Reply to post: Re: 10 years to migrate 16000 PCs and they're going to go back to Windows ?

And we return to Munich's migration back to Windows – it's going to cost what now?! €100m!

Naselus

Re: 10 years to migrate 16000 PCs and they're going to go back to Windows ?

"Did you read the article?"

I did, yes. It contained literally nothing which refutes the point that 'this worked for the French police force' does not mean 'therefore, this will work in literally any situation for any organization at any time'.

The article does have a warning against being locked into proprietary monocultures, which is what I assume you're getting at. But that doesn't help if Munich was [i]already locked into such a monoculture[/i] prior to the attempt to switch, which is what usually gets ignored in these endless Linux-always-good-Microsoft-always-bad dickwaving exercises.

And Munich probably was already locked into one in just such a manner. If we ignore the clearly-bollocks claims that they couldn't get email working (80% of their estate have been moved to Linux and have been working on it for 5+ years, so we can forget stupid claims like that) and other such rubbish, what you actually have is a bunch of non-Linux compatible systems that Munich is locked into, and a lot of money being spent to try and create Linux-compatible variants, to the point it cost some 80% more than just paying the Windows licenses would have over ten years. And they were still paying for Windows.

That's how shit like this actually works in the real world. Big software or support contracts signed over multiple-year terms - like, say, a municipal administration would take - often give you a reduced price, but have penalty clauses for early termination. Just as many buildings get built just because cancelling the contracts to build them would be more expensive than just finishing construction, the same applies to government IT contracts. Plenty of those awful uk.gov IT projects that ran for years before being quietly dropped were only kept going because the escape clause was more expensive than the remaining run time on the contract would be.

Personally, I don't think switching back to Windows is a good idea - that's good money after bad at this point, and is going to cost a second fortune (especially since any sane development company which signed up to write Linux versions of software for Munich will have stipulated similarly lucrative escape clauses to their MS-centric counterparts). But it's clear that Munich should not have attempted to switch to Linux in the first place when it did so, and 'Sabotage by Microsoft fans' is not a convincing explanation as to why they're switching back.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019