you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (12 children)

The city administration of Munich switched to Linux, migrated all data and users, trained them etc. for millions of Euros, and then eventually switched back some years later since staff productivity was way down, and users didn't feel comfortable in the OS environment.

You can't enforce a change. Linux is great, especially so for tech enthusiasts, but the average (or probably below average) user might have a hard time to adjust.

And when performance is measured in workforce efficiency, then you have to accept that it's simply not suited for every environment.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    They actually flip flop a lot.
    2006: Migration to LiMux begins
    2008: 1200 out of 14,000 have migrated to the LiMux environment
    2013: Over 15,000 LiMux PC-workstations (of about 18,000 workstations)
    2016: Microsoft moves german HQ to Münich
    2017: Dumping Linux https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/munich-city-government-to-dump-linux-desktop-84307.html
    2020: Going back to Linux https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-not-windows-why-munich-is-shifting-back-from-microsoft-to-open-source-again/
    2023: Microsoft opens new Experience Center in Münich https://www.munich-business.eu/meldungen/neues-microsoft-experience-center-emea.html
    2023: Analysing what needs to be done to switch to Win10 before new vote https://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/ditching-linux-for-windows-after-wannacry-is-too-risky-for-munich-green-party-warns/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    Companies like MS love to lobby a company or institution for a flip sale, lots of revenue in services. just have to bribe/schmooze the right people. That's how Siemens was doing business before their giant lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The problem with that is a few years is a bit short to get real benefits out of it. And the Wikipedia article contradicts the statement that productivity went down. Actually issues and errors went down, half the workforce was alright with it and they saved tens of millions of Euros. And then they cancelled it. That decision wasn't backed by technical or factual reasons at all. Many people said they were fine with Linux. Issues were for example that they had old and outdated computers. As a reason to switch back they claimed: sync to mobile phones had issues (...as if government workforce syncs their calendar to their mobile phones...) and these were issues with the groupware suite. Nothing had anything to do with Linux, productivity or the people who sat in front of the computers and actually had to use it. There were quite some benefits and from the technical side things were going well despite admins not being backed by their superiors and the city. They did a final study which contains quite some / mostly dubious statements, and Microsoft also was involved in the switching back.

    You CAN enforce a change. Sure, change is always hard in the beginning. But we do it all the time. The story of LiMux is more: You can destroy anything if you really want to. And politics likes to twist things so it suites their narrative. (And lobbyism is a thing and Microsoft is better at it than the Linux community.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sounds like very poor management since everytime a business company switches system infrastructure, the end-users will receive courses. I was working in a factory which changed the automation system and every end-user spent 4+4 hrs in the lecture room and after 1 month of use they had again 4 hrs advanced use cases lecture.

    After just 6 months every worker said the new system is easier and better, which first seemed to be impossible transfer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment