> I could be snarky and say something along the lines of "he said hire someone competent" :-)
> but instead I'll say that with your anti-linux and pro-windows attitude, any competent consultant you hire is going to figure out what you prefer and find some way of making it work that fits your bias
Actually, that was about 4 years ago when I was flamingly pro-Linux and tried to push it everywhere. I've actively searched for security companies that offered Linux-based solutions - and couldn't find any. At most a couple of companies offered a solution (hosted on Windows Server) with a buggy Java applet to viewing the security footage.
As I've said, I was so pro-Linux that I've founded a company to help with migration services. This company actually still exists (I'm no longer involved in its day-to-day operations), but business is not that good - it can't charge much more than the price of Windows-based software licenses, and just a couple of extra support cases per customer can ruin all the profit margins.
>You say it's not possible to run Linux as a desktop.
Nope, I've said that it's not really feasible to just run Linux desktops as a straightforward replacement for Windows. It always requires planning and competent personnel.
>We show you large organizations that do so and you dismiss them because they are large (saying that small organizations can't do it)
Yep, see above.
>We show you small organizations that do so and you dismiss them because they are small (because of the requirements of large organizations)
Nope. THAT you have not yet shown. You've shown that ONE small company can use Linux. My company also uses Linux (and now also Mac OS X) on desktops - I know it can be done.
>you label all these examples as fringe cases that don't matter.
The only thing that matters is the marketshare. And it's been stagnant for many years now. That speaks louder than any words.