Linux-on-the-desktop pioneer Munich now considering a switch back to Windows - Polidicks

[i]via:[/i]Ars Technica [quote]The world is still waiting for the year of Linux on the desktop, but in 2003 it looked as if that goal was within reach. Back then, the city of Munich announced plans to switch from Microsoft technology to Linux on 14,000 PCs belonging to the city's municipal government. While the scheme [URL="http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/09/5284-2/"]suffered delays[/URL], it was completed in December 2013. There's only been one small problem: users aren't happy with the software, and the government isn't happy with the price.[/quote] [url=http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/linux-on-the-desktop-pioneer-munich-now-considering-a-switch-back-to-windows/]Source[/url]

On the one hand, the lack of support is something Linux has always had issues with, even amongst other distros. On the other hand, there are really easy and cheap solutions to half the problems.

[quote] In making these criticisms, Schmid is echoing issues [B]raised by Mayor Dieter Reiter of the SPD party[/B]. Reiter complained of having to wait weeks for an external mail server to be set up just so that he could get mail on his smartphone, and he has criticized the open source software for lagging behind Microsoft's equivalents. [B]Microsoft announced last year that it was moving its German headquarters to Munich.[/B] This move is planned to take place in 2016.[B] While Reiter was involved in the deal that precipitated the move[/B] and describes himself as a [B]"Microsoft fan,"[/B] he [B]says the criticism of LiMux is unrelated[/B].[/quote] Hahahahahaha, suuure man, suuureee [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] This is pure hilarity as well [quote]The switch was motivated by a desire to reduce licensing costs and end the city's dependence on a single company. [B]City of Munich PCs were running Windows NT 4[/B], and the end of support for that operating system meant that it was going to incur significant licensing costs to upgrade.[/quote] No shit it's costly to upgrade when you are moving up from goddamn WINDOWS NT 4. $20 he's using numbers including the obviously necessary hardware changes and everything else completely vile and rotten that undoubtedly lasted in the infrastructure, if they were still based on fucking NT.

[QUOTE]Schmid also appears to be an Outlook fan, bemoaning the loss of a single application to crosslink mail, contacts, and appointments.[/QUOTE] Kontact (their using KDE on an older version of Ubuntu) does all that. It might not be quite as powerful (eg. no fancy features) but if they're taking the time to retrain staff I'm sure he can cope spending an extra minute at most adding the appointment. [QUOTE]users in the rest of Germany that use other (Microsoft) software have had trouble with the files generated by Munich's open source applications[/QUOTE] I'm going to hazard a guess and say they might be referring to LibreOffice saving in ODF. Literally takes 10 seconds to save as in a OOXML format (docx, xlsx, etc) or doc/xls/etc. I realise this might be difficult to teach some people, but it's hardly a complaint worth suggesting a monumental transition back over. [QUOTE]Reiter complained of having to wait weeks for an external mail server to be set up just so that he could get mail on his smartphone, and he has criticized the open source software for lagging behind Microsoft's equivalents.[/QUOTE] I don't even know what he means by this. I can't possibly believe that for 3 weeks a large body of staff had no access to email. And even if he did, I'm 100% sure that it was because of configuration and not because it was "lagging behind". I'm glad to see down the bottom the fact that the council itself and the head of IT are defending the plan. This guys just a salty nut.

No matter how you linux fanboys sugar coat it, linux is still years away from being usable by the general public, specially those that use public computers.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731380]No matter how you linux fanboys sugar coat it, linux is still years away from being usable by the general public, specially those that use public computers.[/QUOTE] While I don't think you're totally wrong, part of the reason it's not able to be used by the general public is that the general public has grown up using either Windows or Mac. Yes, there are the occasional hardware incompatibilities and the terminal does take a bit of getting used to (although on almost any mainstream distribution you can still get things done assuming you don't need CLI-only software or don't want to do anything really complicated or use niche software) - but it's through projects like this that we can help make it useable by the general public. Generate a need and spend the time/effort training and over time not just the people will learn, but you'll find there's a greater demand and market forcing developers to start producing software and drivers for Linux. I know it has it still has its shortfalls - but we have to start somewhere.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731380]No matter how you linux fanboys sugar coat it, linux is still years away from being usable by the general public, specially those that use public computers.[/QUOTE] Uh, if anything Linux is [B]best[/B] suited for general/public use... it's faster, less bloated and more efficient at performing basic tasks (web browsing, checking email, watching videos). It's mostly lacking in terms of professional tools. It's hard for development companies to switch, because their employees either have to change their workflow, or emulate their current one. Neither of which is ideal.

I'm fairly sure you don't need the terminal on most mainstream distributions by now, at least not if you're not doing any programming/using strange niche software. I run openSUSE and I only had to touch the console once when setting up the F# compiler from source and to fix the MonoDevelop install. Getting LibreOffice was much easier than on my Windows computer due to the software repository and package manager GUI.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731380]No matter how you linux fanboys sugar coat it, linux is still years away from being usable by the general public, specially those that use public computers.[/QUOTE] By making a statement like that you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think Linux is a catch fall for [I]everyone[/I], I do agree there is a several big groups of people who still [B]need[/B] windows for one reason or another, and I wouldn't even recommend it by default to anyone, without asking what they wanna do, first. But among other things, Linux machines are perfectly suitable for vast majority of office and commercial sector applications. [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tamschi;45731503]I'm fairly sure you don't need the terminal on most mainstream distributions by now, at least not if you're not doing any programming/using strange niche software. I run openSUSE and I only had to touch the console once when setting up the F# compiler from source and to fix the MonoDevelop install. Getting LibreOffice was much easier than on my Windows computer due to the software repository and package manager GUI.[/QUOTE] Most mainstream installations literally don't offer you a terminal at all anymore. You have to actually look for it to get one. It's there but it's not in plain sight anymore. Kinda just like in Windows.

[QUOTE=shauntp;45731428]While I don't think you're totally wrong, part of the reason it's not able to be used by the general public is that the general public has grown up using either Windows or Mac. Yes, there are the occasional hardware incompatibilities and the terminal does take a bit of getting used to (although on distributions like Ubuntu you can pretty much avoid it and still get things done) - but it's through projects like this that we can help make it useable by the general public. Generate a need and spend the time/effort training and over time not just the people will learn, but you'll find there's a greater demand and market forcing developers to start producing software and drivers for Linux. I know it has it still has its shortfalls - but we have to start somewhere.[/QUOTE] Linux distros still can't agree on one universal install package and even then you have to install a lot of programs with the terminal. I don't think linux users realize that most people do NOT want to mess with the inner workings of their OS, they simply don't want that level of control. The fact that you're still reliant on the terminal for many things is a con, not a pro. Sure, if you're a power user, then use the terminal but don't expect your mom to know the command lines. Heck, i don't think even your average 20 years old windows/mac user who isn't comp sci major can use it. Even the 'streamlined' distros like ubunto and mint aren't all that user friendly (compared to win/mac). Unless the linux distros do something drastic like dropping all reliance on the terminal, linux is never going to become a mainstream OS.

[QUOTE=rilez;45731477]Uh, if anything Linux is [B]best[/B] suited for general/public use... it's faster, less bloated and more efficient at performing basic tasks (web browsing, checking email, watching videos). It's mostly lacking in terms of professional tools. It's hard for development companies to switch, because their employees either have to change their workflow, or emulate their current one. Neither of which is ideal.[/QUOTE] Which would you say is easier to learn/maintain? I had a very brief experience with Linux, and I totally admit my issue is due to impatience. I was trying to install Steam, and it just wouldn't work. I forgot exactly the issues, but I was getting errors and it refused to install. There probably was a workaround that I could have found, absolutely. But compared to Windows, where I don't need a workaround? Windows/OSx are definitely much more approachable, if you ask me.

[QUOTE=shauntp;45731320][...] I'm glad to see down the bottom the fact that the council itself and the head of IT are defending the plan. This guys just a salty nut.[/QUOTE] In fact there's close to no chance for them to switch back, according to the German source linked in the article. [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=LegndNikko;45731563]Which would you say is easier to learn/maintain? I had a very brief experience with Linux, and I totally admit my issue is due to impatience. I was trying to install Steam, and it just wouldn't work. I forgot exactly the issues, but I was getting errors and it refused to install. There probably was a workaround that I could have found, absolutely. But compared to Windows, where I don't need a workaround? Windows/OSx are definitely much more approachable, if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Steam is a bit weird, it worked fine for me out of the box on openSUSE and Ubuntu, but it seems quite a few on the games with "Linux" support are just for Ubuntu and won't work decently on other distributions. I'm 99% sure the DRM free copies from Humble Bundle would run a bit better in some cases though.

Linux machines for workplaces are optimal though, since one IT-savvy guy has to set up a working install ONCE, then disable auto updates and all that shazz, and then give the workers limited access accounts so they can't access anything they don't need to. If you run your linux in this way, it will pretty much run forever, given that the sofware used (systemd) doesn't suck dicks.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45731513]By making a statement like that you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think Linux is a catch fall for [I]everyone[/I], I do agree there is a several big groups of people who still [B]need[/B] windows for one reason or another, and I wouldn't even recommend it by default to anyone, without asking what they wanna do, first. But among other things, Linux machines are perfectly suitable for vast majority of office and commercial sector applications. [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] Most mainstream installations literally don't offer you a terminal at all anymore. You have to actually look for it to get one. It's there but it's not in plain sight anymore. Kinda just like in Windows.[/QUOTE] I admit i haven't used a distro recently but i really tried to make the switch on my laptop like 2 years ago. I tried ubunto and mint and for every small thing or setting or software installation (package manager never fuckin worked) i had to look up some terminal command and try a couple of different things to get it working. After a week of looking up commands for random shit, programs not working/supporting linux, etc i said fuck it and reinstalled windows.

In my experience maintaining Linux is actually easier as a whole, since almost all software will update automatically through a central system. If I wanted to keep my Windows PC as up-to-date I'd have to spend about an hour a month on installing updates manually. (This is in part because I use some not completely mainstream software though. All major browsers auto-update everywhere by now.)

I love Linux, but it's understandable why you'd want to use Windows. I use Windows too even though I feel a lot more comfortable in my own customized linux install. third-party support is just terrible which has me going back and forth between the systems all the time, and at that point there's little use rebooting into a system I'll use for an hour, then reboot again to use something I need from Windows

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731562]Linux distros still can't agree on one universal install package and even then you have to install a lot of programs with the terminal. I don't think linux users realize that most people do NOT want to mess with the inner workings of their OS, they simply don't want that level of control. The fact that you're still reliant on the terminal for many things is a con, not a pro. Sure, if you're a power user, then use the terminal but don't expect your mom to know the command lines. Heck, i don't think even your average 20 years old windows/mac user who isn't comp sci major can use it. Even the 'streamlined' distros like ubunto and mint aren't all that user friendly (compared to win/mac). Unless the linux distros do something drastic like dropping all reliance on the terminal, linux is never going to become a mainstream OS.[/QUOTE] You seem really out of date with linux. It's funny that you brought up Ubuntu, because you can install and use it literally without ever opening up the terminal.

Linux is great, if you have a basic knowledge of computers and above to work with. Most distros while stable, are much like a game when it updates, everything else loves to break with it meaning you have to redo a crap load. And Xorg almost always breaks.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731562]Even the 'streamlined' distros like ubunto and mint aren't all that user friendly (compared to win/mac). Unless the linux distros do something drastic like dropping all reliance on the terminal, linux is never going to become a mainstream OS.[/QUOTE] My mother is 60 years old and couldn't care less about computers. She just wanted something fast on her netbook so she can check her email. She's been using eOS for over a year now, no problems. She can update and install programs without using terminal. The interface is simple and straight forward. The only time she asks for help is when she forgets her passwords. You get too worked up about terminal, where most distros don't even require it for basic usage anymore

[QUOTE=Bumrang;45731633]You seem really out of date with linux. It's funny that you brought up Ubuntu, because you can install and use it literally without ever opening up the terminal.[/QUOTE] The last time I used Ubuntu, which was last year, I still had to use terminal to install shit because half of it was only obtainable via the gitpull function or came in a fucking .blob or some weird other extension of what was basically the equviliant of a .zip or 7zip.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731562]Linux distros still can't agree on one universal install package and even then you have to install a lot of programs with the terminal. I don't think linux users realize that most people do NOT want to mess with the inner workings of their OS, they simply don't want that level of control. The fact that you're still reliant on the terminal for many things is a con, not a pro. Sure, if you're a power user, then use the terminal but don't expect your mom to know the command lines. Heck, i don't think even your average 20 years old windows/mac user who isn't comp sci major can use it. Even the 'streamlined' distros like ubunto and mint aren't all that user friendly (compared to win/mac). Unless the linux distros do something drastic like dropping all reliance on the terminal, linux is never going to become a mainstream OS.[/QUOTE] All basic tasks can be done with GUI applications. Only power-users are going to drop to terminal.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731613]I admit i haven't used a distro recently but i really tried to make the switch on my laptop like 1.5-2 years ago. I tried ubunto and mint and for every small thing or setting or software installation i had to look up some terminal command and try a couple of different things to get it working. After a week of looking up commands for random shit, programs not working/supporting linux, etc i said fuck it and reinstalled windows.[/QUOTE] It's possible you got the wrong manuals in that case. (The command line stuff is technically faster, [I]once you know how to use it[/I].) Ubuntu definitely has a GUI tool for everything, though I wouldn't recommend that distribution because it's extremely bloated in comparison. Hit the Windows Key and type Software or Settings and they should come right up in the new desktop environment. I had to configure my system a bit, but with openSUSE you can just google one-click install packages for things not in the default repositories. Then you enter your root password once and the rest is automated.

[QUOTE=aydin690;45731562]Linux distros still can't agree on one universal install package[/quote] That's literally point of Linux distros. You are supposed to go with what works the best/best for you. That's literally the point of the entire deal. [quote]and even then you have to install a lot of programs with the terminal.[/quote] No, you don't. [quote]I don't think linux users realize that most people do NOT want to mess with the inner workings of their OS, they simply don't want that level of control. The fact that you're still reliant on the terminal for many things is a con, not a pro.[/quote] But you are not.[quote] Sure, if you're a power user, then use the terminal but don't expect your mom to know the command lines. Heck, i don't think even your average 20 years old windows/mac user who isn't comp sci major can use it. [/quote] Even tho none of this is true, let me point out it's actually easier to look up the one command line you need to paste into shell than look up a 30 minute video of "LOOK FOR THE OPTION SOFTWARE > INSTALLATION > OTHER > SETUP > OTHER > PENIS > UNINSTALL". I had the unfortunate bad luck to have to deal with broken windows. Yes, if windows work, it's nice. If windows break, fixing them is leagues harder than when linux breaks, unless you count reinstall as a legitimate way of fixing things. [quote] Even the 'streamlined' distros like ubunto and mint aren't all that user friendly (compared to win/mac). Unless the linux distros do something drastic like dropping all reliance on the terminal, linux is never going to become a mainstream OS.[/QUOTE] If these were reliant on terminal then they would be literally unusable because you have to actually put work into getting the terminal show up. Your information is severely outdated. Stop arguing your wrong point.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45731673]That's literally point of Linux distros. You are supposed to go with what works the best/best for you. That's literally the point of the entire deal. No, you don't. But you are not. Even tho none of this is true, let me point out it's actually easier to look up the one command line you need to paste into shell than look up a 30 minute video of "LOOK FOR THE OPTION SOFTWARE > INSTALLATION > OTHER > SETUP > OTHER > PENIS > UNINSTALL". I had the unfortunate bad luck to have to deal with broken windows. Yes, if windows work, it's nice. If windows break, fixing them is leagues harder than when linux breaks, unless you count reinstall as a legitimate way of fixing things. If these were reliant on terminal then they would be literally unusable because you have to actually put work into getting the terminal show up. Your information is severely outdated. Stop arguing your wrong point.[/QUOTE] The point isn't outdated, a lot of stuff is still not in any form of executable and still needs command line. And fixing windows and linux are two completely different beasts, I had my linux distro on my netbook break itself via updating and it spat out tons of garbage code instead of actual errors. Windows, I just fucking reinstall it, especially with 7 and 8, you can save your documents and it keeps everything.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;45731633]You seem really out of date with linux. It's funny that you brought up Ubuntu, because you can install and use it literally without ever opening up the terminal.[/QUOTE] Sure, if all you do is browse the internet. I wanted to repartition a raid drive without reinstalling mint and what a nightmare that was.

cool thing about Linux is that there's a graphical front-end for everything if the terminal isn't your kind of thing. once you learn the terminal though, I'm sure you'd never want to use a graphical front-end

[QUOTE=PredGD;45731703]cool thing about Linux is that there's a graphical front-end for everything if the terminal isn't your kind of thing. once you learn the terminal though, I'm sure you'd never want to use a graphical front-end[/QUOTE] Yeah, but like most distros, you have to get that GUI front end, yourself, which almost always includes terminal.

It's easy for a lot of you people to say "Oh it's so easy to use linux" but most people don't even know how to install a driver, let alone all the garbage you need to do to get Ubuntu to run all the windows applications you usually need.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;45731563]Which would you say is easier to learn/maintain?[/QUOTE] By design Linux is easier to maintain. All modern distros have a central package manager, which keeps programs updated and allows you to install them easily. And the Linux kernel handles almost all system level drivers, you just have to select your video drivers. Learning curve depends on the distro used and the environment you pick. Ubuntu is easier to set up and use than Arch, but Arch makes it easier to do other things. GNOME and Pantheon Shell are both super simple environments. Also Steam was pretty unstable during the Linux beta, I haven't had any problems with it recently

[QUOTE=Swilly;45731708]Yeah, but like most distros, you have to get that GUI front end, yourself, which almost always includes terminal.[/QUOTE] if you stick with Ubuntu, you just need to open the package manager which has a GUI and install that front-end for something else. no terminal usage required