Austrian e-Health System

They use Debian GNU/Linux on 12000 machines scattered across the country. At DebConf11 there was a presentation given about how updates to the software are done in a single night remotely. The presentation mentions a rescue system they built in case something goes wrong. They do the normal testing followed by tests on 300 accessible clients and finally the whole set. They have a variety of clients some as small as 256MB RAM and 256MB storage to 4gB RAM. They have some custom packages and they polish the Debian packages to remove all unnecessary bytes like documentation. A messaging system notifies systems updates are available and the clients poll in a staggered and randomized pattern to spread the load out through the night. Systems that are in use 24×7 have a manual polling function. To trap defective installations, watchdog timers grab applications that fail to load and re-install packages in real time. They customize the distributions so that different types of clients and different application groups are all handled by the APT package manager.

This system has been running reliably for more than five years.

Again, this shows the extreme flexibility of Debian GNU/Linux and the reliability that can be achieved even for a nation’s whole healthcare system. These clients handle authentication, billing, medication, drug interactions and physician’s reports. They can function off-line but normally report to central servers. It also shows that what Munich is attempting to achieve can be done in a very complex system. As I have claimed many times, with GNU/Linux all problems are soluble.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Austrian e-Health System

  1. oldman says:

    “Law firms are fun here basically oldman. More open to the ideas of Libreoffice and other solutions as well.”

    I would hardly call any law firm “fun” to deal with sir. In fact based on my experience I would not want to be around when some bug in L—-Office eats an important document and they realize there is no throat to choke except me.

    Better to give them Corel Word Perfect! At least it has a real company behind it.

  2. oldman says:

    “Yes world flipping right that MS does not dominate somewhere on the desktop. Mostly due to weaknesses in the designs of MS software.”

    I didnt know that you were a software design expert as well sir, let alone that you worked for microsoft and had intimate access to the source code.

    Or could it be the case that you are talking out of Your behind as usual?

  3. oiaohm says:

    oldman Windows is only primary at about is only at about 25 percent of firms.

    Part of the issue is sharepoint gets is head handed to it for being worthless for a lawyer needs it(in the court room of course without a link to the main server). http://www.docs4lawyers.com alfresco based and suites a legal firm down to the ground. Including the means to replicate to laptops to take into a court room.

    Remember a judge does have the right to forbid any communication from a court room in a sensitive trial so you better bring in everything you might need. Full copy of everything on the server is kinda useful at times in a searchable format.

    Does have a few advantages integrates sharepoint protocol and cifs,ftp,nfs for accessing file store… So it basically can be synced to anything required and use any application required. Downside ships with its own cifs server.

    This is a more suitable tool because running a legal case you don’t always know what format files you will have to store.

    This is just a example of course turns out that shipping with own cifs server is kinda common for Legal ERP software as well that can run there own copy on a laptop in the court room.

    So basically cat fight with windows servers. Windows servers come out box with a cifs server and Linux, BSD, Solaris its option part.

    As you say applications. The issue with lawyers is the software they use oldman. They may have MS Office around but it not as high up the list as many would expect. There is high odds they don’t have MS Office.

    Also here in Australia lotus notes based solutions for law firms have been dominate for many years. Even worst Lotus based solution are pushed by the main law body. So even the ones with MS Windows installed MS Office may not be there at all. Yes lotus base solutions have means to sync to local copy on laptop as well and keeping means to search.

    Basically walk in to a law firm in Australia and you basically walked onto IBM area with everything fighting IBM. You also find word perfect as dominate in some offices as well.

    1/5 machines at best would be Windows. Of course the law firms might near you might not have the history of being dominated by IBM.

    Yes world flipping right that MS does not dominate somewhere on the desktop. Mostly due to weaknesses in the designs of MS software.

    Now why 1/5 when 25 default there desktop. Turns out Linux FreeBSD….. are more likely to be bigger with more seats. Mostly due to them making more profit from there cases.

    Law firms are fun here basically oldman. More open to the ideas of Libreoffice and other solutions as well.

  4. oldman says:

    “Each class of market has different requires. Also remember lawyers can be dealing with are criminals of all kinds including electronic.”

    So how many windows systems do you sell them. Mr. Microsoft VAR?

  5. oiaohm says:

    Reasons why they choose a system oldman.

    Resistance to virus infection is higher to lawyers. Failure to get paper to the courts on time can cause a case to fail. Not all lawyers are nice people either. So underhanded stunts are not off the cards.

    Each class of market has different requires. Also remember lawyers can be dealing with are criminals of all kinds including electronic.

    System secuirty is higher. Virus filtering proxies are common that are Linux based in lawyers firms to try to protect windows.

    I have found very few stores of documents submit to the courts around the world that are not infected with viruses oldman. They scary reality of being a lawyer dealing with court records in most countries is more risky than downloading random files from p2p.

    Lawyer will normally come to the IT designer asking how in hell are you going to keep this machine virus free. Light designed system will not last a week. Windows an anti-virus program really will not last a week with the files they are handling.

    Not really caring about MS Office or Windows that much.

    Basically Lawyers are very interesting commercials to be doing business for at times due to there complete different point of view to most.

    Heck even the office suits at time can be strange not MS office or FOSS but IBM idea of a Office suite. Basically they are one business on your first trip to them you can never make a guess list what they will have oldman.

    Yes I love when lawyer jobs come up they are fun. All bets are off they could be Linux Windows strangest was walking in and finding freebsd desktop on 8 machines. That was only 18 months ago.

    Basically
    http://www.sarpllc.com/LinuxLawyer.tux.1.html
    Stuff is not odd for Lawyers.

  6. Lawyers are generally not visiting popular time-wasting sites but working hard for clients. At least for good lawyers that is true. I imagine poor lawyers have lots of time on their hands.

  7. oldman says:

    “Resistance to infection is a far higher on a lawyer than a conventional person.”

    Huh?

  8. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon lawyers are a interesting case.

    I have built a lot of Linux boxes for them over the years. If you were looking for a single location with the most computer viruses in a country you don’t have to look past court records.

    Resistance to infection is a far higher on a lawyer than a conventional person.

  9. Clarence Moon says:

    The lawyer anecdote is interesting, but you missed the Achilles’s heel in the story, namely that the shyster’s wife is a techie who did all the heavy lifting in establishing the user environment. Most people simply buy a Windows computer and add Office and use it in the “it just works” mode of most individual users. If you have to have an IT guru around for putting Linux together as the fellow here seems to admit, then the cost factors are considerably different and not very likely to argue for using Linux and Open Office.

    He doesn’t seem so satisfied with the word processing or email, either.

  10. oiaohm says:

    Yes most of MS reports against Linux are theory.

    MS does not cover like the stock-market migrations to Linux from windows.

    Linux world mostly solves what the failure are very clearly.

  11. M$ published a paper generated by Yankee Group for hire disparaging GNU/Linux. e.g. They found it costs several times more to deploy GNU/Linux for a lawyer’s office than GNU/Linux. see From: http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/b/7/6b7c5fa1-fcc9-434e-b1e6-5025b7f97786/YankeePart1.pdf

    The maths they do is ridiculous showing that a law firm needs to spend 3 times as much for custom applications which take 30 times longer to deploy using GNU/Linux. Whereas many lawyers love the PDF handling capabilities of GNU/Linux and can run scanners to be nearly paperless.

    “Four years into my Gnu-Linux law firm experiment, I find myself very comfortable with the technology, very fluent with the programs, but still wishing for a more flexible word processor and an email utility that is steadier than Evolution. The time and money I have saved by using Gnu-Linux has translated into lower overhead, greater profit, a better legal product and lower overhead. All of that, in turn, has translated into less time behind the desk, and more time for doing meaningful things in life.”
    see http://www.sarpllc.com/LinuxLawyer.tux.1.html

    That very experienced non-techie lawyer used GNUcash for billing and OpenOffice.org for word-processing. He used no non-Free software. OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice certainly has become more flexible and I have not had any trouble with e-mail for years using GNU/Linux.

    So, M$ does publish FUD and they are not beyond stretching the truth or lying. They are even willing to pay others to lie for them.

  12. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon you have hit the nail on the head and you don’t even known it.

    MS has been using Munich as an example of why not to migrate to Linux. Now that is going to work that complete process has advertised the existence of Munich. Every time you talk about Linux Migration trolls appear shouting look at Munich. More advertisement.

    How to shot ones feet off. That Munich is going to work and turn out as a operational place MS is in trouble. Because of all this advertising making everyone know about its existence.

    MS has tried every form of pressure to get Munich to reverse course and failed.

    Different here the Munich system has not been in a state of ruin. Users inside who have been asked like what have been done. Happy with the improvements.

    Munich was smart enough to stop before they took the demolition axe to any kitchens or rooms they needed so did not spread ruin all over the place.

    MS plan including running the old OS in VPC to get around the issues of old applications in NT4 not running in XP(yes so much for windows backward compatibility). This requires bigger hardware and more cost. Basically MS plan for Munich was not that rosy either. Both were going to require a lot of application alterations and demolitions. Really the MS plan was higher expense and risk. Reason lot of the plan was straight up axe to a lot of things.

    Yes the MS Plan could have run over budget just from machines that would not run VPC good enough.

    Problem here if “do-it-yourself remodeling project” works you can do that same project with data from how that remodelling was done with professionals using less time and less disruption. So the level of disruption in the Munich is almost zero.

    Yes the do-it-yourself people can be the trail bazers for something.

    Munich is the best migration done in a case that a person has got many Windows versions out of date. Without having a disaster on there hands.

    Yes the best has been achieved by using Linux.

  13. Clarence Moon says:

    Microsoft publishes case studies wherein the successful installation was Microsoft products. They are not likely to publish anything about Munich since Munich is not installing Windows desktops and servers and is not using MS Office on most of them. Should Munich decided to reverse their course, I think you would find it on the “crow about” list in a hurry.

    I am willing to bet, though, that the Munich data, complete with PowerPoint slides, is in the arsenal that Microsoft sales people carry from customer site to customer site, ready to show anyone who hints that they may be in the market for a Linux conversion.

    I think there is an analogy here that is like the do-it-yourself remodeling project that leaves the family with a kitchen in a constant state of ruin for years due to the ineptitude of the householder who took on the project and is too proud to admit defeat. The family can still cook and sit amid the rubble and dine, but they are just getting by. Rather than being able to enjoy their new kitchen, they can only think of the money they saved.

  14. oe says:

    With success stories like these and the likey contraction ahead for M$ (not and if anymore but just a when) they’ll probably demand a Bail Out from Uncle Sam, crying that they are “too big to fail”. Most unlike National Instruments who actually place their source code in eschrow to be released in the event they go insolvent. Guess there is a better way to do the closed source model.

  15. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “Then again, it could be seen as a massive botch. that stands as a warning to anyone attempting such. One will see.”
    Yet it has not gone over budget. So its not a complete botch. I have seen Microsoft Migration projects botched far worse than the Munich one ie over budget and over time. Munich does stand as a warning as all trail blazers do. It not the Linux migration you have to worry about.

    It the MS Office to OpenOffice migration you have to watch you hide against. This is what Munich clearly reports.

    Of course oldman to do a Linux desktop migration you are going to have to give up you hate of Libreoffice. That could be a hard feet for you.

    Dr Loser
    “My point was (and I’ve made it twice) that there is no particular reason for M$ to make the Munich wreck public.”
    In fact there is. EDGI does apply to Munich because it applies to all governments. Under no condition does MS want Governments or Schools running Linux Desktops or even OpenOffice or Libreoffice. They will give very large discounts as soon as you talk about this. So yes MS will be funding FUD reports against Munich. This is why you have to be so careful to go to source documents to see what is going on.

    MS depends on control of schools and governments IT systems to force companies to use MS based products.

  16. M$ misses no opportunity to proclaim failure of GNU/Linux system.

    see http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/1/7/41774929-9506-4759-8513-379bfb64bb00/FSI_ENGLISH_Landing%20Page.pdf

    At one point DPCDSB ran a mixed operating environment that included a large number of Linux-based thin clients. But an inability to apply flash updates along with poor reliability, led the Board to reconsider its computing strategy.

    Of course, GNU/Linux had nothing to do with the poor reliability of some thin clients. The decision to change thin clients had nothing to do with GNU/Linux. “Despite the touted benefits of the open-source technology, the Linux-based terminals were causing reliability, configuration and performance issues that couldn’t be replicated”. So, with the whole world migrating to thin clients by the millions and people using GNU/Linux or that other OS on the thin clients more or less equally well, M$ publishes an article pointing out that one institution could not get it to work, leaving the inference in the reader’s mind that GNU/Linux is unreliable.

    see http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/microsoft-takes-just-the-facts-approach-to-rival-linux/113631-pg2

    That’s more Get the FUD stuff.

  17. Dr Loser says:

    Robert, I do not care about EGDI. I am not arguing on a point where EGDI is remotely relevant. I’ll give you your sodding EGDI. Take it and be happy; I could care less.

    Your point is the standard Loon paranoia of “if it’s that bad, why doesn’t M$ make it public?”

    All I am doing is answering your question in a civil and responsible manner (ie I am actually listening to what you say. This should not be a one-way street).

    I will repeat:

    My point was (and I’ve made it twice) that there is no particular reason for M$ to make the Munich wreck public. First of all, Munich can do that all by themselves. Secondly, it would only garner unwarranted sympathy. “Poor little Muenchen! There’s the nasty big ole Monopoly picking on honest people again!”

    That’s why M$ won’t bother to gloat about it in public.

  18. oldman says:

    “So by 2012/2013 when the final report comes out and it documents a cost saving. Migrations in the EU area could be massive. Alterations to education in that area could be massive. Education alterations would ruin MS future.”

    Then again, it could be seen as a massive botch. that stands as a warning to anyone attempting such. One will see.

    All else is IMHO speculative bushwah.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Munich has also proved something. That once you are Linux migrating between Linux distributions is not a major problem. They have done that without issues.

    So Linux fragmented is not as bad as a lot of people claim either. This is the nightmare for MS. Munich proves a lot of things false.

    Remember there is government pressure on LibreOffice and MS Office to become compatible. So reducing that macro cost issue as well. Time has moved on from Munich started. Starting the same project today would have lower costs in the Macro department. This lower costs also equal lower required time in Macro conversion. So seeing the same project today progress faster.

    So yes in a few years Munich class project could be expected to complete exactly on time or ahead of time ie no 3 years over run. Trail blazers always hit problems that the people following there lead will never hit because the Trail blazers has fixed the problem or at least made it simpler.

    On going training cost for Linux is less than the Microsoft license cost. So you can train your staff todo there job properly by not paying Microsoft.

    The final report numbers basically equals one thing MS has to cut there prices. Other wise they are simply too expensive. Now with the mess governments in the EU are in cutting costs will gone after if they can be documented.

    So by 2012/2013 when the final report comes out and it documents a cost saving. Migrations in the EU area could be massive. Alterations to education in that area could be massive. Education alterations would ruin MS future.

    2012/2013 are going to be interesting to say the least for MS.

    This is the thing. You want the desktop you have to take Education. Who wins Education gets the desktop market.

    Austrian e-Health System is basically one of the examples following Munich lead that are completing on time.

    Yes there are still issues to resolve. More the path is walked the less the issues are becoming.

  20. See EDGI

    That’s M$’s plan to prevent schools and government from escaping monopoly. Essentially they will do everything necessary to stop migrations: free training, bonuses, even free software if all else fails. It does fail.

  21. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser you have now seen the quality of german reports. Do you see why I say a lot of the FUD claims are going to be ripped apart in 2012-2013 when the final report is done. When you read them with half a brain something that Hanson sadly lacks they tell a very interesting story of costs.

    level 3 means no more usage of MS Office in that department. Level 3 was mostly only expected once Linux migration has fully gone threw that department nuking all copies of MS Office. Of course they have crossed the halfway point at 9000 machines done those 9000 have to be all Level 3 now so at least 60 percent some people on windows are not using MS Office either.

    Dr Loser on the ongoing office suite training cost. Look at the schools. http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Munich-school-network-to-be-migrated-to-Windows-XP-1195535.html This one when you get the details on this. Its first stage migration of Munich goverment. MS Office has been removed OpenOffice and LibreOffice are in the schools. Stay with MS Office and in time you will have to spend the reverse in that area because the new staff coming out of schools are trained the other way Dr Loser. Munich is a step ahead this is where problems come in they have changes the school system to suite there needs. This is the on going effects for everyone in that area. This is what I am getting at the 15 000 government machines are not the only machines effected by this change. So the ripples are going to be huge.

    Yes governments have the powers to change the rules of the game. So undermining MS complete advantage in a market. This is why I am so interesting in governments turning against Microsoft the on going effects on MS market share in that area are bad. Reason it now comes extra training to use MS Office and MS Windows.

    Dr Loser the important thing to remember is the budget for the complete project is less than one migration loop by Microsoft best quote x2. Yes the Macro spend includes creating a custom application and all. Today the migration would be simpler since Libreoffice does run some vba macros and auto-converts them.

    The Macro conversion stuff and forum sort out is a one off spend.

    Remember the project from the outset target was 80 percent of machines Linux. The project targets are going to be achieved. That cuts on going MS costs to 1/5. Of course if they make it to 90 percent its on going MS costs to 1/10.

    On going training costs are high. I have seen high expends with changes from MS Office 2003 to MS Office 2007. This was the location Munich was in. We have to spend huge on training anyhow.

    It one of the over looked thing to keep people productive with MS Office is expensive as well.

    Hanson Because you cannot understand document you are miss reading this bit.
    “- Content (expansion with optimizations)
    – Time (extend to 2013)
    – Finance/Personnel (INCREASE of expenses for material and staff by 5.9 million Euros)”
    The total 12.8 million ends on a particular day. Spent or not. So yes is a 5.9 million Euro increase since the unspent part of the 12.8 million Euro has be reclaimed.

    So when you allow for reclaimed there is zero Increase. In fact over 6 billion Euros was reclaimed. So its overall budget cut not increase by over half a billion euros.

    Basically if Hanson were not cherry picking the document and and read the requirements on the 12.8 million you would have come aware it expired on a particular date with no option of extension so new budget as a increase had to be taken out just to maintain the same money allocation. Just to top it off its less.

    Simple problem here Hanson and others are reading the documents out of context so getting the wrong meaning. When the final documents are done up in 2013 they are going to look like complete morons for claiming a over spend that does not exist. Other than on paper because you had missed the reclaim so missed subtracting that. I have not missed the reclaim Hanson so there is no extra budget. Claiming else is FUD Hanson and it will come back and bite you.

    Also you moron Hanson cannot you not read the german word for external in the table for the money spent. The 12.8 million does include all external expenditure on the project just like the 5.9 million will for its active time frame. It was the fact they had not spend all the budget is why the so called Increase went threw so fast. It like ok you can keep you budget by taking the left over back and giving you a new lot.

    Hanson and Dr Loser Redhat is in the minority on the idea of how ready arm is. Redhat has been caught on hop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions

    Redhat does apply custom patches to the kernel. They have had fun with those not working. Fedora is in testing for Arm. RPM based distributions are just not going to be ready for a while.

    History of Burke is important this is not the first time he has made a statement like this. He made the same kind of statement back when x86-64 started. If he was not saying something like this it would be strange.

    Of course the hardware has to be out there before a lot of distributions add support.

    Clarence Moon Munich is a good reference case on how bad a Linux Migration can go. The fact that is gone over time by 3 years yet is still under budget and is in fact on a reduced budget show that migration can be done cost effectively. Maybe not time effectively. That is going to be cheaper than paying for MS over the same time frame is also not good for MS and suggests MS needs to lower their pricing by some amount.

    Of course it shows other things as well. It most likely insane to attempt to migration off MS Office and to Open source office suite at the same time as Migrating from Windows to Linux. Better to split those up into 2 4 year projects. That way you have time.

  22. Dr Loser says:

    Oh, and a “virtual supercomputer” is about as much use as an EBNF parser for Bash shell script.

    Possibly less use, in fact.

  23. Dr Loser says:

    @St Robert:

    (Well, if Mr McRae can say it, why not I?)

    “Ever heard of EDGI, where M$ gives stuff away to try to retain end-users? With examples like Munich, EDGI is much less effective because people see they can survive the pangs of separation from M$ and M$’s share continues to decline.”

    Nope, I haven’t. I’ll take your word for it, though.

    My point was (and I’ve made it twice) that there is no particular reason for M$ to make the Munich wreck public. First of all, Munich can do that all by themselves. Secondly, it would only garner unwarranted sympathy. “Poor little Muenchen! There’s the nasty big ole Monopoly picking on honest people again!”

    And, thirdly, which I cannot believe you failed to understand, it’s a far, far better tool when they just sidle up to a potential client in the privacy of a five-star restaurant, hand over a bunch of marketing bumf, and say “Pssst! This disaster took eight years, and it isn’t even halfway finished yet! Do you want to end up like that? I thought not.

    “Have you tried the fried moose-cheek canapes? They’re awfully good!”

  24. Technically, the little box is a supercomputer but it is nothing like a mess of IBM mainframes or whatever high-powered solution often used. They are making a virtual supercomputer.

  25. Dr Loser wrote, “I’m prepared to bet that they see Munich as all their Christmases packaged into one huge OT sales bonus.”

    Ever heard of EDGI, where M$ gives stuff away to try to retain end-users? With examples like Munich, EDGI is much less effective because people see they can survive the pangs of separation from M$ and M$’s share continues to decline. When Munich decided to switch, M$ had about 95% share, now they are far below that, perhaps as low as 55% judging by their sales of “7”, 50 million licences out of 90 million PCs shipped quarterly. Munich, Extremadura, and Ernie Ball all had a part to play in that decline.

  26. Kozmcrae says:

    “Well, it’s nice to see that for once in your life you have foresworn the habit.”

    Not exactly swearing off the “habit”, it just didn’t strike me. It really depends on who I’m answering, what they wrote and how they wrote it. Robert Pogson is a gentlemen, of that there is no doubt. To suffer the abuse thrown at him on his blog here and not retaliate in kind is nothing short of Sainthood.

    His only fault in my opinion is that he gives abusers too much latitude. They should be cut off on their first offense. That would probably mean me as well but it would be a sacrifice worth making if he cleaned out all the other garbage too.

    If Mr. Pogson’s logic is circular to you then I suggest you pose your arguments to him in smaller pieces. That wouldn’t be a bad idea for all the posters on this blog. There is far too much verbiage here and a dearth of pith.

    And finally to Hanson: “A word of advice: flee the Linux cult while you can.”

    You fail, utterly, at originality.

  27. Dr Loser says:

    @KosMcRae:

    “Dr Loser is still worming his way around Mr. Pogson’s link-based facts, logic and maths. Dr Loser, Hanson and all the rest use links but they fall short of backing up their premise.”

    Robert’s logic is entirely circular. He has no maths worth the term. I’ve followed up as many links as I can stomach and I have demolished them.

    I really don’t know what else I can do to back up this totally artificial thing that you claim is my “premise.”

    Incidentally, which particular premise do you take objection to? And why?

    With logic and maths and links, please. Otherwise you are simply a pathetic little fan-boy.

  28. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    I don’t know about old and insane, but you’re sure slow on the uptake.

    I give you this priceless opportunity to rant about the evils of M$, to whit, they won’t bother making the Munich Fail Train public, and what do you do?

    Do you come back at me and point out the evils of corporate salesmanship?

    Do you claim a hidden conspiracy?

    Either one of those is possible. You’re losing your touch, old man.

    I have no connection whatsoever with the M$ sales department, but I’m prepared to bet that they see Munich as all their Christmases packaged into one huge OT sales bonus.

    Hell, they wouldn’t even need PowerPoint to drive the message home.

  29. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    How, exactly, do you “simulate” a supercomputer?

    Wouldn’t it take a supercomputer to do that?

    Or am I missing something here?

  30. Dr Loser says:

    @Hanson:

    And apologies for the crappy translation from the German, btw.

  31. Dr Loser says:

    @Hanson:

    “You can’t explain away his refusal to accept reality as obstinacy of old age.”

    I’m afraid you can.

    That, and redundancy. It’s something we all have to face up to, sooner or later.

  32. Dr Loser says:

    Mind you, I could be wrong about Robert. I’m not even going to dignify @Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:47 with a quote.

    Other than, perhaps, “all kinds of crap.”

    Really? Then I’d like an explanation as to what “manual polling” might be.

    If I’m in a hospital in Linz, I’d be more than happy that the Linux system in question saves my life. And I’m not going to question the whys and wherefores.

    From the perspective of somebody who actually designs and delivers systems, however, every single one of my points is distinctly disturbing.

    But feel free to consider them “all kinds of crap” if it saves you having to reconsider your ill-formed bigotries.

  33. Hanson says:

    Well, well, if it ain’t my old friend, Kotz McRae.

    “Hanson gets nailed cherry picking.”

    Bored now, Kotz.

    You know, with all the fantasy stories published here, one doesn’t know where to start picking. On this blog every shot’s a hit.

    “Resorts to insults (as usual).”

    It’s not an insult. I really do believe that he is insane. You can’t explain away his refusal to accept reality as obstinacy of old age.

    A word of advice: flee the Linux cult while you can.

  34. Dr Loser says:

    @Kosmcrae:

    “Resorts to insults (as usual).”

    Well, it’s nice to see that for once in your life you have foresworn the habit.

    Maybe you could convince Oiaohm to do the same?

    I note that, for all Robert’s looniness (from my diminished perspective), he very rarely resorts to actual insults.

  35. Dr Loser says:

    @Hanson:

    Well, I’m waiting for that ARM thingie too, what with having my previous arguments on the topic rubbished.

    As a public service (because the original PDF is locked), here’s the original page 33:

    “7. Nachtrag
    Im Abril 2003 wollte der Stadtrat der LHM auf Grundlage des damaligen Beschlussentwurfs der Stadtverwaltung ueber die Frage des zukuenftigen Client-Betriebssystems und Bueroanwendungssystems an den Verwaltungsarbeitsplaetzen entscheiden. In dieser Situation wurde der Oberbuegermeister Christian Ude in einem Termin mit dem CEO (Chief Executive Officer) der Microsoft Corporation darueber informiert, dass Micosoft mit einem neuen “Konzern-Vertrag” mit dem BMI sowie durch individuelle “Unterstuetzungsangebote” fuer die LHM neue Rahmenbedingungen fuer die Migrationsentscheidung shaffen wird. Der Oberbuergermeister beaufragte die Verwaltung diese neuen Rahmenbedingunguen zu pruefen und in eine ergaenzte Beschlussvorlage aufzunehmen.

    7.1 Microsoft Rahmenbedingungen

    Ein intensiver Informationsaustausch zwischen der Firma Microsoft und der Verwaltung der LHM fuerte dazu, sass sich die Kosten einer Clientkonfiguration auf Basis von Microsoft-Produckten deutlich reduzierten. Obschon Microsoft der LHM keinerlei Produktrabatt einraeumt, koennen mehrere Millionen Euro eingespart werden, weil

    * die neuen BMI-Konzernvertraege der LHM eine bessere Synchronisation von Microsoft-Update-Kosten mit der tatsaechlichen Umstellung der Arbeitsplaetze ermoeglichen,

    * ein von Microsoft vorgeschlagener Einsatz des neuen Microsoft Produktes Virtual PC (VPC) zur Unterstuetzung einer “weichen” XP-Migrationskosten bei den Fachverfahren und der PC=Standardsoftware einspart und

    * die Kosten einer Folgemigration in der monetaeren Wirtschaftlichkeitsbetrachtung nich mehr beruecksichtigt werden mussten. Bei Einsatz einer Clientkonfiguration mit MS-Office 2004 und einer (kostenpflichtigen) Verlaengerung des Produktsupports fuer Windows-XP kann von einer Nutzung der neuen Windows-Konfiguration bis 2009/2010 ausgegangen werden.”

    And here’s the translation, tidied up from Google:

    7th Addendum

    In April 2003, the City Council made a decision, on the basis of the then LHM draft requirement of the City Council, on the question of a future client operating system and the IT department for Employment [NB: almost certainly wrong; sorry]. At this point the Lord Mayor, Christian Ude, met the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Microsoft Corporation. The Microsoft CEO informed him that Microsoft had created a new “corporate contract” with the BMI as well as individual “support prices” for the new migration decision for the LHM framework. The Lord Mayor reccomended [?] that the administration of these new frameworks be considered and incorporated into an amended draft resolution.

    Microsoft framework 7.1

    An intensive exchange of information between Microsoft and the company managing the LHM led to the cost of a client configuration based on Microsoft product’s information being significantly reduced. Despite Microsoft not conceding a product discount for LHM, multi-million Euros can be saved, because

    * The new contract for BMI needs [whatever those might be] in LHM are better synchronized with Microsoft’s update costs for your actual per-seat conversion

    * A proposed use of the new Microsoft product, Microsoft Virtual PC (VPC) in support of a “soft” XP migration will save on costs for the specialized procedures and for the PC-standard software

    * You do not need to consider the cost of migration over a series of accountancy analyses. When using a client configuration with MS Office 2004 and a (paid) subscription to product support for a Windows XP, the current assumption is that you will be able to use the new Windows configuration to 2009/2010.

    Well, it’s not the world’s best translation, but it will do.

    Notice the interesting offer of “thin clients,” aka VPCs, back in 2003/4, Robert.

    Why, if things had turned out differently, you could be in Munich right now, implementing a system that actually works.

  36. Hanson wrote, “ARM in Linux is not ready for the enterprise sector, which would mean, among other things: servers, servers, servers.”

    Take a look at Sandia Labs, simulating a supercomputer with hundreds of ARMed machines running 10 virtual machines each, on a server.

    http://youtu.be/UPyn9krjIRc

    ARM is ready for servers although RedHat and Hanson may not be. There are things that ARM can do well on servers and things it cannot but there are definitely useful things that ARM can do better than x86 and GNU/Linux runs on ARM and x86. Sandia is simulating botnets. They want eventually do it on supercomputers but they can develop and test their ideas on ARM much more cheaply than they can on a supercomputer using x86 or mainframes. They are aiming for one million virtual machines.

  37. Dr Loser wrote a lot of crap and this gem, “I very much doubt that you or I will ever hear M$ doing any such thing.”

    He must be young, having missed Get The FUD and attack ad campaign against Android version I.

    M$ was telling the world that GNU/Linux costs more than that other OS, a plain lie.

  38. Kozmcrae says:

    Hanson gets nailed cherry picking.

    “Excuse me, Robert, are you really insane?”

    Resorts to insults (as usual).

    Hanson, after numerous exchanges with Mr. Pogson, Phenom is writing a new book: “The All Crow Diet”. You should check it out. It might make your next meal a little more tasty.

    Dr Loser is still worming his way around Mr. Pogson’s link-based facts, logic and maths. Dr Loser, Hanson and all the rest use links but they fall short of backing up their premise.

  39. Dr Loser wrote all kinds of crap and, “There is no such thing as manual polling. Even if there was, it would be an entirely cretinous way of supporting a 24×7 system.”

    Let’s see. Dr Loser breaks his leg, goes to the emergency room of a nearby hospital and at admitting the machine logging him into the system goes off-line for ten minutes to do an update. Would it not be better for the manager at the moment to make the decision, “That update can wait until we have dealt with Dr Loser so he doesn’t have to remain in agony a moment longer than necessary.”. When the place is quiet and no ambulances are enroute, the guy could push the update icon polling the servers for updates and get it done without inconvenience. Emergency rooms are open 24×7 and need IT 24×7 and Dr Loser seems to advocate taking the card reader off-line at 0300 on schedule perhaps dictated by M$ in Redmond at their convenience in their time zone.

  40. Hanson says:

    “Revise history if you will, Ballmer did interrupt his vacation to go to Munich.”

    I never stated otherwise. It was widely published that Ballmer went to Munich to see Munich’s mayor, Christian Ude. The FLOSS press and countless conspiracy theorists took this visit to be about bribing Munich into submission. And that’s simply not true. Ballmer didn’t intend to give away licenses for free, or discount at all.

    http://www.muenchen.info/pia/clientstudie_kurz.pdf

    It’s all there on page 33.

    Oh, by the way, Pogson, here’s something interesting for you. Apparently the vice president of engineering at Red Hat said that ARM in Linux is not ready for the enterprise sector, which would mean, among other things: servers, servers, servers.

    http://www.internetnews.com/blog/skerner/red-hat-arm-in-linux-is-not-ready-for-prime-time.html

    Why don’t you make a nice article out of this?

  41. Munich can use Debian GNU/Linux with or without any direct involvement of Debian. This is just zero-base budgetting. What’s the risk that M$ will disappear tomorrow? zero. What’s the risk that Debian GNU/Linux will disappear tomorrow? zero.

    GNU/Linux distros are so similar at the kernel level and the applications level that this is scarcely a risk at all. I can use Debian or Ubuntu almost interchangeably. Even changing to an RPM system is not too difficult. Make package lists. Find equivalent RPM packages. Install on a prototype. Test. Distribute. One of the objectives of Limux was to avoid vendor lock-in. This is not a risk but an opportunity to demonstrate that flexibility. Distros are more about assembling a set of tools that work together rather than lock-in.

    They have already hopped distros with no particular problems:
    Limux 4.0 2011-08 Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
    Limux 3.0 2010-12 Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
    Limux 2.0 2010-08 Debian Etch
    Limux 1.0 2006-09 Debian Sarge

    So, they have made 5 migrations for the price of one with that other OS.

  42. Dr Loser says:

    “Sigh. “expansion with optimizations” does take time, personnel and money… So, what’s your point? If I decide to live another year, I need to spend more money. That’s grade 6 maths here (11 year olds).”

    Except that it isn’t “expansion with optimizations.” It’s a straight-forward replacement project, which has taken an inordinate amount of time, and has yet to “replace” that intractable last 20%.

    It isn’t a question of taking time, personnel and money. It’s a question of whether the goal is worth-while, is achievable, and is a better alternative. So far the evidence is against all three.

    Transferring your admirable intention to earn enough money to live another year into the Munich environment: well, I guess they can live off the local tax-payers tit a bit longer. There’s no need to die right now.

    Cutting the LiMux cancer out of the body politic, however, is a different matter. It should be done as soon as possible.

    Well, you’re the one with the biological metaphor.

  43. Dr Loser says:

    It just gets better and better. From page 12 of this miserable little thing:

    “Ergänzend zu dieser Liste wurde das Risiko identifiziert, dass sich aufgrund der Reorganisation der IT der Stadt München in 2011 die Ansprechpartner für das Projekt LiMux in der Linie ändern können oder
    eventuell sogar ganz wegfallen. Eine konkrete Bewertung dieses Risikos wird im Rahmen der nächsten Risikobetrachtung vorgenommen.”

    Or, in English:

    “In addition to this list, we have identified the risk that due to the possibility that the city of Munich will reorganize the IT department in 2011, the vendor for the LiMux project[1] may well drop out. Our next objective is to carry out a practical assessment of this risk.”

    [1] Debian?

    Looks like 2013 is never gonna happen, kiddies!

  44. Dr Loser says:

    Here’s yet another interesting little graph from Oiaohm’s link, btw: it’s on page 5.

    “Haben naturgemäß auch OOo Stufe 3 erreicht (da Microsoft Office auf dem Basisclient nicht nutzbar
    ist).”

    In English: “OOo has natively reached level 3 (which is not simply because Microsoft Office is an available client).”

    No, I have no idea what “level 3” might mean, either. But according to the graph it is 45% with a flat-line between October 2009 and February 2010.

    Well, I guess SysAdmins in Munich are entitled to really long Christmas holidays.

  45. Dr Loser says:

    Oh well, back to the OP.

    “They [Austria] use Debian GNU/Linux on 12000 machines scattered across the country.”

    They probably use other thingies as well. I’m damn’ sure they are not the sad-sack sort that calls it “GNU/Linux,” either.

    “At DebConf11 there was a presentation given about how updates to the software are done in a single night remotely.”

    Nice to see Debian catching up with the real world.

    “The presentation mentions a rescue system they built in case something goes wrong. They do the normal testing followed by tests on 300 accessible clients and finally the whole set.”

    Um. Wouldn’t testing the stuff before release work better? I mean, that’s how the professionals have done it for the last twenty years or so.

    “They have a variety of clients some as small as 256MB RAM and 256MB storage to 4gB RAM.”

    And that would differentiate one client from another … how?

    “They have some custom packages and they polish the Debian packages to remove all unnecessary bytes like documentation.”

    I’m so looking forwards to lying in a hospital bed in Linz and being told that “Well, the system doesn’t work, but at least we saved bytes by not downloading the documentation!”

    “A messaging system notifies systems updates are available and the clients poll in a staggered and randomized pattern to spread the load out through the night.”

    That reminds me. I must go down the pub tonight and get stochastically wrecked. Staggering and randomization are good for you!

    Dear God. Are these people still on 19.2KB dial-ups? Or is it just that Debian weekly upgrades are in the multi-gigabyte realm?

    “Systems that are in use 24×7 have a manual polling function.”

    There is no such thing as manual polling. Even if there was, it would be an entirely cretinous way of supporting a 24×7 system.

    “To trap defective installations, watchdog timers grab applications that fail to load and re-install packages in real time.”

    That’s not real time. That’s an arbitrary timer. You don’t need an arbitrary timer if you have a proper synchronized update system.

    “They customize the distributions so that different types of clients and different application groups are all handled by the APT package manager.”

    Wouldn’t it be better not to customize the distributions and just get it right in the first place?

    Again, we are back to a total failure of quality control.

  46. Clarence Moon says:

    It seems to me that the Munich story is a poor reference case for switching to Linux. Regardless of how much money was saved or lost, it has been over 8 years in the doing and that is a lot of turmoil and uncertainty in a still incomplete process. No commercial company would be willing to embark on such a change if that were the expectation at the outset. It would seem to me that even an earlier conversion to Linux would have resulted in a number of updates to Linux itself over such a long period of time.

    XP is stone age compared to Windows 7 as well, and any comparisons totally end up in the “So, what?” category. I understand that, even after the project is deemed complete, there will remain some percentage of Windows computers anyway, in order to maintaing interchangeability with other agencies.

    The school system in Munich opted for a Windows conversion, as well, eschewing the Linux route:

    http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Munich-school-network-to-be-migrated-to-Windows-XP-1195535.html

  47. Dr Loser says:

    @Hanson:

    To be fair, we were both lying through our teeth all along.

    “Finanziell/personell (Erhöhung der Sach- und Personalmittel um 5,9 Mio €)”

    And there were we, claiming it was €6.000.000.

    Shame on us. Shame on us!

  48. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    “If Munich was going to lose money in a big way, M$ would have been far better off to let them fail and trumpet the results… Wait. They seem to be attempting that by astroturfing.”

    Getting close to libel here, aren’t we?

    I don’t mind your casual implicit insults, and I suspect neither does Hanson or Olderman. It would be nice if you could recognise that we have an independent ability to think for ourselves: we’re trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one as well.

    On the trumpeting thing: I very much doubt that you or I will ever hear M$ doing any such thing. Why would they? They really don’t care what you or I think.

    What they are probably doing right now is to brief their corporate salespeeps in local government with a well-researched and well-translated version of this extraordinarly expensive and pointless failure, probably coupled with a few (no doubt equally biased — I’m hardly going to claim that M$ salespeeps are angels) counter-examples where TOOS saves money and cures cancer and stuff.

    My point is that, if you are going to highlight the successes of Linux (or FOSS, or whatever), then Munich is an extraordinarly feeble way of going about it.

  49. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    “You will see that about Munich when it’s done. They will report zero downtime, being on time and under budget with an enviable IT system.”

    IPredict(TM). Well, we’ll see. But I didn’t ask you for a prediction; I asked you for a current example. So here we go:

    “Ask the folks at Chemawawin School, Easterville, Manitoba, Canada. They went from an old school with one lab of old XP machines to a new school with a rip-snorting powerful and reliable Ubuntu GNU/Linux system with much more capability than buying more XP machines. No kidding.”

    Good for you. Of course, I have no way of checking this up. I’m not even convinced that the “old XP machines” were no longer fit for purpose; if they weren’t, then what would the point have been in buying new XP machines?

    No kidding. But do you have a live example in the outside world? One that is actually documented in some way? One which is actually externally audited, and not some puff-piece from the person who set it up?

  50. Revise history if you will, Ballmer did interrupt his vacation to go to Munich. Was he just sight-seeing?

    “Documents obtained by USA TODAY show Microsoft subsequently lowered its pricing to $31.9 million and then to $23.7 million — an overall 35% price cut. The discounts were for naught.”

    see http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-07-13-microsoft-linux-munich_x.htm

    Munich is in charge of its own IT. Even with the discount they stuck with GNU/Linux and are happy with it. They are on their fourth release of software and would do it again. They get to update/stay current for no extra cost. see https://www.desktopsummit.org/sites/www.desktopsummit.org/files/DS2011_LiMux_Desktop_Retrospective_2011-08-08.pdf

    Ask yourself, if Munich was not going to save money by using GNU/Linux, why was M$ so anxious to give them a discount? The reason is plain. M$ feared others would follow. They did: Austria, France, Spain, Brazil, India, China, Russia,… If Munich was going to lose money in a big way, M$ would have been far better off to let them fail and trumpet the results… Wait. They seem to be attempting that by astroturfing.

  51. Dr Loser says:

    The graph on page 4 is very interesting as well.

  52. Hanson says:

    “So, what’s your point?”

    Excuse me, Robert, are you really insane? Or do you just play the role really, really well?

    Just a few posts ago you and oiaohm both argued very clearly that there was in fact NO budget increase.

    And now, it’s suddenly not a problem anymore?

    I guess your truth is the truth that serves you best at any given time.

    Well, some Linux users are actually the greatest FUD slingers of them all. But I knew that all along.

  53. Dr Loser says:

    @Oiaohm:

    “Die Ausgaben 2009 sind durchwegs deutlich unter den Planansätzen geblieben.”

    Zwar. It’s an interesting little table.

    “Lizenzkosten, for example, is €22.000, whereas one would have expected it to be zero.

    “Anwendungsmigration” (application migration) is a miserly €201.957, which leads me to believe that they are hiding the costs somewhere else, or quite possibly that they haven’t bothered to migrate the really expensive applications. I mean, it’s 10% of the projection. There’s no magic bullet in this stuff.

    “Umstellung Formulare/Makros” is a whopping €2.645.849. Admittedly, a saving on the projected €3.961.382. However, it’s still €2.645.849 more than you would have to spend if you need no formula/macro translation at all. Now, let’s return to Lizenzkosten. I presume that the €1.119.943 is an estimate of the equivalent M$ licensing cost (otherwise it makes no sense). If I’m right, this means that you could have bought the M$ licenses with less than half the money you spent on the pitiful farce of “Umstellung Formulare/Makros.”

    It isn’t possible to comment on “Schulungskosten (extern)” — another €1.478.493 spent — without knowing what the original budget for staff training was. But it’s fair to assume that the cost of training office staff up on something they have never seen before (OOo), as against the cost of training for the industry standard, is going to be higher. (You could reverse the roles, if OOo was the standard and M$ Office was the New Big Thing. I’m not claiming the superiority of one over the other. I’m looking at the cost.) It’s also fair to assume that this is an ongoing cost which will never go away. Like it or not, most administrator roles are filled by people who have grown up with M$ Office — not with OOo.

    “Externe Personalkosten” (consultants) is € 1.780.044. Once again, I have no idea what the pre-2006 budget/expenditure for this might have been.

    “Kosten der Projektleitung” and “Investitionskosten” don’t seem to mean anything at all.

    So, the big two are “Anwendungsmigration” and “Umstellung Formulare/Makros.”

    The first is an unquantifiable lump, because we have no evidence as to how well migration is going, and the second is an entirely unnecessary expenditure.

    ——-

    Now let’s consider “Folgende Tabelle zeigt den Keimzellenstatus zum Jahresende 2009 im Detail:” on page 2.

    May I draw your attention specifically to “Bemerkung,” or “comment?”

    No, wait, let’s go with “Migrationsziel erreicht.” Fourteen jas, one nein, one zu wenige and three leicht verfehlten. Back to the Bemerkung on the jas:

    “57 BC gemeldet; 61 BC im ldap; damit wurde die
    eigene Planung (35-38 BC) übertroffen”

    Golly, they beat a pathetically low target and managed 57%. Some might call that a failure. LiMux calls it a “ja.”

    Even funnier: “14 BC gemeldet (entspricht > 10%, also
    Keimzellenziel erreicht)”

    So, that’s a “ja” for 14%, then. (Ditto for KULT-MK.)

    For RGU, SCH, SKA and SKZ, there isn’t even a comment, but there’s still a “ja.” To put it in perspective, that’s 7300 with an unqualified “ja.”

    Do you really think that is realistic? Do you really think they wouldn’t boast about it if that was a 100% successful conversion rate?

    Because I don’t. Call me cynical if you want, but this is an internal document. As far as I am aware it has no external auditing whatsoever.

    I’m pretty sure the damn thing wouldn’t convince anybody inside the Munich local government, let alone outside.

  54. Sigh. “expansion with optimizations” does take time, personnel and money… So, what’s your point? If I decide to live another year, I need to spend more money. That’s grade 6 maths here (11 year olds).

    The project is no longer just about migrating to GNU/Linux if it ever was. They are changing everything about their IT. If they had stuck with M$ they would have spent a similar amount until now and still needed to migrate to “7” and do it all over again. The original target that M$ was pushing for was XP. If they had done that you would now argue that the right thing to do would be to trash all that hardware and add “7” and M$’s office suite. That would cost about twice as much as this expansion.

  55. Hanson says:

    oiaohm, my dear friend, you don’t get it, do you?

    The document in question is:

    http://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII2/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/2037489.pdf

    I’ll cite from page 3:

    “Von den 12,8 Mio € (haushaltswirksames Projektbudget) sind ca. die Hälfte noch nicht verbraucht (siehe Grafik zum Jahresabschluss 2009).”

    Yes, you are quite right. There it is written that about half of the budget of 12.8 million Euros hasn’t been spent.

    But now I’ll cite from page 10:

    “Um diese Änderungen durchzuführen ist eine Erweiterung/Anpassung des LiMux-Projektes notwendig:

    • Inhaltlich (Erweiterung um die Optimierungen)
    • Zeitlich (Verlängerung bis 2013)
    • Finanziell/personell (Erhöhung der Sach- und Personalmittel um 5,9 Mio €)”

    You can read this last bullet point? I will provide translation for the sake of clarity:

    “To put these changes into effect, an expansion/adjustment of the LiMux project is necessary (with regards to):

    – Content (expansion with optimizations)
    – Time (extend to 2013)
    – Finance/Personnel (INCREASE of expenses for material and staff by 5.9 million Euros)”

    Do you understand this last bullet point now? We’re talking about ADDITIONAL funds. Why do you think they need ADDITIONAL funds? Because the migration is lagging. When they saw that it’s not doable on time with their own resources, they ran to IBM. The 12.8 million Euros is only the whole budget under the presumption that everything is done in-house.

  56. Hanson says:

    “Again, partly true. They found M$ would cost more so M$ lowered the price. That was just the price of one step on the Wintel treadmill with more to follow. The cost of the next step of Software Freedom will be much less.”

    Wrong. The pre-study was done before Microsoft approached Munich with a new offer. That means the Microsoft solution was already cheaper before Microsoft made the new offer. This is even mentioned as “Nachtrag” in the pre-study which you can read online. And I’ll even cite the most relevant sentence from this “Nachtrag”:

    “Obschon Microsoft der LHM keinerlei Produktrabatt einräumt, können mehrere Millionen Euro eingespart werden, …” [1]

    In English:

    “Although Microsoft does not grant any discount whatsoever, several million Euros can be saved, …”

    Maybe that also puts the rumor to rest that Ballmer tried to bribe Munich by offering severely discounted licenses. He did not.

    [1] http://www.muenchen.info/pia/clientstudie_kurz.pdf

  57. oiaohm wrote, “It was not a 6 million extra budget at all. There was 6.5 million outstanding in 2010 from the budget allocated. It was an extra 3 years to spend the 6 million they had not spent yet. Because they were spending it way slower than projected. Way slower. This also equals a slower migration speed.

    So what budget increase. There was never a budget increase.”

    Amen. Budget items often include a use-it-or-lose-it date. I remember working in places like that. Sometimes the manager would rush in asking for wishlists if there was anything rattling around in the bottom of the accounts a few days before the end of the fiscal year. I remember shopping trips to Sears… I remember the project at Easterville. The employer delayed paying me for my work until the last minute, just before the money “disappeared”.

    Hanson and others claim there are no savings but never put forward their own estimates of the cost of staying on the Wintel treadmill. I have never seen any situation where staying on the treadmill cost less over time than using FLOSS. The usual argument is that it costs something to migrate but they ignore that it costs more not to migrate. After all, M$ makes $billions somewhere. It’s the treadmill that brings them cash. With FLOSS there is no treadmill. Certainly updates have to be made but one can skip a release with impunity. XP to “7” costs dearly because it’s always accompanied by new hardware. The Wintel “partners” are not interested to produce drivers for stuff they sold years ago. Then there is malware a cost disproportionately falling on users of that other OS. How much does fighting malware cost? How much does malware cost? Those are probably 1000X less with GNU/Linux.

    I have done a lot of migrations and they cost my employers far less than buying new licences and new hardware for the system. Last year, I obtained 8 year old PCs for the cost of freight and they performed better with GNU/Linux than brand new PCs running “7”. The new PCs cost ~$1000 + freight. The old PCs cost freight. The labour to install GNU/Linux on the old PCs was 8 minutes of my time, less than setting up those new PCs with that other OS. Virtually no retraining was required because I did not change anyone’s password. Freight on a PC there was ~$100. My time cost perhaps $5. Electrical power probably cost less with the old P4ish machines too. So the TCO of the old machines was ~$105 plus $0.5 per day with GNU/Linux and the new machines left on XP/”7″ cost ~$1200 + $1 per day. Savings with GNU/Linux instantly was $1100 + $0.5 per day. Freight on the new machines was higher too because they came by air instead of truck.

    Hanson is way off base.

  58. oiaohm says:

    Hanson
    “The budget increase of about 6 million Euro was and is a real one.”
    What budget increase the documents you point to prove this is false. You did not read the documents you are using right?? from http://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII2/RII/ris_vorlagen_dokumente.jsp?risid=2018245 (German)
    this file from you link
    http://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII2/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/2037493.pdf (German)
    Did you miss this bit.
    “Die Ausgaben 2009 sind durchwegs deutlich unter den Planansätzen geblieben.”
    The table above it Hanson on page 8. Read carefully.

    Because that table is where I get to rip you a complete new one. The total project cost was 12.8 million from the outset right. By 2010 and the extension only half that has been spent in fact less.

    It was not a 6 million extra budget at all. There was 6.5 million outstanding in 2010 from the budget allocated. It was an extra 3 years to spend the 6 million they had not spent yet. Because they were spending it way slower than projected. Way slower. This also equals a slower migration speed.

    So what budget increase. There was never a budget increase.

    Really its lovely Hanson how you are pulling fake 6 million out of thin air to claim the project is 6 million over budget when in fact it not.

    If 2009 consume rate on budget is anything to go by They are going to have a really hard time spending the 6 million they have left. 1.5 for 3 years is only 4.5 million. So 1.5 million under is possible.

    2009 only spend 27% of what is was projected it should have been spending as part of the migration plan. Not spending money you kinda cannot be migrating as fast.

    Yes the 2012/2013 is in fact coming in under budget but over time from all the figures we can see now. Yes that is completely strange. Normally over time does equal over-budget this is the exception to the rule.

    By the way the MS solution only become viable with a once off discount from MS. That there was no promise for the next rotation either Hanson.

    There is a problem that its taken more time yet costs have not gone up. It has crossed another MS rotation so more is already paid back if you are running model against staying 100 percent current.

    The Linux pre and the Windows pre did not take into account requirement to do Wollmux in time.

    No one projected that 34% of the first 6 billion would disappear in to forum sorting out until 2010 and the fact you could not migrate until forms were migrated.

    Hanson Wollmux is why the migration is 3 years over due. Sorting documents is down right time consuming. So a migration to a unified Windows would be 3 years overdue. Same issue the forms would not be ready fast enough. Hanson you cannot get away from this fact. Not enough time had be allocated for the size mess the forms were. Yes money todo the job was kinda allocated right time no.

    Basically don’t let your forms get in a huge mess because it painful to fix.

    Someone did not wake up forms not migrated equals road blocked until they are.

    The pre-study documented are not worth crap. They are like battle plans before you contact enemy. Once you start correcting them as required they start showing that the costs would have been equally bad.

    All the pre-study plans had errors in form migrations for time that would take. So all projected too little time todo the job.

    Worst nightmare is 3 years to sort out the forms basically can see you crossing MS Office versions in the middle.

    Of course you should be asking question when you read table. License costs exactly what is that doing in the project there is still 1 million out standing to buy new licenses for the remaining Windows machines. Of course you are missing this bit.

    Also notice the application migration is also way lower than expected.

    I am really wanting to see the final 2013 numbers. Currently everything is looking good for a under budget project that is strange for a government IT project.

    Hanson
    “pre-study explicitly concluded that a Windows-based solution (including ALL OS and Office licenses) would be cheaper?”
    Are you sure it included licenses? I am sure they don’t

    Matter of public record are exactly what the MS bids were to Munich: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-07-13-microsoft-linux-munich_x.htm

    “Microsoft subsequently lowered its pricing to $31.9 million and then to $23.7 million — an overall 35% price cut.”
    What was the 12.8 million euro in 2003 price.
    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Microsoft-Fights-On-Loses-Munich/
    35 million USD. So at this stage they have not spent the cost of one MS rotation. Two MS rotations you are ahead for sure.

    Shock horror is that the fact the Linux project is less than price as if MS was not giving discount because Munich going Linux. Yes the government decided to give the Linux migration the same money as non discounted MS. Not a cent more. Can you do a Linux migration for the cost of MS first quote. Looks like 100 percent yes.

    Sorry to burst your bubble Hanson. MS under cut IBM and SUSE quotes but did not under cut the cost of doing it themselves.

    Lumix is in fact lets do it internally and not use a external contractor todo the job for us.

    Hanson I would like to see the outside consultants and pre-study link please. Because I highly suspect they have screwed it.

    I suspect the pre-study was before getting MS quote using projected figures.

  59. Hanson wrote, ” The renewal and restructuring of Munich’s IT landscape was necessary because it was in disarray. Disarray that had nothing to do with Windows.”

    Partly true. They were using NT and M$ announced the death of NT. Also, the various components of their IT had evolved separately using that other OS. So, it was definitely part of the problem. It was their choice to exclude M$ from most of the solution.

    Hanson wrote, “The pre-study by outside consultants concluded that a Windows-based solution (including ALL new licenses) would be the most economic, in other words: cheapest, solution.”

    Again, partly true. They found M$ would cost more so M$ lowered the price. That was just the price of one step on the Wintel treadmill with more to follow. The cost of the next step of Software Freedom will be much less.

    Here is the 2008 report on OSOR.
    “Microsoft has shown us what it means to be dependent on a vendor. Until 2003, the city was using Microsoft Wintodws NT 4 across the board, and was by and large satisfied, When Microsoft decided to end the support for this operating system, this meant that hardware and important procedures would eventually stop working. It was from this experience of being totally at the mercy of an external party that we wanted to take the road to more independence, Schiessl says.

    The City commissioned a consultancy to study several solutions, both proprietary and open source, with regard to their cost effectiveness, technical feasibility and strategic implications. The result of this preliminary study phase from 2001-2003 was a tie between a Microsoft-based solution and an open source variety.

    The Microsoft solution would have made it necessary to introduce an Active Directory system, which would have meant a strong lock-in and would have caused significant follow-up costs. The total cost of the proprietary solution were calculated to be 35 million Euro, against 37 million Euro for GNU/Linux (both including all costs beyond the solution itself, such as personnel and training costs, over five years). While the proprietary solution was deemed to be slightly more cost-effective over the full period, the strategic advantage of being free to take its own IT decisions led the city council to decide in favour of the migration to GNU/Linux.”

    Do the maths. Licensing that other OS forever is a cost savings. Forever is a long time, infinite actually, and that is a real savings. Assuming several hundred dollars would be spent every five years for licensing per PC that’s 12000 PCs X $300 = $3.6 million. Over 20 years, that’s $14.4 million. Then there is the cost of fighting malware and the damage it could do. Those are real costs too. Not having to refresh hardware so often is huge.

    As Munich states, cost was not the primary factor in all this, it is a byproduct. Independence from M$ was the chief motivation. Why should Munich allow M$ to tell Munich what to do? That would be insane. Munich can think for itself.

    “During the project period we’re not expecting to save money. But now we’re able to decide on our own how we want to spend our IT budget in the long run, explains Schiessl. The city wants to judge for itself when and how to update its operating system and applications. It also wants to determine whether its own IT staff should perform the update, of to decide in each case whether we really want to spend the money or not, was the decisive factor for us, the deputy project coordinator says.”

  60. Hanson says:

    “Nope. The budget was not spent yet for Limux. The new money is for new stuff in a new timeframe. The taxpayers are not in revolt. Ongoing costs will be lower than with Wintel treadmill tolls forever.”

    Oh, please, Pogson, for the love of God. How many times must it be explained to you?

    1. The renewal and restructuring of Munich’s IT landscape was necessary because it was in disarray. Disarray that had nothing to do with Windows. You can even read about it on the City of Munich’s official website.

    2. The pre-study by outside consultants concluded that a Windows-based solution (including ALL new licenses) would be the most economic, in other words: cheapest, solution. That means Munich’s taxpayers already have payed more since the more expensive solution was chosen.

    3. The budget increase of about 6 million Euro was and is a real one.

    4. In “Sitzungsvorlage 08-14 / V 04284” [1] it is claimed that additional costs have already been prevented by not having to pay for new Microsoft licenses. How can this be when the pre-study explicitly concluded that a Windows-based solution (including ALL OS and Office licenses) would be cheaper? Not enough, the tricksters also took into account the development costs for the unification of forms (what’s now known as Wollmux [2]) and the costs for training. Unfortunately the development of Wollmux also cost money, meaning that you would’ve had to spend the money either way, regardless of the OS. And with regards to training the pre-study concluded that no training or less training would be required with a Windows-based solution.

    The claims that a Linux migration will save big money for Munich have been so far proven by nothing. If you have to rely on ridiculous claims in official documents that run counter to the conclusions made by outside consultants in your own pre-study you have a really big problem.

    [1] http://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII2/RII/ris_vorlagen_dokumente.jsp?risid=2018245 (German)
    [2] http://www.wollmux.net/wiki/Hauptseite (German)

  61. oiaohm says:

    I was a little wrong on 30 but it was close.
    http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/LiMux-project-management-We-were-naive-958824.html
    “Previously, around 1,000 staff had been maintaining the 15,000 PCs making up the Munich computing landscape in 21 independent IT centres. There was, according to Schießl, no common directory, no common user management, no common hardware or software management. There were more than 300 applications in use, many of which did the same job. On the desktop side, there were 21 different Windows systems with different update levels and security settings.”

    This gives a clear meaning to how bad the Munich operation was. IT Disaster Zone waiting to happen would be a fair assessment. Something had to give.

    1000 staff being paid about 30000 a year. Now the 6 million dollar payment for 3 extra years running the Linux migration and network kinda cheap right. Cost in staff alone for a year running the old system would cover the cost of the complete migration.

    Final report is going to make migration to Linux look great. Reduced staff cost, Reduced Software Cost. Not a single area of Munich expenditure not reduced. Of course productivity increased.

    Yes there is no extra staff IT at Munich today than when they started. There are less. Yet they were migrating.

    So how is Munich a failure when they have less staff and a cleaner network design today.

  62. oiaohm says:

    gewg_ You are missing a bit.

    One is control over all software they use and access to that software for all companies and people that deal with them.

    The picture of Munich cost savings and operational savings don’t end at the 15 000 Munich computers.

    The effect of what Munich is doing is many times larger. Problem is once Dr Loser and other pull there head out the sand the time to get there is not a factor as long as they get there. The knock on effects in the Munich area are huge. True equal access for all solution that MS software does not give.

  63. gewg_ says:

    One thing that hasn’t yet been mentioned about Munich is that they want control over all of the software they use. That requires having the source code so that they aren’t locked in to one vendor.
    The major sticking point there is the (closed-source Windoze-only) stuff they use that is provided by SAP. I’m sure that with hindsight they would agree that where they needed specialized stuff, it would have been much wiser to have hired local developers to produce **open** apps.

  64. oiaohm wrote, “Munich is the hardest form of update.

    System is full use as they are migrating it.”

    Amen. Try migrating a department from XP to “7” with no downtime while replacing all the hardware and software…. It basically means creating a shadow system and moving it in one night. It’s just hard. Munich has decided to divide and conquer doing things in many small steps. That works for them while keeping everything running.

    It is far easier if you don’t have to worry about keeping the existing system running. I was blessed in that my GNU/Linux systems basically had the same function/roles as the former XP machines: word-processing and browsing was 95% of the load. That meant I could lug an identical replacement unit running GNU/Linux with the only down time being a reboot/connecting plugs, perhaps 5 minutes tops, and most PCs in a school are not in use all day long. People also speak, read, write, listen, experiment, run around, etc. I could also arrange re-imaging in the off hours with no effect because the school worked limited hours. On top of that Munich had multiple locations whereas I usually had a single building. I was at one place that had a school spread over four buildings with no good network. That would have been quite a chore but I never got past the networking because equipment was stolen… and stuff I ordered never arrived 🙁

  65. Dr Loser wrote, “Just once, just once, I’d like to see a report that says:

    “XXX is a Linux success story!””

    You will see that about Munich when it’s done. They will report zero downtime, being on time and under budget with an enviable IT system.

    Ask the folks at Chemawawin School, Easterville, Manitoba, Canada. They went from an old school with one lab of old XP machines to a new school with a rip-snorting powerful and reliable Ubuntu GNU/Linux system with much more capability than buying more XP machines. No kidding. The choice was 153 XP machines or 153 thin and thick clients, 5 servers, huge storage, gigabit/s networking, scanners, printers, and cameras for the same money using Ubuntu GNU/Linux. Maintenance went from one guy run ragged with 30 machines to one guy able to stop and smell the roses with many more machines. I know the system. I designed it and built it. By any measure it was a roaring success, the envy of visitors from other schools.

    Here’s another report about the French national police. They went from buying thousands of M$’s licences annually to just a few, saving $millions by using GNU/Linux. Basically, they are migrating by replacing old systems with new GNU/Linux systems as they need them. Cost of IT has dropped 70% in the process. That’s a success.

    There, successful migrations proven. Cost savings are real. I have seen them and so do others.

  66. Dr Loser wrote, “A desktop migration between one version of Windows and another can be rolled out, with full QA, in three months at the most.”

    That’s true in some simple cases but Munich, for instance, had hundreds of applications and thousands of forms that had to be verified to work before they would contemplate migration. Even if no modifications were needed, that’s a lot of work. Munich rewrote many templates and developed a rational system of document handling that would have been needed even with that other OS. Getting all the ducks in a row took years. You can harp all you want about the cost/efficiency of it all but the process did undo lots of mistakes of the past: lock-in, fragmented IT system, and fragmented IT management. Much of that work would have been needed with that other OS as well and now Munich gets to save on licensing forever, less malware forever (at least a few years), open standards forever and a much more easily maintained system. M$’s competitive answer back in the day was XP/2003/AD which would not have addressed most of their problems while costing a similar amount of money just for the licensing and hardware upgrades. Essentially, Munich started over while keeping the system running “normally”. I would bet, if they could, they would go back in time and make the change back in the period 1995-2000 before they got so deeply locked in. Better late than never.

  67. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    “A desktop migration between one version of Windows and another can be rolled out, with full QA, in three months at the most.”
    In fact I can tell you that this is false. When you are dealing with a piece of software that does not run on the new version of Windows and you have to migrate to a replacement application your day is ruined for achieving a 3 month conversion.

    Note I said “hardest from of Update”. Changing from MS Office to OpenOffice is where the over time was. This is not a Linux flaw as such. Changing office suites comes with pain. Changing office suites is the hardest form of update on any OS. Changing from MS Office to OpenOffice will hurt.

    Dr Loser
    “A desktop migration between one version of Ubuntu and another can be rolled out, with full QA, in three months at the most.”
    This has also been going on for all migrated Linux machines. So the distribution in use remains current. Debian not Ubuntu but hey. This is something you have not thought of the Linux converted machines for the 6 years have remained with upto date current day versions. So yes there are rolling upgrades all the time. Start costing in staying in the latest version of windows all the time. Limux is way cheaper when compared to equal.

    Limux is Debian you moron Dr Loser. So they are not scared of lockin from Debian. Its just a custom installer version with there pre-sets already done. They have not build binaries other one exception WollMux. Basically its no different to a Windows deployment image except they have there own fully central controlled update server for any extras they wish to push out auto defined also allows them to block any update that fails there QA testing. So altering debian to use your own Repo is a good thing makes QA process many times simpler also reduces downloads.

    Basically they did not invent there own distribution they just made a custom form of a existing. In fact they use the standard debian customisation tools. If you were not being such a idiot Dr Loser and had done some homework you would know this. So be aware that a lot of claims against the project are false.

    “But let’s assume that all six million would have been spend in running maintenance anyhow.” In the german this statement exists Dr Loser. There is no extra expenditure plan and simple.

    Let me answer all you questions.
    “(1) Does it help the customer, ie the Munich public? I’d doubt it on either system.”
    Yes it does help the Munich public since now they can all use exactly the same version Office-suite as government they are dealing with is. So they don’t have the Goverment send out like Office 2010 documents and they have 2007 that the cannot open. Cures the Office suite version problem issues for everyone.

    If they can use the same office suite as government they can check of the document will open government end ok. So yes its helps the customer.

    “(2) Does it make Herr Jens Bernhadt more efficient at doing his job? Almost certainly not. There are going to be all sorts of minor annoyances along the way where Jens is more likely to give up and just go get a cup of coffee.”
    In fact yes they went from a 30 plus networks not talking to each other to 1 network that is properly talking to each. Also more information is now shared between departments and is accessible to Herr Jens Bernhadt.

    Basically part of the project was fixing up the huge mother of a network mess very successful.

    Also gets them on a single format for all internal documents made by the same version of software. So less failed documents landing in Herr Jens Bernhadt.

    “(3) Can Jens send important documents to Bonn or Frankfurt or Berlin or Ouagadougou in the sure knowledge that they won’t get mangled? No, I think not.”
    In fact this shows you are not in the EU. between government documents are required to be ODF or PDF so this should be no problem.

    “(4) If Jens receives an important Excel spreadsheet from [insert as above] with a new Excel 2010 macro that isn’t supported in LiMux, what happens then?”

    Of course you are too think this is asking question 1 again. What about the reverse Jens running Excel 2010 sends out to person who only has Office 2007 so they cannot open it.

    By the way to prevent viruses it common for all Macros in MS Office documents to be stripped and it was even against policy to send them documents with macros because you email would be deleted. This was pre the migration. So a document you are talking about would not have made it to the old windows system.

    The issue they were solving most critical was Office suit nightmares. This was solved by 2010 on time. Linux migration was kinda optional and a wish. So it got pushed back and the most important item fix the Office suite nightmares took the first lot of time.

    Linux cost saving is the cherry on top. The Office suite migration is the cost saving cake.

    Dr Loser
    “It’s been failing miserably for about six years.”
    When the final reports are publish this statement of yours will prove that you are a complete moron. Cost savings due to conversion to OpenOffice from MS Office was achieved by 2010.

    Reason the project the complete time has been cheaper than the windows path and has sorted out major problems in internal operations along the way.

    Basically it 3 years to migrate from MS Office to OpenOffice and 3 years to migration from MS Windows to Linux. Without running any extra staff.

    This will be in the final reports and when they are done in 2013 you are going to look like a complete idiot. The project is going to be remembered as a success and there was a pack of twits like you Dr Loser who tried to claim other wise who should be completely disregarded when thinking about what software a computer network should be running.

  68. Dr Loser says:

    @Oiaohm:

    “Munich is the hardest form of update.”

    No it isn’t; not necessarily.

    A desktop migration between one version of Windows and another can be rolled out, with full QA, in three months at the most.

    A desktop migration between one version of Ubuntu and another can be rolled out, with full QA, in three months at the most.

    When I worked at Visa, we did a desktop migration from Macs to Win95 in three months at the most, with full QA.

    The problem isn’t this bleating “ooh, it’s so difficult! Give us time!”

    The problem is that the whole thing was epically misconceived in the first place, and executed by Linux fan-boys who didn’t have a clue.

    Incidentally, if the Mission Statement was “avoid lock-in,” why the hell did they bother inventing their own distro in the first place?

    Are they scared of lock-in from Red Hat, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, SuSE, etc etc?

    Golly. That’s not likely, is it?

  69. Dr Loser says:

    @Oiaohm:

    “The is the problem Munich is going to be a Linux success story.”

    It’s been failing miserably for about six years.

    Just once, just once, I’d like to see a report that says:

    “XXX is a Linux success story!”

    Not “going to be.” Just “is.” Provably.

    Unless and until that happens, idiots in Munich and Vienna and elsewhere are going to continue being seduced by these nonexistent cost savings you lot prattle about.

  70. Dr Loser says:

    @Oiaohm:

    “The important thing to remember Dr Loser the maintenance staff at Munich have worked the same number of hours. Doing the deployment as maintaining windows. So there was no extra expenditure. The extra 6million would have to be spend in running maintenance anyhow.”

    I notice you contradict Robert on that €6 million over budget thing, but never mind.

    I don’t have the budget breakdown for Munich. Do you?

    But let’s assume that all six million would have been spend in running maintenance anyhow. (A dubious assumption. You can always fire people, or rotate them into more useful jobs.)

    This is what we in the business call a “cost-benefit” calculation. You can peg that six million to a fixed expenditure all you like, but the question is, what is the benefit?

    (1) Does it help the customer, ie the Munich public? I’d doubt it on either system.
    (2) Does it make Herr Jens Bernhadt more efficient at doing his job? Almost certainly not. There are going to be all sorts of minor annoyances along the way where Jens is more likely to give up and just go get a cup of coffee.
    (3) Can Jens send important documents to Bonn or Frankfurt or Berlin or Ouagadougou in the sure knowledge that they won’t get mangled? No, I think not.
    (4) If Jens receives an important Excel spreadsheet from [insert as above] with a new Excel 2010 macro that isn’t supported in LiMux, what happens then?

    This is a continuous boon-doggle for the people who came up with the idea in the first place, ie the IT department.

    But, what the heck? At least, in Robert’s words, they’ve exchanged a dependency on Microsoft (a rather long distance and second hand dependency, I might add) by a dependency on “Debian and IBM.”

    That has to be good, right?

  71. Kozmcrae says:

    “Munich is partly so slow due to the penny pinching migration method being used.”

    I think Munich will discover that while they’ve been very careful pinching pennies they’ve been burning Euros.

  72. oiaohm says:

    Munich is the hardest form of update.

    System is full use as they are migrating it.

    10 per day is basically done in the space support personal have between support calls.

    Munich is partly so slow due to the penny pinching migration method being used.

    “they might be leaving the most difficult for the last.” This is not might they are leaving the most difficult to last.

  73. Thanks for the update. There’s a Google translation of the source.

    9000 migrated to date when they had 7600 on 2011-08-18 is a bit more than 10 per day. One year to go at that rate, but I expect the migration is jerky because they migrate groups of PCs. If you have a group of PCs with identical configuration and you figure out the details for the first one, the rest are trivial. OTOH, they might be leaving the most difficult for the last. Austrian eHealth did not have that problem. They were creating a new system to replace a gazillion random systems, mostly based on paper…

  74. oiaohm says:

    http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/LiMux-project-exceeds-annual-target-1397238.html

    I was a little out So from june to now the migrated numbers have gone from 6500 to over 9000 out of the 12000. So 3000 left to achieve objective of 80 percent migration. 2500 per 6 months or a low target of 2000 per 6 months. Munich is going to achieve targets some time next year.

    Munich the complete time has not gone over budget. Cost of running the conversion was cheaper than running a Windows update on there system. Thinking they were running Office 2000 and Windows 2000 in a lot of places.

    The project required to migrate to OpenOffice in Munich was not LiMux but http://code.google.com/p/wollmux/ What is a extension that adds some missing functionality in OpenOffice that stalled the migration to OpenOffice. Yes hello delay in process. Overshoot was OpenOffice not Linux. So over budget would have happened with a Migration to OpenOffice on windows as well. Because that is where the over budget is.

    Someone following of course can also use the wollmux extension to OpenOffice/Libreoffice so not face the same issue.

    Dr Loser so stop blaming Linux. Munich shows that OpenOffice being lacking was the issue. This has changed.

    Yes Munich will be successful 80/20 conversion to Linux/Windows. Question is how far past 80 will it go. So MS licensing cost cut to 1/5 and lower. Leaving 4/5 to be spent on internal software development.

    €6 million equals only 500 a seat. Save in getting of the MS Office treadmill covers that.

    The important thing to remember Dr Loser the maintenance staff at Munich have worked the same number of hours. Doing the deployment as maintaining windows. So there was no extra expenditure. The extra 6million would have to be spend in running maintenance anyhow.

    Yes the 6 million extension is to pay maintenance staff to keep on working.

    Also shock horror the Linux migration appears to going to complete almost a year ahead funding end.

    2013 is funding end. So completing 80 in 2012 meets retirement of project so is successful. They will have enough time before end of project to attempt for 100 percent.

    Austrian e-Health System guys had the advantage of experience of what the Munich guys did. Each migration after Munich will be simpler.

    Yes Munich will be remembered as one of the trail blazers who showed how todo it.

    In 2014 a new funding will have to be issued so maintenance staff still turn up to work. The 2014 is really the interesting one because that is most likely when the remaining windows machines get updated. Showing us how little MS is left.

  75. oiaohm says:

    LiMux if you look closer is not much different to a companies standard image of windows.

    MS Office to OOo is independant to the Linux standard image.

    Ie OOo and Thunderbird were deployed on machine include windows one by 31 December 2009.

    Start of 2010 is the process to remove Windows for good. Middle of 2011 they are up to 6500 out of 12000 tagged for migration. There is 3000 that may or may not remain windows.

    So yes they will have crossed the half way point by the end of this year. So reducing the on going costs.

    The is the problem Munich is going to be a Linux success story.

  76. Healthcare is quite specialized.

  77. Dr Loser wrote, “at least €6 million over budget.”

    Nope. The budget was not spent yet for Limux. The new money is for new stuff in a new timeframe. The taxpayers are not in revolt. Ongoing costs will be lower than with Wintel treadmill tolls forever.

    Munich has lots of expertise locally and they have support from Debian and IBM.

  78. Aluminium is relatively immune to acid. It is covered with in insoluble oxide. OTOH, if fizzes in hydroxide solutions releasing hydrogen.

  79. Kozmcrae says:

    Not sure what you’re trying to say Dr, but it looks like the Austrian e-Health System guys passed the first test in switching a major system over to GNU/Linux; They new what they were doing.

    That’s similar to the test you have to pass when you attempt to set up a Windows system too.

  80. Conzo says:

    Everything is soluble, if you submerse it in a strong enough acid.

    Just in case: that was a metaphor.

  81. Dr Loser says:

    “It also shows that what Munich is attempting to achieve can be done in a very complex system.”

    Very briefly, Robert:

    What Munich “is” attempting to achieve was a total switch of all municipal desktops (15K or so, you can correct me on the number) from MS Office to OOo. For some twisted reason they even had to invent their own distro for this. I’m still not quite sure what the point of LiMux is.

    They’re in a happy happy clappy moment right now; only three thousand more to go. And five years too late. And at least €6 million over budget.

    And I hate to think of the state of the servers … you should offer them your expertise. God knows, they’re going to be needing some sort of expertise.

    But let’s assume that ongoing catastrophe is all fine and dandy. Let’s assume that.

    Do you really think that you can walk into a hospital IT department, which involves all that nasty technical stuff I mentioned above, plus legacy solutions for it all, and say:

    Hey! I’m the Gnu/Debian Guy!

    Suck Me And See!

    Not gonna happen, Robert.

  82. Dr Loser says:

    Patch Tuesday, Robert?

    I don’t really care what complicated system the Austrians use; I don’t pay for it.

    But if it’s almost as good as the Microsoft alternative, then I’m all for it.

    Oops.

    And then there’s Haematology.

    And there’s Cardiology.

    And for all I know there’s Spelunking, too. The great thing about Linux Distros is that they’ve got plenty of alternative solutions for absolutely everything.

    … as long as you don’t actually need specialised software.

Leave a Reply