Another large public-sector linux project flops - Linux

This is a discussion on Another large public-sector linux project flops - Linux ; Another large public-sector linux project flops http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Another large public-sector linux project flops

  1. Another large public-sector linux project flops

    Another large public-sector linux project flops

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm


    Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest public-sector
    Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the potential of
    open-source software. The council, the largest local authority in the UK,
    intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500 PCs in libraries across the
    city.

    But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200 Linux
    PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back to Windows,
    council executives have told ZDNet UK.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops

    On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >
    >
    > Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest
    > public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the
    > potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local
    > authority in the UK, intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500
    > PCs in libraries across the city.
    >
    > But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200
    > Linux PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back to
    > Windows, council executives have told ZDNet UK.


    Reasons given were:


    Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
    migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
    upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
    attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely brought
    about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking and the
    changes to IT processes that would result.

    The Linux project cost £534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would
    have cost the council £429,960. There were a range of problems with the
    open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces and
    lack of support for removeable drives.

    In the light of the findings, the council has taken the decision to
    mothball the project.


    In other words, the advantages were there, but because of management
    failures these were not realised.


  3. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:PJKJj.28005$Ff4.27263@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
    > On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >>
    >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >>
    >>
    >> Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest
    >> public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the
    >> potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local
    >> authority in the UK, intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500
    >> PCs in libraries across the city.
    >>
    >> But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200
    >> Linux PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back to
    >> Windows, council executives have told ZDNet UK.

    >
    > Reasons given were:
    >
    >
    > Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
    > migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
    > upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
    > attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely brought
    > about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking and the
    > changes to IT processes that would result.
    >
    > The Linux project cost £534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would
    > have cost the council £429,960. There were a range of problems with the
    > open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces and
    > lack of support for removeable drives.
    >
    > In the light of the findings, the council has taken the decision to
    > mothball the project.
    >

    >
    > In other words, the advantages were there, but because of management
    > failures these were not realised.
    >

    No. In other words it would cost a lot more, i.e. £115,000, and there were
    problems with "desktop interfaces and lack of support for removeable
    drives."



  4. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops

    "Ezekiel" writes:

    > Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >
    >
    > Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest public-sector
    > Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the potential of
    > open-source software. The council, the largest local authority in the UK,
    > intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500 PCs in libraries across the
    > city.
    >
    > But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200 Linux
    > PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back to Windows,
    > council executives have told ZDNet UK.
    >


    Quote:

    "We have deployed open source in some libraries."

    They should have called Ray ..... He's the "library guy" around here.

  5. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops

    On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:21:56 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    > news:PJKJj.28005$Ff4.27263@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
    >> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >>>
    >>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest
    >>> public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the
    >>> potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local
    >>> authority in the UK, intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500
    >>> PCs in libraries across the city.
    >>>
    >>> But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200
    >>> Linux PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back
    >>> to Windows, council executives have told ZDNet UK.

    >>
    >> Reasons given were:
    >>
    >>
    >> Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
    >> migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
    >> upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
    >> attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely
    >> brought about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking
    >> and the changes to IT processes that would result.
    >>
    >> The Linux project cost £534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would
    >> have cost the council £429,960. There were a range of problems with the
    >> open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces
    >> and lack of support for removeable drives.
    >>
    >> In the light of the findings, the council has taken the decision to
    >> mothball the project.
    >>

    >>
    >> In other words, the advantages were there, but because of management
    >> failures these were not realised.
    >>

    > No. In other words it would cost a lot more, i.e. £115,000, and there
    > were problems with "desktop interfaces and lack of support for
    > removeable drives."


    Piddling.

  6. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:WpRJj.11618$h65.3948@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
    > On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:21:56 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >> news:PJKJj.28005$Ff4.27263@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
    >>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >>>>
    >>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest
    >>>> public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the
    >>>> potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local
    >>>> authority in the UK, intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500
    >>>> PCs in libraries across the city.
    >>>>
    >>>> But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200
    >>>> Linux PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back
    >>>> to Windows, council executives have told ZDNet UK.

    >>>
    >>> Reasons given were:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
    >>> migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
    >>> upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
    >>> attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely
    >>> brought about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking
    >>> and the changes to IT processes that would result.
    >>>
    >>> The Linux project cost £534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would
    >>> have cost the council £429,960. There were a range of problems with the
    >>> open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces
    >>> and lack of support for removeable drives.
    >>>
    >>> In the light of the findings, the council has taken the decision to
    >>> mothball the project.
    >>>

    >>>
    >>> In other words, the advantages were there, but because of management
    >>> failures these were not realised.
    >>>

    >> No. In other words it would cost a lot more, i.e. £115,000, and there
    >> were problems with "desktop interfaces and lack of support for
    >> removeable drives."

    >
    > Piddling.


    You say "piddling", the council says "mothball the project". It seems to be
    the same thing, eh?


  7. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops

    Robin T Cox espoused:
    > On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:21:56 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >> news:PJKJj.28005$Ff4.27263@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
    >>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >>>>
    >>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest
    >>>> public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the
    >>>> potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local
    >>>> authority in the UK, intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500
    >>>> PCs in libraries across the city.
    >>>>
    >>>> But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200
    >>>> Linux PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back
    >>>> to Windows, council executives have told ZDNet UK.

    >>>
    >>> Reasons given were:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
    >>> migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
    >>> upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
    >>> attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely
    >>> brought about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking
    >>> and the changes to IT processes that would result.
    >>>
    >>> The Linux project cost 534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would
    >>> have cost the council 429,960. There were a range of problems with the
    >>> open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces
    >>> and lack of support for removeable drives.
    >>>
    >>> In the light of the findings, the council has taken the decision to
    >>> mothball the project.
    >>>

    >>>
    >>> In other words, the advantages were there, but because of management
    >>> failures these were not realised.
    >>>

    >> No. In other words it would cost a lot more, i.e. 115,000, and there
    >> were problems with "desktop interfaces and lack of support for
    >> removeable drives."

    >
    > Piddling.


    Each sum is so close that in the grand scheme of things, clearly the
    cost was not the reason for the change.

    The really sad thing is that sooner or later, they're going to have to
    change anyway, unless they really want to try to migrate to Vista, which
    would involve replacing all PCs, so surely coming into the
    multi-millions.

    What usually stops things like this is ill-defined project goals...

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  8. Re: Another large public-sector linux project flops


    "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    news:v6rud5-9pj.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    > Robin T Cox espoused:
    >> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:21:56 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>> news:PJKJj.28005$Ff4.27263@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
    >>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Another large public-sector linux project flops
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9284683,00.htm
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Birmingham City Council began the project - one of the largest
    >>>>> public-sector Linux projects in the UK - in May 2005 to evaluate the
    >>>>> potential of open-source software. The council, the largest local
    >>>>> authority in the UK, intended to deploy open-source software on 1,500
    >>>>> PCs in libraries across the city.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But the project has fallen vastly short of expectations, with just 200
    >>>>> Linux PCs being deployed. Even some of those have been migrated back
    >>>>> to Windows, council executives have told ZDNet UK.

    >>>>
    >>>> Reasons given were:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
    >>>> migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
    >>>> upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
    >>>> attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely
    >>>> brought about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking
    >>>> and the changes to IT processes that would result.
    >>>>
    >>>> The Linux project cost 534,710, while the equivalent XP upgrade would
    >>>> have cost the council 429,960. There were a range of problems with the
    >>>> open-source implementation, Timms said, including desktop interfaces
    >>>> and lack of support for removeable drives.
    >>>>
    >>>> In the light of the findings, the council has taken the decision to
    >>>> mothball the project.
    >>>>

    >>>>
    >>>> In other words, the advantages were there, but because of management
    >>>> failures these were not realised.
    >>>>
    >>> No. In other words it would cost a lot more, i.e. 115,000, and there
    >>> were problems with "desktop interfaces and lack of support for
    >>> removeable drives."

    >>
    >> Piddling.

    >
    > Each sum is so close that in the grand scheme of things, clearly the
    > cost was not the reason for the change.
    >
    > The really sad thing is that sooner or later, they're going to have to
    > change anyway, unless they really want to try to migrate to Vista, which
    > would involve replacing all PCs, so surely coming into the
    > multi-millions.


    Most companies replace PCs on a 3-year cycle. Vista would come with the new
    PC. Surely you don't still use a 486 with 128 megs of RAM at work do you?

    Computers get upgraded along with the OS. That's just the way it is.



    > What usually stops things like this is ill-defined project goals...


    What usually stops things like this is a pilot program where users were
    terribly dissatisfied with the proposed replacement.


    >
    > --
    > | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    > | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    > | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    > | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
    >



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread