9 ms·

The Document Foundation on City of Munich’s discussion on returning to Microsoft

136 points by mksaunders 10y ago

mdekkers 10y ago
18 to 28% is not a minor percentage of users. I'm a fan of LibreOffice, and was an extremely early adopter and contributor to the project, being one of the people that pushed for and created the community council at the time. Brushing these kind of numbers away isn't going to help, and they will be hit hard on that point by the opposition. The better approach will be to adress the mismatch head on, with an actionable plan on how to solve these issues. I worked hard, in a professional capacity, for the adoption of LO and Desktop Linux in various government departments around the EU, and the agression of commercial players against this kind of push is phenomenal. Eventually I moved on professionally but the scars are still with me. One powerful message this whole thing left me with is that you cannot do this kind of thing, and hope to have a career in professional services. I was forced to drop out of public participation with OSS projects, and never really went back.
- wiz21c 10y ago
  >> the agression of commercial players against this kind of push is phenomenal Theses are extremely strong statements. Could you elaborate (if it doesn't put your career in danger, of course) ?
  - mdekkers 10y ago
    I'm no longer playing that game, so sure. I was contributing for some time to OpenOffice, and at one point starting working for a systems integrator, specialising in Linux and Open Source solutions. At this time, OSS was just coming out of academia, and enterprise had no interest in all this hippy bullshit. They needed a techie in a suit to come and tell them the how, why, and how much OSS would help and cost. As soon as a client would mention anything related to Linux or OSS to the salesdrone, I would be dragged into the discussion. This was a pretty cool job: lots of very large clients and projects which suited my background (designing and implementing very large scale infrastructure) and interests (Linux, Open Source). I was an active and vocal contributor within the OpenOffice project, recognising it as one of the key enablers for a possible Linux Desktop. Sun sent me increasingly strongly worded requests to "tone things down" - I was pushing hard for the idea of a community council, and Sun didn't like the idea of giving up control. One of the results of this was that I set up OOoForums.org, since we didn't really have a space to freely interact with end-users on the "official" site. One not-so-fine-day I'm called into HR. VP's present. Heavy meeting. No warning. My employer had a strong and profitable relationship/partnership with Sun, we were selling big Sun iron into enterprise to the tune of millions per year, and Sun complained about my behaviour to my employer. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I wanted to stay happy at my job, I would do as I was told by Sun via backchannels. If not, I'd lose my job. Having a family to take care of, I dropped out of the whole scene the same day. (this is now about 12 or 13 years ago) I left this company not long after, and did a project to deploy Linux Desktops with OpenOffice not long after. A Government dept, about 100 seats if I remember correctly. New building, new pc's for everyone, and we sold it as "A new version of windows". We spent a long time making KDE look like windows, and made sure everything worked. It was awesome, it cost a fraction, and the users loved it. I was hired by a sympathetic client who specifically wanted this. There were upper management changes during the project, and the new head let me know that my services were no longer required, since he was flown to Seattle by MS (from Europe) and they "explained" to him that MS was the way to go. I pointed to my (extremely solid) contract, and let him know he could do what he wanted after delivery. I was subjected to significant pressures for the duration of the project, and it really wasn't a lot of fun. A week after operational delivery, IBM and MS waltzed in, blitzed everything, and that was that. Frustrating business....
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      My employer had a strong and profitable relationship/partnership with Sun, we were selling big Sun iron into enterprise to the tune of millions per year, Wonder if your ex boss ever thinks about this now? I suspect there is less demand for Sun or Oracle big irons now.
      - mdekkers 10y ago
        They are a very large EU-wide integrator, and have partnerships with pretty much all the boxbuilders. The whole saga with Sun hardware was likely just another profit opportunity.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - wiz21c 10y ago
      Thank you for posting such a long explanation. It's very valuable to both realize the power of open source (by indirect means of the fear it created) and how hard it is to sell it when it has to fight against an up hill opponent... I am not surprised by these facts but I'm quite surprised by the power of the forces at play. Thanks again !
      - mdekkers 10y ago
        My pleasure :) The power of OSS is amazing, as is the power of those who believe they stand to lose.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  Although they word it poorly, I think the point is that those numbers should be compared to similar software issues experienced on Windows platforms, in which case the benefit of switching back is a lot slimmer. As noted a bit later: > Incidentally, 15% of users acknowledged severe issues related to MS Office.
  - sddfd 10y ago
    I assume these 15% complained about interoperatability with 3rd parties that use the MS Office DOC format.
    - vanderZwan 10y ago
      You have a point in that it's very easy to interpret these statistics in totally contradictory ways, but without further details we are just speculating.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      The Microsoft fanboy in my office seems to hate Word. I just dislike it strongly and prefer to use LibreOffice for cleaning up styling done by others is top of my mind.
- tiatia 10y ago
  " I'm a fan of LibreOffice" I am not. But you can run MS Office with Wine, if need be. I do this on occasion since it is the only reliable way to make sure the document will look the same at your client. For all other stuff, I use Softmaker for Linux. http://www.softmaker.com/en/softmaker-office-linux http://www.softmaker.com/en/softmaker-office-linux
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
thepiwo 10y ago
I'm disappointed in Munichs' decision-makers in this case. Introducing linux was a great step towards a more open, secure and cost-effective platform to organize the city. The reasoning behind switching back to Microsoft is vague to me, the main factors seem general it-problems not related to linux, users wanting to open their .exe and windows programms (wouldn't be allowed with a Microsoft system as well due to security issues) and the fact Microsoft built a new shiny office.
- cnkk 10y ago
  I think it is because that Microsoft just opened an office in Munich...
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I think it may have something to do with whatever makes almost no one choose Linux for desktops.
    - hd4 10y ago
      That 'almost no one' is growing steadily. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/16/07/02/184229/linux-grabs-more-than-2-of-desktop-market-share https://linux.slashdot.org/story/16/07/02/184229/linux-grabs...
      - misnome 10y ago
        Yes, perhaps one day the 'steady growth' will hit 3%. Perhaps then we can declare the "Year of the Linux desktop".
- sveme 10y ago
  Here's mschuster91, who worked there, take on the issue from a couple of days ago when it first was posted to hackernews: ------------------ > Does anyone have some examples of the practical problems they experience using Linux, which can't easily be solved in any other way than going to Windows? I worked there. The biggest problems back a few years ago: 1) So-called "Fachverfahren", basically software for stuff like managing drivers' licenses or other bureaucratic procedures, is written and supplied for Windows only. Often enough that meant Munich had to pay a boatload of money for a Linux port. Or the software HAD a Linux port, but for RHEL or other "enterprise linux" crap distros - which meant using stuff like "alien" or, worse, manual repackaging to make them compatible with Ubuntu. Yay for version hell - statically linked programs were an exception. 2) DRIVERS. There's a lot of custom hardware - special printers for printing on documents like ID cards, fingerprint readers for the new national ID cards, RFID readers with support for said ID cards... you won't believe how much stuff there is. And all of this needs to have Linux drivers and tooling. 3) Employee training. Back in my days KDE was used (and I believe it still is), but it's different enough from Windows that people need training. And there's 35k of employees, most of which don't have any IT experience outside from their Windows computer at home. 4) The computers themselves. Let's just say that the computers in any public agency are almost always horribly outdated. Many users complain(ed) about the speed of LiMux, which mostly was caused by old or underpowered (esp. RAM, given that OpenOffice and Firefox are really really memory hungry) systems. 5) Networking. Depends on the building and agency, of course, but e.g. my school was connected via a 16 mbit uplink, over which the entire Internet traffic went... I believe the biggest problem LiMux had and still has is a lack of proper funding - especially for hardware. -------------------- tl;dr: it's more than what you suggested and some very valid reasons. I know some people involved in that decision and let's say it like that: LiMux does not come for free as well. There are plenty of issues that require external consultants for 1500 Euros per day/person which is apparently always an unexpected and unbudgeted expense.
cies 10y ago
I think the article misses a great point. That by using open source they can spend on IT locally! Look at the Extremadura (region in Spain) case for as a reference; they went with open source to stop all spending on IT outside of their own borders and thereby significantly boosted local business. To me this is a clear case of how lobbying can destroy the value governments provide to their citizens.
- l0b0 10y ago
  They did mention that point: > Last, but not least, most expenditures related to the purchase of Microsoft licenses will contribute to the GDP of Ireland (where all Microsoft products sold in Europe are sourced from) rather than to local enterprises who support the open source solutions deployed today.
  - signal11 10y ago
    IANAL, but isn't encouraging the City of Munich to source from "local" enterprises vs Ireland a violation of EU free-trade laws? By the same token Ireland could then discourage/block "imports" from Munich and we'd be back to the internecine trade conflicts the EU was supposed to stop.
    - omouse 10y ago
      Free market doesn't mean you have to go with the cheapest solution. It means you have choice. Preferring local firms is ok because they're competing in a free market; they aren't being given contracts because they're local, it's just local firms will be opening up to supply the demand.
      - mironathetin 10y ago
        For a local government a preference of local business is not only ok. It should be the first choice, the second choice and also the third one. In this case, as there is totally different tax flow involved as the article nicely explains, local business is the only responsible choice for an elected government, IMHO.
l0b0 10y ago
> you cannot do this kind of thing, and hope to have a career in professional services. Classic scaremongering. Without some sort of proof the easiest thing to conclude from this is that you are a shill. On the other hand, yes, TDF had better take those numbers seriously. But I hope some big customers like Munich realise that they need to invest at least a fraction of their savings into hiring talent to deal with their own most pressing issues with the software.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- crummy 10y ago
  You think he's on the payroll of Big Linux?
- mdekkers 10y ago
  Classic scaremongering. Without some sort of proof the easiest thing to conclude from this is that you are a shill. See above. Also, Google.
- dang 10y ago
  Insinuating that another user is shilling is not allowed here unless you have evidence, and differing taste in open-source software does not count as evidence. Please don't do this again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642877 and marked it off-topic.
yorwba 10y ago
I had a look at the linked report https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277724.pdf https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277... Apparently, the actual recommendation was to first replace the 4.163 Windows clients in use (77 % Windows 7, 9 % Windows XP/Vista, 14 % Windows 2000 [!!!]) with a single improved configuration, likewise for the different versions of their LiMux distribution. Afterwards, each department should choose between the Windows and Linux clients based on a cost-benefit calculation. Only in case the Windows client ends up dominating, a reevaluation of the economic viability of the duplicated infrastructure is recommended. Additionally, the only mentioned software problems from their user survey were caused by varying browser versions (presumably Firefox), their mail program (presumably Thunderbird) not being available on mobile and frequently crashing, the same complaints about their calendar software (no idea what they are using) in addition to lacking copy-paste functionality. Unless LibreOffice has a calendar component, I don't think anyone complained about it? At least it isn't in the report.
- scholia 10y ago
  That seems a rather narrow way for Munich to operate. The world has changed since they made their decision a decade or so ago. Microsoft now offers on-premise and cloud versions of all its main programs, with companion apps that also run on Android and iOS smartphones and tablets. Windows 10 machines now include cloud integration, apps and touch screens, with hardware form factors ranging from small tablets through 2-in-1s and laptops to the Surface Studio. If they are still comparing one 20th century desktop OS with another 20th century desktop OS, they are missing the point.
greyman 10y ago
I work with Linux professionally and generally like it as a server solution, and also as a developer, but if I would be a city mayor, I would not switch to it from Windows in the first place, unless at least the country government would do such a step first. > In fact, although the proposal associates MS Office document formats with the “industry standard” concept, it should be clear that all MS Office documents are proprietary and obfuscated, and therefore inappropriate for interoperability. Sorry, but this is utter BS. MS Office is a de facto standard, and LO is not compatible with it - it can't correctly open more complex MS Office documents. I should know, since I periodically evaluate it. So the reality is, that MS Office ensures much greater interoperability as LO. Or maybe I am just missing something and we are talking only about server solutions? For example - mayor secretary receives a document from some government agency, in docx format, and LO can't correctly open it. Now what is the fallback solution?
- Beltiras 10y ago
  You are dumping problems related to MS (well known) monopolistic behaviour. Office format has been notoriously hard to replicate (on purpose). That is not a failing in Open Source, it is a failing of Microsoft. I realize that businesses must run daily operations and that requires them to bite the bullet and pay the "Microsoft tax". A municipality should think a bit about if some operational problems have a price tag of 90 million euros annually.
  - greyman 10y ago
    Yes, you are right, and it is good that they though about that and tried the alternative. But I still think the issue of LO not able to read MS documents is a real problem. Like for example my sister. Her husband works for Redhat so he enthusiastically installed Linux on her notebook, LO and everything. She worked as a professional writer, and it was a real struggle... some documents she received wasn't readable, then they couldn't read some document she sent them... then spell-checker wasn't as good as in MS Word (non-English language), etc. The cost of this solution was quite high, and she eventually gave up and installed Windows. I am not trying to trash Linux or LO, it would be great to have open-source alternatives to everything, but in certain areas (Office, Adobe products, etc), such alternative doesn't exists and fighting against reality doesn't make it.
mironathetin 10y ago
If Munichs public service personal has issues with Linux and Libre Office, they need a proper training, not a switch of platforms. Without training nobody in this world would be able to properly use Microsofts products as well. And this is true for every new version, as the comments correctly mention.
- slowmotiony 10y ago
  How will training help them if their business applications are not available for Linux?
  - mironathetin 10y ago
    Well, I do expect the availability of applications has been checked before moving to Linux. If not, ... bad management (not impossible that the move was planned badly though). But if you know exactly what you need, you can also develop software or extend functionality of available software. That's one of the advantages of the Unix processing philosophy and open source software.
arca_vorago 10y ago
The thing about moves like this is they are looked in far too short-term of a mindset. The technologies needed to do $things are an investment over time, one that I have seen repeatedly backfire in choosing proprietary software the longer that time goes on. It's not just about the budget for the next year or five, it's about freeing yourself from the technical limitations, the legal limitations, and by what I call death by a thousand cuts licensing fees. Sure, the initial pain of a relatively rough transition such as this is going to be higher than expected when this isn't taken into consideration, because you are going to have to find or pay to dev all those tiny little proprietary programs that have attached themselves like a virus to your budget and replacement them. If anything, I would say the pains of Munich make an even stronger case for breaking through the spell of proprietary programs. I do have to say though, I think Ubuntu was a bad choice for the distro. That being said, as I said in the other related thread, and as seems to be verified by the poster who worked there, I highly suspect half of the problem is a lack of budget and an overworked/understaffed IT team. You know, I just thought of something, if "The user controls the program, or the program controls the user." Could you say then, that "The government controls the software, or the software controls the government."?
- mjw1007 10y ago
  I get the impression that this has become a party-political issue, and the change of heart is because the other party is now in charge, rather than the original decision-makers finding that that the switch turned out worse than they expected.
fpp 10y ago
I believe focusing on potential technical problems is the wrong approach. What you have to look at is lock-in or no lock-in. Any responsible IT Manager should avoid lock-ins / silos as far as possible. This then allows to standardise and use multiple suppliers and much lower TCO. Without having looked into details (but with some knowledge of the Munich IT environment), I'm sure that most of these technical issues stem from the previous lock-in situation with MS. There are other solutions without migrating the desktops back to MS / upgrading to MS Win 10 - you could for example virtualise the apps with issues (Standard approach & working very well in large environments). But then Munich could not be locked back into the MS Stacks so easily. And MS and Oracle are very good with locking their customers in and collecting vast amounts for that. BTW - I've seen large government environments in the UK with completely virtualised application delivery / desktops to enable staff to work from home, BYOD, hot-desking etc while at the same time securing the organisation's data e.a At that point which desktop OS you are using has only limited importance.
awinter-py 10y ago
Missing from this letter is a clear statement about what makes their product better. This is the only libreoffice marketing any of us will read this year (and this forum has a lot of LO users, I suspect -- me included). Talk up your product!
nisa 10y ago
As much as I'd like to see more support and success stories for Linux/LibreOffice in public administration, as I think it's the right thing to do, putting statements like this into the document makes me question their motivations: > In addition, according to estimates provided by Green Party councillors, another 15 million euros should be spent to replace or upgrade PCs which are perfect for a small footprint operating system such as Linux, but cannot support even a Windows 10 basic configuration. If they compare that really with KDE4 on Ubuntu 12.04 I'm not sure how they come to that conclusion. Windows 7 or 10 is just about as fast or for some tasks even faster than a Linux Desktop with a full blown DE. In my experience feels Windows even faster on older machines due to less lag (I might be bullshitting myself here). And without enough RAM Linux is a pain to use - as is Windows. Lately I'm asking myself if that Linux advocacy myths that are pretty widespread hurting more than they help. Yes Linux is fine, it's usable, it's fun. But in my experience using Windows/Linux with DE (Gnome, KDE) on low end hardware (P4, Core) Windows has an edge and feels faster. Or they are running a minimal i3 setup but I doubt that.
oever 10y ago
I've dealt with the ICT department of Munich many times and was always impressed with their expertise and can-do attitude. This feeling of power and independence is more valuable than any of the monetary calculations. Free software is about empowerment. The functionality required of office suites in government is usually simple. A simple office suite with dedicated people can create a happy working environment. I'm a daily witness of the drudgerous mindset that is the result of working with a locked down computer. It saps the will to live and makes people irritable and hostile towards the citizens they are meant to serve. Choosing freedom is the best option.
advisedwang 10y ago
This statement seems very defensive to me. I would have liked to see some kind of discussion in trying to learn from Munich's experience to make LibreOffice better. It's Open Source... you don't need spend time convincing people your product is better, as you don't get revenue from users. What OS projects need is community and participants, which you gain by being open to criticism and game for new efforts to improve.

136 points by mksaunders 10y ago

18 to 28% is not a minor percentage of users. I'm a fan of LibreOffice, and was an extremely early adopter and contributor to the project, being one of the people that pushed for and created the community council at the time. Brushing these kind of numbers away isn't going to help, and they will be hit hard on that point by the opposition. The better approach will be to adress the mismatch head on, with an actionable plan on how to solve these issues. I worked hard, in a professional capacity, for the adoption of LO and Desktop Linux in various government departments around the EU, and the agression of commercial players against this kind of push is phenomenal. Eventually I moved on professionally but the scars are still with me. One powerful message this whole thing left me with is that you cannot do this kind of thing, and hope to have a career in professional services. I was forced to drop out of public participation with OSS projects, and never really went back.

wiz21c 10y ago
>> the agression of commercial players against this kind of push is phenomenal Theses are extremely strong statements. Could you elaborate (if it doesn't put your career in danger, of course) ?
- mdekkers 10y ago
  I'm no longer playing that game, so sure. I was contributing for some time to OpenOffice, and at one point starting working for a systems integrator, specialising in Linux and Open Source solutions. At this time, OSS was just coming out of academia, and enterprise had no interest in all this hippy bullshit. They needed a techie in a suit to come and tell them the how, why, and how much OSS would help and cost. As soon as a client would mention anything related to Linux or OSS to the salesdrone, I would be dragged into the discussion. This was a pretty cool job: lots of very large clients and projects which suited my background (designing and implementing very large scale infrastructure) and interests (Linux, Open Source). I was an active and vocal contributor within the OpenOffice project, recognising it as one of the key enablers for a possible Linux Desktop. Sun sent me increasingly strongly worded requests to "tone things down" - I was pushing hard for the idea of a community council, and Sun didn't like the idea of giving up control. One of the results of this was that I set up OOoForums.org, since we didn't really have a space to freely interact with end-users on the "official" site. One not-so-fine-day I'm called into HR. VP's present. Heavy meeting. No warning. My employer had a strong and profitable relationship/partnership with Sun, we were selling big Sun iron into enterprise to the tune of millions per year, and Sun complained about my behaviour to my employer. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I wanted to stay happy at my job, I would do as I was told by Sun via backchannels. If not, I'd lose my job. Having a family to take care of, I dropped out of the whole scene the same day. (this is now about 12 or 13 years ago) I left this company not long after, and did a project to deploy Linux Desktops with OpenOffice not long after. A Government dept, about 100 seats if I remember correctly. New building, new pc's for everyone, and we sold it as "A new version of windows". We spent a long time making KDE look like windows, and made sure everything worked. It was awesome, it cost a fraction, and the users loved it. I was hired by a sympathetic client who specifically wanted this. There were upper management changes during the project, and the new head let me know that my services were no longer required, since he was flown to Seattle by MS (from Europe) and they "explained" to him that MS was the way to go. I pointed to my (extremely solid) contract, and let him know he could do what he wanted after delivery. I was subjected to significant pressures for the duration of the project, and it really wasn't a lot of fun. A week after operational delivery, IBM and MS waltzed in, blitzed everything, and that was that. Frustrating business....
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    My employer had a strong and profitable relationship/partnership with Sun, we were selling big Sun iron into enterprise to the tune of millions per year, Wonder if your ex boss ever thinks about this now? I suspect there is less demand for Sun or Oracle big irons now.
    - mdekkers 10y ago
      They are a very large EU-wide integrator, and have partnerships with pretty much all the boxbuilders. The whole saga with Sun hardware was likely just another profit opportunity.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - wiz21c 10y ago
    Thank you for posting such a long explanation. It's very valuable to both realize the power of open source (by indirect means of the fear it created) and how hard it is to sell it when it has to fight against an up hill opponent... I am not surprised by these facts but I'm quite surprised by the power of the forces at play. Thanks again !
    - mdekkers 10y ago
      My pleasure :) The power of OSS is amazing, as is the power of those who believe they stand to lose.
vanderZwan 10y ago
Although they word it poorly, I think the point is that those numbers should be compared to similar software issues experienced on Windows platforms, in which case the benefit of switching back is a lot slimmer. As noted a bit later: > Incidentally, 15% of users acknowledged severe issues related to MS Office.
- sddfd 10y ago
  I assume these 15% complained about interoperatability with 3rd parties that use the MS Office DOC format.
  - vanderZwan 10y ago
    You have a point in that it's very easy to interpret these statistics in totally contradictory ways, but without further details we are just speculating.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    The Microsoft fanboy in my office seems to hate Word. I just dislike it strongly and prefer to use LibreOffice for cleaning up styling done by others is top of my mind.
tiatia 10y ago
" I'm a fan of LibreOffice" I am not. But you can run MS Office with Wine, if need be. I do this on occasion since it is the only reliable way to make sure the document will look the same at your client. For all other stuff, I use Softmaker for Linux. http://www.softmaker.com/en/softmaker-office-linux http://www.softmaker.com/en/softmaker-office-linux
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

thepiwo 10y ago

I'm disappointed in Munichs' decision-makers in this case. Introducing linux was a great step towards a more open, secure and cost-effective platform to organize the city. The reasoning behind switching back to Microsoft is vague to me, the main factors seem general it-problems not related to linux, users wanting to open their .exe and windows programms (wouldn't be allowed with a Microsoft system as well due to security issues) and the fact Microsoft built a new shiny office.

cnkk 10y ago
I think it is because that Microsoft just opened an office in Munich...
- matt4077 10y ago
  I think it may have something to do with whatever makes almost no one choose Linux for desktops.
  - hd4 10y ago
    That 'almost no one' is growing steadily. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/16/07/02/184229/linux-grabs-more-than-2-of-desktop-market-share https://linux.slashdot.org/story/16/07/02/184229/linux-grabs...
    - misnome 10y ago
      Yes, perhaps one day the 'steady growth' will hit 3%. Perhaps then we can declare the "Year of the Linux desktop".
sveme 10y ago
Here's mschuster91, who worked there, take on the issue from a couple of days ago when it first was posted to hackernews: ------------------ > Does anyone have some examples of the practical problems they experience using Linux, which can't easily be solved in any other way than going to Windows? I worked there. The biggest problems back a few years ago: 1) So-called "Fachverfahren", basically software for stuff like managing drivers' licenses or other bureaucratic procedures, is written and supplied for Windows only. Often enough that meant Munich had to pay a boatload of money for a Linux port. Or the software HAD a Linux port, but for RHEL or other "enterprise linux" crap distros - which meant using stuff like "alien" or, worse, manual repackaging to make them compatible with Ubuntu. Yay for version hell - statically linked programs were an exception. 2) DRIVERS. There's a lot of custom hardware - special printers for printing on documents like ID cards, fingerprint readers for the new national ID cards, RFID readers with support for said ID cards... you won't believe how much stuff there is. And all of this needs to have Linux drivers and tooling. 3) Employee training. Back in my days KDE was used (and I believe it still is), but it's different enough from Windows that people need training. And there's 35k of employees, most of which don't have any IT experience outside from their Windows computer at home. 4) The computers themselves. Let's just say that the computers in any public agency are almost always horribly outdated. Many users complain(ed) about the speed of LiMux, which mostly was caused by old or underpowered (esp. RAM, given that OpenOffice and Firefox are really really memory hungry) systems. 5) Networking. Depends on the building and agency, of course, but e.g. my school was connected via a 16 mbit uplink, over which the entire Internet traffic went... I believe the biggest problem LiMux had and still has is a lack of proper funding - especially for hardware. -------------------- tl;dr: it's more than what you suggested and some very valid reasons. I know some people involved in that decision and let's say it like that: LiMux does not come for free as well. There are plenty of issues that require external consultants for 1500 Euros per day/person which is apparently always an unexpected and unbudgeted expense.

cies 10y ago

I think the article misses a great point. That by using open source they can spend on IT locally! Look at the Extremadura (region in Spain) case for as a reference; they went with open source to stop all spending on IT outside of their own borders and thereby significantly boosted local business. To me this is a clear case of how lobbying can destroy the value governments provide to their citizens.

l0b0 10y ago
They did mention that point: > Last, but not least, most expenditures related to the purchase of Microsoft licenses will contribute to the GDP of Ireland (where all Microsoft products sold in Europe are sourced from) rather than to local enterprises who support the open source solutions deployed today.
- signal11 10y ago
  IANAL, but isn't encouraging the City of Munich to source from "local" enterprises vs Ireland a violation of EU free-trade laws? By the same token Ireland could then discourage/block "imports" from Munich and we'd be back to the internecine trade conflicts the EU was supposed to stop.
  - omouse 10y ago
    Free market doesn't mean you have to go with the cheapest solution. It means you have choice. Preferring local firms is ok because they're competing in a free market; they aren't being given contracts because they're local, it's just local firms will be opening up to supply the demand.
    - mironathetin 10y ago
      For a local government a preference of local business is not only ok. It should be the first choice, the second choice and also the third one. In this case, as there is totally different tax flow involved as the article nicely explains, local business is the only responsible choice for an elected government, IMHO.

l0b0 10y ago

> you cannot do this kind of thing, and hope to have a career in professional services. Classic scaremongering. Without some sort of proof the easiest thing to conclude from this is that you are a shill. On the other hand, yes, TDF had better take those numbers seriously. But I hope some big customers like Munich realise that they need to invest at least a fraction of their savings into hiring talent to deal with their own most pressing issues with the software.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crummy 10y ago
You think he's on the payroll of Big Linux?
mdekkers 10y ago
Classic scaremongering. Without some sort of proof the easiest thing to conclude from this is that you are a shill. See above. Also, Google.
dang 10y ago
Insinuating that another user is shilling is not allowed here unless you have evidence, and differing taste in open-source software does not count as evidence. Please don't do this again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642877 and marked it off-topic.

yorwba 10y ago

I had a look at the linked report https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277724.pdf https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277... Apparently, the actual recommendation was to first replace the 4.163 Windows clients in use (77 % Windows 7, 9 % Windows XP/Vista, 14 % Windows 2000 [!!!]) with a single improved configuration, likewise for the different versions of their LiMux distribution. Afterwards, each department should choose between the Windows and Linux clients based on a cost-benefit calculation. Only in case the Windows client ends up dominating, a reevaluation of the economic viability of the duplicated infrastructure is recommended. Additionally, the only mentioned software problems from their user survey were caused by varying browser versions (presumably Firefox), their mail program (presumably Thunderbird) not being available on mobile and frequently crashing, the same complaints about their calendar software (no idea what they are using) in addition to lacking copy-paste functionality. Unless LibreOffice has a calendar component, I don't think anyone complained about it? At least it isn't in the report.

scholia 10y ago
That seems a rather narrow way for Munich to operate. The world has changed since they made their decision a decade or so ago. Microsoft now offers on-premise and cloud versions of all its main programs, with companion apps that also run on Android and iOS smartphones and tablets. Windows 10 machines now include cloud integration, apps and touch screens, with hardware form factors ranging from small tablets through 2-in-1s and laptops to the Surface Studio. If they are still comparing one 20th century desktop OS with another 20th century desktop OS, they are missing the point.

greyman 10y ago

I work with Linux professionally and generally like it as a server solution, and also as a developer, but if I would be a city mayor, I would not switch to it from Windows in the first place, unless at least the country government would do such a step first. > In fact, although the proposal associates MS Office document formats with the “industry standard” concept, it should be clear that all MS Office documents are proprietary and obfuscated, and therefore inappropriate for interoperability. Sorry, but this is utter BS. MS Office is a de facto standard, and LO is not compatible with it - it can't correctly open more complex MS Office documents. I should know, since I periodically evaluate it. So the reality is, that MS Office ensures much greater interoperability as LO. Or maybe I am just missing something and we are talking only about server solutions? For example - mayor secretary receives a document from some government agency, in docx format, and LO can't correctly open it. Now what is the fallback solution?

Beltiras 10y ago
You are dumping problems related to MS (well known) monopolistic behaviour. Office format has been notoriously hard to replicate (on purpose). That is not a failing in Open Source, it is a failing of Microsoft. I realize that businesses must run daily operations and that requires them to bite the bullet and pay the "Microsoft tax". A municipality should think a bit about if some operational problems have a price tag of 90 million euros annually.
- greyman 10y ago
  Yes, you are right, and it is good that they though about that and tried the alternative. But I still think the issue of LO not able to read MS documents is a real problem. Like for example my sister. Her husband works for Redhat so he enthusiastically installed Linux on her notebook, LO and everything. She worked as a professional writer, and it was a real struggle... some documents she received wasn't readable, then they couldn't read some document she sent them... then spell-checker wasn't as good as in MS Word (non-English language), etc. The cost of this solution was quite high, and she eventually gave up and installed Windows. I am not trying to trash Linux or LO, it would be great to have open-source alternatives to everything, but in certain areas (Office, Adobe products, etc), such alternative doesn't exists and fighting against reality doesn't make it.

mironathetin 10y ago

If Munichs public service personal has issues with Linux and Libre Office, they need a proper training, not a switch of platforms. Without training nobody in this world would be able to properly use Microsofts products as well. And this is true for every new version, as the comments correctly mention.

slowmotiony 10y ago
How will training help them if their business applications are not available for Linux?
- mironathetin 10y ago
  Well, I do expect the availability of applications has been checked before moving to Linux. If not, ... bad management (not impossible that the move was planned badly though). But if you know exactly what you need, you can also develop software or extend functionality of available software. That's one of the advantages of the Unix processing philosophy and open source software.

arca_vorago 10y ago

The thing about moves like this is they are looked in far too short-term of a mindset. The technologies needed to do $things are an investment over time, one that I have seen repeatedly backfire in choosing proprietary software the longer that time goes on. It's not just about the budget for the next year or five, it's about freeing yourself from the technical limitations, the legal limitations, and by what I call death by a thousand cuts licensing fees. Sure, the initial pain of a relatively rough transition such as this is going to be higher than expected when this isn't taken into consideration, because you are going to have to find or pay to dev all those tiny little proprietary programs that have attached themselves like a virus to your budget and replacement them. If anything, I would say the pains of Munich make an even stronger case for breaking through the spell of proprietary programs. I do have to say though, I think Ubuntu was a bad choice for the distro. That being said, as I said in the other related thread, and as seems to be verified by the poster who worked there, I highly suspect half of the problem is a lack of budget and an overworked/understaffed IT team. You know, I just thought of something, if "The user controls the program, or the program controls the user." Could you say then, that "The government controls the software, or the software controls the government."?

mjw1007 10y ago
I get the impression that this has become a party-political issue, and the change of heart is because the other party is now in charge, rather than the original decision-makers finding that that the switch turned out worse than they expected.

fpp 10y ago

I believe focusing on potential technical problems is the wrong approach. What you have to look at is lock-in or no lock-in. Any responsible IT Manager should avoid lock-ins / silos as far as possible. This then allows to standardise and use multiple suppliers and much lower TCO. Without having looked into details (but with some knowledge of the Munich IT environment), I'm sure that most of these technical issues stem from the previous lock-in situation with MS. There are other solutions without migrating the desktops back to MS / upgrading to MS Win 10 - you could for example virtualise the apps with issues (Standard approach & working very well in large environments). But then Munich could not be locked back into the MS Stacks so easily. And MS and Oracle are very good with locking their customers in and collecting vast amounts for that. BTW - I've seen large government environments in the UK with completely virtualised application delivery / desktops to enable staff to work from home, BYOD, hot-desking etc while at the same time securing the organisation's data e.a At that point which desktop OS you are using has only limited importance.

awinter-py 10y ago

Missing from this letter is a clear statement about what makes their product better. This is the only libreoffice marketing any of us will read this year (and this forum has a lot of LO users, I suspect -- me included). Talk up your product!

nisa 10y ago

As much as I'd like to see more support and success stories for Linux/LibreOffice in public administration, as I think it's the right thing to do, putting statements like this into the document makes me question their motivations: > In addition, according to estimates provided by Green Party councillors, another 15 million euros should be spent to replace or upgrade PCs which are perfect for a small footprint operating system such as Linux, but cannot support even a Windows 10 basic configuration. If they compare that really with KDE4 on Ubuntu 12.04 I'm not sure how they come to that conclusion. Windows 7 or 10 is just about as fast or for some tasks even faster than a Linux Desktop with a full blown DE. In my experience feels Windows even faster on older machines due to less lag (I might be bullshitting myself here). And without enough RAM Linux is a pain to use - as is Windows. Lately I'm asking myself if that Linux advocacy myths that are pretty widespread hurting more than they help. Yes Linux is fine, it's usable, it's fun. But in my experience using Windows/Linux with DE (Gnome, KDE) on low end hardware (P4, Core) Windows has an edge and feels faster. Or they are running a minimal i3 setup but I doubt that.

oever 10y ago

I've dealt with the ICT department of Munich many times and was always impressed with their expertise and can-do attitude. This feeling of power and independence is more valuable than any of the monetary calculations. Free software is about empowerment. The functionality required of office suites in government is usually simple. A simple office suite with dedicated people can create a happy working environment. I'm a daily witness of the drudgerous mindset that is the result of working with a locked down computer. It saps the will to live and makes people irritable and hostile towards the citizens they are meant to serve. Choosing freedom is the best option.

advisedwang 10y ago

This statement seems very defensive to me. I would have liked to see some kind of discussion in trying to learn from Munich's experience to make LibreOffice better. It's Open Source... you don't need spend time convincing people your product is better, as you don't get revenue from users. What OS projects need is community and participants, which you gain by being open to criticism and game for new efforts to improve.