MA Dept. of Revenue consider Linux 407
hansroy writes "Massachusetts Department of Revenue is still using Windows 95 on the desktop. Faced with upgrade costs of $500-600 per user, they're considering Linux at about one-third the cost. This comes at a very good time, as the new governor of MA is making significant budget cuts this year."
I dunno (Score:4, Interesting)
1. $600 for WinXP
2. Putting Linux on all the machines, configuring them to work interoperably with the Windows machines, and retraining everyone?
No idea which really is cheaper, but I wouldn't automatically say "Linux is cheaper". Training costs money. Interoperability work costs money.
-Erwos
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Interesting)
"Linux is only free if you have more surplus time than money."
This is more often the case than not.
Re:I dunno (Score:2)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
simple: $250 for Windows XP Pro, because you can't run the "Home" version in an office; and another $350 for MS Office XP Pro, because you can't run Office 9x on Windows XP Pro; this figure may also include the horrendus amount of time it takes to move machines from * to XP due to the shitty system deployment tools available
I am a linux bigot, deal with it.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
Re:XP requires hardware upgrades too (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok-- if they are running Windows 95, chances are these are 80486 or Pentium I. Chances are to have a meaningful production workstation you would have to upgrade your hardware too.
I would probably not look at the hardware on this one.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, that's less accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
At worst, Linux becomes an "opportunity cost" and that is only real for an economics professor.
Re:No, that's less accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
And "retraining" is a bit of a red herring since Microsoft likes to change it's interfaces anyways.
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is only free if your time has no value
Don't forget that in the public sector, there is a profound dislike of actually firing people (whether they deserve it or not).
In an era of budget cutting, expenditures on non-people items are the first to go; then the raises, and only then, the employees themselves.
That being the case, it is quite possible to chop IT spending down to Linux levels and to steathily reabsorb the retraining costs because you have the employee sitting around anyway. Once the retraining costs have been absorbed, you will have accomplished the upgrade and be unshackled from MS expensive licenses in the future.
[This is kind of like how charging for computer time has a lower threshhold defined by the cost of electric power.]
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, this is a gub'mint job we're talking about.
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Interesting)
And conversely, Windows is only <whatever the sticker price happens to be> if your time has no value. Both systems have costs above and beyond the purchase price, not just Linux. And going from Win95 to XP would involve retraining as well. Things change -- I've still got a copy of MSWord 1.0 (for DOS and OS/2), and it bears little or no resemblance to the MSWord of today.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no survey to back this up, just my own experience, but I feel sure that over 95% of office workers use "Office" to write memos and letters, 1-2 pages long for the most part. They need email too, though it's surprising how many govt workers DON'T have email.
Basically, most could use a typewriter instead with little effect on productivity, maybe an increase as they wouldn't be able to surf or play solitaire.
Assuming that, all they need to know is how to open a new document, start typing, spellcheck optionally, and print/send. Really, you can learn this in 1/2 hour. Maybe a little longer if people obsess about menus being in different places than they're used to.
The minority that want or need to write spreadsheet macros and the like will take longer to retrain; the simplest option perhaps to allow some to remain with MS for a longer transition period. But Sun and others are working hard on making this easy.
The biggest PC-use productivity boost would come if everyone was given touch-typing lessons. Most staff these days (including myself) are hunt and peck, self-taught typists.
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Up-front costs for interoperability will likely pay for themselves in the long run because the infrastructure will open itself up to a cross-platform environment, allowing for best-of-breed solutions regardless of the platform.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
True... except that many employees (certainly not all, but enough to have an impact on costs) would already have been using Windows XP elsewhere (eg, at home).
Re:I dunno (Score:2, Insightful)
And I'm not talking about the admin / servicing aspect. Basic Joe-Desktop stuff. Come on, start listing them.
I'm sure the WinXX to Linux list would be considerable longer. And more frustrating.
Thats quite a buzz-word collection you have going in the second paragraph by the way. I wrote it down for tommorrow.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
The OS is just a mouse for them to double click icons. It would not be very hard to create a new interface to run in linux, and slap an icon on their desktop to run that interface, which looks very familiar to Windows, and still allows them to work comfertably in the custom software they have been using for some time.
It really all depends on what apps they have been using to determine if they need to retrain MANY things or not.
What about when this issue comes up again in 2010? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Put WinXP, Gnome, KDE, and Win95 next to each other and click around a little. (Make sure you don't set up some wierdo theme - just use the defaults.)
WinXP is less like Win95 than either Gnome or KDE. You could just as easily argue that the retraining costs for XP would be greater than for Linux because MS gratuitously messed with the user interface.
As for interoperability - it's pretty straightforward and you only have to do it once. After that you duplicate the configuration on the rest of the machines.
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they've got to buy more hardware, and do the almost the same amount of work as they would if they migrated to Linux. Sounds more expensive to me.
Not to mention that they could chuck some of the cash they save at IBM or Sun for some nice back-end application servers, so that the next time they "upgrade", it's a transparent process to the users.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Funny)
So this is a question of "is the glass half-assed or half-decent" then?
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
Licensing v6.0 has a few different elements that you are not distinguishing between. You can purchase the upgrade license, such as going from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, or you can purchase Software Assurance, or you can purchase a full license. You are speaking of Software Assurance which entitles the licensee to upgrades for the term of the contract (2 or 3 years depending upon license program).
See, it entitles you to upgrade. You are not forced to upgrade, the big hand of almighty Bill G does not reach down and strike your computer with the blight that is Windows Longhorn. However, if at the end of your term Longhorn was the latest version available, but you were still running Windows 98 you are entitled to make the switch to Longhorn whenever you want. Meaning, if 5 years pass since your Software Assurance expired you can still upgrade to Longhorn, because it was the latest version available when your Software Assurance contract expired. However, if you want to upgrade to the version past Longhorn, you will have to pay full price, there are no upgrades because you didn't continue your enrollment in Software Assurance.
The reason people go with Software Assurance is because it is the cheapest alternative if you do upgrade with each OS release. However, if you are like DOR in MA you haven't upgraded since Win 95. Therefore, you probably don't want Software Assurance. You just want a regular upgrade.
But, DOR missed out on the chance for a regular upgrade price, that deadline ended last July 31st. Now they are in the time period where they must pay full price (minus volume discounts) for a switch from Win 95 to XP.
Re:I dunno (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't just assume that WinXP would take no "interoperability time" and that it would take no retraining.
Windows XP is radically different from Windows 95. It's going to take people time to learn how to get around.
You're assuming they have Windows Servers, maybe they have Novell servers, maybe they telnet to a mainframe application. In the latter case configuration of Linux would be a snap.
If they think ahead well enough they'll mount /home and /usr from a file server. All of the machines will have the same software and the users will have their home folder, no matter what machine they get.
I've worked as a tech in a Windows environment, migrating users (including a finance department) from Windows NT 4/Windows 95 on Novell to Windows 2000 on Active Directory. It certainly didn't get done by itself, and I would have a hard time proving that Linux would take longer if done right.
It's all about planning.
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
"Radically" is going a little far. From a system administration point of view, XP could be called radically different. To the end user, XP is very much the same. When changing from 98SE and Word 97 to XP and Office XP, my mom had no problems doing the exact same tasks in Word. Same with Freecell. Sure, she doesn't know the new way to change the IP of the computer, but she didn't need to know in the first place.
Recently at work, we moved from NT5 to XP. Almost all people had no issues whatsoever with the new OS. Some little things behaved differently, but the general feel of the system was the same.
My point is, for everyday tasks, and to a "normal" computer user, Windows* is the same as Windows*.
Re:I dunno (Largo knows..) (Score:5, Informative)
Newsforge article [newsforge.com]
First
Latest
1 LTSP.ORG server is the cheapest (Score:3, Interesting)
The best incentinve is administration, fine tune 1 server, and all clients are fine tunned as well, no sinchronisation or anything, install a new version of software, they will all be able to use it instantly!
So instead of repeating tasks all over the building, you will have more time to spend at slashdot! 8)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, OK - five years ago when you HAD to know UNIX to use linux, that may have been true. But today it's not only possible but easy to give a Windows-trained user a Linux desktop that looks and functions almostidentically to a Windows desktop.
Wnat to open an application? Double-click the icon or select it from a menu. Want to boldface that text? Press the "bold" button in the toolbar, or the keyboard command.
I mean, really, exactly what needs to be retrained? For the end user, the interface is almost exactly the same. Linux is finally at the point where I COULD sit my mother down at a linux desktop and have her creating documents, surfing the web, and sending email within a few minutes. It's not as if Linux applications work significantly differently from the most common Windows applications. All the same things are there - icons, radio buttons, drop-downs, spinners, toolbars, and so on.
Granted, the system administrators often definitely require retraining. But the end users? With an intelligently set up Linux box, the learning curves for common tasks for end users is rapidly approaching nil.
The very least they could get out of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which in itself is not bad. It is just M$ feeling the weight of competition.
Hang in tight, Bill. It will get worse
One third? (Score:2, Interesting)
I take it they mean training, right?
I wonder how long it would take to train all of those people on Linux. It's not like they're using Linux for a server, it's just average joe using a computer. Chances are they haven't even heard of Linux (the people using those desktops).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One third? (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it they mean training, right?
I think that that would also include licensing (read: support) costs as well.
Linux itself may be free, but -- as good as you may think it is -- it's going to require some support. Might as well pay for that up front and know that you're going to get good support.
This is the attitude that RedHat expected, and they do seem to be making a profit off of the business model. I'm betting that they'd be happy to give a $100/machine bulk support license to the MA government.
Sometimes it's nice to know that you can escalate a problem to the people who helped write the software. Even if you don't use that capability verfy often, when you need it: you tend to really need it. That by itself can sometimes be worth the price of the rest of the support licenses.
watch out for the microsoft mobsters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:watch out for the microsoft mobsters (Score:3, Funny)
MS Discount (Score:5, Funny)
IMO (Score:4, Interesting)
ah, a man has gotta have a right to dream, eh?
Re:IMO (Score:2)
Although, consider that these systems running Win95 probably aren't the fastest systems around. Therefore, do you really want to do an emerge some-big-program on a gutless computer and wait 3 days while it builds?
I could see setting up a beefy server and building packages on that, then distributing the packages to the users. But, if you're going to do that, why not just use Debian as a base, run your own package repository, and have apt-get update cron jobs on the desktops?
Re:IMO (Score:2)
Re:IMO (Score:2)
Re:IMO (Score:2)
Re:IMO (Score:2)
While you *can* use gentoo with binaries, it isn't very useful, and debian is much more tried and tested. Packages have to be well tested to get into stable.
Re:IMO (Score:2)
Win95 no longer working? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand this "we must upgrade" mindset. If the wiz-bang product worked wonders when it was new, isn't is still working just as good today? My office recently replaced hundreds of P3/933 machines (running Win2K + Office2K) with P4/2.5G machines running WinXP + OfficeXP. Aside from the different default color and button theme, nobody really noticed a difference.... other than having to migrate files to the new boxes. The new machine rollout wasn't needed and was expensive... but the IT department said it "NEEDED TO BE DONE".
I don't get it.
Reason: MAnager needs to justify existence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Win95 no longer working? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Win95 no longer working? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that Microsoft is no longer supporting older releases thus "forcing" many users to upgrade regardless of their satisfaction with the current OS. This is what happens when your business model relys on folks constantly upgrading and is a problem with the PC market. Apple appears to buck the trend in many ways in that while they do not officially support really old versions of their MacOS Classic OS, you can still download it from Apple's servers for computers that cannot support more modern versions of the OS. This is one of the many reasons why I purchase Macs. They simply are functional machines for a lot longer than Wintel stuff, they hold their value longer, and they run lots of commonly used software making my return on investment much higher with Macintosh than with Wintel.
Re:Win95 no longer working? (Score:2)
Even if they have many, legal boxes of Win95 in a warehouse, it may not run well on new hardware. Suppose they buy a system with a VIA chipset. Will the VIA 4-in-1 drivers support Win95? And I sure hope they have the OEM version with FAT32 support; FAT16 really sucks on huge disks. (Max partition size is 2GB, and to get that you need an incredibly huge cluster size.)
They may actually want to be able to use USB devices. Even if they have that really rare OEM build of 95 that supports some USB stuff, no one ships drivers for that. Win98 is the oldest MS system that anyone provides drivers for.
And of course they may actually want a system that crashes less.
Your example, of replacing PIII/933 boxes running Win2K, makes much less sense. Especially since WinXP probably runs decently on a PIII (just add lots of RAM).
steveha
Re:Win95 no longer working? (Score:3)
Microsoft has consistently claimed that you cannot move Windows from a computer where it was pre-installed. I will admit that I don't know how far back they have been claiming this; was Win95 licensed differently, such that it is legal to move around?
Even if I'm wrong and it's legal for them to move Win95 around, there are still the technical issues.
Most Win95 sold was OSR2, which supports 32bit fats, but even if they're stuck w. 2 gig partitions, who cares? Most of their files will be on servers, anyway.
OSR2 was shipped with a lot of computers, but Microsoft never sold it separately that I know of. Their hypothetical warehouse full of legal Win95 is probably not OSR2.
Your point about files being on servers is probably valid. I still think FAT16 sucks, of course.
As for updating drivers, all they have to do is go through their game collections. A lot of updated drivers for Win95 are just sitting on game CDs as redistributables, so even if M$ removes the files from their site, who cares?
Maybe you would like to try to support, say, a VIA KT400 motherboard running drivers from 1997. Not me, no thank you.
New hardware should have new drivers, or you are asking for trouble.
USB - most office workers only need USB for the mouse.
Scanners. PDAs. Flash chip readers, if their job involves digital cameras. External drives, perhaps. Label printers.
Clearly, since they are still running Win95, they are surviving without USB stuff. But that doesn't mean there isn't anything they might want to run. It would be nice to be able to pick the best product based on features and cost, and not on "will it work with our ancient hardware and OS".
steveha
Re:Win95 no longer working? (Score:3)
MS's OEM license agreement for OEM software marries that license to the hardware. you are not legally allowed to move it to another computer even if you delete it off the old one.
MS sells the OEM licenses at very cheap prices to the OEM's, and that's part of the restriction, you pay less (typically 50-70) for a license, instead of $150-200, but it is married to that system and is thrown out with the hardware.
I've been to many MS licensing classes, trust me. It's a very common misconception.
In need of upgrade... (Score:2, Funny)
What I'm curious about is what software they plan to run on their desktop. If it's the standard office package then cool. If they run, like some public agencies do, canned software they they may have issues with getting that ported or finding alternatives, which isn't so cool (unless the alternatives are equal or better in useability and performance.)
Still have the brown screen. Looks grim.
hopefully it works. (Score:3, Interesting)
for example, i use a 3d cadd package (solid edge) to model parts and make drawings. as far as i know, the closest thing for linux is the army's brl-cad. which isn't very close at all.
in addition, our parts database has pdf's, doc's, xls's and such as part of the oracle database. there is a web frontend, but what good is it if you can't open the microsoft attachments.
there are many other layers of shackles in place, and there is no way anyone would easily be able to change platforms.
linux may work in this situation where the switch is from windows 95. any place the dor switches to will require new file formats, new programs and more training for everyone. so there is no net loss directly associated with switching to linux in particular.
Re:hopefully it works. (Score:5, Informative)
Never used Linux, have you?? Those are all openable under Linux -- especially the Win-95 versions which are the best reverse-engineered (if only due to the time that they've been out).
there are many other layers of shackles in place, and there is no way anyone would easily be able to change platforms.
Most such changes are structural in nature... Build once, deploy to the entire enterprise. Those sorts of things amortize very nicely with OS, but not so much so with MS per-seat licenses.
Since you'd have to teach a bunch of '95 users how to use XP anyways, training costs would probably be no different than with Linux. When I forced my roommate to deal with my Linux box, he had few months of "how do you do this" -- maybee once per week. After that he was an absolute Linux booster. Even though the machine could dual boot to Windows, he almost never did that after the first month -- no need to. Linux worked so much better for him.
Familiarity, ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't to say UI can't ever be changed (I'm not arguing against progress, nor making any comments on whether XP's approach is progress), but the "familiarity" argument for staying with MS is total bullshit.
The "ease" argument is bullshit too. You have to turn off the firewall that comes with XP to use Win98's SMB printer. Yeah, that's really intuitive and easy. Today, somebody paid a couple hundred dollars for that "ease."
Applications: this one is true; you might be locked into MS. Tell your vendor you want the next wave of custom apps to be platform independent. It is inexcusable for most business software to not be super-portable these days: PYTHON ROCKS and there's almost nothing it can't do (well, not counting realtime stuff, like monitoring the neutron rods in your reactor ;-). And I'm sure
the Java and perl guys have something to say as well. If your vendors are
still creating unportable apps, either find other vendors, or at least
tell them that their decisions are costing YOU money.
BTW, I mean that about portability. Don't trust Linux either. Just be able to use anything and then whatever platform comes out on top .. will come out on top. I don't see Tux's flippers shaking with
fear over that prospect.
My magic 8-ball sez... (Score:3, Interesting)
B) So I understand that the state estimates that they will have to pay $300 per new PC, with no cost for Linux? Who wants to be that Ballmer will now offer to sell the state XP licenses for fifty bucks a pop.
Now what's going to happen next is going to be intereting. Microsoft will argue that fifty bucks a pop would still be cheaper than the cost of retraining their orkers.
That's absolutely true. The only realistic way I see for Linux to be a viable option here would be either if:
A) The state intends to load Linux on their existing, aging PCs, thus eliminating the hardware costs alltogether, but were this true the story would've reflected that
B) The state was so scrapped for cash that even the fifty bucks per XP is too much, and they do not consider retraining as a budget line item
C) The state is smart enough to realize the monetary value of vendor lock-in. The greatest savnigs the state will realize with the Linux solution, of course, is the elimination of vendor lock-in. That's something that Microsoft will desperately try to avoid mentioning, but their popular trick is to first act as if they're going to give away copies of XP at rock-bottom price, only forgeting to emphasize that the "fire sale" is only for the first two or three years of the annual XP subscription license, and after the honeymoon is over, you bend over, grab your ankles, and start shitting out XP license fees...
Re:My magic 8-ball sez... (Score:2)
Why upgrade? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, if the computers were built for a specific purpose, and they're still used for that purpose, why upgrade?
Reasons to upgrade:
1.) Your programs require more system resources. This is fair. We were using QuickBooks from ages ago until they stopped providing tax tables for our version, forcing us to upgrade *grr* and the new version has new bells and whistles so that it bogs down the P-90 w/ 32 megs of ram.
2.) You want support from Microsoft. But, then, if you really wanted to install all the updates for windows 95, wow. That's a lot of updates, probably adding enough to your system to bog it down alone.
But, then, why not upgrade the hardware and install the same copies of Win95? You'd be surprised how many programs will work with win95.
Or, how much do new copies of windows 98 cost? I don't know if they're still available, or how that works. You may have to do the MS stupid "upgrade to downgrade" thing.
If you want to keep windows there are lots of alternatives to look at. I say this because developing new software for linux and training your average high school grad 40 year old secretary to use linux won't be cheap. Something like RedHat 8 is intuitive, but it ain't perfect. Keep in mind that intuitive doesn't mean everything - familiarity is much more important.
I'm all for linux, but I'm also all for lowering the TCO. And i know that over time, linux is definately cheaper. But, then, how many politicians look long term? You look short term so that you get re-elected. Long term politicians get voted out of office.
~Will
Good now they can consider lowering taxes (Score:2)
A little off topic, but IMHO government is the servent of the people. When times are bad they should be the first to take a loss, and when times are good government should be the last sector to recover. CA could especially take a hint.
The usual question... (Score:2)
Re:The usual question... (Score:4, Interesting)
What you have demonstrated is that there is now real competition, something that has been absent from the Desktop OS market for far too long.
Customers will start switching unless Microsoft does something - lowering prices, adding more value, reducing TCO - anything to try and keep them in the fold. Capitalism at work.
We win.
Soko
This will benefit them greatly (Score:5, Insightful)
We are talking about windows 95.. Guess what? It is broke. It has a MTBF of about 180 hours,
The product is no longer supported by the manufacturer. This means no more security updates. Windows 95 was never a very secure networked computer OS. I am sure that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, could use some security.
Re:This will benefit them greatly (Score:2)
Next time try knowing something about what you post.
Please post the IP of your 95 machine :-) (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, how soon they forget....
- The IP stack can be remotely crashed.
- Unencrypted password hashes are sent across the wire.
- The password cache can be decrypted and read by anyone on the machine.
And this is just off the top of my head.
The important thing here is that weaknesses in the networking protocols are not just bugs that can be fixed, they're design flaws. Microsoft just have not backported the most recent RPC stack to W95, so there's no way you can get proper network security. (Why would they bother? It's not like they care about customers who haven't paid their upgrade tax.)
Re:Please post the IP of your 95 machine :-) (Score:4, Funny)
Hack away.
The way to the desktop .. through business? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway - the point!!!
People will use *anything* at work. If the average user is sat in front of a well controlled desktop with easy access to the software they need, they'll care "not a jot" whether it's Linux, Windows or "Whatever"-soft (bought from "Whatever" local company who can supply the goods cheap enough).
As long as the Linux desktop crashes *less* than Win95 (ahem) then at least this may be an another outlet which exposes Linux to the average person in a positive way - as long as they can get stuff done on it.
In businessess I have worked in, price has always been the deciding factor and this might just be where Linux has the perceived edge to the business. Maybe business is the (indirect) way to the user desktop?
Re:The way to the desktop .. through business? (Score:2)
It might be a good or bad decision (depending on how well the admin guys are), but they will be able to say they've tried to save money.
This just in... (Score:3, Funny)
More States to Come (Score:2)
While that is not an outright requirement, cash strapped states will invariably start looking deeply at their commitments to proprietary software.
My state government is screwed. We are the home of the Beast.
Potluck Economics (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux wins on two fronts. Not only is it cheaper, but it's also better. Let's use an analogy of food as an example and consider Microsoft as the McDonald's of the computer industry. Just about everyone goes there every once in a while. It has cheap prices, and the food tastes good, just like Windows used to be relatively cheap, and looked good too. It served the lowest common denominator.
Now, however, we have this new kind of food coming out, and a new consciousness about health, nutrition, the environment, first, and price in a very distant second. This food _simultaneously_ redifines the playing fieild in terms of both price and quality. Sure, it has some way to go before it's complete, but the people that are aware of the ingredients going in absolutely know that it will crush other competition once it comes out of the oven. It's composed of the most fantastic, nutritious, tasty, ecosystem-friendly ingredients. Some of us are tasting the ingredients going in, and while the end users (or customers) are saying "we don't want a meal composed of just boring x", we respond, no, this is just one ingredient in the most fantastic potluck ever conceived.
Those that don't bring something to the table may eat anyway, but if they are allowed to bring something to the table, it should be at least as good as what's already there. Some redundancy is ok, like two different types of the same dish, but overall people try to coordinate so that there can be sufficient variety to solve the main categories.
We can get the basic requirements out of the way, and then start allowing for more specialized dishes. Then, certain people can start skipping producing meals if they have an idea for a dish that requires much more time to prepare, but will be an incredible treat once it arrives.
If meals can be taken care of, maybe other types of goods can come next, and people can skip producing for meals as long as people trust that they're producing other goods. We may not require perfection in terms of allocation of services, but be satisfied with evidence of effort. It all depends on the infrastructure to coordinate such a feat. Perhaps this is what we're working on now.
Considering wha ? (Score:5, Insightful)
wouldn't need it at all (Score:2)
Domino Effect (Score:2)
Just hope they know what they're doing.
Possible Problems (Score:2)
I forsee a lot of problems with this. The state WAN people, will
Also, why oh why after pushing for years over at DPH for a Linux standard (big step for adoption), DOR is going to start doing it? Feh.
Again, I am not speaking in any official sense, just my gut feelings. I do hope they pull it off though.
Why? (Score:2)
-
LTSP.ORG is the answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if they have 10BaseT, LTSP.org will work OK 8)
Massachusetts (Score:3, Interesting)
Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling [slashdot.org]
given the recent law passed in Massachusetts, which prevents people from just throwing away old computers and monitors.... [slashdot.org]
Pretty impressive...
Govt Guy with experience here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The third group, system administrators, don't really count. True, they have the highest learning curve, and they're success if often tied to a particular platform, but since they're upgrading from Windows 95, they're screwed no matter what you do...
In short, the greater the number of power users, the more of a problem you will have. I'm guessing MA Dept of Revenue has a lot of data entry clerks, accountants, lawyers, and bureaucrats (all group 1 types). The people who maintain the databases and manage the data (group 2 types) will be greatly affected, but they'll probably be pleased to get away from Win95. And as usual, the SysOp gets the shaft.
Retraining Costs? Much ado about nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, what exactly are the retraining costs when the majority of users utilize maybe three applications? On the whole, office workers don't utilize "advanced" features available in the software anyway.
For example: how many secretaries are using Word Styles to author documents? Even though Word Styles are available, and take some amount of training to understand, if they're not being used, why worry about it?
What it boils down to is the applications. If those applications are available, and operate in a similar way, it doesn't matter what platform they are running on. The overhead involved in user training is much ado about nothing.
Now, don't get me wrong, there's a number of reasons why continuing down the Microsoft treadmill could make more sense (for now). But retraining isn't one of them.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
The cost of training isn't that big of a deal... (Score:3, Interesting)
All staff have to be trained at some point to use all these things. Clicking in Windows or clicking in Linux, it is about the same. Training to use a word processor under Linux is no more expensive than training to use a word processor under windows.
The real training is not so much with the average user but with the support staff. Linux is very different under the hood than Windows. But again staff must be trained and retrained every time that Microsoft upgrades their server software. The new active directory is way different than the normal domain model.
The question is not whether the training is expensive the question is do you want to train to use Linux or Windows.
With Windows it seems like you get lead by the nose down the path of expensive proprietary software. That doesn't happen with Linux.
Largo and training (Score:3, Interesting)
The transition is *not* that painful (Score:3, Interesting)
The replacement consisted of RedHat Linux (7.x until 8.x came out), Gnome, OpenOffice and Mozilla. The choice of RedHat over other distros was made more because the other techs were new to Linux too and I might not be there all the time. The servers still run Slackware >:)
The results have been great and the staff had far fewer problems than expected and interestingly 98% of the tech calls that come in are from the on the road sales guys having problems using XP, which came preloaded on their laptops.
Re:MIT have a say? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wait a second. $500-600? (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second. $500-600? (Score:2)
And, afaik, for business licensing there can be package deals and crap
Perhaps part of that $600 is the hardware end of the stick? I mean, compare a standard linux machine to a standard Windows XP machine. For the average academic purpose, Linux can do more with less hardware. Personally, though, I would do the whole thing using FreeBSD.
Re:Wait a second. $500-600? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not cheap... the little things add up.
Re:Wait a second. $500-600? (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd make a gorgeous X-terminal though.
Re:Wait a second. $500-600? (Score:2)
Installed, trained, possible System upgrade.
How many systems, that where new in 95, would be able to run XP with no opgrade in parts?
Re:Wait a second. $500-600? (Score:2)
Uh, when is the last time you've of heard a Windows 95 box being upgraded to XP without needing a fist full of extra memory? We all know the XP start menu is actually an AVI.
Re:But (Score:2)
I'm guessing you mean faster processors. It doesn't take SMP to run openoffice. But hey, what do you expect from a troll, intelligence? bah!
or they could use koffice which isn't compatible with anything
It's compatible with more than koffice. Word isn't compatible with much other than word. If Koffice is all you're using, why the fuck do you need it to support word?
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he meant processors. Not as in multi procs for one system, but as in multiple machines. Obviously it's not newsworthy if Mass. is upgrading one machine. He meant multiple machines, processors with cost over many machines.
It's compatible with more than koffice. Word isn't compatible with much other than word. If Koffice is all you're using, why the fuck do you need it to support word?
Because word is the world standard for written documents in the professional business world. Hate to break it to you, but where I work, we don't have but 2 windows machines, and one running VMware, out of about 80 computers. We get lease documents, legal notices, business proposals, ad nauseum, in word or excel format. If you can't read it, you limit your professional image and connectivity.
K-office is compatable with k-office. Open/Star office at least has basic word compatability and functionality.
Please, microsoft may suck for their draconian EULA's, their extremely high prices, their business model, etc. But they make a good office suite. Plus, like it or not, it's the world standard.
Touche, troll. Touche.
~Will
Re:But (Score:2)
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Re:few things on state/local govt. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe this is where something like Crossover Office is REALLY useful. As long as these third party apps don't use the more obscure undocumented parts of the Windows API, they've got a pretty good chance of operating fine through Crossover Office.
It's certainly testable...