backtop

Print 41 comment(s) - last by shabodah.. on Dec 4 at 4:03 PM
The city of Chicago is switching to Red Hat to help reduce costs

Red Hat has announced that the city of Chicago has started migrating to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system. The city has already saved $250,000 from switching to Linux, according to Red Hat. Systems required for vehicle registration, restaurant inspections, online job applications, ethics training and other systems will have Red Hat installed.

For the City of Chicago, information technology (IT) is an integral part of the government’s processes and services to the city’s nearly 3 million residents. City officials, led by Mayor Richard M. Daley, have embraced a Transparent Government initiative and are committed to running an open, responsive and fiscally responsible government.

City Stickers, the motor vehicle department for Chicago, is the first program that has switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The site is responsible for managing and tracking all vehicle permits and provide an online service which allows Chicago residents to purchase and renew tags and stickers.

Governments and school districts have been making the switch to open source technology to help reduce costs. Munich announced last month that it is beginning “Limux,” a “Linux in Munich” initiative. Munich hopes to have four out of every five PCs switched to open source technology by the end of 2008.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Will this Actually save the city money over time?
By famhawaii on 10/26/2006 10:41:14 PM , Rating: 1
Just curious as to how most IT staff cannot competently run Windows based systems with the plethora of support and information, yet they are supposed to administer Linux on a city wide basis.




RE: Will this Actually save the city money over time?
By stmok on 10/26/2006 11:05:16 PM , Rating: 4
Get a clue. They weren't using Windows in the first place.

They're making the transition from Sun Solaris to Linux.


By dolcraith on 10/26/2006 11:14:25 PM , Rating: 1
Solaris has many issues IMHO.


By mrmagooed on 10/27/2006 8:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Glad someone pointed out this was a Solaris --> Linux move. Duh, 'bout time.

Funny how the anti-microsoft crowd gets whipped up. I'm disappointed I wasted my time reading the whole thread.....

Wonder what they will say when the not to distant headline reads: "City of Chicago saves millions by switching to Microsoft platform"


By jarman on 10/28/2006 2:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wonder what they will say when the not to distant headline reads: "City of Chicago saves millions by switching to Microsoft platform"


Unfortunately Microsoft's expensive licensing policies and security issues make that delusion a pipe dream.


By dolcraith on 10/26/2006 11:13:17 PM , Rating: 3
What they're really buying is support and some maintenance help from Red Hat (that's what they sell, not linux). Also, there are a larger base for free applications on unix based systems then windows. Also, there are fewer widely exploited issues with linux than windows. Keyword exploited.

Personally, windows is nice, but in a professional setting linux can usually do the same job as MS at less cost. Ideally they'd roll their own version of linux suited for their platform.

In reality I think there is a larger base of information and support for linux issues than for windows issues.


vulnerability exposed
By chiguy2891 on 10/26/2006 11:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder if this announcement is in response to this article.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/108366,CST-NWS-...




RE: vulnerability exposed
By Clauzii on 10/26/2006 11:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
In the article You refer to they say the security hole was closed immidiately, so maybe not.

On the other hand, it might have come to their mind that paying money all the time for something with a flaw like that :O


By TomZ on 10/27/2006 8:49:07 AM , Rating: 5
^--- My nomination for the DT most asinine post of the day award.


By rushfan2006 on 10/27/2006 10:29:38 AM , Rating: 4
LOL

I'll endorse that nomination as well as add two more

--most ill-informed, naive, brain-washed post of the day award

AND

--talking out his ass award


By DrDisconnect on 10/27/2006 8:53:21 AM , Rating: 3
Man, which end are you putting the corn in?


By RamarC on 10/27/2006 4:44:51 PM , Rating: 3
you're both twits. first, gates donates BILLIONS (not millions). secondly, how can he steal anything since folks purchase his product. i've been using pcs for over a decade, and mr. gates has never stolen anything from me... i chose ms products.

if your anti-trust comment is about coercing pc vendors to only offer windows, that's a legitimate gripe but no different than any other supplier that threatens to pull their line if they're not given top-shelf status in retail chains. ms is just a good target to gang up on and your jumping on the bandwagon shows you're the one who's been duped!


By mindless1 on 10/28/2006 5:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
Pay attention- It is of no matter what he donates! He had no right to have or control the money in the first place!
If he gives away every cent of his money, it matters not.

Why do you think there is poverty and suffering in this world? It's because of those who take what they don't deserve while scheming to cheat others out of their due.

Mr Gates has most certainly stole from you what you were entitled to in a free market- CHOICE. You might think Windows is the best thing since sliced bread but it would've been even better had MS been a little hungrier and more competitive, not to mention the other competitive alternatives.

Coercion is excusable to you? You are obviously a pro-MS shill, as if it's ok if one company does something wrong on a massive worldwide scale because in theory you suspect someone somewhere might've done something similar? With this line of thinking, is there anything, any crime or injustice at all in the world that could not be dismissed?

MS needs no shills, didn't you notice? It's laughable how people defend them. What is it anyway? Did you secretly recognize that without windows you wouldn't feel technically inclined, that it makes you feel modern?


By TomZ on 10/28/2006 9:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pay attention- It is of no matter what he donates! He had no right to have or control the money in the first place!

Bullshit. He started a business, and was successful in running the business, and had good sales. Nobody forced anyone to buy Windows, and there were plenty of alternatives available along the way (e.g., Mac, OS/2, lots of others). Why did people buy Windows? Because they wanted to. Because Microsoft worked hard to cater to programmers and get them to write apps for their OS. Because they worked with hardware vendors to offer special pricing to bundle their OS with sales of PCs. Etc. etc.


By shabodah on 12/4/2006 4:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny how every single anti-MS post on here gets a negative rating in no time flat. Gee, I wonder where some of "Bill's" money has gone. Far to obvious. Microsoft has enjoyed an illegal monopoly for so long people don't even understand what a monopoly is anymore.


By masteraleph on 10/27/2006 9:07:12 AM , Rating: 5
1) I agree with TomZ and DrDisconnect. And really, what's with the "Microsucks" bit, not to mention the poor grammar ("have stole").

2) If you actually spent 30 seconds reading the article, you'd know that they're not migrating from Microsoft at all, but rather from Solaris. I do feel that DT did a disservice by not mentioning this, as the general assumption is that everyone runs Windows, but really, this is about going from Unix to Linux, not Windows to Linux.


By WhiteBoyFunk on 10/27/2006 10:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
M'k. I think people are contrasting some very valid arguments without stepping on each other's toes - not exactly something you see here everyday.

What I DON'T get is the inevitable DT geek who will never fail to point out a spelling or grammar error. I am a journalist and probably one of the first to notice such mistakes, but these nazis SOMEHOW always seem to overlook the actual argument and focus on petty details. Lame.


By GreyMittens on 10/27/2006 11:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
Microsucks and Windoze... you're a genius. Just keep the tinfoil wrapped around your head and you'll be safe.



By TomZ on 10/27/2006 9:22:07 PM , Rating: 3
Your argument basically that those who don't have an issue with Microsoft's approach are ignorant, and I can assure you that it is not the case.

Most of what you describe is called "marketing," and it is done by all organizations around the world. Microsoft has been particularly effective or lucky, depending on how you look at it (most informed observers think the latter). It is clear they have been agressive in building their market share.

If you want to own your OS, get Linux. Other people, like me, don't want the hassle, so we use Windows, especially since I run a business and understand the value of human labor. It's real simple.


By mindless1 on 10/28/2006 6:04:16 PM , Rating: 1
When you write "assure", try to really mean it instead of some nonsense group of words. You are most definitely ignorant if you can't find fault, else you are making a special exception, ignoring that the free world could not function as well as it does if most other products of arguable necessity (meaning PC OS in general) were in a closed market with fixed prices and no competition.

We can in fact ignore all this nonsense you try to argue and simply declare it an impossible situation in the industry to allow a monopoly, least there will be serious negative consequences in the future.


By TomZ on 10/28/2006 9:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that I can't find fault, but I think that the vast majority of the criticism that folks have for Microsoft is based on their emotions, and have little relationship with actual facts. Think about it - all the allegations made all through the years, and through all that, what was actually ever declared in court to be illegal? Very little, relatively speaking. Was anyone at Microsoft ever charged with a crime? Anybody go to jail? Nope. Nope.


da bears
By L1NUXownz1fUR1337 on 10/27/06, Rating: -1
RE: da bears
By jon1003 on 10/27/2006 2:45:53 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, Hell doesn't have any gates, since everyone is welcome. (at least according to Dante)


RE: da bears
By Totalfixation on 10/27/2006 4:13:12 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously what are the problems with people having to hate Bill Gates? This guy donates millions upon millions to the needy and pledge that he will donate half of his fortune when he dies. So seriously What are you hating?


RE: da bears
By Loc13 on 10/27/2006 8:33:02 AM , Rating: 5
i think it's 90-98%, not 50%.


RE: da bears
By TomZ on 10/27/2006 8:45:43 AM , Rating: 5
Yea, and he is donating billions, not millions. Such a bad guy.


RE: da bears
By mindless1 on 10/27/06, Rating: -1
RE: da bears
By johnnyMon on 10/27/06, Rating: -1
RE: da bears
By TomZ on 10/27/2006 1:02:23 PM , Rating: 5
LOL, what did Bill Gates steal? Microsoft ran afoul of antitrust regulations in the past, which is a far cry from theft, both legally and morally. Get your facts straight. If you want to hate Gates and Microsoft, you should start to get used to the idea that your beliefs are based on emotion and preference rather than actual facts.

Actually, you really should take to a professional about your vile hatred to find out the real cause, which is from some source within yourself. It has nothing to do with Gates.


RE: da bears
By johnnyMon on 10/27/06, Rating: 0
RE: da bears
By TomZ on 10/27/2006 4:12:14 PM , Rating: 5
I have developed applications for Windows for at least 10 years, and in my experience, there are no barriers to entry for any individual, company, or any other organization that wishes to develop applications for Windows. No barrier at all. In fact, Microsoft goes out of its way to expose a very large API, and supplies excellent documentation for their APIs. In addition, they also provide development tools and support services that make it downright easy to develop for Windows. So to all those poor companies that went out of business, supposedly because they could not compete because of a lack of information from Microsoft, I say "boo-hoo." These companies failed because of their own incompetence, bad strategy, bad customer support, or other reasons. It was not due to "dirty tricks and sabotage" from Microsoft.

In fact, I think you could accurately say that Microsoft's strategy is about consistent, good execution, and they just wait long enough for their competitors to shoot themselves in the foot, which always seems to happen. Take Borland for example - they were clearly a leader in Windows development tools. But since then, they have consistently given more and more of their market share to Microsoft because they had poor product management and poor customer support. An example of entirely self-inflicted wounds.

So take your violins and sad story elsewhere - you'll get no sympathy here.


RE: da bears
By johnnyMon on 10/28/2006 2:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
Who was asking for your sympathy? I respected your experience in this field and appreciated your take on this until that part. Do you work for Microsoft or own Microsoft stock?

By the way, putting the arguments about sabotage-or-not aside, if Microsoft was a fair player, why would they have been sued by so many U.S. states and European governments? That doesn't happen every day. If they had been a benign monopoly, it wouldn't have happened, either. It was not due to an abuse of power.


RE: da bears
By TomZ on 10/28/2006 4:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
My point really is that I consider a lot of the complaints about anti-competitive behavior to be bullshit, based on my experience. You know as well as I do that some of these investigations are politically motivated (esp. in the case of the EU), although as they say, where there is smoke there is fire, and there probably is a bit of truth in there somewhere. But on the whole, I think most of the companies who have complained suffered largely from self-inflicted wounds and tried to blame Microsoft for their failures.


RE: da bears
By mindless1 on 10/28/2006 5:51:17 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, your opinion is it's bull, because you can't accept the facts. Is it easy to just ignore these past 12 years? For you it must be.

There is nothing self inflicted about wanting alternative commercial operating system choices instead of one-size-fits-all bloated mess that's WinXP or Vista meant for Joe Average's PC-desktop, home use.



RE: da bears
By theprodigalrebel on 10/28/2006 6:17:52 PM , Rating: 3
There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from purchasing a Mac. Or buying a machine with Windows pre-installed, bringing it home, formatting it and installing an alternative free OS. NOTHING. A PC isn't a toaster or a microwave: if you want the most out of your computer, you have to learn. Period.

Some people (i.e. technically-inclined people) recognize the advantages/disadvantages of going a particular route, and are largely happy with their decisions. The rest that have no clue - they go by brand recognition and marketing. And Windows does work pretty well for most people.

You can't blame Microsoft for having great brand recognition and the fact that 90% of the people out there don't even bother entertaining the idea of looking for an alternative. Microsoft R&D Wins. Microsoft Marketing Wins. Hurray for solid business strategy. Lawsuits happen, some rules get broken: you have the Justice system to look into that. But you are crying and raising a mindless argument in some overzealous Open Source Maniac sort of way.

Microsoft killed their competitors? Please. All it takes is one killer application for an organization to steal business from Microsoft. And very few have solid responses to the Microsoft heavyweight apps (Windows & Office).


RE: da bears
By TomZ on 10/28/2006 9:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a question of ignoring the facts - it's in how you weigh the allegations. Practically nothing has been proved in court, but there have been many allegations. I just don't give much credence to the arguments that I've heard, because as I said, in my experience, I don't see the same kinds of barriers that others complain about.

Heck, don't take my word for it - just take a few minutes and look at the MSDN Library online (google will find it). Then try to tell me that Microsoft doesn't give a fair opportunity for others to develop software that works with Windows.

And I agree with the above poster - customers DO HAVE CHOICES - nobody is forcing them to purchase Windows. It is a choice with lots of other possibilities (Max, lots of flavors of Linux, Unix, etc.).


RE: da bears
By TomZ on 10/27/2006 9:30:45 AM , Rating: 5
Anyway, WTF does this article have to do with Bill Gates in the first place?


RE: da bears
By MrEMan on 10/27/2006 1:13:06 PM , Rating: 3
Da 85-86 Bears won because of Buddy Ryan and the defense.

Ditka didn't even give Walter Payton a chance to score in the SuperBowl when he was for all practical purposes the entire offense for years!

Instead Ditka gave the ball to the Fridge leaving Walter Payton with the main memory from his only SuperBowl being that he fumbled early in the game.

I am sick and tired of all the accolades being given to Dikta! The "3 runs and punt" offense has, and never will, lead to a winning season. The only reason the 85 Bears had any offense was that Jim McMahon ignored Ditka's plays and called his own!


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki