Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

Which is, of course, the canonical example of why all governments should do it.

The project didn't fail, it was on pace to succeed, which made Microsoft swoop in and basically bribe them to switch back.

The lesson being, switch to Linux. Either you'll switch and save money, or Microsoft will bribe you not to and you'll save money.

View on HN

The linked headline from the OPs post about the switch:

> Linux in Munich: 'No compelling technical reason to return to Windows,' says city's IT chief

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/linux-in-munich-no-comp...

The reason was probably a shift in IT management who wanted to keep things "simple" with some vague thing about keeping one platform since they had kept previous windows machines around which were apparently "absolutely needed". It takes heart in the management to keep Linux around, which isn't always a reliable thing. Even when there was no "technical" need to use the more expensive Windows option.

But this sounds 100% like a Microsoft sales/marketing job, which they are amazing at. They've really perfected selling to big firms, which you could see with the growth of Azure. Which I witnessed when they unleashed their sales machine on startups to get them to use it, and it was quite interesting to see in action.

It was absolutely a political decision. Microsoft even moved their offices there from slightly outside of Munich to inside of Munich.

First time I hear this. So they didn't move offices from the far away Berlin to Munich, they just moved them from a small nearby suburb into the downtown of Munich? How was that such an important decision?

> How was that such an important decision?

Taxes. Politicians still think Microsoft pays taxes. Though 60M [1] per year in taxes while paying much more for their software is technically a retarded thing to do deal-wise.

[1] https://www.northdata.de/Microsoft+Deutschland+GmbH,+München...

That only makes sense if the total bribe outweighs the investment in building the credible alternative.

The bribe ends up in your pocket, the credible alternative only serves the general public.

The bribe here is not to people but to the government. If the tax effect for the city outweighs licensing costs it makes sense for the city to switch. The city where their office used to be is the one suffering under the decision.

> That only makes sense if the total bribe outweighs the investment in building the credible alternative.

It only makes sense to take the bribe in that case. It always makes sense to prepare for the switch, because if they won't bribe you enough to stop then you can always actually do the switch, which is still better than the status quo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com