...is tuxlabs (www.tuxlab.org.za also see http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 4/04/1859255 )
This is actual, practical, applied LTSP setups in schools using older computers (*and a powerful central server*).
Unfortunately this iniative is not as well known as Ubuntu!
It seems to my mind that we are now starting to see a pattern of articles critically negative about linux, and that lack a fair and critical approach.
I for one, take objection to the author's grouping of all linux supporters and open-source initiatives into the singular "Linux" with a capital "L". It is simply not fair to write in this manner, when you are referring to a disparate group of individuals, and especially a group so broad as to encompass "linux users", companies making an income from linux (Redhat, SuSE. etc.), multinationals such as IBM, Sun and Novell, "developers", hobbyists, educationalists, governments and so forth.
The author ignored the power of corporations to bring themselves down, through their own bad decisions. Surely part of the reason for SCO's demise is that they just didn't have a way to make a profit without conjuring up a ludicrous lawsuit, and also that they just didn't have a valid case? Isn't it fair to mention that? In a fair and balanced article it would be, actually.
There is also a new and disturbing trend in America that really does alarm the rest of the world. It generally starts with labeling someone a terrorist, for instance in this way:
"The power to control the press and the skills contained in this organization are likely capable of disrupting travel, power grids and other broad national infrastructure"
Where did this leap of logic come from, and what damage can such general statements do to the innocent? What damage have they already done in other contexts?
Finally, the author wrote:
"While the O'Gara column probably would only have been read by a few technical people, this broad coverage has been read by the general business buyer, and so the story has evolved from being a mere piece about an obscure person running an obscure Linux Web site focused on killing an obscure company to one broadly showcasing Linux as made up by "fanatics and lunatics" (John C. Dvorak). This isn't a child running around with scissors. This is child running around with a nuclear bomb."
So linux users/developers are children then? Where have they hidden their weapons of mass destruction? This makes Y2K seem positively benign! Who indeed is more dangerous? Could it perhaps be those who write the articles that damage the reputation of others, perhaps? And to whom are they themselves accountable?
I'm just your average slashdot reader, and I am getting confused myself about which product does what. I don't think your average joe at company X stands a chance of deciding upon which linux/office/ combination to go for, especially since we will see this market expanding even further.
Also, am I the first one to see this, but what price advantage is $139 compared to a an XP licence in the business world? (After all you don't get fired for buying M$).
There just needs to be something more to make a company go for the KILLER LINUX DESKTOP and this is MARKET DIFFERENTIATION
Slashdot Mirror
...is tuxlabs (www.tuxlab.org.za also see http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 4/04/1859255 )
This is actual, practical, applied LTSP setups in schools using older computers (*and a powerful central server*).
Unfortunately this iniative is not as well known as Ubuntu!
I for one, take objection to the author's grouping of all linux supporters and open-source initiatives into the singular "Linux" with a capital "L". It is simply not fair to write in this manner, when you are referring to a disparate group of individuals, and especially a group so broad as to encompass "linux users", companies making an income from linux (Redhat, SuSE. etc.), multinationals such as IBM, Sun and Novell, "developers", hobbyists, educationalists, governments and so forth.
The author ignored the power of corporations to bring themselves down, through their own bad decisions. Surely part of the reason for SCO's demise is that they just didn't have a way to make a profit without conjuring up a ludicrous lawsuit, and also that they just didn't have a valid case? Isn't it fair to mention that? In a fair and balanced article it would be, actually.
There is also a new and disturbing trend in America that really does alarm the rest of the world. It generally starts with labeling someone a terrorist, for instance in this way: "The power to control the press and the skills contained in this organization are likely capable of disrupting travel, power grids and other broad national infrastructure"
Where did this leap of logic come from, and what damage can such general statements do to the innocent? What damage have they already done in other contexts?
Finally, the author wrote:
So linux users/developers are children then? Where have they hidden their weapons of mass destruction? This makes Y2K seem positively benign! Who indeed is more dangerous? Could it perhaps be those who write the articles that damage the reputation of others, perhaps? And to whom are they themselves accountable?
I'm just your average slashdot reader, and I am getting confused myself about which product does what. I don't think your average joe at company X stands a chance of deciding upon which linux/office/ combination to go for, especially since we will see this market expanding even further. Also, am I the first one to see this, but what price advantage is $139 compared to a an XP licence in the business world? (After all you don't get fired for buying M$). There just needs to be something more to make a company go for the KILLER LINUX DESKTOP and this is MARKET DIFFERENTIATION
I still contend that such products although good, should still be referred to as "microsoft rats"!