Beta
×

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Munich Has Saved €4M So Far After Switch To Linux

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the gonna-be-a-good-oktoberfest-this-year dept.

Linux Business 370

New submitter Mojo66 writes "Mayor Ude reported today that the city of Munich has saved €4 million so far (Google translation of German original) by switching its IT infrastructure from Windows NT and Office to Linux and OpenOffice. At the same time, the number of trouble tickets decreased from 70 to 46 per month. Savings were €2.8M from software licensing and €1.2M from hardware because demands are lower for Linux compared to Windows 7."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not Surprised (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503849)

Linux is better, faster, and more stable. Just the savings on support calls alone would be enormous.

Re:Not Surprised (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504029)

Linux is better, faster, and more stable. Just the savings on support calls alone would be enormous.

On the various computers where I've installed most "trendy" modern distros (ubuntu, etc), they actually run slower under Linux than Windows. Not that linux doesn't have plenty of other advantages, but in my expereince, for out-of-the-box installs, speed isn't one of them. (The incredible sluggishness of nautilus is one of the things that made me reinstall windows on one of my development machines).

Before you go arguing and modding me down, yes, I know this is a single anecdote and there are other counter-examples. I also know I could install a lighter window managers, use a better file manager, etc. But out-of-the box ubuntu, mint, etc, has been slower on my machines than either windows xp or windows 7.

Re:Not Surprised (0, Troll)

FunkDup (995643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504093)

"trendy" modern distros...actually run slower under Linux

They're talking about servers.

Re:Not Surprised (5, Informative)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504151)

"trendy" modern distros...actually run slower under Linux

They're talking about servers.

Don't be silly - they're talking desktop users switching from Windows+Office to Linux+OpenOffice - 14,000 PCs and laptops. Since when does anyone run OpenOffice on a server?

Re:Not Surprised (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504209)

I do. OpenOffice runs headless as part of a document conversion service, main use is to convert the various MS Office documents to pdf.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

FunkDup (995643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504427)

they're talking desktop users

All office machines are overpowered nowadays, all GPU's support Aero. OOo is slower than MS office. There is no difference in desktop hardware for either OS. You don't switch that many desktops without getting rid of a pile of windows server infrastructure while you're at it. This has come up here before but I can't find the link.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504707)

Since when does anyone run OpenOffice on a server?

People using thin clients?

Re:Not Surprised (5, Interesting)

tiffany352 (2485630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504103)

I use LXDE because it reduces the bloat of a clunky window manager. You do not really have this option in windows, you only have explorer. That's it. If you want an older version? You're suggesting downgrading to an older, about to lose support, version of windows? What kind of suggestion is that? I don't have to downgrade to a distro from 2002 to get a speedy desktop, why should I have to do that with windows. In my experience, linux has always been much faster than windows (even with clunky ubuntu versus windows xp), more stable, and a friendlier environment for development. I still run windows, however, because running direct X 10/11 games in WINE is impossible if not near, and WINE is slow anyway (Ironically, blockland runs faster in wine than it does natively on windows...). And on my laptop, I have optimus graphics which are unsupported by nvidia for linux. So, I have to either play games on windows or suffer extremely slow integrated intel graphics.

Re:Not Surprised (2)

tiffany352 (2485630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504183)

I forgot to mention, there are DEs which are fast "out of the box". I'm using the PCLinuxOS LXDE distribution right now.

Re:Not Surprised (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504221)

explorer.exe can be changed as the default windows manager.

Re:Not Surprised (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504359)

i've found LXDE to be good, but not great. it lacks features a bit. i miss nautilus when i use LXDE, and terminal doesn't always do what it looks like it should do ($man anything).

i'll give XFCE a try next. i'd like to see a side-by-side comparison that works.

one thing - win7's drag-explorer-to-the-edge-and-it-fills-exactly-half-the-screen really saves the time i spend in a fit of OCD dragging edges around so i can move shit from two folders fast.

Re:Not Surprised (3, Interesting)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504479)

one thing - win7's drag-explorer-to-the-edge-and-it-fills-exactly-half-the-screen really saves the time i spend in a fit of OCD dragging edges around so i can move shit from two folders fast.

In Gnome/KDE every window can do that (haven't used XFCE or LXDE so I can't say, but it seems like that's a pretty standard feature of every competent window manager).

Re:Not Surprised (2)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504627)

one thing - win7's drag-explorer-to-the-edge-and-it-fills-exactly-half-the-screen really saves the time i spend in a fit of OCD dragging edges around so i can move shit from two folders fast.

I recommend FAR manager.

Re:Not Surprised (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504179)

On the various computers where I've installed most "trendy" modern distros (ubuntu, etc), they actually run slower under Linux than Windows.

In what way?

Reduced CPU speed? Slower network access? How does your OS reduce the speed of your hardware? Do you have any benchmarks showing comparative speed?

(The incredible sluggishness of nautilus is one of the things that made me reinstall windows on one of my development machines).

You're a developer and you changed your entire OS because you couldn't change the settings to speed up a file manager? (hint: Nautilus shows thumbnails and previews audio). Please tell/warn us which projects you're working on!

Re:Not Surprised (4, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504301)

How does your OS reduce the speed of your hardware?

By using an inefficient graphics driver (nouveau) with an eye-candy laden window manager (compiz).

Re:Not Surprised (5, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504683)

But that's not what Munich is doing.

They're using a LiMux, a customised version of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS with KDE3.5. On any modern hardware, it'll be very responsive.

Read Florian Maier's presentation. Warning, PDF: https://www.desktopsummit.org/sites/www.desktopsummit.org/files/DS2011_LiMux_Desktop_Retrospective_2011-08-08.pdf [desktopsummit.org]

Re:Not Surprised (5, Insightful)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504763)

If you care about performance, why are you running nouveau?

Yes its the default, but use a recent video card in windows and see how you like the default.

Just because its linux doesn't mean you dont have to install the right drivers from the manufacturer sometimes.

Re:Not Surprised (-1, Flamebait)

rve (4436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504361)

On the various computers where I've installed most "trendy" modern distros (ubuntu, etc), they actually run slower under Linux than Windows.

In what way?

Reduced CPU speed? Slower network access? How does your OS reduce the speed of your hardware? Do you have any benchmarks showing comparative speed?

(The incredible sluggishness of nautilus is one of the things that made me reinstall windows on one of my development machines).

You're a developer and you changed your entire OS because you couldn't change the settings to speed up a file manager? (hint: Nautilus shows thumbnails and previews audio). Please tell/warn us which projects you're working on!

Don't be fanboi, fanbois suck.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504599)

Nice. Can't ask for evidence from a trolling AC without being called a fanboi...

Re:Not Surprised (2)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504711)

You just got sucker trapped by anonymous coward and paid to mod marketdroids. Statement us absolutely pointless and meaningless.

I installed windows vista original first issue disk and it was the slowest most disgusting piece of crap imaginable, hell, it took three whole days to complete the install. First it patched (several times) and the it decided it need a whole support pack, after that it patched (several times), then it decided it needed another whole support pack, then it patched (several times again). In first three days fresh install it was the absolute worst operating system I have ever used (yes this is your fault M$ why vista patch have to be so bloody slow I will never understand). On top of that, your guessed it, it didn't install one of the correct drivers they all had to be up dated. After that it wasn't too bad.

In a commercial administrative environment with a limited range of applications, free open source software, as the base with some commercial software on top is going to win, end of story.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504235)

they actually run slower under Linux than Windows.

That's why I stick with Ubuntu 10.10 and the nvidia binary driver.

Re:Not Surprised (5, Interesting)

graphius (907855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504245)

Strange, I have the exact opposite experience. Photoshop running in wine (on mint) runs faster than nativly in Windows on the same dual boot machine. I also find that from log in to finished desktop is MUCH faster with linux. Windows seems to come up, but then various programs keep popping up for attention.*
I will admit that flash is better in windows than Linux woo hoo.....

* before you say uninstall a bunch of programs in windows, I have the same functionality in Linux without the slowdown at boot.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504265)

I would agree that Ubuntu since UNITY is a performance dog but hey there are PLENTY of other options On some PCs I run pre UNITY versions. On others, I run Mint.

Re:Not Surprised (5, Insightful)

cjav (1331511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504269)

First, I couldn't tell for sure as for more than 10 years Linux and recently some OSX have been all I've used. I do however have to troubleshoot Windows PCs for friends and family, none run as smooth as my Linux machines. Why?, the only reason I can come of, these aren't new installs. Please make the same comparison 6 months after using your Windows machine. Maybe you are fine doing clean reinstalls every 6 months, I'm not.

Re:Not Surprised (5, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504297)

Linux is better, faster, and more stable. Just the savings on support calls alone would be enormous.

On the various computers where I've installed most "trendy" modern distros (Ubuntu, etc), they actually run slower under Linux than Windows. Not that Linux doesn't have plenty of other advantages, but in my experience, for out-of-the-box installs, speed isn't one of them.

I think the big test would be to bench them again in six months and then a year. I think you'll find the Linux box catching up to, and then passing the Windows box as Linux does not suffer from "Windows rot." Every application you install seems to just HAVE to start up with the system and run ALL THE DAMN TIME! Do I really need iTunes, Google updater, MS Office, Acrobat Reader, and Winzip running ALL THE DAMN TIME? Here's a better idea: DON'T LAUNCH UNTIL I TELL YOU TO LAUNCH! I don't need MS Office preloaded and ready to go just case I might need to create a OneNote thingie. I think I'll be OK if I have to wait the extra 1.5 seconds when I decide to launch it. Nothing is more frustrating that when I see someone complaining about their computer being slow and I find that their little notification icons run from the clock to the middle of the task bar and then fixing it for them for the fourth time in a quarter.

It's also important to note that Linux upgrades itself for free with little user interaction. Windows can do the same, but it's not free and after four or five upgrades, your machine is useless from all the legacy stuff left over from installation's past.

Re:Not Surprised (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504949)

What Adobe's software and Apple's software do to your computer is either their fault or your fault, depending on how you look at it. It's not Microsoft's doing.

Microsoft just provides the operating system that *allows* you to clutter up your startup sequence with all that crap. And if that's what you want to do with your computer, they should let you. But MS Office's behavior is their fault. and they provide useless bloatware, but it's far less onerous than the garbage that computer sellers (are you listening Dell?) put on your PC before you buy it.

What I really blame them for is Windows Search and the associated Indexer. That is a real piece of garbage and has been since the very beginning. It doesn't compare in performance with Apple's Searchlight or Finder, and it really hogs system performance. It's like Microsoft never heard of nice.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504505)

Nope. Linux is way faster than Windows 7. I have run both (dual boot) on many machines and on each one Linux is unquestionably faster. On more than one occasion Windows 7 has done an update that caused it to take over an hour to boot! Over an hour!! To bad if I just wanted to give a presentation at a meeting of send off a quick email.

My machines now all have Linux with the KDE 4.8 SC (desktop software collection) installed. In every way, functionality, reliability, lack of malware threats, usability, ease of maintenance & update, ease of finding and installing applications, general ease of use ... it beats Windows 7 hands down.

Re:Not Surprised (2)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504771)

Unfortunately, you're pretty much right. In recent years though there have been a few patches (especially around the kernel's scheduler) that have dramatically sped up the Linux desktop - its actually getting pretty good now.

Another key factor in this is display drivers. I have to say, having begun using the gnu/linux desktop in the early 2000's (seems like yesterday) graphical performance has improved over the horizon. Having said that, its still got a way to go. I'd love to see vendors adopting the newer base libraries built for a cleaner graphical stack in recent years. Adoption is slow, but it is happening.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504903)

On the various computers where I've installed most "trendy" modern distros (ubuntu, etc), they actually run slower under Linux than Windows.

What you mean is, you percieved it to run slower. The fact is, some a desktop perspective, Linux is easily on part with Windows. From a server perspective, Linux has beat the crap out of windows for over a decade now; including serving files using MS' own protocol.

Sorry, but your statement is pure fiction unless you've somehow biased the comparison.

Recent Linux desktop videos - fast and powerful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504917)

Here are some recent videos showing the Linux KDE desktop in action. It is extremely fast and powerful, it beats Windows 7 hands down.

Quick (default) desktop applications overview, aslo intorducing new Calligra Office suite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNGMDnh6I0M

Extended applications - Cantor with Octave backend - MATLAB replacement:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xem3wd_octave-calculations-in-cantor_tech

All available at no cost this April.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504049)

Yep - about equivalent to the office supply budget at many mid sized businesses. Impressive

Re:Not Surprised (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504071)

Wouldn't help that much. When I worked for the provincial government IT, literally 90% of calls were people forgetting their passwords.

Re:Not Surprised (5, Insightful)

rve (4436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504299)

Wouldn't help that much. When I worked for the provincial government IT, literally 90% of calls were people forgetting their passwords.

Seriously, that's your fault, with your password policies (passwords expire each month or two, have to be so and so long, contain the usualy mix of upper & lower case, numbers, special characters, and the icing on the cake: may not have 3 or more characters in common with a password ever used previously), the only way to remember your passwords is to write them down, which is officiallly a firing offense by the way. At some point, users, even the techies, are just not going to bother trying to come up with a new password that will pass the validation and can still be remembered, they'll simply call you and ask you to reset the password every time it expires. That's what I did.

Re:Not Surprised (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504511)

Either that or it's areally GOOD thing. Maybe all the other support calls dried up because everything just worked.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504751)

The policy at the time was 6 characters, with at least 1 capital and at least 1 number, and couldn't be the same as the last one.

What do you want? One character passwords?

Re:Not Surprised (4, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504881)

The policy at the time was 6 characters, with at least 1 capital and at least 1 number, and couldn't be the same as the last one.

What do you want? One character passwords?

Of course not, but also not useless-yet-annoying rules like the above...

Require a capital letter? 95% will make it the first one. Require a digit? 95% will just append "0". Increase in difficulty for someone trying to guess passwords? Zero.

Re:Not Surprised (4, Interesting)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504077)

€1.2M from hardware because demands are lower for Linux compared to Windows 7

This is an often overlooked additional benefit, especially if you use a lightweight environment. A modern distro running LXDE and LibreOffice can make 10 year old hardware an adequate machine for 90% of office uses. As a bonus, future upgrades to ARM PCs would be essentially transparent to the users.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504195)

That "saving" would be more than offset by the lower capabilities and higher failure rates of 10-year-old hardware. Do you really want to trust your work, even temporarily, to a 10-year-old PC hard drive. Or use a 10mbps network card on a gigabit network if you're sharing files on a server? Or laptops (the project included converting lots of laptops) with only wireless b and crappy encryption?

Re:Not Surprised (4, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504291)

Say, do you always throw out the baby with the bathwater? Last I heard it's very easy to replace various components on PCs without having to replace the whole thing.

Re:Not Surprised (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504319)

Or this might mean that an Atom or E-450 based PC will suffice, where Windows would require a (Core) Celeron/Pentium or better, and more RAM.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504587)

If you look on youtube there are videos of people using windows 7 on an atom machine and it seems to run fine.

Re:Not Surprised (2)

WoLpH (699064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504339)

He isn't saying that you should run on 10 year old hardware, he is saying that it runs on 10 year old hardware.

Basically, since it will run on 10 year old hardware you can just buy new low-end hardware and still get faster results than buying high-end hardware with Windows 7.

I have seen it happen quite a few times that the DE would just make a reasonable machine come to a grinding halt. My one-fast workstation with a dual Opteron was always blazingly fast using KDE 3.5. Since I upgraded to KDE 4 it has been horribly slow... but KDE 3.5 just isn't really an option anymore.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504351)

Err, you do realise that it is 2012 now? Ten years ago, Pentium 4s at 2 ghz+ were the average Intel cpu, gigabit over copper had been approved and brought to market 3 years before, Windows XP was released...

As for 802.11g, it was in the process of being formalised but how hard is it to get a PCMCIA wifi card? Heck, I have 2 or 3 802.11g cards around here and I didn't even use them. Harddrive replacement is cheap, especially before the flooding in Taiwan. With a switched network you should have no issues running gigabit and 100mb segments.

A ten year old computer is still a semi-decent machine, especially if you are just doing office work. Heck, my neighbour's daughter is using a ten year old machine that I refurbished (new harddrive + more ram) to do her school work on and she is having no issues with it.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504811)

Err, you do realise that it is 2012 now? Ten years ago, Pentium 4s at 2 ghz+ were the average Intel cpu, gigabit over copper had been approved and brought to market 3 years before

Yeah, people don't seem to realize how long it has been... Think about this one: You could get a 2.2GHz Athlon 64 in 2003. K8 will be ten years old next year. Do you feel old yet?

Re:Not Surprised (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504621)

That "saving" would be more than offset by the lower capabilities and higher failure rates of 10-year-old hardware.

I've deployed hundreds of older, off-lease systems in a corporaate environment, and have not seen anything like you've described. Failure-rate is slightly higher than brand-new systems, but still very low. They are also cheap enough there are ready spares, clones from the same base image, that the lowliest tech is empowered to use/swap at-will.

Do you really want to trust your work, even temporarily, to a 10-year-old PC hard drive. Or use a 10mbps network card on a gigabit network if you're sharing files on a server?

HDD failure rates follow a bathtub curve, so I'd actually rather have an old HDD that passes SMART tests, than a brand-new one.

And NICs? They've ALL been 100Mbit since the mid 90s, which is plenty fast enough for all but the heaviest file-transfer uses. And it's only been a little under 10 years ago that GigE showed-up in PCs, so you might get lucky.

Or laptops (the project included converting lots of laptops) with only wireless b and crappy encryption?

You need to go read-up... WPA was a drop-in replacement for WEP, and cards much more than a decade only will only need a firmware upgrade. Besides, nothing says you have to depend on either... My company requires laptops to VPN in, even one the company's Wifi APs. It's only slightly inconvenient.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504863)

Do you really want to trust your work, even temporarily, to a 10-year-old PC hard drive.

It's only Windows that makes it hard to store your files on a file server.

Or use a 10mbps network card on a gigabit network if you're sharing files on a server?

100Mbps Ethernet has been cheap for over 10 years and provides perfectly adequate speeds for most tasks, even if your files are stored on a server.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504399)

Adobe Flash has seen to the 10 year limit. A P4 2.4GHz running a stripped down version of Debian and Midori can no longer play basic YouTube videos.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504441)

But what about Flash? How can they survive without Flash? And you know what Flash does to old hardware.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Existential Wombat (1701124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504773)

I'm not surprised either.

He's a politician. And probably a part of the decision, or from the party that decided to implement this.

He's never going to admit any other result.

awwww yeah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503867)

Four million euros? That's about a hundred billion USD!!!

They saved a lot of money (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503869)

They saved a lot of money because everyone quit. Have fun in the stone age freetards!

Re:They saved a lot of money (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503909)

They saved a lot of money because everyone quit. Have fun in the stone age freetards!

Sir may I politely ask what rock you live under.

Re:They saved a lot of money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504639)

The rock called reality. Under this rock, lunix is still a pile of unusable shit and will continue to be 10 years behind everything else. Your rock may vary.

Re:They saved a lot of money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503917)

If by "the stone age" you mean your mom's puss, we're having a blast! Thanks for the support.

Now go for another 4 million ... (5, Funny)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39503923)

Get rid of that office shit and replace with Vim and Emacs. :) :)

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503981)

Hell - let's just turn the computers off. That will save millions!

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (0)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504035)

Get rid of that linux shit and replace it with emacs

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504241)

Openoffice doesn't cost any more than vim or emacs.

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (5, Funny)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504617)

Emacs only costs nothing if your soul is worthless.

This message is brought to you by the Coalition for the Ethical Treatment of Swap Space.

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504927)

HA, I have 64GB of memory, EMACS never swaps for me!

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (1, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504311)

Actually, if they switched to LaTeX, they'd probably save countless hours futzing around with fonts and layout...

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504503)

Clearly you've never tried figure placement in a LaTeX document...

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (2)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504559)

Yes, but those remaining hours will be spent trying to get that picture to go right...here or getting those tables looking just right. Then once they get that all figured out, they will waste the rest of the time customizing the hell out of everything from margins, footers, paragraph spacing, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love LaTeX and use it whenever I can. But don't underestimate the time wastage that goes into programming a text document ;)

GNU Emacs (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504497)

That's GNU Emacs, please.

Re:Now go for another 4 million ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504891)

Why settle for Vim, when you can use ed... then you don't even need a full size monitor, all you need is a 1 line text display. ;)

Does that include cost of training and transition? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503947)

Does that include cost of training and transition? Curious what the cost of the changeover was and how long it will take to recover that investment.

If the change itself is expensive, but the savings of Linux is high, that is a good argument for building with Linux from the outset.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504011)

"Also in the bill were included training costs and costs of migration" FTFA

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (4, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504021)

The transition from Windows XP and Office 2003 to Windows 7 and Office 2010 has enormous training costs associated with it. I would not be surprised if the training for the Linux setup was less, if the kept the basic look and feel. And a wash if the didn't bother.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504027)

It can't be that high considering the interfaces are basically the same between office suites, or windows and a linux desktop. Lets be honest here most people on windows just know what icons they need to click to start office anyways, which is monkey level training.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (3, Funny)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504323)

Lets be honest here

ok, you can start by not posting as AC
Then we can start discussing your hatred of monkeys.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (3, Informative)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504031)

It says it does take that into account. No numbers are actually displayed, nor time displayed (is he calculating into the future, how far into the past, etc), and there is a 2.8 mil not taken into account for optimization and testing.
Still, a savings of 1.2 mil is a pretty good start.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504177)

(original AC here)

Thanks for the info, and for being more polite about it than some of the other responses. Been having problems with random sites all day and couldn't get the translation to load myself.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (2)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504041)

According to the translation, yes it did. I'd guess that there was some hardship in moving some of the core services, but maybe not... If there were *nix editions of most of the software that the city used, then maybe it wasn't so bad.

I'd like to see what the transition plan was, how long it took, and what software blocks stood in the way. Kudos though to them for saving some cash on something that appears to have improved their reliability.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (4, Interesting)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504055)

You would be really surprised how much of this can be mitigated if your sysadmins and support staff already have a Linux backround of some sort. One person with 5 or so years of experience customizing a specific Linux distribution can virtually eliminate amost all of the cost of training for the transition for the rest of the staff simply by creating and deploying some common desktop software and related customizations to make it "more like Windows."

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (-1, Offtopic)

Manfre (631065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504061)

They rarely ever account for that cost or the lost productivity as everyone needs to learn the new system. The article also doesn't state any change in staff costs to manage the purely linux environment compared to the windows environment.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504941)

The idea is that moving towards a newer version of windows and office with pretty severe usability changes would incur similar effort anyway, although perhaps less-so on the administration end. That pretty much calls into question additional training requirments if you're pre-ribbon, unless you're relying on your staff to be using newer tech at home.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504069)

Yes RTFM

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (5, Insightful)

iroll (717924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504137)

Training? Ahahahaha, ohohohoho, eehehehehee.

Purely from an office drone's perspective (all software proselytizing aside), training is the bogeyman. The vendors bring it out to scare the customer, but it doesn't exist. It "costs" eleventy billion dollars! Nobody will know how to do anything if you don't buy training!

But big offices make big changes all the time, and they don't *really* do squat for training. They might gather the group around a conference table and click through some slides, and tell everybody that Joe has used the program before and they should ask him if they're having trouble.

Hooray, you wasted a day watching powerpoint and you got a photocopied certificate that you get to scrawl your own name on!

How many offices have gone from something, to Lotus, to Exchange, to Google... etc.? And it's not just email infrastructure. Your billing system as a consultant might change every few years; your code management system as a programmer might change. Your document control system might change. The way your network space is apportioned, the way you print; any number of things can change depending on the way the wind blows in management.

And then, you top it off with planned obsolescence: remember going from Office 97 to Office XP? And then to the new craziness of Office 2010? A little old lady secretary wouldn't be any more confused by moving to Open Office... and she's not getting any training when MS Office 2014 comes out and scraps everything she knows for touch-screen inspired insanity!

Even universities, where you would expect old systems to soldier on for far too long, seem to do that kind of thing in less than 10 year intervals. And the employees who you would expect to get some "training" (office staff, geezer professors) don't--they complain, they suffer, and then they figure it out ;-)

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (1)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504615)

Not all corporate computer training sucks. Not all of them are power point flip throughs.

The kind I consider the most effective are the ones where everyone has a computer in front of them and go through step by step exercises with sufficient time allowed for people to actually complete the provided task. They also provide a class book that shows the exercise step by step so that when they are done with the class, they can take the book and repeat the exercises back at their desk.

Even from a support position, I saw value in attending some of those classes just so I would know what the users have been taught and are reasonably expected to know.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (3, Insightful)

iroll (717924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504839)

You're right; I was being a little hyperbolic, for humor's sake. Heck, I taught a pretty mean Outlook class to a bunch of little old ladies. I wanted to talk about sorting and mailboxes; they just wanted to know how to put background colors in their emails =)

But not all corporate computer training is good, either, and my experience has definitely been defined by the bad. I've got a whole folder full of those baloney certificates, and don't get me started on "mandatory online training." You know, the kind where you click through a powerpoint, guess "C" for all of the answers on the multiple choice test, and then get to go back and do it again once you know the right answers.

Most of the things that I hear about the potential cost of retraining a workforce to use (insert Linux, Google, etc here) seem like they were estimated using the same math that the local news uses to give a half-smoked joint a street value of thousands of dollars.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (3, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504325)

It doesn't even include a study of productivity. The report seems to be done from a pure IT angle, as if IT weren't a tool to achieve goals.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504593)

> Does that include cost of training and transition? Curious what the cost of the changeover was and how long it will take to recover that investment.

It should not IMHO.

> If the change itself is expensive, but the savings of Linux is high, that is a good argument for building with Linux from the outset.

Agreed.

And that's why I consider migration costs (e.g. training, transition, among others) to be Windows costs.

In other situations, it's pretty clear to everyone that if one loses time with an incorrect procedure, one should never complain when adopting the correct solution -- for costs of the bad work are to be assigned to the previous way of doing things. So, moving to Linux because Windows was considered bad implies costs which are related to Windows not Linux.

A clearer example might be given by analogy with units: learning to use the meter is costly for those who are used to inches, feet, miles etc. Nonetheless, such costs are not related to the International System of units, but rather to the current "foot" based one.

Re:Does that include cost of training and transiti (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504673)

Does that include cost of training and transition?

Have you seen Windows 8?

The jump to Linux from 7 is shorter.

Keep beating that dead TCO horse. We know you're lying.

--
BMO

Popcorn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39503967)

Now watch all the rabid Microsoft zealots come out foaming at the mouths.

Re:Popcorn (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504123)

Now watch all the rabid Microsoft zealots come out foaming at the mouths.

That's ok. If we don't argue about this, we'll argue about something else.

And these days, it seems like it isn't the MS zealots that come out foaming anymore anyway. (If I say more, I'll be accused of flamesturbaiting.)

Re:Popcorn (3, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504231)

Why? Competition is good. Even if you think microsoft makes decent products this gives you a sense of how much the competition compares and if it's cheaper, well MS needs to come out with cheaper.

The question with all of these things is whether or not employees are just working on personal laptops instead of linux machines (I've seen that happen a few times, and that's a very serious problem), and whether or not they have any productivity changes. They might, they might not. Depends what they're doing. Saving money on licencing isn't the same as saving money. If you have 10 000 computers (as per the article) but you reduce productivity by even 1% you're worse off with linux than windows since to make up 1% is 100 people, which runs about 10 million euros.

TCO is a hard thing to calculate. It's pretty obvious that you can save money on licencing using linux, and probably training as well (no microsoft certifications). The hard part is measuring employee compliance, the cost of non compliance (this is a big issue where I am, where the IT guys are very pro linux, so about half our staff just do all their work on personal equipment, since it's a university department that's not a huge problem, but for a corporation or a city that could be problematic), and productivity gain/loss. You'd think that in this day and age, when everything is on the web and a web service that most of this wouldn't matter too much productivity wise, if not a productivity increase by not being able to waste as much time with crap that isn't work related since you can lock down linux more easily.

Re:Popcorn (3, Informative)

westyvw (653833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504857)

Or what if you let the employees work on any machine they want as long as the workflow is the same? I was impressed by the effort taken to allow users to bring iPads to work and use them if thats what they want. The trick is you dont let them choose their workflow or applications, you deliver those.

Every time I read Dave Richards blog I am at first astounded at how much they get done with so little money, and then ashamed that I call myself an IT professional. http://davelargo.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

What people in business, and government are beginning to realize is that software is not a scarce commodity.You cant use it up, but you can add to it.Once they realize that their business is not IT, its, well, doing business, contributing code doesn't make their competition any better, but just improves everyone equally.Additionally, with open software, all the dialogs and desktop items can be customized to suit your particular workflow. Linux + Open Applications + open standards are an awesome combination.

Total? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504143)

Does it say what the total IT budget is? Hard to say what the number means without context.

(Sorry, I'm not getting the translation.)

Re:Total? (4, Informative)

godrik (1287354) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504329)

From the translation:

"The city of Munich with her ââsavings Limux project about a third of their spending in the IT sector, particularly in license costs."

numbers and translation don't make sense... (1, Interesting)

davids-world.com (551216) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504309)

What are they actually using in terms of special apps? I suspect most of it are web-based eGovernment applications, perhaps accounting (SAP?), on top of OpenOffice. The GNU/Linux applications involved are all very stable by now, so this seems like a reasonable decision. The press release actually mentions an increase in workstations from 1,500 to 9,500, and a reduction in system malfunctions. I don't think it is plausible to have either 70 or 46 actual support tickets, as suggested by the description here. That doesn't make sense given the number of machines involved, whether they're running Windows or GNU/Linux or whatever. Besides, the PR compares the modern-day GNU/Linux installation to Windows NT. Seriously? (PS: Was it the German foreign affairs office that changed back to Windows recently, due to general user unhappiness?)

15% or moron insurance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504317)

TFA fails to mention that they also just switched to Geico.

The most important benefit is not the money saved (4, Informative)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504387)

As always the most important benefits of open source software is not highlighted. It is not always about the money saved. The more important issues are: Peruvian Congressman's Open Letter to Microsoft [linuxtoday.com]

  • Free access to public information by the citizen.
  • Permanence of public data.
  • Security of the State and citizens.

It can't be the norm that government's IT infrastructure is depending on a foreign firm, with is subject to foreign laws. Especially with laws like the Patriot Act in place and laws like the SOPA and PIPA in discussions.

faqilzo8s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504449)

to decl1ne for Significantly you are a screaming

70 tickets/month for 7,500 machines? (-1, Flamebait)

GGardner (97375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504453)

The translation is a bit hard to read, but I can't believe any organization only has 70 trouble tickets in a month for 7,500 machines, regardless of the OS that is running.

Re:70 tickets/month for 7,500 machines? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504519)

That's Germany right there! ;)
If you do something well, you don't have to do much support.

Re:70 tickets/month for 7,500 machines? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504581)

Maybe this is the amount of tickets that are created that the help desk aren't able to resolve over the phone?

Glad the saved 4 million euros (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504619)

But how much have they lost?

Re:Glad the saved 4 million euros (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504775)

> But how much have they lost?

- Lock-in to a single-source supplier
- Worries about not being able to read their own archived documents saved in legacy formats (OpenOffice supports over 100 office file formats)
- All trace of malware
- The need for a license compliance officer
- Any threat of being audited, or having a disgruntled employee dob them in to the BSA
- The upgrade treadmill
- Long delays during Windows updates

Where... (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39504783)

Where is Florian Mueller?

Oh Florian, do you remember this?

"Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents," said Florian Mueller, software developer and adviser to the chief executive of Swedish open source firm MySQL,

Such bold words back in 2004. Such brave effort in trying to get Munich to abandon the plan.

It's 8 years later. Where is the "death by a thousand lawyers," Florian?

--
BMO

W007 fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39504843)

megs of ram 8uns the bottoms butt people playinqg can
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?