RE: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?
From: Aaron Benson (ab72_at_optushome.com.au)
Date: 07/28/04
- Previous message: Giorgos Keramidas: "Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???"
- Next in thread: Chris: "Re: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?"
- Reply: Chris: "Re: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:54:47 +1000
Hi,
Centralised admin is my primary concern. User perspective is obviously
functionality.
Anyway....
I've decided the best course of action to save money for the company is
to run a kickarse Microsft 2K3 server Terminal Server, then use "SOME
SORT" of ULinux OS to run on the client machine with a compatible TS
client like rdesktop, PXES etc. possibly including a combo with LTSP,
Rdesktop and Wilisystem if I want an EPROM diskless total boot from
ULinux workstation desktop to W2K3 Terminal Server without user
interaction.
The question is, out of all the ULinux flavours, which one should I run
which costs nothing or very little and will last for 4-6years in that
time period? "Very little" equates to somewhat less than running Windows
XP for a similar period.
Cost savings include at least virus scanners and significant patch
updates from Microsoft. Of course I'd rather update a single server than
around 500 workstations both LAN and VPN remote machines. Virus
signatures, multiple Microsoft patches etc. can be avoided.
Reminder is I'm used to using XP. Our users range from Windows NT
4.0,Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP. Based on a decent TS client, this
shouldn't matter anyway.
Your advice appreciated.
Regards
Aaron Benson
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Benson [mailto:ab72@optushome.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, 24 July 2004 10:19 PM
To: 'freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org'
Subject: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?
Hi,
This email is going to any Linux house whom has pitched themselves via
their websites and reviews, from my research as being possible
alternatives to XP at this stage. Depends on your Google hit and
thereafter (if found within 2 pages) site FAQ's I suppose.
As a currently dedicated M$ house (apart from Oracle Databases), we
question the move to a XP desktop amid the Linux hype in recent times.
Any IT department trying to save company money is only doing the right
thing and ask the question, what can Linux do for us?
I've flipped through your FAQ's and over forums but result in no answer
for Active Directory 2K3 and Exchange 2K3 server client connectivity,
integration and functionality? Note that we have not moved to these
product versions yet. Hence this email.
I ask because I cannot see a server based centralised authentication and
administrative option in Linux. If there were, say a "centralised server
option" for Linux, this would be seriously considered. Is there a User
Manager equivalent (NT4 domain for example) or Exchange Administrator
equivalent (Exchange 5.5) "functional" alternative? More importantly,
2K3 Server and Exchange integration?
Failing that, connecting clients as above to M$ servers would be
sufficient. Stay with M$ in servers, go with Linux in desktops. I've
seen enough "glossy brochures" and want to know the facts.
The cost difference is obvious. The functional difference is not. I've
still no reason to choose your Linux over Windows XP Pro at this stage.
Cost is not enough. Any sane IT department doesn't need screaming users
due to lack of pure functionality. Experience suggests most find it
difficult enough getting around the OS to even perform basic functions,
let alone usability.
Assuming aforementioned functionality, where does your Linux stand with
converting between M$ Office 97/2K/2K3? Will our accounts department be
able to work with their previous 40Mb Excel files full of VLookups and
Formulas straightup, or is it going to be bigger than a Lotus 4.1 to
Excel 5 conversion debacle?
Of course Word,PowerPoint,Publisher and Access are questioned also.
I'm talking up to 500 user desktops to be upgraded. Upgraded need not be
a literal word. Installing Linux from scratch would be expected.
Anything "upgrade wise" extra would be a bonus.
Outside of M$ Office, current application functionality would have to be
trialed. This is expected. A list of currently supported M$ applications
would be helpful.
Your detailed reply appreciated
regards,
Aaron Benson
Network, Security, Server Administrator
Strathfield Group Ltd
Sydney Australia
ph: +61 2 9747 7677
PS.
To blindly accept the Microsoft standards without researching
alternatives would be irresponsible. Total cost of ownership,
flexibility, and reliability should all be considered when making
infrastructure decisions. Multiple platforms including Microsoft, Linux,
and commercial Unix should all be considered when setting the direction
of an organizational IT strategy.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Giorgos Keramidas: "Re: BigApache for Windows - Why doesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???"
- Next in thread: Chris: "Re: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?"
- Reply: Chris: "Re: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
