Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:54 UTC
Linux Well, it's been a while since we've opened this particular jar (box is not historically accurate) owned by Pandora. Desktop Linux... Yes, that ever elusive readiness of the desktop that is Linux-powered. Some story on ComputerWorld argues that the desktop Linux dream is dead, and apparently, the story is causing some stir on the web. Well, paint me pink and call me a lightbulb, but of course desktop Linux is dead. However - who gives a flying monkey? Linux is being used by more people than ever!
Permalink for comment 445851
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by daddio
by lemur2 on Tue 19th Oct 2010 22:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by daddio"
Member since:

Also, Microsoft has tried very hard to write its Site licenses so that organizations who need any Microsoft software in bulk have to license it even for machines that don't run it but could.

Say what? Interesting. From that I get two things:

(1) There may be a great opportunity here for someone to build desktops using then new ARM A15 CPU when it comes out. There is no Windows for ARM, so such a desktop machine could NOT run Windows

This would allow a company to have Linux servers, with something like Samba4, Alfresco and OpenXchange/Zimbra/Citadel running on their serveres, the bulk of their desktops running Linux on ARM A15 with LibreOffice, and have only a very few specialist machines running Windows. They should be able to do all that and avoid having to pay Microsoft CALs of any kind. Since there would be only a very few Windows machines to worry about, license compliance for those few machines would become far easier to keep track of. It should be possible to allow the few Windows machines on the LAN but not on the wider Internet, so that they were protected from getting compromised.

Computing infrastructure costs for such a setup would be absolutely tiny compared to an equivalent company running as an all-Microsoft shop.

(2) Canonical and/or Red Hat may have a very good case for tortious interference there.

After all, what business is it of Microsoft's if some company wants to enter into a contract with Canonical or Red Hat for desktop software? None at all that I can see.

Reply Parent Score: 2