

Linux-on-the-desktop pioneer Munich now considering a switch back to Windows - taylorbuley
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/linux-on-the-desktop-pioneer-munich-now-considering-a-switch-back-to-windows/

======
forca
I don't see the big deal, to be honest. Spain has successfully pulled this off
a number of times. Fact is, all governments should force, by law, open
standards for all governmental communications: software, formats, you name it.
MS is sadly the de facto business standard and the files MS Office generate
are much larger than the same content under .ods or .odt or other open
formats. All that proprietary algorithm cruft underneath. Government should
only be allowed to use Free/Libre software to prevent proprietary lock in. To
do so would free up vast sums from the evil that is software licensing.
Software for government should be free as in beer and free as in freedom. Full
stop. Nothing else is acceptable to remain above board.

Spain has done this, so we know the effort has been successful. Government
should force open standards. Period. There should be third-party government
workers ensuring there is no corruption with software vendors and/or someone
getting kickbacks.

~~~
danudey
Governments should use whatever is in the best interest of the citizens
they're serving. If that's open standards and open software (and it often is),
that's great. There are some cases, however, where that's either not feasible
or not as practical.

As an example: smartphones. There's a lot of functionality with modern
smartphones (e.g. app distribution, remote management, etc.) which you can't
do with open standards. Saying 'only use free software and open standards' is
great, except that that would preclude government officials from using any
smartphones on the market (Android included), and not using smartphones or
tablets would make things worse for government, not better (example: the
Saskatchewan government moving to iPads for cabinet ministers to save hundreds
of thousands on printing costs for reproducing documents for ministers).

And in the end, organization should play to their strengths and consider all
the aspects. An increase in licensing fees to MS (which are typically done
once, in a volume licensing agreement) may be comparable to ongoing desktop
support for new users who aren't familiar. It's much easier to hire office
workers, administrative assistants, office managers, etc. who are familiar
enough with Microsoft Office to be proficient, but for whom OpenOffice would
provide a not-insubstantial learning curve. A lengthened onboarding process
plus further desktop support leads to a higher operating cost. The TCO, to use
a term I haven't heard for years, _can_ (not definitely, but possibly) be
higher with open-source software and operating systems.

Likewise, it's much easier to find software solutions to work on Windows
platforms than on Linux platforms. The local transportation authority in
Vancouver uses a few large software platforms designed specifically to manage
large transportation authorities, and which provides everything they need, and
which, of course, only runs on Windows. There are open-source solutions, but
the support costs may well be the same, since you're still contracting a
company to manage the software for you (and the cost of licensing software
typically includes some level of ongoing support). Then you'll run into issues
where you need large software solutions for which no vendors provide Linux-
compatible versions (and WINE is not a solution, nor are VMs with one-off
Windows licenses).

So yes, open-source should be a serious consideration whenever possible, but
restricting government to open-source software only is no better than
restricting government to proprietary systems only.

~~~
ewzimm
I don't think you're quite addressing the point raised. Free software in
government is not important because of cost savings or efficiency. It is
important because of transparency. For example, a proprietary voting machine
might have a lower total cost of ownership than a free software machine,
however it raises questions about the validity of the voting process when the
public isn't allowed to know how it works.

The fundamental problem here is that people expect the rules of their
government to be transparent, not secret. When parts of the government run on
proprietary software, the public is forbidden from knowing important parts
about how their government works.

Cell phones are a great example. We now know that, in part because of the use
of proprietary, non-audited software, government leaders around the world have
had private phone calls recorded by the NSA. If they had been using properly
analyzed free software, this would not have been possible. So proprietary
software not only makes formerly public processes secret but also leaks
secrets. If no non-proprietary solution exists, the government needs to invest
in creating it.

It is impossible to analyze the cost of a government run by proprietary
software. Without knowing what secrets are being stolen, what processes are
being obfuscated from public view, what documents are made inaccessible to
people because of proprietary software requirements, there is no way to know
how much is lost by its use.

If a government claims to represent its public, it needs to control its
processes in a way that is verifiably transparent to the public. This simply
isn't possible with proprietary software.

------
anonbanker
"Microsoft announced last year that it was moving its German headquarters to
Munich. This move is planned to take place in 2016. While Reiter was involved
in the deal that precipitated the move and describes himself as a "Microsoft
fan," he says the criticism of LiMux is unrelated."

This made me laugh. Especially when I remember that Steve Ballmer took a
flight, _in the middle of his vacation_ to try and stop the munich deal from
happening.

Seems they got themselves a local lackey to parrot the company FUD. Let's see
if ze Germans are dumb enough to reverse course back to vendor lock-in,
especially in the wake of the UK government adopting ODF.

