Now this is definitely politics.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dotmatrix Feb 12, 2017 8:44 AM EDT |
It makes me sad. |
| jdixon Feb 12, 2017 10:21 AM EDT |
I agree, but the point has been made. Linux as an alternative to Windows on the desktop is both usable and cheaper, and they have a large group of users and support staff to back it up. Not everyone has a user base large enough to blackmail greatly reduced prices (and more cynical side notes probably large campaign donations) from Microsoft. Those who don't will look at the actual costs. |
| seatex Feb 12, 2017 10:46 AM EDT |
Some "leader" in Munich got a big check in the mail from Redmond. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 12, 2017 11:51 AM EDT |
more details: this is the study: https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277... (450 pages) and this is the request from a meeting of the citycouncil: https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/ANTRAG/4365792.pdf among other things it asks for a restructuring of the IT management into a independent company. (given what we all assume about the efficiency of government management, probably a good idea. the key request is this: Quoting: Die Verwaltung wird beauftragt, unverzüglich ein Konzept zu erstellen, wie auf Basis des neu zu entwickelnden Windows-Basis-Clients bis spätestens zum 31.12.2020 eine stadtweit einheitliche Client-Architektur geschaffen werden kann. Bei den Standardfunktionalitäten (Textverarbeitung, Tabellenkalkulation, Präsentationsprogramm, PDF-Reader, E-Mail-Client, Internetbrowser) sind dabei stadtweit einheitlich marktübliche Standardprodukte einzusetzen, die eine höchst mögliche Kompatibilität nach intern und extern sowie zu anderen Software-Produkten (z. B. SAP) gewährleisten. In der Übergangszeit wird es den Referaten und Eigenbetrieben freigestellt, unter Berücksichtigung der individuellen technischen Gegebenheiten den neu entwickelten Windows-Basis-Client mit den vorgenannten Standardprodukten einzusetzen oder weiterhin eine gemischte Client-Architektur (Windows/LiMux) zu betreiben. Strategisches Ziel muss es sein, dass die städtischen Anwendungen unabhängig vom Betriebssystem des Endgerätes funktionieren (z. B. Webanwendungen, Virtualisierungen, Remote Desktop Services). an attempt at a translation: Quoting: The administration is commissioned to immediately create a concept on how to create a uniform client architecture on the basis of the newly to be developed Windows base client no later than 31.12.2020. For the standard functionalities (text processing, spreadsheet, presentation program, PDF reader, e-mail client, Internet browser) conventional market standard products are to be used uniformly citywide to ensure the highest possible compatibility to internal and external as well as to other software products (eg SAP). In the transitional period, the departments and city-owned companies are allowed to use the newly developed Windows base client with the aforementioned standard products, or to continue to operate a mixed client architecture (Windows/LiMux), taking into account the individual technical circumstances. The strategic goal must be that the cities applications work independently of the operating system of the device (eg web applications, virtualization, remote desktop services). emphasis mine. so apparently the decision is already made and the administration is now tasked with creating a concept on how to implement it. greetings, eMBee. |
| penguinist Feb 12, 2017 1:03 PM EDT |
Great links eMBee, thanks for the posting. So, the study focuses on the issue of interoperability between office applications. On one side of that issue, we have Linux applications which conform to open standards and are implemented with free and open source software. On the other side we have Microsoft office applications which are based mostly on non-open standards, often patent-encumbered, and are implemented mostly with closed proprietary software. Recall also that Microsoft has a history of changing its standards in order to achieve vendor lock-in by creating incompatibilities with its competition. So the choices for Munich really come down to these: 1. Use Microsoft proprietary software"uniformly" and accept vendor lock-in going forward. 2. Insist that Microsoft conform to open standards as a prerequisite for doing business with the city. What I don't see in that study is the cost of vendor lock-in. How could that point have been overlooked in such a comprehensive study? |
| alc Feb 12, 2017 4:23 PM EDT |
"Some "leader" in Munich got a big check in the mail from Redmond" "The mayor was against free software from the beginning," said Matthias Kirschner, the president of Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE). "When he was elected, he took pride in getting Microsoft to move their office to Munich [a move that took place last September]. He even gave this study to Accenture, which is a Microsoft partner." I think that says it all. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 13, 2017 12:25 AM EDT |
i was unable to find german coverage on the topic yesterday, which initially had me sceptical (until i found the PDF links), today someone posted german news in a list: https://www.heise.de/meldung/Von-Linux-zurueck-zu-Microsoft-... https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/LiMux-Aus-in-Muenche... turns out i misinterpreted the document, as the decision is not yet made. the document represents a proposal from the leading party coalition that is to be decided at the city parliament next week. another interesting detail is that the actual accenture report never proposed a wholesale replacement of everything with windows. the accenture report points to 10000 templates and 130 macros for libreoffice and recommends the continued use of libreoffice, and to treat microsoft word as a special application, only to be used when needed. the coalition wants no word (pun not intended) of that advice and only use conventional market standard products. greetings, eMBee. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 13, 2017 12:29 AM EDT |
my only hope is that the move back will crash and burn to let a few people wake up. |
| seatex Feb 13, 2017 8:07 AM EDT |
All tax-funded public entities should be using open-source software at this point. Taxpayers need to demand it. |
| dotmatrix Feb 13, 2017 8:50 AM EDT |
>All tax-funded public entities should be using open-source software at this point. Taxpayers need to demand it. I completely agree. When I worked as a 'Public Servant,' I tried to get my management to allow me to use OpenOffice/LibreOffice to no avail. I also tried to write contracts with any documentation related deliverables have acceptable formats of: OpenXML or Open Document. Again, the contracting office stripped out my Open Document references... I don't think the general public truly understands how much taxpayer money is spent on Microsoft licenses. Microsoft knows... and they also know that if government goes with Open Document format as a submission standard --note, not even LibreOffice... just the format-- Microsoft will begin a quick slide into irrelevancy. |
| seatex Feb 13, 2017 9:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:I don't think the general public truly understands how much taxpayer money is spent on Microsoft licenses. Microsoft knows... and they also know that if government goes with Open Document format as a submission standard --note, not even LibreOffice... just the format-- Microsoft will begin a quick slide into irrelevancy. Spot on, dotmatrix. MS knows that their lock is now dependent on format compatibility, and their format has no exclusive features needed by 99% of their customers. If open-source software, like LibreOffice, gets a foothold in a large segment of the market, like public entities, MS's sales will start dropping like dominoes. |
| jdixon Feb 13, 2017 12:20 PM EDT |
> my only hope is that the move back will crash and burn to let a few people wake up. When you read that the city of Munich is being held hostage by ransomware, you can just laugh. > Taxpayers need to demand it. Unfortunately, in most areas the taxpayers have no effective representation. :( > I don't think the general public truly understands how much taxpayer money is spent on Microsoft licenses. Microsoft knows. The last time I checked, our single seat license cost for Office was close to $400. If LibreOffice had an Outlook equivalent, there would be no reason we couldn't switch. |
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!