Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 22 2016, @09:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the lock-in-is-expensive dept.

Munich still uses 41 proprietary apps that will only run under XP or 2000. The city has estimated it will cost $18M to replace them over a 4-year span.

Nick Heath at TechRepublic reports

Windows XP and 2000 are used by fewer than 1,500 of the more than 16,000 staff at the council, which relies on the aged Microsoft systems to run 41 applications.

[...] In order to stop using Windows XP and 2000, these 41 applications will either be migrated to a newer, supported operating system, replaced with more modern software, or phased out--as part of a four year project costing €16.6M ($18.03M).

[...] Munich carried on using XP and 2000 due to these 41 applications being used for crucial work in the city, from monitoring emissions for air pollution to flood protection.

To secure the OSes, Munich ran them on virtual machines and on standalone computers, as well as using what it calls "restrictive data interchange", quarantine systems, and additional protective measures.

The council has decided to stop using these older unsupported versions of Windows now as, not only are they a security risk, but according to a report [PDF, Deutsch] they have limited support for network and data security features the council wants to use.

[...] Often it can be the case that organisations can't update the application to run on a newer OS because the people with the necessary skills are gone or the company that originally wrote the software no longer exists.

[...] The project at Munich will be split into two phases: The first will assess the work needed and the second will carry it out. Work got underway at the end of [2015] and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2019.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday January 22 2016, @03:50PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Friday January 22 2016, @03:50PM (#293162)

    Yes, but this is tax dollars being spent for the public good. The inertial argument "well it will cost to move from XP based software" is null and void.

    Chalk it up to "paying for bad former decisions".

    Software paid for with public money should be on FOSS except in narrow, and individually contested cases.

    Oh, and there are companies that will Linux-ize software for you, so I call FUD.

    The money saved in the long run by improving the stability(!), is an experiment worth watching...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by dx3bydt3 on Friday January 22 2016, @04:43PM

    by dx3bydt3 (82) on Friday January 22 2016, @04:43PM (#293192)

    I expect what they mean is, that xp or 2000 are the newest windows systems that could run the software. Where I work we have one last program that can't be run on anything newer than xp, specifically it is a plugin that requires Autocad 2000, which can't be installed on systems that won't run the 16 bit installer. I've got a couple of machines still running xp, and a VM. I'll eventually get the whole thing working under Wine, but for now this works.

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday January 22 2016, @04:50PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Friday January 22 2016, @04:50PM (#293194)

      My experience is that older stuff is easier to get running than newer stuff - depending on what Win32 bits it used.

      Buy my point stands. Virtualization is now mature. ALL machines should be linux, and any legacy machines should be Virtual.

      Hence, the reproduction of functionality can be pursued in parallel.

      Of course, you would have to be careful not to get caught in an Enterprise/VMware cash-milking project, but it is totally feasible within existing FOSS systems.

      Many of ancient programs I have used (for low-level things) might even be in DOS (freedos), win95-win2009 (wine), and if you have $$ pay Crossover and they'll port it for you.

      We need to stop paying massive corporations to run our local governments - it should be *local*.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2016, @08:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2016, @08:20PM (#293305)

        That's the point everyone seems to be missing.
        Why export cash when you can keep it local and get the Multiplier Effect working for your own community|region|country|economic union?

        With much of the world's economy in the crapper, Germany has figured out how to make the giant downturn work in its favor.
        (Radio host and author Thom Hartmann likes to say that Germany has ultimately won WWII.)
        I'll argue that Munich has taken that success 1 step further by going with FOSS and creating jobs in their own area.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Friday January 22 2016, @09:25PM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Friday January 22 2016, @09:25PM (#293328) Journal

          Because you're misunderstanding the "multiplier effect" and it's not an important consideration for these decisions?

          The multiplier effect means that government spending stimulates the economy by some multiple of the cash spent. Stimulating the economy sounds good, but, unless you're in a recession, it's really not; it just increases inflation. This is why we have central banks and monetary policy -- to balance the competing goals of growth and inflation.

          Keeping cash local is a silly goal. If Munich hires programmers it otherwise wouldn't need to manage its infrastructure, it's hiring those programmers away from jobs in the private sector of Munich, or jobs outside of Munich where the programmers would commute and then return home at the end of the day, thus bringing in cash to the local economy.

          Unless those programmers can't find work. In which case, the area is in a recession, and the central bank should act. For this reason, the multiplier effect is typically defined for an entire economy, not a piece of it. "Entire economy" usually means "the area in question and all areas in the same currency union".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2016, @10:11PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22 2016, @10:11PM (#293352)

            That is true.
            I understand the Multiplier Effect at least as well as you do.

            unless you're in a recession

            Nonsense.
            The Multiplier Effect is about getting money circulating.
            N.B. Some guy who already has a bunch of wealth and doesn't spend that on goods and services does nothing for the economy.
            (Buying art that was produced 500 years ago doesn't count; neither does simply "buying" other rich guys' homes at ever-inflated prices in a round-robin fashion.)

            Additionally, the stock market is NOT The Economy.
            This is very apparent when over 23 percent of the population want a job and can't get one.
            The vast majority of an economy is ordinary folks buying ordinary stuff.

            Keeping cash local is a silly goal

            Not when you can produce all the stuff you need locally.
            Trade|outsourcing is for stuff you can't -already- produce.
            ...and you second-guessing the phenomenally successful Germans is just comical.

            the central bank[...]

            ...should die in a fire.
            It's the greatest source of misery in Europe.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]