And it all comes down to a lot of people’s biggest pet peeve with Linux which never seems to go away, and that is incompatibility with Windows apps. and Windows machines.
So in a sense, people who proclaim that every year will be the year of Linux would’ve initially been happy to see a large city government try to move away from Windows, but they ran into the issue of having to build their own apps. from the ground up which essentially meant it became more costly to run than Windows. The decision is not final yet, but the strength of the consideration means that dumping Tux is a likely possibility.
If the Linux people ever want to see that ‘year of Linux’ then it would indeed need to have a larger ability to interact with machines running different OS’s as well as find ways to develop and improve applications that people will likely use on a daily basis (as in, the Linux equivalent of common Windows apps. are still generally inferior for the majority of cases).
Just to note, I did think at one point that Linux might start gaining more appeal with the Win8 debacle and the rise of Linux Mint, but it looks to me like Windows 9 fixes a lot of what was wrong with 8 and thus is looking more like that will be my next OS.
So then, with this news coming out, does this mean a devastating blow for the hopefully increased adoption of Linux or a slight speed bump?
I do not think this is a problem with Linux. It sounds more like incorrect expectations and simply a failed (large) project.
I’m sure it is not the only project that failed. I guess there are others that are success but simply cost more than estimated.
Long term cost reduction is usually one of the goals, regardless of what OS is used. Licence costs are just a (often small) part of them. The larger part is typically the support, maintenance, change requests and custom applications.
There is another point that drive such projects:
You remember you had to register online when you want to use WinOS that you just bought, or Office? What stops the manufacturer to deactivate some licences on some PCs or even all of them? This can result in serious problems when running your business. With an hybrid system you keep at least parts of your system running.
But … an hybrid system simply costs more.
You see: “because all those 9,000 PCs were no longer compatible with other computers that still ran Windows” I wonder what these other computers are and why they need to be compatible or better why they are not :no:.
Finally what does this news mean?
a lot of money was spend on a huge project (not really something new)
it is not known how much money was planned or was spend nor the relation between them (vague news)
the project did not succeed for unknown reasons - most-likely because it blow up the budget too much, but who knows
does this mean Linux is bad and windows is not? No, it just says they did not manage their project well
is it a bad signal for Linux? depends on the perception
[LIST]
Linux haters will say “Yes, I have known it” (is this the right grammar?)
Linux lovers think “1d10t error” ;),
citizens of Munich are annoyed about the long waiting time for their request (and the wasted taxes)
Unfortunately this is a devatising blow, but the the increased adaption will be a bump. So with the news coming, the blow will be soften as users stand up to it.
This is a story about a successful transition city-wide from Windows to Linux, and one single man who personally doesn’t like the change, but doesn’t have the power to do anything about it anyway. Why is the entire Linux world treating this like news?