Cerulean
Member
Registered: Dec 1999
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 289 |
hey foo .. thanks for the long reply 
A few points..
I agree that the closed nature of the Macintosh platform is definitely an issue for wide deployment of OS X .. HOWEVER, that said, I feel that the added benefits of OS X over OS 9 is definitely providing a choice to those individuals who are tired of Windows (I actually know of several individuals who have switched simply due to virus related issues...) -- The macintosh as a platform over the past several years has definitely expanded to the point where it is a platform that people can switch over to fairly easly (integrate with their current PC based networks, open up all of their files on the Macintosh, etc..) -- so while it is a closed platform, I think it definitely has the potential of growing beyond its current niche (granted, it won't be a dominate OS, but definitely has the potential of growing..)
Enterprises deploying xServe -- hmm.. why not? Sure IT managers have disliked Apple in the past due to incompatibilities, but if they are successul in their launch of the xServe, I could very well see the xServe being used -- it is priced competitively, has features that satisfy the majority of departmental based tasks, can run UNIX applications/servers, has an easy to use front end, no per-seat licenses to worry about, etc... Granted, it won't be an over night success, but if Apple can remain price competitive and can show outstanding customer support, then i think enterprise quite possibly will deploy the xServe ...
Now as far as standard components comment .. what do you mean? PCI slots? IDE hard drives? DDR memory? ethernet? Seems like xServe uses lots of standard components..
Now on to Linux ...
Linux over the past few years has went from a hobbiest OS to a mainstream server OS with companies such as IBM investing billions into marketing/promotion/deployment of Linux solutions. My guess is Linux has been the most widely ported operating system ever. It most recently has been deployed in various devices such as the TiVO, cell phones, PDAs, cash registers, embedded devices, tablet PCs, laptops, mainframes, etc (not to mention all the various platforms .. PPC/x86/ARM/Alpha/Sparc/etc..)
So this gives businesses a huge advantage -- no matter what computing platform (hardware wise) is the best for the job, there is most likely a distro of Linux that will run on that platform and with little more than a recompile, all of their software will run on the new platform.. So in this regard, Linux is flexible enough to meet the companies needs.
Now as far as KDE/Gnome are concerned --- its continuous improvement that is the neat thing about the gooeys.. While it can be said that they don't measure up to Windows or Macintosh, I'll agree -- however, you make a very good point, Windows and OSX have a very strong reason to be successful -- it is the lively hood of two multi-billion dollar corporations. Both systems have been under development (in one form or another) for over 12 years. KDE and Gnome on the other hand are free interfaces that does not have a centralized development team and has only been available for basically the last 4 years.
So you look at it as a 4 year project and recognize the fact it has a very capable interface, development tools, advanced web browsers, tons of 3rd party software, full office suites, etc...etc.. and I dunno .. it just seems really impressive to me.
On top of that, if I recall correctly, Sun is standardizing on Gnome 2 as the default desktop for the Solaris operating system. This effectively puts two large players promoting open source solutions (Sun and IBM) -- So now there is definite incentive to polish the interfaces to go mainstream -- I think there is a lot of that in KDE 3.0 -- significantly less focus on the pretty pictures and a lot more focus on usability .. My guess is Gnome 2.0 will see much of the same..
To go with this idea further -- with more people interested in using KDE/Gnome as their desktop, more developers will be working on these ease of use features. As far as XP looking more modern -- I think this is a pure opinion .. I personally like showing off the various KDE themes in screen shots .. looks nice and pretty
quote:
I see Linux on the desktop as one step forward, and five steps back....back to 1995.
Well getting closer .. better than seeing Linux as a crude UNIX from 20 years ago ..
quote:
Now there we agree on something. If Microsoft continues to nickel and dime its corporate clients to death, they're going to start looking at other...less costly solutions.
Well umm.. thats my point... Not only is Microsoft nickel and diming its corporate clients to death (their goal of subscription based pricing .. forcing corporate customers to upgrade to the latest Office or be forced to pay full price at a later date, etc..) but at the same time, corporate customers are having to deal with a barage of viruses, hacks, etc..etc.. due to Microsoft's continual security problems (lets see .. they launched the Trustworthy Computing initiatve, had February be their month long bug squashing fest and has released security fixes that don't fix the problem .. yikes..)
Now as far as your reasons to not convert:
1. new hardware
2. retraining cost
Well companies are already replacing computers with new computers .. so a gradual shift to a different platform is not that outrageous ... Go department by department (or better yet, start with the servers, get all that converted, then end users..) -- not only will this cost be already assumed, but training costs would be spread over a period of time which would definitely be nice ..
Here are some reasons to convert:
1. Get rid of per-seat licenses as per the Microsoft model..
2. Avoid subscription based pricing completely
3. Provide protection against the significant amount of microsoft crap-code (read the transcripts from the DOJ case -- "we can't open up API's because there are security issues..") -- on a more down to earth note -- it will save from the myriad of viruses out there infecting all flavors of windows..
4. Not locked into a specific hardware platform (Linux)
5. Full source availability to allow companies to custom fit their systems for their objectives
6. Long term low deployment costs
There are lots of companies already deploying Linux in some fashion in their infrastructure -- and by the day, Linux plays a more important role ... Perhaps the interface is not the most elegant, but for a significant portion of the working population -- the OS is not that important (they only use one or two applications day in and day out.. so the OS is not a huge deal..) -- so it makes sense to have an OS that is less expensive and just as productive (makes business sense..)
Joe
|
I wish Apple would bring back spring loaded folders. 
04-06-2002 10:38 PM
Attachment: 
Oops!
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]