Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Crashdamage <03z1krd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:33:11 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:24:35 +0100, Christopher_Hunter <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I couldn't care less what Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb think.
/I/ could - it's actually quite important. As long as they don't see Linux
as a threat, then so much the better for us. When the development of our
favourite OS makes Windows an insignificant irrelevance (as it already is
in the web server field), they won't see it coming...
They're not that stupid. They're paying attention.
I just want to have a choice of OS both at home AND at work. I don't.
I don't either. I have an enlightened employer who made the move to FOSS a
few years ago.
You're one of the lucky ones.
In fact, in my business even the server MUST run Windoze.
Why? There is *no* *reason* whatsoever to try to "run" Windows on any kind
of server. There are even proper, working replacements for "Exchange" now!
We have several software pacakges and IE-only websites which we must use to
service our customers which are not supported on Linux. There is no way
whatsoever to NOT run Windows. I certainly would if I could.
That's the relevence (or lack of) of Linux vs M$ in business.
Sorry, but that's just completely wrong. One of our major corporate clients
(an international bank) asked a few months ago about FOSS options for their
business. It took very little effort to persuade them that the current MS
rubbish-ware they were using was part of their problems. They had to "let
go" several "dyed-in-the-wool" Windows system "administrators", and hire
some clued up Linux admins at slightly increased rates of pay, but their
cost savings after the migration and the increased productivity have more
than paid for the migration, severance pay and new hires.
They are also particularly happy that they no longer get flooded with spam,
don't need to update their "anti-virus" daily, don't have any significant
server downtime, and it all costs them less...
As I said - Windows is rapidly becoming and expensive irrelevance!
We, and most businesses, have no choice but to run M$ on the server and
the desktop. Again, In order to use the IE-only client websites and
Windows-only crapware that is required, nothing else will do but Windows.
We can't even use virtualization to achieve what we need. It's very much
a Windoze world in business and much as I wish it weren't so, I just don't
see Linux being a realistic alternative for many years.
Now, for a few large companies that can dictate what they use such as your
above example, maybe. For the vast majority of businesses who cannot
pick and choose, no way, no how.
Registered Linux user #266531
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Christopher_Hunter
- Re: What Linux really needs
- Prev by Date: Re: linux web server for email and web hoasting.
- Next by Date: Re: linux web server for email and web hoasting.
- Previous by thread: Re: What Linux really needs
- Next by thread: Re: What Linux really needs