Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: MS Goes After Schools Evaluating Linux

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Cory <paulwcory AT yahoo.com>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: MS Goes After Schools Evaluating Linux
  • Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:09:53 -0400


Michael,

Thanks for well-thought out response. I agree with you that any changeover of school systems and government agencies to Linux is likely to be a long drawn out process. Too many in the Linux community seem to think that a large organization can simply switch operating systems and applications with the same ease that technically astute Linux users dual boot between Windows for games and Linux for work. :-) I t simply ain't so.

In the interest of giving the Linux promoters a clearer idea of what they are up against, I would like to clarify some of the points you made.

The cost assessment here is comparing paying MS licenses v.s. the
alternatives. Given that the MS licensing costs for the larger school
districts is in the millions of dollars, you can pay for Linux training, and
still save a lot of money.
The money at stake here is not as much as you think. At least, so long as M$ doesn't try to puts the broadsword to our throat on the annual licensing of the OS, like they have to those school districts in the NW.

First off, a lot of our licensing costs are currently sunk - for example, the cost of all the Windows licenses for all the machines we already own constitutes an unrecoverable cost at this point.

Also, M$ has been making some amazing deals to school systems on Office licenses. While the expense is still considerable, it's not as big as you might think, and compared to the size of our overall budget, tiny. To be more specific, our site licenses for Office 2k and M$ Works weigh in at about $750,000 this year and $900,000 next year (we are growing fast, and an 11% price hike from MS on the Office licenses didn't help).

That's real money, all right, but let me put that into perspective. This year, Wake County Schools are requesting $211,000,000 in local (county) funding. So, we're talking less than 1/2 of 1% of the local budget. In the context of our total operating budget, $750 million, it's almost insignificant.

In addition, I can't tell exactly where the money to pay for the M$ license is coming from. School System budgets come from three sources: local funding (county and enterprise ops), state funding and federal funding. Money from the latter two sources often comes with strings attached, meaning savings can't necessarily be rerouted to teacher pay, for example. The point: the savings might not impact county resident's tax bill at all.

Even if all the funds spent on the M$ license were coming from local sources, they would only cover about 35 teachers. While that is certainly better than nothing, we're discussing 35 teachers in a system with a projected enrollment of more than 105,000 students next year. It wouldn't be a significant difference.

All of this changes if M$ comes after us like they did the schools in the NW. Such a move would about double our annual licensing expense, which is bad enough, but what would be really scary would be the potential fines and legal costs if we were found to have made a mistake and decided not to go for the Windows licensing program. That potential liability would, not too mention a near future of escalating costs as our system continues to grow by 3,000 students a year, would certainly force consideration of alternatives.

Instead of paying MS licensing fees, you can pay for consulting help to
implement the change quickly. Alternatively, just about every Linux user's
group in the country would jump at the chance to help a school district
switch to Linux.

Since saving aren't as big as you would suppose, they won't go as far as you think. We're still talking incremental rollout for larger school districts.

Also, hiring a large number of consultants brings its own challenges in the management area. The understaffed IT department will still be heavily burdened, as it will have to manage the work of the consultants (coordination, QA, and so on). There's simply not enough of them to manage the changeover and keep everything running and keep up with state mandates if the switchover schedule is not drawn out over many years. You'll have the same problem working with volunteers, along with having to compete with their real lives for their time and attention.

Also, for large school districts, I doubt the local LUG has enough folks to effect a quick changeover. As an example, the Wake County Schools (27th largest school district in the country, 2nd largest in NC) has something like 16,500 desktop/laptop computers now. How many computers per TriLUG member is that? :-)




Good point. Its my understanding that many hardware vendors will already
supply hardware "stripped" without an OS. I purchased 9 Dell computers this
way 14 months ago, and saved $4,500. (v.s. the cost of paying for Windows
2000 server edition.)

The problem isn't so much the vendors being able or willing to supply stripped versions. It's that the contracts that we have with them have to be rewritten to include the stripped option. As I said, it's a time and effort hurdle.

4. It's not what we use at home/work: l.

You have a good point. These types of changes will take time. I expect the
easy targets will be looked at first, such as replacing the back end where no
one cares what OS is running.
Already happening. :-)

The actual parent reaction will be interesting to see, especially if they are
faced with a choice between reducing class size, reducing taxes, or paying
for MS licenses.

See my comments about the actual savings above. The choice for large school systems is not so simple and clear-cut, because the savings are comparatively tiny.
5. Lack of software:

I look at this transition as a process that will take years, just as it took
years for MS to take market share in the educational space away from Apple.
In places where emulators won't work, there is software that will allow
windows apps to be run remotely from Linux computers.

True, but then you still have to pay M$, reducing the savings. :-)

6. Regulations:
Don Rosenberg, or someone more familiar with licensing may be able to clarify
this, but I would be very surprised if any procurement regulations were even
affected by open source. The reason is 99.999% of commercial licenses are
designed to protect the software manufacturer, not the purchaser.
The problem is procurement policies and other regulations that state that M$ software is required for compliance. In those cases, no other solution, even Mac, can get it's foot in the door until the policy or regulation is changed. For example, part of our MS site license is 3,000 M$ Works licenses. Why? Because the state of NC requires M$ Works for the mandatory 8th grade computer test.

The obvious answer is to require that the software used produce files of the appropriate specification - but that's not how the rule is currently written. Getting it changed will take a lot of organized, coordinated effort - remember, it's not just a change in the wording, it's a potential change in the process of administering and grading these tests that opens up the possibility for more errors and means DPI will have work harder to make sure everything works as intended (someone will have to certify that the Linux option is producing acceptable files). Worse, from the Linux advocates' perspective, it's a looooow priority for NC DPI, which means even getting their attention on the matter will be difficult.

This is the regulatory/procurement hurdle that Linux faces in the government arena. The above is just a small example: such regulations and procurement policies suffuse the structure of government and even make it into the structure of grants.

One more example: the state has hardware and software standards for certain Workforce Development Education programs. Local schools offering those programs have to meet the state standard. Linux is not mentioned in those standards, and thus can't be used.

7. Politics:

[... Good points deleted for brevity.]

I believe that faced with draconian MS licensing policies, government
institutions can now reduce immediate licensing fees, future software costs,
and all future hardware purchases.
Yes they can. The question is: will the pain and agony of the switch be worth the money saved? The more M$ pulls stunts like t has in t he NW, the more the answer will be yes. The more they get a clue and stop shooting themselves in the foot, the more the answer will be no.
While there are significant hurdles to
this switch, I believe that governmental organizations will be hard pressed
to justify the massive cost difference.
Just remember how small the relative numbers are. And how large the conversion costs are and how long it will be before savings are realized.

. I predict we will
see a number of groups come to together to affect this change:

1. Companies spring up that will specialize in Windows to Linux migration.
2. Grass roots open source advocacy groups.
3. The large IT vendors such as IBM are investing billions to port Linux to
their hardware, and will have a vested interest in selling this hardware and
software services to the government.

I agree that if these groups coordinate, they can get the ball rolling for change.
One of the reasons for this pressure, as I'm sure you're aware is local and
state governments are going through an unprecedented budget crises right now.
I sure wouldn't be the person who had to run for re-election and explain why
I had to fire teachers or increase class sizes by 10% just to pay Microsoft.
Again, there's the rub - it's not really about firing a lot of teachers or increasing classes by more than a tiny fraction of a student. It is about making the best use of the public's money - but, especially in education, the relative numbers are so small that they are easy to overlook. A school system will spend something like 75%-85% of its budget on salaries and benefits. Faced with having to cut the overall budget by 2% this year, where do you think people are going to look for savings? Especially since it appears that we agree that any conversion program, because of changeover and training expense, won't generate any savings for at least a year or more.

Politics, alas, rears it's ugly head here again. The folks who oppose the public education and those who reflexively oppose higher taxes are the ones who lead the charge for cutting government costs in the political arena. Unfortunately, they rarely come up with specific suggestions for trimming government expense or question why we're not experimenting with lower cost alternatives to M$ to see if they are appropriate for our situation. They prefer to attack the personnel side of the budget, claiming that government and public schools are loaded with too many high paid administrators, or simplifying further to claim that "a bloated bureaucracy" is the source of all the budget woes. If we just force feed the government and schools some budgetary Slim Fast by eliminating people, everything will come out right in the end - no matter how many personnel reductions or hiring freezes have preceded the current budget problems, and regardless of any increase in demand for services.

This means that M$ and its licensing policies and costs never make it into the light of public debate. Which is a shame.

Paul



_________________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page