Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Christopher_Hunter <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:16:35 +0100
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:24:35 +0100, Christopher_Hunter
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
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.
Not really. They've been blind-sided repeatedly by FOSS developments!
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.
I used to think that, until I discovered that *any* "web application" could
be trivially rebuilt using FOSS. If you need to know how to do it, my
consultancy fees are quite reasonable!
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.
Wee build web applications that /specifically/ don't allow the use of IE.
The fundamental insecurity, instability and general incompatibility of IE
r]just makes it another MS attempt at "vendor lock-in".
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.
You're probably ten years behind the times. Many companies, institutions,
and many Governments - outside the USA - are leaving proprietary software
to the home market - MS is mostly an expensive irrelevance. MS can't even
make their file formats compatible from version to version of "Office".
It's just /another/ attempt at forcing unwanted "upgrades" on to their
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.
Making the business case for FOSS is now easier than ever, particularly when
there are plenty of FOSS companies willing and able to provide high quality
end-user support at realistic prices.
As an aside: a large architectural company I do business with paid MS
for "support" for their 200+ machines "running" XP. Whenever they
had /any/ problem, all that MS "support" could ever tell them to do
was "Reformat and Reinstall".
Until they "saw the light" and migrated to a combination of Red Hat for
their servers and Suse or Ubuntu for their desktops, they used to regularly
lose huge amounts of important data. They now pay a trivially small amount
annually to Red Hat and another support company, and they have /no/
significant problems at all!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Crashdamage
- Re: What Linux really needs
- Prev by Date: Re: which linux?
- Next by Date: ReInstalling W98 on old games box - (Vent)
- Previous by thread: Re: What Linux really needs
- Next by thread: Re: What Linux really needs