So.. migrating to Linux instead of upgrading to Windows XP in late 2013..

Not sure whether I understand your point. The study to switch to XP was in 2002, and the cost comparison was done against switching to XP, too, because it was the alternative in those days. It seems me meaningful, doesn't it?

So.. migrating to Linux instead of upgrading to Windows XP in late 2013..

Not sure whether I understand your point. The study to switch to XP was in 2002, and the cost comparison was done against switching to XP, too, because it was the alternative in those days. It seems me meaningful, doesn't it?

Guess I scanned the thing too fast, I thought they were upgrading to XP now.

I think they stated that most of the savings was from being able to run Linux on PCs that weren't powerful enough for Windows 7 though. I generally find it highly doubtful that upgrading hardware doesn't save money, especially at 6 million for 15000 workers where an effectivity-increase of 2% would pay for it in 1 year. (Obviously regardless of what OS they choose).

Then again they might not want to increase productivity as the next election might well be won or lost depending on how many people are happy new employees at LiMux workstations

How safe is Linux as an Open Source OS system?

It depends on what crap you install on it, the OS itself is very stable and secure as long as you don't install any Adobe or Oracle products on it (pretty much the same as with Windows)

So the only real benefit I can pull out of this whole story is that they are now free (in the sense of freedom). Is that really a place they want to be in?

So the only real benefit I can pull out of this whole story is that they are now free (in the sense of freedom). Is that really a place they want to be in?

The big deal really isn't moving from Windows to Linux though, (It is a fairly minor change for a standard desktop, you save a few dollars on license fees, get better uptime and easier administration but thats about it). The big cost savings come from ditching the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem with its more or less mandatory license renewals. (Office, Exchange, etc).

Being "free", not in the FSF sense, but in the, "not surgically attached at the hip to a single provider" sense is always a good thing.

How safe is Linux as an Open Source OS system?

It depends on what crap you install on it, the OS itself is very stable and secure as long as you don't install any Adobe or Oracle products on it (pretty much the same as with Windows)

I was more thinking about how many people easily could get access to the architecture and design of the OS in no time due to the Open Source thing. I mean with Windows and mac most stuff is close source and not given away on community websites. I like open source but a close source system gotta be more hard to hack I guess(even though possible) than an open source system(at least it seems to be more easy to get access to the source code of an open source system and study it in and out than with close source systems).

Please feel free to correct me here if any of you find what I write wrong. I am in no way an OS system expert.

Your list of reasons to go there appeals to a fairly wide and standard audience, but I have a different set of reasons for a place to be interesting etc., and for a few good reasons.
As a super taster I am fairly picky about foods and prefer to stick to foods I have already discovered not to overwhelm my taste buds. When I lived in France the pizza was great because of the cheese, but I still tend to stick closely enough to my standard diet that food is of no motivation at all for visiting a place. Besides, I am fairly sure ramen is my favorite food, but shrimp is pretty close.

Because I am a super taster I do not drink beer, and I don’t believe such a thing exists as “nice” beer.

WTF is a "super taster"?

Of course there's "nice" beer. There's also terrible beer and outstanding beer. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And *that* photo was your representation of Japanese scenery? Christ, I was there for all of two weeks and I say better scenery than that. I see better scenery than that driving to work in NZ. :p

How safe is Linux as an Open Source OS system?

It depends on what crap you install on it, the OS itself is very stable and secure as long as you don't install any Adobe or Oracle products on it (pretty much the same as with Windows)

I was more thinking about how many people easily could get access to the architecture and design of the OS in no time due to the Open Source thing. I mean with Windows and mac most stuff is close source and not given away on community websites. I like open source but a close source system gotta be more hard to hack I guess(even though possible) than an open source system(at least it seems to be more easy to get access to the source code of an open source system and study it in and out than with close source systems).

Please feel free to correct me here if any of you find what I write wrong. I am in no way an OS system expert.

You're referring to security through obscurity and it's not security at all. The fact that Linux is open source (and has so many eyes on it) will actually increase its security. This can't be said for all open source projects of course, but very popular ones will tend to be more secure.

And *that* photo was your representation of Japanese scenery? Christ, I was there for all of two weeks and I say better scenery than that. I see better scenery than that driving to work in NZ.

Yeah, not what I would have picked either.

Then again, Munich is definitely worth looking at...

How safe is Linux as an Open Source OS system?

It depends on what crap you install on it, the OS itself is very stable and secure as long as you don't install any Adobe or Oracle products on it (pretty much the same as with Windows)

I was more thinking about how many people easily could get access to the architecture and design of the OS in no time due to the Open Source thing. I mean with Windows and mac most stuff is close source and not given away on community websites. I like open source but a close source system gotta be more hard to hack I guess(even though possible) than an open source system(at least it seems to be more easy to get access to the source code of an open source system and study it in and out than with close source systems).

Please feel free to correct me here if any of you find what I write wrong. I am in no way an OS system expert.

If your security relies on the code being kept secret you've allready lost, yes it is slightly easier to find existing security holes in OSS software, this however also means they get discovered and fixed earlier reducing the number of undiscovered holes in the software.

The vast majority of attacks against both open and closed source software are not a result of studying the code or even disassemblies but rather a result of reading the patch notes and attacking flaws after the vendor has allready fixed them, Linux systems benefit from this by being easier to keep up to date, You don't have to wait for "patch tuesday" to get your security fixes and you don't have to reboot your systems to apply them. (If you use a smaller distro however you might not get the patches as quickly as you would with a big commercial distro and that can greatly cripple your security)