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.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:14:01 -0400, gfretwell 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.

IBM is a major supporter of Linux development. They are also pushing
their Open Collaboration Client, which is Linux based.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotu...ionclient.html


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

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


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

Harry, you better not fly anymore. The FAA's Traffic Flow Management
System is based on a hobbyist kit.

http://customers.press.redhat.com/20...dministration/

There are quite a few governments looking to save costs by migrating to
Linux.

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


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

Harry, you better not fly anymore. The FAA's Traffic Flow Management
System is based on a hobbyist kit.

http://customers.press.redhat.com/20...dministration/

There are quite a few governments looking to save costs by migrating to
Linux.
Let's see...that gives LINUX .000000000016% of desktops.

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.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0400, 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".

As I recall, all the companies I worked for locked out installs on the
desktop images when NT went in. I had a PIM that I suddenly couldn't
use without admin install rights. Notepad was my substitute, and
worked fine. No company wants uncontrolled/unapproved apps
on their networked PC's. Well, not the ones I worked for anyway.

--Vic

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.

Ah, IBM uses VMWare on some of their laptops and they run Linux, Windows
2K, Windows 2K3, Windows XP and possibly Windows Vista.

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.

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.

HK wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:29:55 -0400, "JimH" wrote:


On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:40:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 17, 12:17 pm, HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

I may have to buy my youngest a Mac.
Mild curiosity, Reggie. Is your kid so mentally or genetically
"challenged," he can't figure out what computer to buy without your
"help"? I mean, you know nothing about computers...your kid, if he
has a
working brain, must know more than you do, right?
Gee, I guess you could have said the same exact thing about a certain
person's ego helping Marine son......
Our purchase of a laptop to him was a gift to him upon his graduation
from the USMC basic training program at Parris Island.

I know that is a hard concept for you to understand.......but give it
another go.

Regardless........this strange obsession you have with me is an
indication that you need some help regarding the state of your mental
health. Perhaps you can get a group discount if John Herring signed
up with you as he has the same obsession problem with me.

I think his comment was directed at Harry's implication that kids, like
your son, would have to be mentally challenged for a parent to help
with a
computer. Loogy most certainly said nothing derogatory 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.


No, actually, I recalled that JimH bought his kid a computer as a gift.
My comments were directed only to Reggie's imaginary incompetent son,
the "pre-doctoral" program son who cannot buy his own computer.

Nice try, though, crap-for-brains.

Hey I see you got the geek squad in to fix your computer clock. Congrats.

You know a hell of a lot about imagination but you are probably wrong in
this case.