Full steam ahead for Linux in Munich

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/80071

"I am not a computer geek, but I must admit that it was easy to switch to
the new software,"

"German daily Frankfurter Rundschau reports that a close colleague of the
Lord Mayor claimed that she has "not heard him complaining about his
computer" since the beginning of the pilot phase, which has been completed
in the meantime."


Ma Hogany

 

Reality strikes another blow against preconceptions and FUD.

 

My god, a "close colleague" of someone says they "hadn't heard him
complain"?!?!?

Is that the best you can do?

Man, you could make a great bumper sticker with that...

 

MaHogany wrote, On 29/10/06 8.37 p:

"Wilhelm Hoegner, the city's IT director, now expects to stay within the
migration budget of 35 million euros. The largest share of that budget
-- 38 percent -- is set aside for training courses"

That's quite a bit.

-Phil

 

Compared to what?

there are 10,000 desktops in that roll-out.

 

3,500 Euros per desktop?!? That's over $NZ6,500 PER desktop!! Just for
training.

And here, folks, we have the answer to why companies are happy to pay
a couple of hundred bucks for Windows.

It's called "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO), and is exactly why it's a
hell of a lot more expensive to use "free" software than Windows.

 

Classic.

Perhaps you should go on a course.

35,000,000 / 10,000 = 3,500 * 0.38 = 1,300 * 1.923 = $NZ2,500

Which is about the price of a basic Windows and Office course combo, let alone
anything specific to systems operated by the client.

As with any other rollout the infrastructure costs remain the same: machines,
networking, training, customisation.

Now the difference: lets add say $NZ500 per seat for Windows and Office and an
absolute minimum of another $NZ500 a seat for application specific software. In
most cases the second will remain the same irrespective of the OS.

TCO however is not limited to capital expenditure, ongoing costs are also very
significant. If your management is competent you will have a technical team who
can resolve problems. With proprietary software there will be additional costs
to get the information required for them to do their job. Large additional
costs. Not only that but your licenses will need constant renewal and upgrading.

Then there's the issue of cleaning the viruses, spyware, backdoors and the rest
from your Windows boxes over and over again which is what takes over half the
man hours in Windows support.

Who was it that told you it was cheaper to run Windows ? Oh yeah, Microsoft.

 

Actually, there are 14,000. desktops in that single rollout.


Ma Hogany

 

No - that's 35m euros - the entire budget for a 5 year project, of which
38% was allocated to training programmes, which they are now thinking can
be nothing anywhere near as intense as they were initially thinking.

That budget includes wages for staff, and all other costs associated for
the programme.

Ma Hogany

 

What did you expect from the replacement woger?

$NZ6500 per desktop for 3 years.....$NZ2150 per year....(based on 10,000
desktops, Ive seen 14,000 mentioned) I seem to recall large outsourcers
charging similar if not more than that per year per MS desktop....not
including training.......then add in this is a migration budget and not
BAU....upgrading from 2000 to XP....ouch....without MS's pre-paid
extortion tax (what was it Genuine Assurance something or other? and
what exactly did companies who bought it get? apart from an empty
wallet) new full OS and office licences are going to cost a shed
load....plus training staff, plus upgrading all the backends....sms,
rollout systems.......

There is a saying, never argue with a fool......people may not know the
difference.....

regards

Thing

 

Ignoring for now that your figures are incorrect, it seems to me that
businesses are not investing in training Windows users, assuming that
this somehow magically just "happens" while they are using the computer
on the job. Hence the TCO for Windows appears lower.

Judging by the appalling lack of knowledge of most PC users, this isn't so.

The extra spending on training for the Linux migration is probably what
should be spent on *all* PC users as a matter of course.

 

Which is why I don't argue with you, shit-for-brains.

 

It's expensive running the special trains to the "training camps" !!

 

Missed the 38%. Still a heap for training, however.

It's the same for a several-day Windows/Office course. Of which few
would require, due to the fact that most people know how to use MS
Windows/Office...

$500 a seat really is nothing considering the benefits of Windows and
Office. Really, it's not. And it's nothing compared to the additional
costs (such as *training*) of attempting to install a non-standard
non-status quo setup.

What's this "information required to do the job" bizzo?? Seems a bit
vague. And do you not need "information to do the job" to run a Linux
desktop?

Since when? An renewal every 3 years or so? That's not exactly
constant.

Windows boxes should be locked down in an enterprise environment. The
only reason home users get so many viruses and so much spyware is that
they run as the equivalent of "root". In a properly setup enterprise
environment, users are run non-privileged accounts and are protected
from the majority of viruses and spyware.

Actually, personal experience with both. Lots of it.

 

Nice reasoned rebuttal.

As expected.

 

You make it up as you go along....I hope that you, at least, are having fun.

 

Good point, though those who can't tell the difference will be ignorant of
the truth and vulnerable to misinformation.

 

And the other one, Never argue with a fool, for there will then be two
fools.

 

It's all you're worth, mate.

You don't deal in facts. You deal in beliefs.

I waste as little time as possible on you and your denia-verse.

 

You're a tool, Withers.

The fact is, you can't deny that it costs more to teach people to use
Linux than to use the operating system and office package they've been
using their entire lives.

And really, you can't honestly state that the buggy, bloated
"OpenOffice" is anywhere near as good as MS's offering, can you?