| |||||||||||||
Remote desktop vs. remote displayRemote desktop vs. remote displayPosted Feb 16, 2013 7:14 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Remote desktop vs. remote display by dlang Parent article: LCA: The ways of Wayland
> It's interesting how we've moved from "Linux is junk" to "Linux isn't significantly better than Windows"
Can't it be both?
Right now it is not significantly better than Windows so it is on the level of junk for most software vendors. There's simply no market sense in creating Linux software.
> But to deny that many other people are successfully using it as a desktop (including 15K or so people in Munich) is just being obnoxious.
Again, I'm saying that I'm extremely pessimistic about Linux on desktop. The time for that is long past. But there are new markets that are within Linux's grasp, and it would be wise to think what was done incorrectly in the "battle for the desktop" and try to avoid doing these mistakes in future.
(Log in to post comments)
Remote desktop vs. remote display Posted Feb 16, 2013 7:42 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> Munich migration is a story in itself. They did save some money, but at the same time it required a multiyear project with lots of high-level system administrators.
The migration from one version of Windows to another for an organization that size is a multi-year effort requiring lots of high-level system administrators.
continuing to run that many systems, of whatever type requires lots of high-level system administrators.
Remote desktop vs. remote display Posted Feb 16, 2013 7:44 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
> The migration from one version of Windows to another for an organization that size is a multi-year effort requiring lots of high-level system administrators.
Sure. That's why it makes sense for large organizations to move to Linux.
That's not true for small and medium companies, though.
Remote desktop vs. remote display Posted Feb 16, 2013 15:43 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Sure. That's why it makes sense for large organizations to move to Linux. That's not true for small and medium companies, though. Migration is expensive and you are right... small and medium companies will find it expensive and painful. Proprietary vendors have them by the short hairs. We were smart, however. We didn't migrate to Linux. We started out with Linux from the get-go. That's one reason we can keep our costs low and in many cases undercut our competitors. In my business, running an all-Linux shop has proven to be a significant competitive advantage. I like the fact that small and medium competitors are struggling under the burden of proprietary crap like Windows.
|
|||||||||||||