About Us

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!

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 04:24 AM
Windows Vista SP1 Flunks Out At Penn	Reginald P. Smithers III[_9_]	General	27	March 24th 08 05:39 PM
Windows Vista Beta 5342 Available for download	Reggie Smithers	General	1	April 1st 06 10:25 PM

Menu

About Us