Re: And then
So they need to run, maintain, support and license Windows for 30% of their user base. That's not irrelevant. That shows why Linux is still irrelevant on the desktop.
No, that shows exactly why suffering with vendor lock in is a bad thing - they have left over (3rd party) proprietary software that only works on Windows. In an organisation of this size there will always be some cruddy software usually supporting specific closed hardware that only runs on Windows. Often this is because the supplier has no clue about anything other than Windows development or has no interest in re-developing for other environments for low volume customers as it just doesn't make financial sense for them (the supplier of these proprietary systems) and from experience it usually doesn't seem to make financial sense for the supplier to ever update their software or to make it usable either... The more that open communication standards and similar are used the less this is a problem as there are more alternatives.
No - it has cost them over €30 million MORE than to upgrade their existing systems. The claimed 'savings' have been widely debunked.
Wrong. It's your pay-master's lies that have been widely debunked. By Munich themselves , not by third party interested parties or spreaders of FUD. While it can be argued that Munich will put whatever spin they want to on these things, the reality is that as a public organisation they operate with a level of accountability and if they did lie or misrepresent the truth it would come out very quickly and they'd be held accountable for it.
To suggest that they can build a new OS, run a migration project for TEN YEARS! - and support 2 environments instead of one across 30% of their users and then save money is clearly not credible.
Wrong. Again. When you are forced to support Windows you usually have about seven different versions of Windows and Office to support, all incompatible with each other in all so many delightful ways requiring specific customisations and management of each independently. In the end you typically wind up with seven different configurations and when you make a change to one you then have to reflect it manually in each of the others as appropriate... and that's just the joys of centralised management aka group policy. This is before you start to take into account the various incompatible and always fundamentally broken or deficient security structures that are in place that need to be realised between sharepoint, exchange/outlook, file shares (different versions of course), device (e.g. printer) access let alone network access.