4 ms·

Microsoft study: Linux migration cost Munich €60.7 million

10 points by kadishmal 14y ago

bmking 14y ago
Well, the City of Munich has briefly answered to this study which microsoft has not made public and hence is difficult for the city to make concrete statements about: (GERMAN) http://www.muenchen.info/pia/RSS/015.pdf http://www.muenchen.info/pia/RSS/015.pdf [page 8] Summary: They comment that the study did not incorporate costs for licensing the microsoft products, which would have cost additional 7 million Euros. The city comment that it would not have been possible to keep the Microsoft products without upgrading to newer versions as stated otherwise in the study, because microsoft at the time of decision announced to discontinue the product-line of Windows-NT. They also deny the statement that the LiMux-client is 10 years old and hence outdated. The LiMux-Client has undergone many improvements and upgrades over the past years and can today stand a direct comparison with Windows 7. Also they say that not only 75%, but 87% (13000 out of 15000) of the workstations are running the Linux-Client as of today. The statement of the study that all of the specialized processes cannot be migrated to Linux is also wrong, but it is true that not all of those processes can be migrated.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  I think something got lost in translation in your last sentence there, as it doesn't seem to make sense.
  - pasbesoin 14y ago
    The way I read the last sentence: "all... cannot" --> none can "not all... can" --> some [perhaps many or most? -- note again the 87% conversion figure] can
    - bmking 14y ago
      Yes, that is how it is meant. Thank you for the clarification, I am not a native English speaker.
ScottWhigham 14y ago
This is the kind of study where I just have to say, "Whatever." No one believes MSFT to be unbiased here and, as for the Munich's IT group's claims/counters/reports, no one believes theirs will be unbiased either. It's basically a "He said, she said" argument [1]. They can have reams of back and forth interviews, quotes, and reports but, in the end, it won't make me believe either side. Each side has too much at stake to be unbiased. But, internally and to their clients/staff, both sides can point at their own reports/stats and proudly parade them whilst ignoring the existence of the other side's refutation/claims. It's win/win - Munich "wins" by showing their report to their staff and bosses ("Look how much we saved!") and MSFT "wins" by showing their report to potential clients considering the same thing. Whatever. [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=he%20said%20she%20said http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=he%20said%20s...: "An argument between a guy and a gal where the points made on either side can't be proven convincingly enough by either party to someone who has no clue what they're arguing about. Further exacerbated because you have no idea if either person is exaggerating or telling the truth and so nothing can be resolved."
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  "the points made on either side can't be proven convincingly enough by either party to someone who has no clue what they're arguing about." What about someone who does understand large IT infrastructure rollouts? At least one side of this is wrong, and my money is firmly on Microsoft as being the one more likely to simply make things up to suit their agenda.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > What about someone who does understand large IT infrastructure rollouts? Especially if those people are working with auditors who know the tricks for burying data. Since this is Europe it should be possible to get quite a lot of the data from Munich.
  - ScottWhigham 14y ago
    my money is firmly on Microsoft as being the one more likely to simply make things up... Yes, but you've just given away the perfect counter argument to anyone who wants to make whatever you say seem like a lie/falsehood: you are clearly biased against MSFT thus whatever you say can be dismissed as "anti-MSFT". If someone can make that allegation against you - not your arguments or facts or information from the reports, mind you, but you personally - then they've won and you've lost. They've called into question your credibility. At the end of the day, a person or a small group of people have to make a decision on the believability of said studies and decide for themselves/their organization, "Should we go the way of Munich or is it safer to go w/ MSFT?" The Art of CYA is all about going the safe route - a.k.a. "No one ever got fired by choosing MSFT over open source in the enterprise."
rmk2 14y ago
This study is a non-issue until Microsoft actually publishes it. Until then, this boils down to "Microsoft says it has found proof, proof, that its products are cheaper than linux, this proof is very well substantiated, so well in fact, that we won't publish the study. But really, do believe us. We even paid someone else to do the study for us. It's solid! It shows it all! You don't have to believe us, because it is proven. At least to those who get to see it. Which means Microsoft. But really!" > Langkabel declined to break down the costs into individual positions. "Of course it includes licence fees," Langkabel corrected a report to the contrary released by Focus Money Online on Monday, adding that the study also considers costs incurred through "tuition, training, migration, templates, roll-out and deployment and the integration of subject-related procedures". "The study is reliable", said Langkabel. If it is reliable, publish it so we can assess those claims. Until then, this can be understood as spreading FUD.
helloamar 14y ago
They should have given the break downs of the cost to make people believe in it. I don't think switching to Linux will cost so much.

10 points by kadishmal 14y ago

Well, the City of Munich has briefly answered to this study which microsoft has not made public and hence is difficult for the city to make concrete statements about: (GERMAN) http://www.muenchen.info/pia/RSS/015.pdf http://www.muenchen.info/pia/RSS/015.pdf [page 8] Summary: They comment that the study did not incorporate costs for licensing the microsoft products, which would have cost additional 7 million Euros. The city comment that it would not have been possible to keep the Microsoft products without upgrading to newer versions as stated otherwise in the study, because microsoft at the time of decision announced to discontinue the product-line of Windows-NT. They also deny the statement that the LiMux-client is 10 years old and hence outdated. The LiMux-Client has undergone many improvements and upgrades over the past years and can today stand a direct comparison with Windows 7. Also they say that not only 75%, but 87% (13000 out of 15000) of the workstations are running the Linux-Client as of today. The statement of the study that all of the specialized processes cannot be migrated to Linux is also wrong, but it is true that not all of those processes can be migrated.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
I think something got lost in translation in your last sentence there, as it doesn't seem to make sense.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  The way I read the last sentence: "all... cannot" --> none can "not all... can" --> some [perhaps many or most? -- note again the 87% conversion figure] can
  - bmking 14y ago
    Yes, that is how it is meant. Thank you for the clarification, I am not a native English speaker.

ScottWhigham 14y ago

This is the kind of study where I just have to say, "Whatever." No one believes MSFT to be unbiased here and, as for the Munich's IT group's claims/counters/reports, no one believes theirs will be unbiased either. It's basically a "He said, she said" argument [1]. They can have reams of back and forth interviews, quotes, and reports but, in the end, it won't make me believe either side. Each side has too much at stake to be unbiased. But, internally and to their clients/staff, both sides can point at their own reports/stats and proudly parade them whilst ignoring the existence of the other side's refutation/claims. It's win/win - Munich "wins" by showing their report to their staff and bosses ("Look how much we saved!") and MSFT "wins" by showing their report to potential clients considering the same thing. Whatever. [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=he%20said%20she%20said http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=he%20said%20s...: "An argument between a guy and a gal where the points made on either side can't be proven convincingly enough by either party to someone who has no clue what they're arguing about. Further exacerbated because you have no idea if either person is exaggerating or telling the truth and so nothing can be resolved."

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
"the points made on either side can't be proven convincingly enough by either party to someone who has no clue what they're arguing about." What about someone who does understand large IT infrastructure rollouts? At least one side of this is wrong, and my money is firmly on Microsoft as being the one more likely to simply make things up to suit their agenda.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > What about someone who does understand large IT infrastructure rollouts? Especially if those people are working with auditors who know the tricks for burying data. Since this is Europe it should be possible to get quite a lot of the data from Munich.
- ScottWhigham 14y ago
  my money is firmly on Microsoft as being the one more likely to simply make things up... Yes, but you've just given away the perfect counter argument to anyone who wants to make whatever you say seem like a lie/falsehood: you are clearly biased against MSFT thus whatever you say can be dismissed as "anti-MSFT". If someone can make that allegation against you - not your arguments or facts or information from the reports, mind you, but you personally - then they've won and you've lost. They've called into question your credibility. At the end of the day, a person or a small group of people have to make a decision on the believability of said studies and decide for themselves/their organization, "Should we go the way of Munich or is it safer to go w/ MSFT?" The Art of CYA is all about going the safe route - a.k.a. "No one ever got fired by choosing MSFT over open source in the enterprise."

rmk2 14y ago

This study is a non-issue until Microsoft actually publishes it. Until then, this boils down to "Microsoft says it has found proof, proof, that its products are cheaper than linux, this proof is very well substantiated, so well in fact, that we won't publish the study. But really, do believe us. We even paid someone else to do the study for us. It's solid! It shows it all! You don't have to believe us, because it is proven. At least to those who get to see it. Which means Microsoft. But really!" > Langkabel declined to break down the costs into individual positions. "Of course it includes licence fees," Langkabel corrected a report to the contrary released by Focus Money Online on Monday, adding that the study also considers costs incurred through "tuition, training, migration, templates, roll-out and deployment and the integration of subject-related procedures". "The study is reliable", said Langkabel. If it is reliable, publish it so we can assess those claims. Until then, this can be understood as spreading FUD.

helloamar 14y ago

They should have given the break downs of the cost to make people believe in it. I don't think switching to Linux will cost so much.