[Sussex] Munich picks its Linux distro

[Steve Dobson]

Morin'

On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:50:56PM +0100, Stephen Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 14:41 +0100, Geoffrey Teale wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 14:19 +0100, paul at paulgraydon.co.uk wrote:
> > > Well.. I must say I'm in parts surprised and in others not..
> > > Debian: Great for stability, but hardware support on modern systems can
> > > be a right pain in the arse.

Well having read the article it said they were "migration from Microsoft
Windows NT to Linux on the desktop".  This suggests that they haven't got
the latest and greatest in terms of hardware.

> > > I would have expected them to go with Ubuntu or somesuch if they wanted
> > > a distro based on nice stable Debian.  As it is I would imagine the
> > > techies might have fun on some of the less vanilla PCs out there.

I doubt very much that Peter Hofmann (the migration project leader) wanted
Debian (or Debian-like).  The project was put out to tender and "received a
large number of high-quality responses" so there is a good chance that 
Ubuntu was in there somewhere, as was IBM.

I thinks this speaks volumes for the F/OSS business model. Gonicus and
Softcon, who I assume are local computer (at some level) consultants,
were able to compete and beat the likes of IBM and HP based upon a 
volunteer based disto.  The F/OSS model is allowing more diversity and
therefore more customer choice.

I also think is shows a mistake in Microsoft's approach.  Steve Ballmer's
interrupted ski holiday to visit Munich's mayor was referenced.  M$
sent their head man to talk to Munich Council's head person presumably 
on the basis that where the head leads the body follows.

While I don't know how German local government works, I suspect it is
broadly like our own.  The mayor, while head of the council, is only one
voice.  The mayor preferences don't count unless the council is tidy where
the mayor's vote is the deciding vote.

> > >From what I've read they are an IBM shop - IBM's kit is _very_ stable in
> > terms of what hardware is used and Thinkpads (for instance) have a
> > policy or allowing a single install image to work across an entire
> > range.

Well it isn't that difficult.  For any given manufacturer there are going
to be a (very) limited set of options.

> >         There are also very clear upgrade schedules and product
> > lifespans and very long term parts availability.  All of this allows you
> > go with a very stable distro (Debian) with long release cycles (large
> > organisations want nothing to do with rapid upgrade cycles).

All of this allows IBM to manage the software problem to support their 
product range.

> > This all seems very sensible.  

Yes, very.

> Well even I wouldn't relish the prospect of installing Gentoo on 14,000
> PCs! 

Which adds to my point that the F/OSS business model is a very good one
(I may even dare to say the best).  Gentoo is providing a solution to those
that want to compile the latest, bleeding edge software.  It comes with
its own limitations - installation being one of them.  And before I get
flamed I am NOT saying that Debian doesn't have limitations, just that it
has different limitations.  When picking a distro pick the one who's 
limitations provide the least problems to the way YOU want to do thinks.

Steve

-- 
QOTD:
	"A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20050418/0b8adb5b/attachment.pgp