About Us

HK

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:20:17 -0400, 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?

The fact remains IBM does use Linux on it's servers, and that is far
from the hobby category. DOS was a hobby language in 1980 too.

IBM still owns a chunk of Levano, they just outsourced the US employee
costs. These days it is hard to find a US company that isn't in bed
with the ChiComs. Thank you Mr Clinton

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.

My last (and final) IBM Thinkpad was at least partially manufactured in
Mexico. This was before the brand name was sold to the Chinese Communists.

HK

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.

Reginald P. Smithers III[_9_]

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?

HK

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.

DK

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:
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.

Yes, I understand why LINUX is on servers.

BAR

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.

HK

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.

DK

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.

D.Duck[_2_]

"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?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OT OT OT Windows Vista Warning OT OT	Lee[_4_]	ASA	0	April 11th 08 03:24 AM
Windows Vista SP1 Flunks Out At Penn	Reginald P. Smithers III[_9_]	General	27	March 24th 08 04:39 PM
Windows Vista Beta 5342 Available for download	Reggie Smithers	General	1	April 1st 06 09:25 PM

Menu

About Us