[ale] Request for information - how linux saves $$$

[Charles Marcus]

> From: James Taylor [mailto:JTAYLOR at fantasylane.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:33 AM
>
> Very few businesses have bought into the concept of a
> thin-client or terminal server arrangement.  They like
> the flexibility of a fat desktop.  Converting to Linux
> *and* thin-client all at once is probably too big a jump.

Maybe... maybe not.  My boss was *very* skeptical - until he saw LTSP in
action - and its much better now (with Mozilla 1.x, and some decent mail
clients - MozillaMail, Evolution, and Sylpheed).

One other thing to remember, a standalone Linux workstation is *much* more
of a headache to administer than a LTSP network.  Granted, Linux is much
more stable, but I guarantee you the 'flexibility' you mentioned still won't
be there for 99.9% of the users - because they'd have to be a Linux geek to
be able to take advantage of it - *if* the System Admin would give them root
access.  :)

If I were in this business (of converting fm M$ to Linux), I would demo LTSP
first, and maintain a Win4Lin WTS (Win4Lin Terminal Server) box in my office
that they could connetc to remotely to demo running Windows over LTSP.

> I'm not a real fan of Win4Lin because it requires kernel
> modification and is limited to 9.x  as a client OS.

Thats the one thing I don't like about myself.

> That would be a big hit in terms of reliability for
> users currently running W2K.

I don't think so.  Everything I've read suggests that Win4Lin (Win9x) on
Linux is considerably *more* stable than pure Win9x.  And as an added bonus,
if Windows crashes, it only crashes the Windows session - and you can get
back up and running in 20-30 seconds.

But, I have no first-hand knowledge of this in a real-world environment of
the type we are discussing, so I could be wrong.

> More flexibility in hardware requirements (in spite
> of what I said earlier)

This is one of the biggest advantages of LTSP - a 486DX 33Mhz with 8MB of
RAM will work fairly well as a terminal.

> The ability to leverage current office licenses to
> run MSOffice using Crossover for the indefinite future.

Yep - Win4Lin provides for this...

> The availability of real alternatives to MSOffice to migrate to.

And LTSP provides for this...

> For apps that absolutely require a real windows OS, Use
> vmware and leverage your current W2K licenses.  vmware
> is expensive, but in most cases, requirement for *real*
> windows is limited to a small subset of users.

This is definitely an option, but as you said, an expensive one.  Win4Lin is
much cheaper, and the ability to use it over a LAN/WAN is a huge advantage.
the only time I would recommend VMWare is if, for some strange reason, the
app in question did not work properly under Win4Lin.

> Did I mention the ability to determine your software and OS
> requirements based on *your* business needs rather than M$'s?

Ditto...

Charles


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.