NewsForge Secretaries use Linux, taxpayers save millions

[Jeffrey A. McCright]

I don't understand. Unix has been running on dedicated servers for years
(decades) with Dumb Terminals or Graphics Terminals attached. Centralized
application management, closed systems that don't fear viruses/Crackers.
PC's running terminal emulators. I maintained a AIX system such as this for
a year, the hardest part of the support was a multiplexor hit by lightning,
an employee who while watering a plant above a terminal, spilled water into
the terminal while it was on, and fighting with SWBell over a dedicated
lease line that wasn't working.

Just my opinion.

Jeffrey A. McCright

-----Original Message-----
From:	Brian Kelsay [mailto:bkelsay at home.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:46 PM
To:	Jonathan Hutchins; kclug at kclug.org
Subject:	Re: NewsForge  Secretaries use Linux, taxpayers save millions

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Hutchins" <hutchins at opus1.com>

> I was hoping this would be useful to argue for a switch to Linux here,
as
> well as among some friends.  Unfortunately, there is so much
misinformation
> about MS/Windows stuff that I can't use it.  Sure, it presents the
case that
> you can run an office using *NIX instead of Windows, but their claims
about
> savings and reliability are way off.
>
> I'm sure there are places where crashes that loose work are still
common,
> but they're not run by someone competent enough to develop a *NIX
office
> system.  For the claimed price of $750 you can get a PC that will run
NT.
>
He said he used thin clients that were already purchased for a Windows
Terminal Server environment and that he could have saved money there.
Probably somebody had sold them on a "Solution" and some bean-counter
(bless his detailed soul) put the brakes on when he saw how much it
would cost.

> I did some quick math on license fees, and figuring server,
workstation,
> office suite, and mail client, multiplied by the nominal 100 users I
> support, the license cost wouldn't pay a year's salary for someone to
> develop and deploy the configuration for the end-users, and I really
don't
> think I could do both that and maintain my current level of support.
>
The idea is to use what others have done that have gone before you.
Look at www.ltsp.org , Linux Terminal Server Project,  to see how
someone else set up this type of thing.  One of the comments in the
article had a link to a KDE mini-HOWTO page for making a Kiosk
http://dot.kde.org/997748764 .

> I still think Linux is the answer.  The reason is that MS is doing so
much
> mucking around with their systems, bundling programs and links to
sponsors
> and such, that it's going to take as much work to clean up a Windows
> installation as it would to configure a Linux installation.  More and
more
> offices are returning to the model of a centralised computing resource
> instead of having to support distributed individual PC's, and *NIX,
> including Linux, fits that model much better than MS' products.
>
I think that Linux is the answer too in a lot of places.  I have had so
much trouble with users installing stuff that breaks or slows the system
under Windows.   Your average user could use a PC/terminal and the Power
user or manager could have a full blown PC.  We put so much overkill on
the client side it is ridiculous.   I just think there are a lot of
places this could work.   You could buy two load balanced rack-mount
servers to keep the network running during maintenance and still save
money by not updating the clients every one or two years.  Heck you
could use the money you save to buy everyone a 17" monitor and still
have money to put back in the budget after the second year.   I just
pointed the article out because I think there are a lot of places that
it could work.   If you keep the clients humming along without problems
you can have time to straighten up and rewire the server room or finish
a project that you never thought you would have time for.

Brian Kelsay