> For instance Munich Council spent itro €50 million (subsidised by IBM) just getting a working Open Source stack. Then about €12 million migrating (more than the cost of updating their original licences!).
More of Richto/TheVogon/AC unsupported nonsense.
There is _no_ support for the claim that IBM spent 50million (previously it was claimed to be 30million) on Munich. It may be that IBM has spent 30 or 50million in total on developing open source and Linux for all uses, such as developing it for their mainframes, and having their other software run on it (WebSphere, etc). But they make billions in revenue from having done that. You are attempting to conflate all that development to just one project.
The claim of 12million for migrating comes from a report by HP paid for by Microsoft and has been shown to be complete nonsense. For example it includes costs for new machines every 3 years or so when the reality is that Munich reused the machines that it originally ran NT on. For example it adds costs for re-training to use Linux and ignores any retraining costs to go from NT to XP to Vista to Win7 to Win8 and also to go from Office 2003 to 2007, 2010.
There was _no_ reference to the _actual_ costs that Munich paid, they just invented stuff and claimed it cost more.
> 20% of their stuff - so now have to support both environments.
There are some legacy applications which occasionally need to used. These cannot be converted because they are propriety and the developers either have gone out of business or will not convert them. An excellent example of why closed source applications should be replaced to avoid lock in.