4 ms·
I brought this up previously[0] in a discussion where Helsinki didn't go with LibreOffice as they found it would have been $21M Euros more expensive than stayin
by biot 14y ago
I brought this up previously[0] in a discussion where Helsinki didn't go with LibreOffice as they found it would have been $21M Euros more expensive than staying with Microsoft. I'm reproducing my bullet points here as I think the claimed savings in this situation are actually false savings. They supposedly took training into consideration but I think they ignore loss of productivity inherent in the switch as well as compatibility issues. Consider the total costs of all the following:
* How will incompatibilities be handled with their existing documents? Is LibreOffice absolutely 100% feature complete identical to Microsoft Office? If not, what proportion of documents use incompatible features? How much effort is required to determine this incompatibility? How much effort is required to redo these documents to fix the incompatibility? How many employees are required to be on such a conversion team and how long will the conversion take? Can the conversion even be done?
* How is interaction done with external users who send Office documents? What happens when users outside their office send them Office documents which make use of incompatible features? Will this require maintaining an ongoing conversion team? What is the opportunity cost inherent in the delays in getting documents converted?
* How is installation of LibreOffice done? Can it be setup on a centralized WSUS server and automatically deployed to every user as Microsoft Office can, or does it require an army of people manually installing it on thousands of PCs? How are updates for both version upgrades and security patches handled? What is the typical update schedule for LibreOffice (security-related patches, compatibility upgrades, etc.) and will this need to be done manually as well? How many man-hours per year will this take?
* LibreOffice doesn't include an email product. What alternate solution would they use? What is the cost to convert all Outlook email and archives to this new solution? Can the new solution make use of all calendaring and other Exchange-related features that Outlook has? Can the new solution be deployed on WSUS and kept up to date automatically, or does this too require an army of people manually installing and doing updates? Can they maintain the security permissions they currently use, such as restricting the ability for users to forward internal communications outside the office?
* LibreOffice doesn't have a Visio, Project, or OneNote replacements. What are they going to use for these? How do they convert existing documents and interact with external users who send them Office documents? Is it even possible?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235508
- mtgx 14y agoIt doesn't need to have 100% of Microsoft's Office's features. A large portion of them are most likely unused by most Government employees. For e-mail clients and whatnot they can find open source alternatives like Mozilla's Thunderbird. LibreOffice doesn't need to have an e-mail client. And what you're talking about in the beginning may be true if say the alternative is to simply stay with Microsoft right now versus switching to Linux/LibreOffice. Then yes, obviously doing something costs more than doing nothing, although the savings may still be worth it over the long term. However, if the question is whether to upgrade to Windows 7/8 and Office 2010/2013, then it's very likely the Microsoft option costs more. Plus you get the added "benefit" of being locked in over the long term, and spend a lot more money continuing to invest in Microsoft products, which includes training of new employees with Microsoft products anyway.
- eropple 14y agoMost of office is pretty replaceable, but the two bits that aren't are Outlook and OneNote. OneNote is semi-niche so it's not as pressing, but I would strongly disagree with the notion that Thunderbird is a replacement good for Outlook. Seeing what practiced Outlook users can do is really eye-opening; it's a tool a lot of nerds (including me) hate, but it is a really powerful information management tool and I don't think Thunderbird (or anything else, including Evolution). I don't think I've found anything that is, though the full Google Apps suite does a decent enough job for my personal, non-work purposes.
- irahul 14y ago> Seeing what practiced Outlook users can do is really eye-opening; Are those things related to Outlook's close integration with Exchange server or they are simple client features?
- eropple 14y agoThe integration is what sells it, for sure. Between Exchange and Sharepoint, you have a really nice solution for normal/non-techie workflows. I hate it, but I also am pretty comfortable with alternatives and do most of my own stuff in a terminal and browser.