4 ms·

Munich did it this way: 100% Linux, no compromises - they didn't even had an central Active Directory so if you required Windows due to software in your part of

by nisa 7y ago

Munich did it this way: 100% Linux, no compromises - they didn't even had an central Active Directory so if you required Windows due to software in your part of city government you were on your own - no central updates! They also forced everyone on an ancient OpenOffice 3.x version with KDE 4.x and KMail? That Munich migrated back has less todo with Linux or Windows or Microsoft politics (maybe..) but more with badly run infrastructure and in-fighting and big egos there. Sadly. That there is such a huge group of Linux proponents that cry foul and suspect some conspiracy is not really helping...

macspoofing 7y ago
That's the missing piece with these large scale deployments: is there an infrastructure to provide support, training and maintenance of the deployment. It's one thing to push for moving from Windows to Linux, it's another to actually figure out the thousands of details that go along with it. What Munich did was essentially created a homegrown solution which suffers from all the problems of homegrown solutions. Yes, you get to tailor it to your business, but then you have to maintain it for decades. Inevitably industry passes you by, and you end up paying for a sub-standard proprietary (ironically) solution that has no widespread support and you're own your own for everything - from new features, to security updates, to training, to compatibility and interoperability. It's always great at the beginning, and it's always miserable 10 years later when the excitement goes away and the original champions have moved on.
gridlockd 7y ago
> badly run infrastructure and in-fighting and big egos In other words, the same situation that exists everywhere.
yorwba 7y ago
> 100% Linux, no compromises Not exactly. When the decision to go back to Windows was announced, they were even still running Windows 2000 on some machines. [1] The initial reason for overhauling their infrastructure was certainly due to the proliferation of outdated software, but the consultancy they hired to evaluate the situation made the more conservative recommendation to update everything to the latest version and let each department choose which operating system to use. (Since they were de facto already doing that, just without a reasonable process.) That this turned into "100 % Windows, no compromises" was probably due to Microsoft politics, i.e. someone convinced the mayor that Linux was the cause of their infrastructure issues rather than bad infrastructure management. I bet they still have the same problems, except now they also have a few machines running outdated versions of their homegrown LiMux distribution. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643182

by nisa 7y ago

macspoofing 7y ago

That's the missing piece with these large scale deployments: is there an infrastructure to provide support, training and maintenance of the deployment. It's one thing to push for moving from Windows to Linux, it's another to actually figure out the thousands of details that go along with it. What Munich did was essentially created a homegrown solution which suffers from all the problems of homegrown solutions. Yes, you get to tailor it to your business, but then you have to maintain it for decades. Inevitably industry passes you by, and you end up paying for a sub-standard proprietary (ironically) solution that has no widespread support and you're own your own for everything - from new features, to security updates, to training, to compatibility and interoperability. It's always great at the beginning, and it's always miserable 10 years later when the excitement goes away and the original champions have moved on.

gridlockd 7y ago

> badly run infrastructure and in-fighting and big egos In other words, the same situation that exists everywhere.

yorwba 7y ago

> 100% Linux, no compromises Not exactly. When the decision to go back to Windows was announced, they were even still running Windows 2000 on some machines. [1] The initial reason for overhauling their infrastructure was certainly due to the proliferation of outdated software, but the consultancy they hired to evaluate the situation made the more conservative recommendation to update everything to the latest version and let each department choose which operating system to use. (Since they were de facto already doing that, just without a reasonable process.) That this turned into "100 % Windows, no compromises" was probably due to Microsoft politics, i.e. someone convinced the mayor that Linux was the cause of their infrastructure issues rather than bad infrastructure management. I bet they still have the same problems, except now they also have a few machines running outdated versions of their homegrown LiMux distribution. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13643182