
The Document Foundation on City of Munich’s discussion on returning to Microsoft - mksaunders
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2017/02/14/statement-by-the-document-foundation-about-the-upcoming-discussion-at-the-city-of-munich-to-step-back-to-windows-and-ms-office/
======
mdekkers
18 to 28% is _not_ a minor percentage of users. I'm a fan of LibreOffice, and
was an extremely early adopter and contributor to the project, being one of
the people that pushed for and created the community council at the time.
Brushing these kind of numbers away isn't going to help, and they will be hit
hard on that point by the opposition. The better approach will be to adress
the mismatch head on, with an actionable plan on how to solve these issues.

I worked hard, in a professional capacity, for the adoption of LO and Desktop
Linux in various government departments around the EU, and the agression of
commercial players against this kind of push is phenomenal. Eventually I moved
on professionally but the scars are still with me. One powerful message this
whole thing left me with is that you cannot do this kind of thing, and hope to
have a career in professional services. I was forced to drop out of public
participation with OSS projects, and never really went back.

~~~
vanderZwan
Although they word it poorly, I think the point is that those numbers should
be compared to similar software issues experienced on Windows platforms, in
which case the benefit of switching back is a lot slimmer. As noted a bit
later:

> _Incidentally, 15% of users acknowledged severe issues related to MS
> Office._

~~~
sddfd
I assume these 15% complained about interoperatability with 3rd parties that
use the MS Office DOC format.

~~~
reitanqild
The Microsoft fanboy in my office seems to hate Word.

I just dislike it strongly and prefer to use LibreOffice for cleaning up
styling done by others is top of my mind.

------
yorwba
I had a look at the linked report [https://www.ris-
muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277...](https://www.ris-
muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/4277724.pdf)

Apparently, the actual recommendation was to first replace the 4.163 Windows
clients in use (77 % Windows 7, 9 % Windows XP/Vista, 14 % Windows 2000 [!!!])
with a single improved configuration, likewise for the different versions of
their LiMux distribution.

Afterwards, each department should choose between the Windows and Linux
clients based on a cost-benefit calculation. Only in case the Windows client
ends up dominating, a reevaluation of the economic viability of the duplicated
infrastructure is recommended.

Additionally, the only mentioned software problems from their user survey were
caused by varying browser versions (presumably Firefox), their mail program
(presumably Thunderbird) not being available on mobile and frequently
crashing, the same complaints about their calendar software (no idea what they
are using) in addition to lacking copy-paste functionality.

Unless LibreOffice has a calendar component, I don't think anyone complained
about it? At least it isn't in the report.

~~~
scholia
That seems a rather narrow way for Munich to operate. The world has changed
since they made their decision a decade or so ago. Microsoft now offers on-
premise and cloud versions of all its main programs, with companion apps that
also run on Android and iOS smartphones and tablets.

Windows 10 machines now include cloud integration, apps and touch screens,
with hardware form factors ranging from small tablets through 2-in-1s and
laptops to the Surface Studio.

If they are still comparing one 20th century desktop OS with another 20th
century desktop OS, they are missing the point.

------
cies
I think the article misses a great point. That by using open source they can
spend on IT locally! Look at the Extremadura (region in Spain) case for as a
reference; they went with open source to stop all spending on IT outside of
their own borders and thereby significantly boosted local business.

To me this is a clear case of how lobbying can destroy the value governments
provide to their citizens.

~~~
l0b0
They did mention that point:

> Last, but not least, most expenditures related to the purchase of Microsoft
> licenses will contribute to the GDP of Ireland (where all Microsoft products
> sold in Europe are sourced from) rather than to local enterprises who
> support the open source solutions deployed today.

~~~
signal11
IANAL, but isn't encouraging the City of Munich to source from "local"
enterprises vs Ireland a violation of EU free-trade laws? By the same token
Ireland could then discourage/block "imports" from Munich and we'd be back to
the internecine trade conflicts the EU was supposed to stop.

~~~
omouse
Free market doesn't mean you _have_ to go with the cheapest solution. It means
you have _choice_. Preferring local firms is ok because they're competing in a
free market; they aren't being given contracts because they're local, it's
just local firms will be opening up to supply the demand.

~~~
mironathetin
For a local government a preference of local business is not only ok. It
should be the first choice, the second choice and also the third one. In this
case, as there is totally different tax flow involved as the article nicely
explains, local business is the only responsible choice for an elected
government, IMHO.

------
thepiwo
I'm disappointed in Munichs' decision-makers in this case. Introducing linux
was a great step towards a more open, secure and cost-effective platform to
organize the city. The reasoning behind switching back to Microsoft is vague
to me, the main factors seem general it-problems not related to linux, users
wanting to open their .exe and windows programms (wouldn't be allowed with a
Microsoft system as well due to security issues) and the fact Microsoft built
a new shiny office.

~~~
sveme
Here's mschuster91, who worked there, take on the issue from a couple of days
ago when it first was posted to hackernews:

\------------------

> Does anyone have some examples of the practical problems they experience
> using Linux, which can't easily be solved in any other way than going to
> Windows?

I worked there. The biggest problems back a few years ago:

1) So-called "Fachverfahren", basically software for stuff like managing
drivers' licenses or other bureaucratic procedures, is written and supplied
for Windows only. Often enough that meant Munich had to pay a boatload of
money for a Linux port. Or the software HAD a Linux port, but for RHEL or
other "enterprise linux" crap distros - which meant using stuff like "alien"
or, worse, manual repackaging to make them compatible with Ubuntu. Yay for
version hell - statically linked programs were an exception.

2) DRIVERS. There's a lot of custom hardware - special printers for printing
on documents like ID cards, fingerprint readers for the new national ID cards,
RFID readers with support for said ID cards... you won't believe how much
stuff there is. And all of this needs to have Linux drivers and tooling.

3) Employee training. Back in my days KDE was used (and I believe it still
is), but it's different enough from Windows that people need training. And
there's 35k of employees, most of which don't have any IT experience outside
from their Windows computer at home.

4) The computers themselves. Let's just say that the computers in any public
agency are almost always horribly outdated. Many users complain(ed) about the
speed of LiMux, which mostly was caused by old or underpowered (esp. RAM,
given that OpenOffice and Firefox are really really memory hungry) systems.

5) Networking. Depends on the building and agency, of course, but e.g. my
school was connected via a 16 mbit uplink, over which the entire Internet
traffic went...

I believe the biggest problem LiMux had and still has is a lack of proper
funding - especially for hardware.

\--------------------

tl;dr: it's more than what you suggested and some very valid reasons. I know
some people involved in that decision and let's say it like that: LiMux does
not come for free as well. There are plenty of issues that require external
consultants for 1500 Euros per day/person which is apparently always an
unexpected and unbudgeted expense.

~~~
antisthenes
35,000 office workers for 1 city?

I realize Munich is a pretty big city, but holy crap, that sounds extremely
bloated. I can definitely see why they tried to save money on Windows
licenses, but perhaps their choice of OS isn't the problem that needed solving
in the first place. Maybe their efforts (and money) were better spent on
automating many processes (e.g. like you said - printing ID cards should be
100% automated and not require human intervention in most cases)

Or maybe it's total employees, and not only people who sit in the office?

If I were mayor, I'd seriously look at the bureaucratic bloat required to run
the city and trying to make it more efficient (Windows to Linux you just shift
money around from licensing to retraining and overhead)

~~~
anonbanker
most socialist governments have public-sector employment rates approaching 50%
(or sometimes more). In my canadian province, 49% of the population works for
the government.

~~~
sveme
That's ridiculous, Munich has around 850,000 employees, so 35,000 is nowhere
near your 50%. Do you actually know what socialism is?

~~~
anonbanker
Nowhere in my post did I say that Munich was a socialist government.

------
fpp
I believe focusing on potential technical problems is the wrong approach.

What you have to look at is lock-in or no lock-in. Any responsible IT Manager
should avoid lock-ins / silos as far as possible. This then allows to
standardise and use multiple suppliers and much lower TCO.

Without having looked into details (but with some knowledge of the Munich IT
environment), I'm sure that most of these technical issues stem from the
previous lock-in situation with MS.

There are other solutions without migrating the desktops back to MS /
upgrading to MS Win 10 - you could for example virtualise the apps with issues
(Standard approach & working very well in large environments). But then Munich
could not be locked back into the MS Stacks so easily.

And MS and Oracle are very good with locking their customers in and collecting
vast amounts for that.

BTW - I've seen large government environments in the UK with completely
virtualised application delivery / desktops to enable staff to work from home,
BYOD, hot-desking etc while at the same time securing the organisation's data
e.a At that point which desktop OS you are using has only limited importance.

------
greyman
I work with Linux professionally and generally like it as a server solution,
and also as a developer, but if I would be a city mayor, I would not switch to
it from Windows in the first place, unless at least the country government
would do such a step first.

> In fact, although the proposal associates MS Office document formats with
> the “industry standard” concept, it should be clear that all MS Office
> documents are proprietary and obfuscated, and therefore inappropriate for
> interoperability.

Sorry, but this is utter BS. MS Office is a de facto standard, and LO is not
compatible with it - it can't correctly open more complex MS Office documents.
I should know, since I periodically evaluate it. So the reality is, that MS
Office ensures much greater interoperability as LO. Or maybe I am just missing
something and we are talking only about server solutions? For example - mayor
secretary receives a document from some government agency, in docx format, and
LO can't correctly open it. Now what is the fallback solution?

~~~
Beltiras
You are dumping problems related to MS (well known) monopolistic behaviour.
Office format has been notoriously hard to replicate (on purpose). That is not
a failing in Open Source, it is a failing of Microsoft.

I realize that businesses must run daily operations and that requires them to
bite the bullet and pay the "Microsoft tax". A municipality should think a bit
about if some operational problems have a price tag of 90 million euros
annually.

~~~
greyman
Yes, you are right, and it is good that they though about that and tried the
alternative. But I still think the issue of LO not able to read MS documents
is a real problem.

Like for example my sister. Her husband works for Redhat so he
enthusiastically installed Linux on her notebook, LO and everything. She
worked as a professional writer, and it was a real struggle... some documents
she received wasn't readable, then they couldn't read some document she sent
them... then spell-checker wasn't as good as in MS Word (non-English
language), etc. The cost of this solution was quite high, and she eventually
gave up and installed Windows.

I am not trying to trash Linux or LO, it would be great to have open-source
alternatives to everything, but in certain areas (Office, Adobe products,
etc), such alternative doesn't exists and fighting against reality doesn't
make it.

~~~
filomeno
> some documents she received wasn't readable, then they couldn't read some
> document she sent them...

I like that! I send you a document you can't open: your fault. You send me a
document I can't open: your fault too.

~~~
scholia
That's inevitable when you're going against standard practice in the industry,
and refusing to fit in with everybody else.

Try the same thing in any other industry and you'll get the same result. "You
created the problem: you deal with it."

------
arca_vorago
The thing about moves like this is they are looked in far too short-term of a
mindset. The technologies needed to do _$things_ are an investment over time,
one that I have seen repeatedly backfire in choosing proprietary software the
longer that time goes on. It's not just about the budget for the next year or
five, it's about freeing yourself from the technical limitations, the legal
limitations, and by what I call death by a thousand cuts licensing fees.

Sure, the initial pain of a relatively rough transition such as this is going
to be higher than expected when this isn't taken into consideration, because
you are going to have to find or pay to dev all those tiny little proprietary
programs that have attached themselves like a virus to your budget and
replacement them. If anything, I would say the pains of Munich make an even
stronger case for breaking through the spell of proprietary programs.

I do have to say though, I think Ubuntu was a bad choice for the distro. That
being said, as I said in the other related thread, and as seems to be verified
by the poster who worked there, I highly suspect half of the problem is a lack
of budget and an overworked/understaffed IT team.

You know, I just thought of something, if "The user controls the program, or
the program controls the user." Could you say then, that "The government
controls the software, or the software controls the government."?

~~~
mjw1007
I get the impression that this has become a party-political issue, and the
change of heart is because the other party is now in charge, rather than the
original decision-makers finding that that the switch turned out worse than
they expected.

------
nisa
As much as I'd like to see more support and success stories for
Linux/LibreOffice in public administration, as I think it's the right thing to
do, putting statements like this into the document makes me question their
motivations:

> In addition, according to estimates provided by Green Party councillors,
> another 15 million euros should be spent to replace or upgrade PCs which are
> perfect for a small footprint operating system such as Linux, but cannot
> support even a Windows 10 basic configuration.

If they compare that really with KDE4 on Ubuntu 12.04 I'm not sure how they
come to that conclusion. Windows 7 or 10 is just about as fast or for some
tasks even faster than a Linux Desktop with a full blown DE. In my experience
feels Windows even faster on older machines due to less lag (I might be
bullshitting myself here).

And without enough RAM Linux is a pain to use - as is Windows.

Lately I'm asking myself if that Linux advocacy myths that are pretty
widespread hurting more than they help.

Yes Linux is fine, it's usable, it's fun. But in my experience using
Windows/Linux with DE (Gnome, KDE) on low end hardware (P4, Core) Windows has
an edge and feels faster.

Or they are running a minimal i3 setup but I doubt that.

------
oever
I've dealt with the ICT department of Munich many times and was always
impressed with their expertise and can-do attitude. This feeling of power and
independence is more valuable than any of the monetary calculations.

Free software is about empowerment.

The functionality required of office suites in government is usually simple. A
simple office suite with dedicated people can create a happy working
environment.

I'm a daily witness of the drudgerous mindset that is the result of working
with a locked down computer. It saps the will to live and makes people
irritable and hostile towards the citizens they are meant to serve.

Choosing freedom is the best option.

------
mironathetin
If Munichs public service personal has issues with Linux and Libre Office,
they need a proper training, not a switch of platforms.

Without training nobody in this world would be able to properly use Microsofts
products as well. And this is true for every new version, as the comments
correctly mention.

~~~
slowmotiony
How will training help them if their business applications are not available
for Linux?

~~~
mironathetin
Well, I do expect the availability of applications has been checked before
moving to Linux. If not, ... bad management (not impossible that the move was
planned badly though).

But if you know exactly what you need, you can also develop software or extend
functionality of available software. That's one of the advantages of the Unix
processing philosophy and open source software.

------
awinter-py
Missing from this letter is a clear statement about what makes their product
better.

This is the only libreoffice marketing any of us will read this year (and this
forum has a lot of LO users, I suspect -- me included). Talk up your product!

------
advisedwang
This statement seems very defensive to me. I would have liked to see some kind
of discussion in trying to learn from Munich's experience to make LibreOffice
better.

It's Open Source... you don't need spend time convincing people your product
is better, as you don't get revenue from users. What OS projects need is
community and participants, which you gain by being open to criticism and game
for new efforts to improve.

