

Microsoft study: Linux migration cost Munich €60.7 million - kadishmal
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-study-Linux-migration-cost-Munich-EUR60-7-million-1789679.html

======
bmking
Well, the City of Munich has briefly answered to this study which microsoft
has not made public and hence is difficult for the city to make concrete
statements about: (GERMAN) <http://www.muenchen.info/pia/RSS/015.pdf> [page 8]

Summary: They comment that the study did not incorporate costs for licensing
the microsoft products, which would have cost additional 7 million Euros. The
city comment that it would not have been possible to keep the Microsoft
products without upgrading to newer versions as stated otherwise in the study,
because microsoft at the time of decision announced to discontinue the
product-line of Windows-NT. They also deny the statement that the LiMux-client
is 10 years old and hence outdated. The LiMux-Client has undergone many
improvements and upgrades over the past years and can today stand a direct
comparison with Windows 7. Also they say that not only 75%, but 87% (13000 out
of 15000) of the workstations are running the Linux-Client as of today. The
statement of the study that all of the specialized processes cannot be
migrated to Linux is also wrong, but it is true that not all of those
processes can be migrated.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I think something got lost in translation in your last sentence there, as it
doesn't seem to make sense.

~~~
pasbesoin
The way I read the last sentence:

"all... cannot" --> none can

"not all... can" --> some [perhaps many or most? -- note again the 87%
conversion figure] can

~~~
bmking
Yes, that is how it is meant. Thank you for the clarification, I am not a
native English speaker.

------
rmk2
This study is a non-issue until Microsoft actually publishes it.

Until then, this boils down to "Microsoft says it has found proof, _proof_ ,
that its products are cheaper than linux, this proof is very well
substantiated, so well in fact, that we won't publish the study. But really,
do believe us. We even paid someone else to do the study for us. It's solid!
It shows it all! You don't have to believe us, because it is proven. At least
to those who get to see it. Which means Microsoft. But really!"

> Langkabel declined to break down the costs into individual positions. "Of
> course it includes licence fees," Langkabel corrected a report to the
> contrary released by Focus Money Online on Monday, adding that the study
> also considers costs incurred through "tuition, training, migration,
> templates, roll-out and deployment and the integration of subject-related
> procedures". "The study is reliable", said Langkabel.

If it is reliable, publish it so we can assess those claims. Until then, this
can be understood as spreading FUD.

------
ScottWhigham
This is the kind of study where I just have to say, "Whatever." No one
believes MSFT to be unbiased here and, as for the Munich's IT group's
claims/counters/reports, no one believes theirs will be unbiased either. It's
basically a "He said, she said" argument [1]. They can have reams of back and
forth interviews, quotes, and reports but, in the end, it won't make me
believe either side. Each side has too much at stake to be unbiased. But,
internally and to their clients/staff, both sides can point at their own
reports/stats and proudly parade them whilst ignoring the existence of the
other side's refutation/claims. It's win/win - Munich "wins" by showing their
report to their staff and bosses ("Look how much we saved!") and MSFT "wins"
by showing their report to potential clients considering the same thing.

Whatever.

[1]
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=he%20said%20s...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=he%20said%20she%20said):
"An argument between a guy and a gal where the points made on either side
can't be proven convincingly enough by either party to someone who has no clue
what they're arguing about. Further exacerbated because you have no idea if
either person is exaggerating or telling the truth and so nothing can be
resolved."

~~~
ZeroGravitas
_"the points made on either side can't be proven convincingly enough by either
party to someone who has no clue what they're arguing about."_

What about someone who does understand large IT infrastructure rollouts? At
least one side of this is wrong, and my money is firmly on Microsoft as being
the one more likely to simply make things up to suit their agenda.

~~~
ScottWhigham
_my money is firmly on Microsoft as being the one more likely to simply make
things up..._

Yes, but you've just given away the perfect counter argument to anyone who
wants to make whatever you say seem like a lie/falsehood: you are clearly
biased against MSFT thus whatever you say can be dismissed as "anti-MSFT". If
someone can make that allegation against you - not your arguments or facts or
information from the reports, mind you, but you _personally_ \- then they've
won and you've lost. They've called into question your credibility.

At the end of the day, a person or a small group of people have to make a
decision on the believability of said studies and decide for themselves/their
organization, "Should we go the way of Munich or is it safer to go w/ MSFT?"
The Art of CYA is all about going the safe route - a.k.a. "No one ever got
fired by choosing MSFT over open source in the enterprise."

~~~
ZeroGravitas
If we're getting right down to the dirty politics of maintaining monopolies
then I think something that would give you more pause was that Microsoft did
work to get someone dismissed for not choosing MSFT products (they eventually
resigned after, amongst other things, newspaper stories suggested that an IT
director going to open source conferences was a misuse of public funds):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Quinn>

~~~
ScottWhigham
I didn't think that we were getting "down to the dirty politics of maintaining
monopolies" nor did I ask for evidence that MSFT did the opposite of what I
wrote. Weird. If someone wanted to make a case that you are clearly a "biased
individual", you would have given them ample evidence to dismiss whatever
comments you make as "Comments from someone who clearly has an axe to grind."

I'd challenge you to re-read our discussion from an impartial 3rd person's POV
and see _if it is possible_ that a reasonable person would come to that
conclusion on their own without prodding...

Now have someone prodding them, someone who is their boss or a peer in a
conference room that other people respect...

It's fine to have your opinion but when you go out of your way to make points
that people weren't asking you to make, it seems as though you have an agenda.

------
helloamar
They should have given the break downs of the cost to make people believe in
it.

I don't think switching to Linux will cost so much.

