Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS Won't Release Study Disputing Munich's Linux-Switch Savings

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the what-and-give-away-the-recipe dept.

Businesses 268

itwbennett writes "As previously reported on Slashdot, in November of last year, the city of Munich reported savings of over €10 million from its switch to Linux. Microsoft subsequently commissioned a study (conducted by HP) that found that, in fact, 'Munich would have saved €43.7 million if it had stuck with Microsoft.' Now, Microsoft has said it won't release the study, saying that '[it] was commissioned by Microsoft to HP Consulting for internal purposes only.'"

cancel ×

268 comments

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

show us (5, Interesting)

Sadsfae (242195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659471)

Show us your cards, it doesn't matter now Mr. Ballmer.

Re:show us (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659803)

MSFT's internal study predicted that Munich would have saved so much because everyone would have been too busy dancing with their tablets to perform any governance or spend any money.

Dieter sprake (4, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660301)

"Now is the time on Surface when we dance!"

Re:show us (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659827)

Show us your cards, it doesn't matter now Mr. Ballmer.

What, and show you all the spots they've put on them? That kind of ink isn't cheap, you know!

Actually, it DOES matter (5, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660483)

It totally makes sense for MS to NOT show it. This study is for MS's sale's ppl to go into companies with and make these wild claims. Look at what happened when it was found out what patents were being used for going after the android companies. They were all jokes. The problem is that almost all of MS's studies in the past have been proven wrong.
As such, it is a certainty that this 'study' is more of the same and would be shown to be so. That would be very difficult for MS's sales ppl to counter.

Obviously (5, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659497)

'[it] was commissioned by Microsoft to HP Consulting for internal purposes only.'

Which of course is why they publicly claimed the 43.7M Euro figure.

Re:Obviously (5, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659587)

Switch from Microsoft to Microsoft and save $43.7 million?

I can understand "switch from stupid choice of products to better choices of products" though. And I don't find it unlikely that they had a lot of stupid choices there.

Another interesting option is if the switch to Linux saves money and then switching to Microsoft saves even more and then you can just continue switching, imagine the savings! Personally I have a hard time imagine you save money by switching back and forth though =P

Re:Obviously (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659637)

It was a proposed switch from Sharepoint running on Windows Server to Sharepoint running on Sharepoint.

Re:Obviously (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660009)

just like insurance companies... now they pay me!? :)

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659759)

But while the HP employee responsible for the study provided the German publication with details of the report, HP and Microsoft are now unwilling to disseminate it more broadly.

Perhaps that HP employee was doing something he shouldn't have done?

Re:Obviously (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659773)

Sounds like Micro-Soft doesn't want the public picking apart the flawed assumptions and conclusions of their 'study'.

Re:Obviously (4, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660445)

That's how much they would have saved in discounts. It would have cost them a hell of a lot more, but the savings were there.

What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659503)

Why would anyone ever release a bullshit FUD report?

If they release it someone could criticize it, if not they can keep making claims you can't refute.

Re:What did you expect? (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659859)

Why would anyone ever release a bullshit FUD report?

If they release it someone could criticize it, if not they can keep making claims you can't refute.

Meanwhile, reports from the 1950's showed certain cigarettes didn't cause significant throat irritation. In other studies doctors recommended certain brands of cigarettes.

I guess it's just a matter of finding the right people to .. uh .. doctor your results.

Re:What did you expect? (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660161)

Well, I know one Doctor who "never would."

Re:Obligatory Jack in the Box advertisement (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660229)

This is one of their best, and related to the topic at hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRO9Uwm1tes [youtube.com]

Re:Obligatory Jack in the Box advertisement (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660337)

This just in - bacon prevents hair loss!

Man, I love those Jack in the Box ads.

Re:What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659919)

Exactly their point. It's all about protecting the FUD at this point.

Normally, MS releases reports about running MS being cheaper because of Admin costs being lower. They never mention the requirement for running Anti-virus/Anti-Malware, and in fact most of their studies never even show their own licensing fees. Usually they include the client license fees for connecting to servers, but tend to forget the much higher priced licenses on workstations.

MS office is cheaper than Libre office because of.. what exactly? The rate for re-writing macros is more expensive than a few hundred dollars (depending on your license deal) per user running MS products every year forever according to their logic. And yes, according to their logic you will be rewriting macros forever too!

Logic does not fit in their reports, which is why they continually spend more money on advertising and fake reports than they do on product development. They hide behind 3rd party companies paid to give benchmark results favoring their products.

The reason they still do as much business as they do is fitting with today's business logic. People get huge discounts and kickbacks to keep running MS products. If a shop moved to Linux, they would not receive the same kickbacks and discounts. Even if the overall cost is way more, you can't show bullshit savings to stock holders without those.

Re:What did you expect? (4, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660031)

You'd be amazed. I was at a company where we paid 90% of what we would have paid for Microsoft licenses for Linux "support". It turns out that we NEVER called Microsoft or Linux anyway, so why bother spending hundreds of thousands on support anyway?

Re:What did you expect? (4, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660115)

Ass covering.

Re:What did you expect? (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660313)

When blamestorming (snikeys! it's actually in the dictionary [merriam-webster.com] ) you must have someone to blame.

Re:What did you expect? (1)

realsilly (186931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660479)

....and here I thought I was the only one who ever said "Snikeys!". ;)

Re:What did you expect? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660121)

That is what you get from corporate CYA.

On the other hand you get shops like mine where CENTOS is the standard.

Re:What did you expect? (1, Insightful)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660033)

MS office is cheaper than Libre office because of.. what exactly? The rate for re-writing macros is more expensive than a few hundred dollars (depending on your license deal) per user running MS products every year forever according to their logic. And yes, according to their logic you will be rewriting macros forever too!

I'd assume the logic is more to do with retraining costs for every head that uses MS Office. Libre/OpenOffice may look very similar to a 10 year old version of MS Office, but office uses like their familiarity and learned shortcuts - even if there is a quicker or easier way of doing something.

And that's before you consider the retraining costs for all new starters, who will more than likely be familiar with MS Office. And the retraining costs for your tech support who will have to support users through a product transition.

You mentioned macros too. With MS Office, I can get help from the many users out there who post on specialist forums. In most situations, I've found that my question has been asked before so I don't even need to start a new thread. I'm sure there are similar sites out there for Libre/OpenOffice, but is the same breadth and depth of knowledge available? So for users who write advanced macros, you not only have initial retraining cost, but also an ongoing requirement to enhance said users' knowledge.

Is all that really worth it to save a few hundred bucks per seat?

Re:What did you expect? (5, Interesting)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660233)

Our company uses MS office. I am a good programmer and a fairly competent computer user. I absolutely hate MS office. The other day I could not delete an embedded picture without deleting the one right below it, even though they were independently selectable. How irritating.

I am not saying libre office is better. I am saying it can't be much worse.

Re:What did you expect? (4, Insightful)

ftldelay (856655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660265)

Unwillingness to release it is a sure sign they've got something to hide IMO. If it's true, than what would they be afraid of? Surely it would hold up to scrutiny, right?

Re:What did you expect? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660449)

Why would anyone ever release a bullshit FUD report?

If they release it someone could criticize it, if not they can keep making claims you can't refute.

I can actually answer this. I am not going to go into details, but I have some inside knowledge. Sometimes these kinds of things are done simply to suck up to Microsoft and try to get more business from them. Of course you are asking why would Microsoft release such a report, which is a different question.

Bullshiz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659507)

MS would have release if it were true that there was 4x greater savings.

Pricing... (5, Insightful)

pebbert (624675) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659517)

Probably contains pricing information that they don't want anyone to see. If they disclosed it everyone would want those prices.

Re:Pricing... (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659543)

You mean made up pricing?
They could easily release enough to quiet the masses and not give away that level of detail.

If they are cutting Munich a one time special deal that would be even more they don't want to release. Save $40 million now! Pay $80 million next year.

Re:Pricing... (4, Interesting)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659605)

You mean made up pricing?

I presume the "special" pricing you get if you're a large organisation and say to MS, "we're going to switch to linux to save money and then talk to the press about it"

Re:Pricing... (2)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659681)

More like, special pricing you get when you are trying to produce a report that is supposed to show how cheap it is to keep using Microsoft software.
Microsoft can just quote arbitrary numbers and claim that someone, somewhere, could get them if they didn't use something else.

Re:Pricing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660291)

Mr Ballmer, I appreciate the special price you had delivered into my bed, but I'll tell you straight from the horse's mouth that this would have been quite more impressive if I even owned a horse.

Re:Pricing... (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659821)

I think it means "last ditch effort to save a customer" pricing

Re:Pricing... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659975)

Of course, guaranteed. Why? I'd bet you an infinite amount of money that it in some way completely skips the training costs and licensing costs of windows vs linux's nearly instant transition.

Re:Pricing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660175)

how about the 50 million euro bribe^H^H^H^H^Hincentive to keep microsoft products.

Yeah...Right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659519)

It's gotta be true because they say that they have the facts.

Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (5, Interesting)

SoothingMist (1517119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659521)

I recall an article from a few years ago that presented an interview with a corporate CIO here in the States. He claimed that Linux itself was actually more expensive for his company in terms of paid support from the company providing the enterprise version they used. However, the overall operational cost was much smaller because fewer sys admins were needed to operate and manage the various node clusters required by their distributed organization.

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659607)

Well, and the business processes are much more reliable. You hire 10 MSCE, and they obey a bell curve in intelligence and cover a predictable ground. Hire one Linux specialist for the same workload, and you are banking on just a single person probably twice the price of an MSCE. If he gets overworked, you can't just pull the next MSCE from beneath a railroad station bench to stock up a bit. You need to double your personnel, and you actually need to do interviews and have an interviewer with a clue. And you can't rely on your existing Linux technician for that clue since Linux people are strange.

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (1)

tilante (2547392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660169)

Here's the thing: If you really have such a small organization that one person is all you need to run everything... then you're better off contracting an outside company to run it. Yes, it'll cost more than the one guy would - but you can't really get by with just one guy, because of sick days, vacations, etc. Even if you only have enough work to keep one person busy, you're going to wind up hiring two or three if you need high reliability.

The consulting company will be more expensive than one guy, but shouldn't be nearly as expensive as three, and it becomes their job to make sure that there's always someone available, to hire properly, etc.

On the other hand, if you really feel like you need to have your own people, and things are the way you're presenting them - go ahead and hire three people. If each of your Linux guys costs as much as two MCSEs did, you're still saving 40%.

Oh... and if you "can't rely on your existing Linux technician for that clue since Linux people are strange", then it's your own damn fault for hiring the wrong Linux person in the first place. There are plenty of non-strange Linux people around.

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (5, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660237)

There are plenty of non-strange Linux people around.

Personally, I consider myself quite charming.

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (2)

runlvl0 (198575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660305)

There are plenty of non-strange Linux people around.

Personally, I consider myself quite charming.

I suppose it all depends on the spin you put on things.

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660397)

Oh... and if you "can't rely on your existing Linux technician for that clue since Linux people are strange", then it's your own damn fault for hiring the wrong Linux person in the first place. There are plenty of non-strange Linux people around.

Can I get one with working sarcasm detector? Please?

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (4, Informative)

heypete (60671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659647)

I'm not surprised.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the company from using commercially-supported distributions (like Red Hat) on critical systems if they really need the support and clones (like CentOS) on other systems.

Re:Linux claimed to be cheaper than Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660113)

I'm not surprised.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the company from using commercially-supported distributions (like Red Hat) on critical systems if they really need the support and clones (like CentOS) on other systems.

Isn't that exactly what he said they did?

Don't know if this is a fair comparison. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659529)

"If Munich had stayed with Windows XP combined with Office 2003" - or you could upgrade to an OS made in the last ten years.

Re:Don't know if this is a fair comparison. (2)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659613)

And the OS is just the tip of the iceberg.

The project is creating a common IT infrastructure, with client administration, helpdesk ticketing, centralized solutions instead of every department doing its own thing, ...

What's not said cannot be refuted. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659533)

Looks like it's a selling point that sales reps can use with the hope that their buyer's may not poke holes in their study like slashdoters can. Seems like a good move to me.

as with all paid-for-by-microsoft "studies" (5, Insightful)

NynexNinja (379583) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659551)

They all will claim that paying millions of dollars on Microsoft royalties and licensing fees is always better than paying zero dollars for a Linux deployment. They will always state that Microsoft products somehow have a lower TCO than Linux. The claim they make is that it costs more to hire Linux engineers than Windows engineers, which is a bunch of nonsense.

Re:as with all paid-for-by-microsoft "studies" (5, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659659)

That part alone is probably not nonsense. Linux engineers probably are more expensive.

On the other hand, I would expect you to need to hire fewer Linux engineers, and for the ones you got to be generally better quality and get more work done than the average MCSE.

Re:as with all paid-for-by-microsoft "studies" (5, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659935)

Competent engineers are more expensive...

Incompetent windows engineers are ten a penny, incompetent engineers generally don't even know what linux is so won't claim to know it.

Competent windows engineers are no cheaper than competent linux engineers.

Re:as with all paid-for-by-microsoft "studies" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660373)

I really don't think anyone goes to Engineering school to get a degree in Microsoft engineering.

Re:as with all paid-for-by-microsoft "studies" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660027)

That part alone is probably not nonsense. Linux engineers probably are more expensive.

On the other hand, I would expect you to need to hire fewer Linux engineers, and for the ones you got to be generally better quality and get more work done than the average MCSE.

You will always pay more for skilled labor. If you got skilled MCSEs, that could write scripts, you also wouldn't need quite as many admins, but you should also expect to pay them more. Since most MCSE job postings are for lower wages, they attract the run of the mill admins intead of skilled ones.

ESPECIALLY since they raised the costs by 15-45% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659661)

With the average cost increase being 20%.

Re:as with all paid-for-by-microsoft "studies" (3, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660215)

They will always state that Microsoft products somehow have a lower TCO than Linux.

Has anyone actually seen a TCO study where the T could actually mean "Total"?

Samba 4 (1)

ftldelay (856655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660297)

I doubt this study even figured in the cost savings they could get now by using Samba 4 instead of paying for Windows AD servers...

Report contents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659571)

They saved 10M
They spent 33.7M on the switch
Ergo the would have saved 43.7M if they didn't switch!!!!

Re:Report contents (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659779)

Sounds like RIAA math to me. Except you left out the part where Microsoft lost out $800 trillion in potential future sales to every man, woman, child, dog, cat, rock and prokaryote that has ever throught of Munich

They can't release the study, (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659581)

Microsoft can't release the study. It has deep proprietary data about how much they would have reduced the price once they learned City of Munich is going Linux.

Re:They can't release the study, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659685)

Microsoft can't release the study. It has deep proprietary data about how much they would have reduced the price once they learned City of Munich is going Linux.

Then again, City of Munich always was the worst of the City of Heroes spinoffs.

Re:They can't release the study, (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659701)

My guess is that it has some information about how they could've saved money through other means (eg, not buying licenses for software for people who don't need it, etc.) ... which if other groups actually did, would cut into their profits.

Re:They can't release the study, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660327)

They can always redact the pricing info.

Key to success is doing it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659609)

If your cutting corners, using the wrong hardware, using the wrong distribution, and lacking knowledgeable support, etc there is no question it'll cost more. On the other hand if you reach out to the companies knowledgeable about the hardware, seek expert guidance, and fund developers to fix your issues where needed. Then there is no reason it wouldn't be the more cost effective solution. You are cutting out the middle man.

If anybody needs to know who to contact try ThinkPenguin. They got the hardware down pat dealing wtih every type of hardware under the sun. The key though is to make sure your drivers and firmware are free software compatible. I don't just mean "Linux" compatible. My rule of thumb is if there is any proprietary component throw it out. No NVIDIA/ATI, No intel wifi, no Lexmark printers, no Dell anything, etc. Stick to atheros for wireless, HP for printers (but be careful, not everything is free software friendly, but there is good documentation on what is and what isn't if you know how to read it), etc,

Re:Key to success is doing it right (3, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659949)

Stick to printers that actually support Postscript... There is no reason to ever buy a printer that doesn't support postscript...

Re:Key to success is doing it right (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660451)

Well, except for the fact that they cost 2-3 times more than ones that don't...

plausable deniability (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659617)

the report is meant to give the die hard microsofties something to believe in.

Although it won't stand up to scrunity by the outside world it doesn't have to. It will keep the faithful, faithful

Maybe (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659627)

Maybe the year of Linux on the desktop is coming after all. Slowly, but eventually.

Re:Maybe (2)

Dracos (107777) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659719)

It'll be 2015, because of Windows 8 and the Surface tablets.. The OEMs will need time to renegotiate their Windows distribution licenses, then find distros to partner with.

With trackpads only. (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659629)

I have an excerpt from the report's abstract:

"For the purpose of this study, Microsoft assumes Munich will be installing Fedora 18..."

In Other News (5, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659657)

I commissioned my own study that says Microsoft is full of shit. I'm not releasing the study itself or the details of our methodology. But trust me on this, it's true.

Re:In Other News (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660369)

I ran my own study to test your claims, and I'm afraid your conclusions appear wrong.

They're only 83% full.

Liars! (2)

aglider (2435074) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659665)

That's clearly an excuse!
At the best the study is not fake. HP just fooled MS around and they don't want everyone to know.
At the worse, the claims by MS are false, the study is fake and they just got uncovered!

This story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659689)

Brought to you by the same people that think:

M$ should implement .NET (all versions) on linux and release the source code
M$ should implement DirectX (all versions) on linux and release the source code
M$ should port Office to linux and release the source code
M$ should invalidate all of their own software patents
M$ should release the full specs on all of their proprietary file formats. They should write importing code for all forks of OpenOffice for their Office formats.

The MS study by HP (5, Funny)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659709)

Went something like this:

Dear Bill/Steve,
We have spent 6 months evaluating Linux in the Munich offices and have found the following issues:

1) IE is not installed so many of compatibility webpages you wanted us to evaluate did not work correctly.

2) The accounts which were created in Active Directory to allow for LDAP logins in Linux have a schema different from the documentation you provided and did not work correctly.

3) The Excel spreadsheets saved in the Open Document Format were not compatible with LibreOffice's Open Document Format and did not display all sheets corrrecly. Apparently the format is different than what was specificed in the standard you provided.

4) The Macro virus attached to the Excel spreadsheet *did* execute correctly and damaged one of the exported NTFS filesystems on the SAMBA server.

In closing, for the 6 months of screwing around trying to get your proprietary solutions to play nicely via the advertised specifications we've found none of them worked as advertised (except for fore-mentioned virus) and are billing you €40.7 million for our lead times and €3.7 million to cover anger management therapy for our support personnel.

Yours truly,
Meg W.

Ummm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659711)

My study found that using chocolate instead of computers would have saved €9811.4 trillion. I'm not releasing the study as its for internal FUD purposes only.

Newsflash (5, Funny)

vinn (4370) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659785)

Newsflash: sponsored study shows results that favor sponsor. Truly shocking.

Wait a minute (5, Interesting)

pswPhD (1528411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659787)

From the article

Operating the Microsoft software (not including licensing fees) would cost [EUR]17 million, while the alternative will amount to almost [EUR]61 million

(emphasis mine)

Of course if you exclude the cost of buying (sorry- licensing) the software it is cheaper!

well.. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659805)

they tried to advertise Windows and .NET with one of their "studies" years ago when the London Stock Exchange started using their products for it's trading system and they even made a nice video about it:

Get the Facts: The London Stock Exchange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwSM55bsCrM [youtube.com]

but it looks like it didn't turn out that well..

London Stock Exchange to abandon failed Windows platform
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform [computerworld.com]

London Stock Exchange dumps Windows for Linux
http://www.linuxtoday.com/high_performance/2009100702835NWDPSV [linuxtoday.com]

The London Stock Exchange moves to Novell Linux
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/the-london-stock-exchange-moves-to-novell-linux/8285 [zdnet.com]

maybe they learned their lesson now

Re:well.. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660053)

You forgot to link to the stories about the catastrophic failures and day long outages the london stock exchange suffered while they were running a windows based system...

conducted by HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659847)

"conducted by HP"
and HP is great at business analysis....

Re:conducted by HP (5, Interesting)

tilante (2547392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660287)

On that note... one place I worked tried hiring HP a couple of times to conduct studies and make recommendations for our network and systems. They tried that because they'd had a long relationship with DEC, and this was shortly after HP bought Compaq (who had bought DEC before that), and they were expecting the work done to be of the quality they'd gotten from DEC consultants in the past.

They supposedly spent weeks doing the study and writing up the reports... and when they came in, they were obviously generic company boilerplate that someone had edited, including many missed instances of things like COMPANY NAME. And - surprise! - all their recommendations were for HP products and services, with the only comparisons being to companies well known for being expensive. For extra fun, a good part of the body of the report was taken from a white paper that had been produced by a group at some university - they'd accidentally left in some of the text identifying the authors and where they were in the first version they gave to us.

We never hired HP to do a study for us again after that. As I recall, my boss also refused to pay them for giving us a report that we could have gotten ourselves from a Google search. Not sure what happened in the end with payment, but their local people, who were former DEC people, were deeply embarrassed.

Bad press (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42659875)

Not only does not releasing it make them look like liars, but assuming the study is legit, not releasing it to Munich (which would benefit both parties) makes them look even more suspicious. And like a bunch of assholes. If Microsoft had any brains left, they would have quietly swept the failed study under the rug.

Internal purposes only? (4, Funny)

guspasho (941623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659897)

So were they just trying to make themselves feel better?

Re:Internal purposes only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660385)

So were they just trying to make themselves feel better?

As someone from the American Midwest, I can tell you that's a pretty obvious flag that someone's looking for a tool to be used in a passive-aggressive campaign later. If anything, literally anything at all gets out about something going wrong in Munich, you can expect to see a Microsoft drone figuratively looking at this "study", shaking his head, and not-at-all-subtly muttering about how Munich COULD have saved all sorts of money, but if they want to do it THAT way...

This is also why the American Pacific Northwest shouldn't try passive-aggressiveness against the rest of the world. They seriously, seriously suck at it.

How would you spin that if you were MS marketing? (2, Interesting)

jeffclay (1077679) | about a year and a half ago | (#42659987)

MS may not have been telling a lie, just not the full truth. This is just clever phrasing by MS marketing. If Munich decides to go back to MS products then it will cost them 43.7 million Euros. By that logic (as faulted as it is) it is true that they could have saved that amount by staying with MS products.

Vreenak said it best (3, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660005)

Romulan Senator Vreenak [memory-alpha.org] said it best:

It's a faaaaake!

Microsoft Tortures Puppies! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660023)

I commissioned a study which proves that Microsoft beats 200 puppies with a spiked club every Tuesday and Friday.

Sorry, I cannot show the study; it's for internal use only. You just have to take my word for it.

There is another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660065)

German law is very strict about advertising that mentions competitors. I suspect this is the biggest factor. Microsoft P/R would have not rouble spinning black is white until the cows come home..

Study proposes staying with XP! (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660067)

From TFA:

If Munich had stayed with Windows XP combined with Office 2003 instead of choosing Linux combined with OpenOffice.org, it would have saved money, the study apparently claimed.

....

The city's own calculations did not consider all migration costs, according to the report. It apparently claimed that Munich compared the migration to a 10-year-old Linux version with a migration to a newer version of Windows, probably Windows 7, and said that if the city had stuck with Windows, no new software would have been necessary.

Please tell me, oh wise ones in Microsoft and HP how Munich could stay with XP, given that it is rapidly reaching EOL and support for newer hardware is likely to be problematic?

Re:Study proposes staying with XP! (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660213)

It looks to me like Munich is only the tip of the ice berg.

Re:Study proposes staying with XP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660391)

Imay be wrong on this one but I recall that money (whichever way the calculation would go) were not the only aspect considered - they also looked at the not insignificant issue of documents stored in known and open standard.

Re:Study proposes staying with XP! (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660409)

Which is why this whole thing is stupid. Switching to Linux+OpenOffice is more expensive than keeping with the status quo and updating nothing. However, eventually they will have to upgrade to a new version of Windows and a new version of Office. They probably wouldn't realize savings until 5-10 years down the road. But that's the way the world works. Almost nobody, in government or the private sector is interested in making long term savings. It's all about making yourself look good for the current political term or fiscal quarter.

Where the savings would've been... (1)

khr (708262) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660139)

The savings probably would've come from not having Microsoft billing them for the $43 million it cost to hire HP to do the study...

What a PR mess...what did Microsoft do? (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660157)

What does Microsoft do? "Promote" people who design clunkers like Windows Millennium and Vista into their PR department?

Patched (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660163)

echo "As previously reported on Slashdot, in November of last year, the city of Munich reported savings of over €10 million from its switch to Linux. Microsoft subsequently commissioned a study (conducted by HP) that found that, in fact, 'Munich would have saved €43.7 million if it had stuck with Microsoft.' Now, Microsoft has said it won't release the study, saying that '[it] was commissioned by Microsoft to HP Consulting for internal purposes only.'" | sed s/study/bullshit/g | sed s/internal/sexual/g

Such is life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42660343)

The study may have been based on future touted Microsoft products that failed to materialise.
Alternatively, the study may have relied on licensing schemes and discounts that have subsequently changed for the worse and which would have forced Munich to have spent far, far more money over time.
Of course, it's impossible to verify. And in situations like this, the most likely explanation is that the study was based on 100% pure horseplop.
Such is life.

Speechless (1)

carrier lost (222597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660371)

I'm shocked at how many people here are saying bad things about Microsoft. Shocked.

Not a Microsoft bashing comment... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660431)

...really. But at this moment, I can't think of any two commercial IT companies I trust less than HP and Microsoft. By a slim margin perhaps, but nevertheless.

Figures never lie... (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42660463)

But liars figure....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>