Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Posted Feb 25, 2013 21:11 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Remote desktop vs. remote display by dlang
Parent article: LCA: The ways of Wayland
if you are deploying anything large and complicated you WANT to be able to write config files (either manually or through automation tools)
Oh, absolutely. The only problem: by the time you need large and complicated scripts Linux is no longer a contender.
I think you are missing some facts which are clear and obvious to me and Cyberax but somehow are lost to you. Think about it: there are over 20 million businesses in US. What does it mean? Most of them have no admins, most of them have no IT department and most of them have noone who can change config files by hand. How can they ever do anything you ask? They ask someone to work as part time admin. Said guy can visit them once per week or once per month — when they need to do something complex and/or when they manage to break the system they have.
But surely when they'll grow they will need the ability to manage complex configurations? Sure. But by that time they have dozens of computers in Active Directory domain, they have Exchange server and bazillion Windows-related programs. Wholesale switch to Linux is no longer an option.
This is how Linux loses the battle: it loses it at the very beginning. And then it keep the potential users "out" by offering alien (for them) tools.
Posted Feb 25, 2013 21:43 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 25, 2013 23:19 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Univention Corporate Server (a Debian-based distribution) is really quite good for low-hassle Windows-like office setups. Among other things it supports centralised management, migration from existing Active Directory servers to Samba 4, and good integration with Zarafa (an Exchange workalike).
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display