Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:19:50 +0100 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SPAM: Score 3.3: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <420E2CA6.3010003@incubus.de> In-Reply-To: <311372449.20050212160755@wanadoo.fr> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0502112100490.32296-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <420E148D.1070306@incubus.de> <311372449.20050212160755@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: >>Or the city administration of Munich, which intends to move its >>Windows desktops to a Linux/KDE-based installation. > Why not just burn taxpayer euro in a bonfire? It would have the same > end result and it would be faster. Well, if you just run a set of 1-3 applications, and don't do anything else with the computer, there shouldn't be much of a difference. Think, for example, of the software that the clerks feed applications for driving licenses or passports into. That's (most likely) one do-it-all software running on the terminal-like PC all the time. Or a secretary, using some kind of office software (I don't know if they consider OpenOffice). Apart from making a political statement, the advantage is of course being independent from the Microsoft update cycle. Of course whether it's cheaper having the inhouse staff or a consulting firm update the Linux desktops needs to be evaluated first (and I'm sure they did). Another point, as far as I got it, was security, i.e., higher resilience towards worms and viruses.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420E2CA6.3010003>