Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today) [LWN.net]

USA Today covers some concessions by Microsoft as the company tried (unsuccessfully) to win in Munich. "A Linux victory in Munich would be a stunning blow. So Ballmer visited Mayor Christian Ude to assure him Microsoft would do what it takes to keep the city's business. Documents obtained by USA TODAY show Microsoft subsequently lowered its pricing to $31.9 million and then to $23.7 million -- an overall 35% price cut. The discounts were for naught." (Thanks to Jamie Strandboge)

(Log in to post comments)

Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today)

Posted Jul 15, 2003 10:06 UTC (Tue) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link]

First, it's really cool that they have decided to use open source software!

I have a comment though:
Quote: "Microsoft's philosophy is to change our software every five years," Strobl says. "With open-source, it is possible for us to make our own decision as to when to change our software."

That is not really true. The reason they needed to upgrade was because MS didn't support Win NT anymore. Win NT is *old* and I believe MS actually has offered support for it, far longer than most (if not all) Linux distributions are supported. Of course, with Linux, you have a choice since you have the source and so on, but still...

Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today)

Posted Jul 15, 2003 15:51 UTC (Tue) by veelo (guest, #4694) [Link]

"Win NT is *old* and I believe MS actually has offered support for it, far longer
than most (if not all) Linux distributions are supported."

This is not a fair comparison, because "changing software" can be a pain and
expensive (e.g., from NT to XP) but done in a blink, painless and at virtually no
cost if you use a proper distribution (e.g., upgrading from one Debian release to an
other). In fact, the latter is considered standard system maintenance by many, and
though is has the same effect to Microsoft minds, it can not really be called
"changing software". I think that is what Strobl ment.

Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today)

Posted Jul 15, 2003 19:08 UTC (Tue) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link]

I think you misunderstand me.

1. I don't believe they will be using Debian, they will most likely use Suse.

2. They will want to have a support contract. Hard to get that if they use Debian, AFAIK.

3. It's not about whether it's a pain to upgrade or not, it's about whether they can decide themselves *when* to upgrade. They were forced to upgrade because NT wasn't supported anymore. Same thing happens to Suse...and Debian for that matter.

Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today)

Posted Jul 16, 2003 9:07 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

The difference with Linux is that when SuSE or Debian drop support for an old version, the City will be able to support it themselves (maybe that is why local university is involved), or find any third party to do that as long as necessary. The consideration that the City can switch to another support vendor anytime also forces SuSE and IBM into a more fair bargaining position from the very beginning. With Microsoft, there is no other place to go, and they are widely known to abuse that position.

The true battle is to come

Posted Jul 15, 2003 14:08 UTC (Tue) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link]

Certainly "Linux" has won a battle, but the hard part is still to come. There will be plenty of conservative users to face, unpleased politicians, lobbyist etc...
Those people would take any chance they have to avoid the change if they can. And they may find opportunities to do so if even the slightiest problem arise. It then could bring Microsoft big weapons if they can say in the future "Look, they tried Linux there, but it failed to satisfy their needs".
So, the big battle is in front of SuSE and IBM. It will be a battle against conservatism and lobbyism, to have the chance now to really and completely go to the end of the attempt, and show the world that indeed GNU/Linux on desktop works pretty well.

Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today)

Posted Jul 15, 2003 16:37 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

Two things I found interesting: despite what Gates said, MicroSoft did have a lower up-front cost in this case, and IBM-SuSE won the contract based primarily on long-term strategy.

Also, the chart of companies selling Linux is impressive. IBM has $700 million, while the "others" category, with only companies getting less than about $25 million, has $800 million. This seems to me to be a good insight into Open Source economics; there are a couple of big names in a given space, and they make more in the space than anybody else by an order of magnitude, but there is still more total benefit to people who aren't big names. It seems to me to reflect the way Apache was developed jointly by people who didn't want to make money selling it but to make money using it.

Linux wins big over Microsoft in Munich (USA Today)

Posted Jul 17, 2003 12:58 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Everyone buying, or considering buying a large number of MS-licenses should take note of this.

One thing you can learn from this is that you are being overcharged. So much that even a credible threat to go with Linux will be enough to make MS lower their prices drastically. (by 35% in this example)

In other words, when MS says "That'll be $10 million", you should, at the very least, make sure you're in a situation where you can credibly say: "We can consider $6 million, if not there's always alternatives."

In other words, the beginning of the end of the monopoly. One of the charateristics of a monopoly is that you can overcharge grossly, knowing that the customers don't see a choise. It's nice to see that atleast some customers are starting to realize that there IS a choise