Sad to say...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| sbergman27 Sep 05, 2005 11:05 AM EDT |
It is sad to say, but this underscores how hard it is to move from Windows to Linux on a large scale. You do your analyses, and make your plan, and then a thousand little Windows only apps show up that are necessary, but that you did not know about. They had crept in, but you did not know about them, in the same way that you did not know about the Linux web, DNS, and file servers that had crept in without your knowing. You really could not ask for a more sincere test case; When Balmer cut his ski vacation short and showed up in Munich, the Munich government basically spat in his face. Expect MS to make the most out of this delay, from a publicity standpoint. And I'm afraid that we are going to see more delays. I'm certainly not saying that what Munich is doing was not the best choice or will not be beneficial in the long term. But it's a Windows world, and changing OSes is *hard*. In particular, moving from Windows to any other OS is hard, especially for a sizable organization. |
| Abe Sep 05, 2005 12:08 PM EDT |
Absolutely. The chock hold MS has is tremedous. What makes it worse is not only too many specialized applications, but also psychological. On the other hand, knowing about problem areas before hand is far better than having to deal with them during implementation. How long it takes to migrate is not as important as dropping MS for good. Linux benefits are long term and they are sure worth it. |
| ralph Sep 05, 2005 12:59 PM EDT |
Who ever thought a major migration like this would be easy? I certainly did not think that. It will almost certainly pay off in the long run, and I hope Munich takes their time and does it right. Doing it right matters more than meeting the original schedule. I was delighted to see at the bottom of the article, that one of my favorite cities, Bergen, was also migrating. |
| lordshipmayhem Sep 05, 2005 1:04 PM EDT |
I'm not surprised there have been delays - I have yet to hear of a computer project that did go through on schedule. On the other hand, I haven't heard of any cause for this serious delay aside from a decision to "go slower" and make sure that all the issues are resolved before the conversion happens. |
| tadelste Sep 05, 2005 5:00 PM EDT |
Hmmmmm. How about poor planning, chosing the wrong distribution, not staffing up properly and lousy leadership. This isn't that big a migration. |
| sbergman27 Sep 06, 2005 5:28 AM EDT |
Tom, Would you mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm interested. (And don't worry. My distro of choice is Fedora. ;-) -Steve |
| tadelste Sep 06, 2005 7:45 PM EDT |
Steve, As far as I can tell, the only stable (non-commercial) distro is debian. Otherwise, you have Red Hat and Novell. When I say stable, I mean enterprise ready. (Some might argue that Madriva is ready). So, Munich chose debian and in so doing chose a stable distro. But, debian lacks the tools and the benefit of Red Hat's capability in deploying and migrating Linux. I think Novell's Desktop is ready but I'm not sure Novell is. Munich spent a lot of time making their decision. They have spent far less time and effort on planning the deployment. So, that's what I believe they have to do and it pushes the roll out into next year. |
| Tsela Sep 07, 2005 2:04 AM EDT |
Tadelste: Munich chose Debian just *because* of its deploying tools, in particular the scriptable installer, allowing to automate most of the migration (anyone who says Debian lacks deployment and migration tools doesn't know what they're talking about. Debian Sarge has some of the most sophisticated tools for the deployment of multiple workstations in an easy and automated way). My guess is that the problem isn't technical: people are afraid of the migration and they moved the deadline a bit to calm them down, and prepare them better for their new desktops. I've seen that kind of things quite often in the company I've been working for, and although the excuses given were usually technical the truth was often that it was just a way to calm down fear of migrating to a new environment. |
| tadelste Sep 07, 2005 9:21 AM EDT |
You may be right about calming people down. But, that's not what I hear. Never-the-less, they have slipped. debian has tools for migration and some imaginative companies have set up their own repositories and created some extremely ingenious ways for maintaining and distributing software. That's a large part of why Munich went with debian and why DOE labs use debian in their clusters, etc. My point about enterprise migrations and Red Hat is about experience. I believe Satelite, for example, is a superior deployment tool to any in use including debian's scriptable installer - and that's not taking anything away from scriptable. I request that we not start a flaming match on Lxer, please. I think people should investigate debian's installer. I also suggest people look at all the available tools. Thanks for building on my previous post, btw. One other thing, I have a Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution on my main web server. I lived with it for two years - first with version 3 and now with version 4. But, for the new web server I'm building right now, I'm using debian. I really like it. |
| PaulFerris Sep 07, 2005 1:32 PM EDT |
Quoting: I request that we not start a flaming match on Lxer, please.How the heck do you expect Dinotrac and I to converse if you set such tight guidelines for postings?!? You're no fun anymore :( |
| dinotrac Sep 07, 2005 4:31 PM EDT |
Really, Paulie. Kids today got no respect. |
| Tsela Sep 08, 2005 12:21 AM EDT |
tadelste: My point was not to start a flamewar, just to point out an apparent contradiction between what you seemed to imply (that Debian lacks good deployment and migration tools) and Munich's publicised reason why they went with Debian (its deployment and migration tools, that and the fact that they could use a local company to do the migration). I also think that Munich, in the time it took to choose a distribution, probably looked at Red Hat too and thus knows about Satelite (I don't, but then I use Linux only as a desktop and on a single computer). This is normal to compare offerings when one wants to set up such a project. Also, as I pointed out, organisations will *always* give technical reasons for not being on schedule, even if the true reasons are purely social. I've witnessed that a lot. That's why I pointed out I doubted that Munich's delay had much to do with technical problems: I recognised a pattern I have seen before. I may be wrong of course, but that's true for most things I haven't got first-hand knowledge of ;) . Anyway, I hope you understand that I am not criticising your opinion or anything. I'm just adding my own :) . Paul, dinotrac: I think you are exempt of such a rule. Where would LXer go without your oh-so gentle conversations? ;) PS: The spelling checker points LXer out as wrong?! What is that, self-hating? ;) |
| tadelste Sep 08, 2005 9:00 AM EDT |
I get a lot of joy out of this, so please be yourselves. I wasn't setting any guidelines. ;) Tsela: I didn't think you were criticizing me that's why I said, "Thanks for building on my previous post, btw." These exchanges really add value to the content and that's part of the attraction of Lxer -- the feeling of community. Great stuff! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!