<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think that in today’s corporate world there needs to be
a mix of OS’s that provide the best capabilities available.
One cannot be tied into a single OS to do all the work because there are
strengths and weaknesses in all of them. When it comes to desktops I
think that Linux is a good choice because pretty much any major distribution is
stable enough. When it comes to the server environment, everyone keeps
talking about how the desktop distros will support Exchange, so you will
probably still have some Windows servers somewhere in your environment.
Other servers may be a combination of Windows and Linux.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>What I think is being overlooked is when you’re trying to
manage hundreds of desktops spread across several buildings it is imperative to
have a centralized management solution, whether it is for Windows or
Linux. This is where VMWare is a good choice. Using a small number
of desktop images that are built and tested to make sure they are working as a
base to serve a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure would work well and need a very
small desktop machine to function. Also, you could use a PXE server to
provide a similar type of solution but would need a more robust desktop
machine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think what I am trying to say is no matter what you do and the
mix of OS’s that you use, the expense in a computer environment is not is
the purchase of the equipment, software or implementation, it is the cost of
the ongoing support, maintenance and operations (power cost, addition of
desktops, replacement/repair of desktops, etc…) of the equipment.
Implementing one solution over another on the front-end can cost huge amounts
of money on the backend. Make sure that you are not blinded about the end
cost by the lower dollar amounts on the front end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Phil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> kclug-bounces@kclug.org
[mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeffrey Watts<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Arthur Pemberton<br>
<b>Cc:</b> KCLUG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Conversion to Linux<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I think we can both completely
agree on that. It would be nice if they could find a way to have a
"smaller" product for small businesses that was in between. I
find myself advocating RHEL on core servers, Fedora on everything else too
often.<br>
<br>
Jeffrey.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Arthur Pemberton <<a
href="mailto:pemboa@gmail.com">pemboa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>It's a fair opinion. And I agree with it overall, even the
"taking<br>
dollars away from Red Hat" as that is more or less a fact.<br>
<br>
However RedHat's pricing, while fair, is beyond the reach of some. It<br>
would be good to see them provide a cheaper version with less/lower<br>
priority support. Doing so would probably get them a piece of Centos'<br>
pie as well.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
-- <br>
<br>
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will
reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>