Details are lacking ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| TxtEdMacs Dec 06, 2004 11:57 AM EDT |
I am not entirely sure whether I dislike this article, because I distrust the assertions e.g.: essentially it would only pay to switch from fat Windows machines to Linux thin clients. Or perhaps too little detail was given e.g. technicians are not needed to update Linux thin clients (a cost saving) since a user can do it with three key strokes and a CD-ROM (What!?). What's update-able on a thin client - BIOS? Would you trust just any user to do that? Or are they talking about a startup script and verified connection to the central server? You may know as well may the source, however, from the way this is written the reporter does not have a clue. If this is truly a centralized system with Linux's renown due to being able to administer a large number of fat clients on a network I find this article's assertions as above hard to give credence. In essence too many gross assertions with too little (really none) on the fact citation side. Then there is the issue of OpenOffice requiring user retaining - how much retraining? Or is this simply a management vs union issue in Europe? Expect no enlightenment reading this piece. Just call me skeptical. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!