The new federal government seems somewhat in favor of free software solutions (ideologically only one out of the three parties really supports it, but the european independence theme will fuel it further).
But that doesn’t matter that much because this decision has been made on the state level.
The Munich Linux/Windows saga is an endless story: they switched from Windows to Linux, then Microsoft started a huge lobbying campaign, including moving its German headquarters in Munich, and the Munich council backpedaled away from Open Source software, but it looks like they're now attempting it again.
My biggest fear is that this time it might be Microsoft themselves to offer a Linux solution: their Linux of course, with lots of strings attached (blobs, proprietary libraries, Microsoft-only services, etc)
I am surprised more governments do not require more open source systems. But that should just be the beginning: To maintain autonomy, they need to organize multilateral efforts to audit them for back doors. They also need to look beyond current generation systems. Even with a lot of auditing and security testing, it is questionable whether current generation systems can be secured.
Open Source in this scenario is a bit of a canard.
It doesn't matter that much.
And cost is less of an issue either: the cost of an OS per person is about the cost of a single support call to IT, so if an OS can make things 'just that much easier' it's worth it.
I think the most important issue aside from the direct comparables is switching costs. If you get tied into an OS, then there's too much leverage.
so how... exactly does microsoft lobby the governments into paying them a truckload of money in perpetuity for something essentially free and libre? sure there is consultancy involved in foss and IMO that is a better use of money because locals are being paid instead of a megacorp. still, why do you rely on "macros" ? why isnt cash being paid to developers in adding more missing features in libreoffice instead of microsoft?
I think you've hinted at a more beneficial model. This idea is something I've been tossing around for a bit as well. What if there was no proprietary code? What if every company that uses software has a team of devs? Not to build stuff just for that company, but to contribute to the open source projects that the company relies on.
They would be able to handle the features they need entirely in house, and if multiple companies need the same or similar features this allows more resources to be put towards that thing
FOSS software would be actively maintained but a massive network of the companies that use the software, instead of relying on the small teams or individuals for whom its a pet project
I think this system would generate far more robust software and the ecosystem to support it
yeah. I contribute to libreoffice with any bug i encounter during my daily work, i report it. If i had the dev chops, i would've fixed this myself. Now, if i were an organisation like the the german government. Why can't they hire local developers and fix immediate problems, push the fix and everyone is happy?
That's exactly the idea! The government and companies generally have IT Dept's now, sometimes with a dev team.
Those resources can be geared towards supporting and contributing to open source (that they use internally) instead of giving money to these corporations for shit support and "maybe we'll add the feature you want (but probably not, and we're increasing the cost BTW ^^)"
that's a theory. But then those develping departs might be very understaffed and get swamped with feature requests, which means end users might still not get what they want. That happens even for any central tools in the big tech companies, which likely have more resources to work on those.
And there's the additional challenge of actually getting contributions landed upsream, which requires work from other maintainers.
You seem to be assuming that pay would not change along with everything else.
If everyone is supporting FOSS with their own developers, which they can pay more wages to because they aren't shelling out to Microsoft and apple, then Microsoft won't have as much income with which to pay exorbitant salaries.
Multiple parts of the system interact, dont assume nothing else changes with this massive shift (I'm not only talking about the German gov doing this, but all companies)
> If everyone is supporting FOSS with their own developers, which they can pay more wages to because they aren't shelling out to Microsoft and apple, then Microsoft won't have as much income with which to pay exorbitant salaries.
That would require a huge coordination effort. There's going to be several companies that want different features and have their own devs on payroll (at different rates). VS Microsoft that can just organize a meeting with the leads for Office and plan out the roadmap.
Also, exorbitant is one way of seeing it, but does it hold when you consider the insane added value these devs bring to millions of businesses?
> I'm not only talking about the German gov doing this, but all companies
The other issue, specifically with government, is that salaries are capped to public servant scales. There's no way they can hire Microsoft or Google talent at these rates.
Windows and Linux are different products and the per-capita costs of Windows is trivial.
Windows is about the cost of a single support call to IT, so if it's just that much easier to maintain, it's worth it. Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but the cost threshold is right there.
It's the cost of a nice keyboard or mouse for gosh sakes.
The cost really shouldn't be hugely part of the equation, I mean, you want to negotiate for it of course, but beyond that it's mostly not the cost.
this says
"In 2018, the central government had spent €73m ($80m) on Microsoft licenses, around €25m ($27.5m) over the forecast budget – and that was without the cost of providing German state governments with Microsoft software.
As opposition politicians pointed out, the total amounts to hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money."
They would have spent similar amounts when hiring contractors for FOSS solutions, because governments work with big consulting agencies regardless of the software source.
Red-Hat is hardly cheaper when playing at this level.
It's the OEM that offers the contracts. When a company goes to HP or Dell they say we need 500 computers 10 servers and what can you offer us and here is our budget. The OEM comes back and says we will give you 500 computers and 10 servers for 15 million dollars and every 4 years you get refreshed with the latest hardware and operating system bundles for the desktop. For the 10 servers we have 24/7 support with on-site replacement of hardware and advanced maintenance. With in these deals we offer ms windows latest build and the latest office packages. That's how it's done. The government doesn't lobby Microsoft at all.
>We have been testing LibreOffice in our IT department
>for two years, and our experience is clear: it works
Of course, the IT department made it work.
What is needed is employee acceptance and blessing.
Hopefully, they will have workshops and focus groups to
ensure that the staff of 26.000 (*) likes the change
and welcomes it.
Ideally the employees would be allowed to vote on the change.
after being given a chance to get familiar with it.
I am 90% sure that vote would be against the change.
This is a major inconvenience for nearly all of them.
You get together a gang of 65 year old civil servants who have
learned how to do their job one way and have done it one way,
to suddenly figure out.
Then the migration the 100s or more templates that they have
carefully formatted and laid out to ensure consistent communication
with the public and everyone else.
And for them to be as productive as they are today, after the change.
I help my grandpa and some of his friends with "computers".
For most of them if an icon on the desktop, or a button in an
application moves they give up.
> I am 90% sure that vote would be against the change.
> This is a major inconvenience for nearly all of them.
I agree it’ll be an (arguably worth it) inconvenience. Whether it’ll be major will be determined by the migration effort. The migration of a local association’s administration from Windows to Linux went mostly unnoticed by the users.
This is the modern equivalent of being an army general in the year 1910 arguing against adopting machine guns.
"Why do we need to adopt machine guns? They are so much more complicated than our bolt action rifles. Everyone has been trained how to do their job using a bolt action rifle. We will have to totally rethink our doctrine. The Lewis gun doesn't even have a bayonet lug. In my experience, the average private will just give up when he experiences a malfunction."
LibreOffice does pretty much everything Microsoft Office does, and it doesn't cost 200$ per year * 15,000 for each copy (or however much they spend on it.)
1)
You will not find any 65 year old, working in the office, civil servants in the US Army. Mandatory retirement is now 62 years old (up from 55).
Unless you have many stars then you can stay until you are 64.
I never saw any 55+ on the sharp end of the army.
2)
A gun you give to the soldiers will be simple.
When you are given a new weapon, you will be drilled on it.
You will learn to fire, aim, reload, disassemble, reassemble
(With strict time requirements).
Then you will be drilled more.
The hierarchy and command system of the US Army is extremely different from
what an office civil servant union member can expect.
You will not have an officer yelling at you to do something or face what
could be severe consequences if you dont obey.
>No Linux distribution has been chosen yet to use as a standard, although Albrecht said they’re currently looking at five distributions that suit their purposes.
38 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 93.6 ms ] threadBut that doesn’t matter that much because this decision has been made on the state level.
https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/28/226211/munich-migrating-...
https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-germany-moves-into-a-new-h...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-not-windows-why-munich-i...
My biggest fear is that this time it might be Microsoft themselves to offer a Linux solution: their Linux of course, with lots of strings attached (blobs, proprietary libraries, Microsoft-only services, etc)
It doesn't matter that much.
And cost is less of an issue either: the cost of an OS per person is about the cost of a single support call to IT, so if an OS can make things 'just that much easier' it's worth it.
I think the most important issue aside from the direct comparables is switching costs. If you get tied into an OS, then there's too much leverage.
They would be able to handle the features they need entirely in house, and if multiple companies need the same or similar features this allows more resources to be put towards that thing
FOSS software would be actively maintained but a massive network of the companies that use the software, instead of relying on the small teams or individuals for whom its a pet project
I think this system would generate far more robust software and the ecosystem to support it
Those resources can be geared towards supporting and contributing to open source (that they use internally) instead of giving money to these corporations for shit support and "maybe we'll add the feature you want (but probably not, and we're increasing the cost BTW ^^)"
And there's the additional challenge of actually getting contributions landed upsream, which requires work from other maintainers.
One of them is 4x the compensation of the other one...
If everyone is supporting FOSS with their own developers, which they can pay more wages to because they aren't shelling out to Microsoft and apple, then Microsoft won't have as much income with which to pay exorbitant salaries.
Multiple parts of the system interact, dont assume nothing else changes with this massive shift (I'm not only talking about the German gov doing this, but all companies)
That would require a huge coordination effort. There's going to be several companies that want different features and have their own devs on payroll (at different rates). VS Microsoft that can just organize a meeting with the leads for Office and plan out the roadmap.
Also, exorbitant is one way of seeing it, but does it hold when you consider the insane added value these devs bring to millions of businesses?
> I'm not only talking about the German gov doing this, but all companies
The other issue, specifically with government, is that salaries are capped to public servant scales. There's no way they can hire Microsoft or Google talent at these rates.
Windows is about the cost of a single support call to IT, so if it's just that much easier to maintain, it's worth it. Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but the cost threshold is right there.
It's the cost of a nice keyboard or mouse for gosh sakes.
The cost really shouldn't be hugely part of the equation, I mean, you want to negotiate for it of course, but beyond that it's mostly not the cost.
this says "In 2018, the central government had spent €73m ($80m) on Microsoft licenses, around €25m ($27.5m) over the forecast budget – and that was without the cost of providing German state governments with Microsoft software.
As opposition politicians pointed out, the total amounts to hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money."
Red-Hat is hardly cheaper when playing at this level.
Also, imagine when their IT bill goes up by $100M because of additional support calls due to Linux oddities.
75M is not a lot for important productivity software that people use all day.
Instead let's make a one time hardware purchase, with warranty for parts, and handle the software in house with FOSS.
Of course, the IT department made it work.
What is needed is employee acceptance and blessing.
Hopefully, they will have workshops and focus groups to ensure that the staff of 26.000 (*) likes the change and welcomes it.
Ideally the employees would be allowed to vote on the change. after being given a chance to get familiar with it.
I am 90% sure that vote would be against the change.
This is a major inconvenience for nearly all of them.
You get together a gang of 65 year old civil servants who have learned how to do their job one way and have done it one way, to suddenly figure out.
Then the migration the 100s or more templates that they have carefully formatted and laid out to ensure consistent communication with the public and everyone else.
And for them to be as productive as they are today, after the change.
I help my grandpa and some of his friends with "computers". For most of them if an icon on the desktop, or a button in an application moves they give up.
I'm not sure about the salary of a public employee in Germany, but can I guess ~$50000 annual.
So if you give the $250 to each employee instead of Microsoft, it's a raise of 0.5%.
Edit: The Windows license is ~$200, but I don't expect it to be renewed annually.
> This is a major inconvenience for nearly all of them.
I agree it’ll be an (arguably worth it) inconvenience. Whether it’ll be major will be determined by the migration effort. The migration of a local association’s administration from Windows to Linux went mostly unnoticed by the users.
"Why do we need to adopt machine guns? They are so much more complicated than our bolt action rifles. Everyone has been trained how to do their job using a bolt action rifle. We will have to totally rethink our doctrine. The Lewis gun doesn't even have a bayonet lug. In my experience, the average private will just give up when he experiences a malfunction."
It's not like LibreOffice produces 10 pages for every 1 page I write in Word.
I never saw any 55+ on the sharp end of the army.
2) A gun you give to the soldiers will be simple.
When you are given a new weapon, you will be drilled on it.
You will learn to fire, aim, reload, disassemble, reassemble (With strict time requirements).
Then you will be drilled more.
The hierarchy and command system of the US Army is extremely different from what an office civil servant union member can expect. You will not have an officer yelling at you to do something or face what could be severe consequences if you dont obey.
Hmm.
Install with the snap:
sudo snap install onlyoffice-desktopeditors
___
1: Or however it goes.