations will watch Munich closely. If the implementation is successful, they may follow suit, but only after watching and waiting and studying the issues that may arise.
"As you get into the second and third year of a transition, you have to question how much free support you will get and you might regret the decision if you don't have the internal capacity to sustain a system that's outside the framework of what most of the whole world uses."
I'd like to see how this issue (the real issue) is addressed in the long term. Seems like IBM and Novell are using linux as a loss leader to sell consulting services.
So you have an open source OS with a lot of "open" (but very complex) code that only $$$$ IBM consultants know how to implement.
TANSTAAFL
lag behind
Using Windows over Linux isn't lagging behind. They are alternatives to each other.
What's most interesting is that it appears to be an economic decision, not a technology one. It also required tens of thousands of (pro-bono) man hours by IBM and Novell to convince the city to make the switch.
That's one hell of a sales pitch.
I'm curious about the cost once the city finds out that they'll be dealing with possible incompatible formats between themselves and the rest of the business world. And the support costs.
Credit to Receptional for pointing this out last week: [webmasterworld.com...]
So you have an open source OS with a lot of "open" (but very complex) code that only $$$$ IBM consultants know how to implement.
How is this different from working with MS products? So you work with IBM now instead of praying that your supposedly MSCE certified consultants or employees know what they are doing?
Or is this a case of being able to call MS support 24hours a day at a cost of $250/hour....
At the end of the day you have to hope that the City of Munich, just like any responsible 'company', will hire some subject matter experts in-house to manage the network/software.
Why let some american company influence the direction of computing? Why not democratize it and keep it 'open'.
I'd like to see how this issue (the real issue) is addressed in the long term. Seems like IBM and Novell are using linux as a loss leader to sell consulting services.
As Microsoft intended to do, by lowering their bid from 36 to 24 million.
And of course there would be followup costs (consulting, expensive license upgrades, etc.) with a Windows based solution as well. The article doesn't really include enough information for an educated cost comparison.
What's most interesting is that it appears to be an economic decision, not a technology one.
Interesting, but not surprising. The followup costs of the Linux solution will be determined on a competitive market. The followup costs of a Windows solution would be determined by Microsoft alone.
At the end of the day you have to hope that the City of Munich, just like any responsible 'company', will hire some subject matter experts in-house to manage the network/software.
They do: "Munich expects that its own programmers will be able to provide most of the software."
Hey, this *has* to work out positively. I'd really hate to deal with any more chaos at the local authorities... ;)
This mentality is not only annoying, but flawed. Many organizations, such as mine, choose Microsoft products over Linux on a regular basis. In fact, we've decided to upgrade to Windows 2003 next weekend and purchased all new servers in the data center to do it. There are people on the payroll already that could adequately administer a Linux-based network, so salary costs isn't a consideration. Is it more expensive? You bet it is. But I personally like the fact that Microsoft provides one thing that Linux doesn't: accountability.
While the manufacturer of any particular flavor of a Linux operating system no doubt stands behind their product, many of the third party applications out there that were designed to compare to similar Microsoft applications were written by independent authors, released under GNU, and clearly state that if it doesn't work it's not their problem. But it is MY problem if it doesn't work. I know that when I buy a Microsoft product it will work the way it's supposed to, and if it doesn't for some reason Microsoft will fix the bug. I don't have that guarantee from the vast majority of Linux programs out there.
The other issue I have with Linux is with certifications/employee knowledge. If someone is Microsoft certified (RECENT certification now, not 1998) I know that they've had training in all Microsoft products, not just the operating system. The "Linux Certification" procedure only covers the operating system, and not even every flavor. The OS itself is the easy part - it's all of the third party programs you install ON TOP OF IT where you need to know your sh--.
So when a company decides to switch operating systems, good for them. I just hope they weigh out all of the odds. I will gladly continue to pay for Microsoft products until a "better" operating system comes along with the same level of support. Currently the only OS that comes close only runs on Macintosh.
[disclaimer: not flame bait, so I don't want to hear it]
Here's an article from 1999 that describes this philosophy:
[microsoft.com...]
More important, the goal of Microsoft Consulting Services is not to generate earnings for the company. Rather, MCS aims to drive sales of Microsoft products by working with large enterprise customers to help them adopt and deploy Microsoft products, and with technology solution providers to make sure they can offer a wide range of Microsoft-product related services backed by the highest level of technical skill and knowledge.
IBM, on the other hand, has made services and consulting the cornerstone of its business:
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
Revenues at its Global Services division grew by 24% to $10.2bn as the contribution from the former PwC Consulting business was felt.IBM bought the consulting arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for $3.5bn last year in order to expand into the profitable corporate-services business.
The move allows IBM to provide consultancy alongside the sale of computer hardware and software.
So, choose your poison, I guess. If Munich's "programmers" are writing miles of custom code, more power to them. Especially when they leave to go to a better job and the city of Munich is left twisting in the wind. And i bet the in-house code isn't nearly as robust and clean as the code provided by IBM , Novell, and the Linux distro.
