FSM Columnist: Trusted
* Tony Mobily
* 2008-06-09
*
3 Up Down
* Tags: linux, microsoft, migration, vienna
Write a full post in response to this!
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
Several governments and councils reported multi-year migration plans
to GNU/Linux. Free software activists praised each one of them in
their blogs and commentaries. However, a few months or years on, some
of those plans crumbled. Vienna is one of them. A question here begs
to be answered: why did it happen? The City of Vienna made several
crucial mistakes. In this article, I will list the most prominent
ones.
I worked in IT for many years. I used to be the whizkid, whereas now I
am just the "older guy who's seen it all" (I am getting old: I am over
30 now…). I've seen enough to make this very bold statement:
"Migrating is hard. In fact, it might well be the hardest thing to do
for an IT department". Starting ex-novo is easy: you can decide what
technologies you will use, and work around problems and idiosyncrasies
of the chosen platforms. There are very few "gotchas" when you start
from scratch and have a clear list of requirements. When you have to
migrate, however, you often enter a real life nightmare: some things
are just not going to work.
A good migration is 1) Gradual 2) Very expensive 3) Painful. It's
gradual, because it's easier to fix 10 people's problems (possibly
representing a good sample of the real user base) than answering 1000
calls from users who really, really need that particular feature that
takes 6 months to implement. It's expensive, because it requires both
staff retraining, and structural adjustments (which are sometimes
major). It's painful, because it's "change" and "change" is painful.
Move house, divorce, or change job to see what I mean.
Here is a point list of what I think the mistakes were in the City of
Vienna's migration. Although I am very direct, I am writing this very
humbly: please keep in mind that it's always easy to point your finger
at somebody after a major stuff-up, whereas a lot of us have made
worse mistakes in the past.
Their own distribution? Hello?
Their first, huge mistake was their attempt to roll out their own
GNU/Linux distribution called Wienux. In my opinion, this move showed
a mixture of madness, boldness and sadistic intentions; or, maybe,
just lack of experience. Wienux was based on Debian, which probably
helped. However, anybody working on Ubuntu will tell you that even
creating a "simple" fork of Debian is anything but easy; in fact, it's
monumental. Issues like rolling out updates, merging back to Debian,
local and upstream bug reporting, will eventually make you realise
that it's a lot cheaper to pay for Vista licenses. In this case, they
really had several options: they could have rolled out lots of Ubuntu
desktops (if they wanted to go the easy route), or even CentOS
desktops (if they wanted a stable giant), or a terminal server
architecture (if they had an experienced IT department and if their
infrastructure allowed it).
But developing their own GNU/Linux distribution? Please…
Their IE-dependent software
Back in 2003, Microsoft and the German Ministry for Family teamed up
to create "Schlaumäuse" (which should mean "Clever Mouse", although I
don't speak German), a program aimed at teaching kids how to use
computers.
Keep in mind that back in 2003 Firefox didn't even exist yet. At that
point, making sure that a Web site was multi-platform, or even
multi-browser, was hardly a priority. Microsoft had (luckily only
briefly) a stronghold on the web browser market, and they surely used
it: the maker of Schlaumäuse managed to create a Frankenstein-like
monster that required several IE plugins (heavens knows what for). The
software maker that created Schlaumäuse hinted that while a Firefox
version is in the works (planned for 2009!), the city had not offered
enough incentives to speed up development. See: they didn't pay them
enough to care. Also, surprise surprise, Wine would crash repeatedly
while running Schlaumäuse.
We can kick and scream all we want about Schlaumäuse needing IE
plugins to work. It's clearly a narrow-minded decision; however, keep
in mind that the government (the German government, I assume) signed
off the specs for the project, accepting its dependency to Internet
Explorer. Keep in mind that the maker of Schlaumäuse very likely did
things according to their internal know-how and resources, and that
making something multi-anything (multi-platform, multi-browser,
multi-processor) is always harder than focussing on one particular
platform. Keep in mind that Microsoft backed that project, and most
likely made absolute sure that IE was crucial for it to work.
In the end, it was the City ff Vienna's IT department's misjudgement
that lead to the plan's failure: they didn't pay for a much needed
upgrade to Firefox of Schlaumäuse (although, God knows how much it
would have cost them); they trusted Wine, and obviously didn't test it
enough before the migration started.
As it often happens with migrations, you never know who to blame
first: the fact that Schlaumäuse is an IE kludge? Or the fact that
Wine isn't advanced enough and crashes when facing IE kludges? Or that
the City Of Vienna didn't test Wine enough? Or the fact that
governments should never partner with convicted monopolists without
specifying that the end result mustn't be bound to their platform? Or…
Or… Or…
Hardware problems?
Another issue they raised was about hardware compatibility. This is at
least partially a result of them creating their own GNU/Linux
distribution (which, as I said earlier, was a bad move to start with).
Somebody really must tell the City of Vienna's IT department that
migrating to Vista is not going to make things much better. In fact,
it's going to bring more hardware incompatibility problems, and more
expenses. As I wrote above, migrations are often very expensive, often
for unforeseeable reasons. Even if only the mice used in their
existing computers are not compatible with Linux (which is unlikely,
but it works as an example), they will have to spend un-budgeted money
for hundreds, thousands of mice. Again, "starting small" are the
keywords here.
Microsoft's pressure
There is one last point: Microsoft pressure. When Massachusetts's
former CIO Peter Quinn made the bold move of starting the migration to
ODF for document storage (starting a small, unstoppable revolution),
Microsoft's "damage control" machine started moving. And made no
enemies. They managed to get the Disability Rights groups to bash
OpenOffice and praise Microsoft Office (which was absurd in itself).
They put immense amounts of pressure onto Peter Quinn himself, who
received unjustifiable personal attacks and who, eventually, resigned
from his job.
The second the City of Vienna announced their migration to free
software, Microsoft's "damage control" machine started; we will never,
ever know what they did; words like "bribes", "absurd discounts",
"personal pressures" come to mind, but they are just (frankly unfair)
speculation.
In the end, when migrating to free software, the keyword is
"low-profile", "hardly advertised", "very gradual"; this is the only
way to escape Microsoft's radar. Unless the real goal of starting the
migration was to get bigger discounts from Microsoft, which is always
possible (although I don't think it was the case here).
Learning from your mistakes?
The City of Vienna might well be a lost cause. However, my hope is
that other IT managers will eventually stumble across this article,
and avoid making the same mistakes. The presence of a strong desktop
distribution (Ubuntu) will hopefully simplify things. However, in the
end we need to accept that most of the world will eventually start
migrating to open standards and free software, and that it's going to
be gradual, expensive and painful.
Welcome to hell.
--
gao stone
***************************************
ubuntu, humanity to others!
Say "Yes" to OPEN SOURCE!
***************************************
博文
没有评论:
发表评论