HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:23�pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

On Apr 17, 5:44 pm, John H. wrote:
about your son, but,

if you can comprehend his logic, Harry did.
Personally, I think you did a nice thing, even if the laptop had Vista
installed.
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agreed.

Vista-Schmista or whatever....That was a good gift.
=============

Thanks Tim. �He emails us (including his sister and friends) on a
regular
basis, something he would not have been able to do if we did not buy
him the
laptop as he had a desktop.



y'know, when he was iced in the St Louis airport, The roads wern't
that bad an I was about 20 mi. away visiting my in-laws in
Edwardsville. If I had been able to have quicker communique with you,
I was going to see if I could run tot he airport and bring his
anything and/or take him to dinner at the 'port while he was in lay-
over.

Or at least get him a cup of Starbucks.


I gotta wonder what's worse...being snowed in at the St. Louis airport
or being snowed in at the Buffalo airport.


Did you really type that? If it was an attempt at satire you get a C-.
Anything else would be just stupid.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:00:42 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

IBM having employees test out Macs at work,

It would make a lot more sense if IBM came out with a decent Linux
suite ... but IBM has never done anything in the PC arena that made
sense.
They do use Linux on their servers so they have some experience with
it.
I bet this is actually signalling some hardware deal between Apple and
Levano


Lenovo is a Communist Chinese company, not an IBM company.

Why would IBM or anyone else want to force a hobbyist kit OS like LINUX
on its employees' desktops?

Stability?

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:19:55 -0400, HK wrote:

Using LINUX on a server when you are a hobbyist or have an IT
department devoted to servers is a lot different than using LINUX
on a desktop.


IBM controls the desk top on company owned PCs. Employes are strongly
discouraged from adding anything that is not sent to them by the
company, using words like "conditions of employment". There is no
reason why the company IT department couldn't come up with a packaged
suite of applications for the employees based on a Linux OS.
When I had a Thinkpad they owned I kept a separate hard drive for
things I wanted to do that weren't following the company line (OS/2 vs
the DOS I like) so I had a compliant machine when they wanted to see
it. Loading your own stuff on a company owned machine was playing "you
bet your job" even when it was hard to get fired from IBM. Now they
look for reasons to fire people.


I can't think of one compelling reason to use LINUX on a corporate
desktop.

Can you think of one compelling reason to use Vista on a corporate
desktop?


Yup.

Hey...go play with your google, Mr. Chitlin.

Lame answer *and* the obligatory diversion! Well done!

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:08:39 -0400, HK wrote:

I can't think of one compelling reason to use LINUX on a corporate
desktop.

Security and the small footprint of a dedicated business suite.
That is the reason why IBM uses it on the servers.
Windoze has become a bloated hog mostly aimed at the consumer market.

Harry is a "home office" IT expert, he has no idea what happens within
real companies.


Uh huh. My largest client is an enormous and profitable investment and
business bank with 2000 employees, and I am very friendly with the
corporate IT department. No one is running LINUX on desktops. None of my
other clients are, either. A couple run the LINUX server apps.

Now we have unionized bankers. What next?

BTW - Harry has no clients. It's narcissism.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:08:39 -0400, HK wrote:

I can't think of one compelling reason to use LINUX on a corporate
desktop.

Security and the small footprint of a dedicated business suite.
That is the reason why IBM uses it on the servers.
Windoze has become a bloated hog mostly aimed at the consumer market.

Harry is a "home office" IT expert, he has no idea what happens within
real companies.


Uh huh. My largest client is an enormous and profitable investment and
business bank with 2000 employees, and I am very friendly with the
corporate IT department. No one is running LINUX on desktops. None of my
other clients are, either. A couple run the LINUX server apps.

Enormous = 2000 employees?

HK wrote:

Why would IBM or anyone else want to force a hobbyist kit OS like LINUX
on its employees' desktops?

All my company's EDA CAD tools have been running on redhat
Linux servers and desktops since moving from Sun/Solaris
boxes several years ago... more bang/buck and just as stable.

http://www.synopsys.com/
http://www.cadence.com/
http://www.mentor.com/

D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:08:39 -0400, HK wrote:

I can't think of one compelling reason to use LINUX on a corporate
desktop.
Security and the small footprint of a dedicated business suite.
That is the reason why IBM uses it on the servers.
Windoze has become a bloated hog mostly aimed at the consumer market.
Harry is a "home office" IT expert, he has no idea what happens within
real companies.

Uh huh. My largest client is an enormous and profitable investment and
business bank with 2000 employees, and I am very friendly with the
corporate IT department. No one is running LINUX on desktops. None of my
other clients are, either. A couple run the LINUX server apps.

Enormous = 2000 employees?



It's all relative. It's a regional investment bank, it makes money, and
it's a long-time client. I'd rather have it for a client than one of the
huge multinational banks now engaged in laying out tens of thousands of
employees, eh?