Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 13, 2006 11:05 AM
"One problem with the old environment that made Kaupp consider moving to another operating system was Microsoft's lack of customizability."
Reads like a win for Linux to me.
I converted to Linux many years ago because I could not customize Windows 95 (Lose95) enough to keep it running. With Linux things just run and run. There are always a few ways of doing anything and one of them will work for you. With Microsoft it's their way or the highway and their way is always in Microsoft's best interest, not the user's.
Another example is a project I am working on to convert a whole school to Linux, minus 50 machines that still do something useful with Windows. We plan to add 150 seats using Linux terminal servers and thin clients. We can afford twice as much hardware by not using Windows and we can make better use of that hardware because Linux is very flexible. For instance, in open areas where there are numbers of users we will use thin clients based on barebones PC's with extra video cards permitting six users to sit at one machine with mouse, keyboard and monitor. Just understanding the MSFT EULA is as much work as configuring this centralized but flexible system but once configured, the pain is gone forever. The EULA always comes back to bite whether it's the BSA or finding out that the EULA does not permit more than N networked machines sharing files. I want to deal with businesses that love their customers unlike Microsoft. If they loved their customers would they sue them and restrict their rights to use their own computers?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Chose Linux for the block.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 13, 2006 11:05 AMReads like a win for Linux to me.
I converted to Linux many years ago because I could not customize Windows 95 (Lose95) enough to keep it running. With Linux things just run and run. There are always a few ways of doing anything and one of them will work for you. With Microsoft it's their way or the highway and their way is always in Microsoft's best interest, not the user's.
Another example is a project I am working on to convert a whole school to Linux, minus 50 machines that still do something useful with Windows. We plan to add 150 seats using Linux terminal servers and thin clients. We can afford twice as much hardware by not using Windows and we can make better use of that hardware because Linux is very flexible. For instance, in open areas where there are numbers of users we will use thin clients based on barebones PC's with extra video cards permitting six users to sit at one machine with mouse, keyboard and monitor. Just understanding the MSFT EULA is as much work as configuring this centralized but flexible system but once configured, the pain is gone forever. The EULA always comes back to bite whether it's the BSA or finding out that the EULA does not permit more than N networked machines sharing files. I want to deal with businesses that love their customers unlike Microsoft. If they loved their customers would they sue them and restrict their rights to use their own computers?
#