Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?

[Vulpes Velox]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:41:55 +1000
"Aaron Benson" <ab72 at optushome.com.au> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> Centralised admin is my primary concern. User perspective is
> obviously functionality.
> 
> Anyway....
> 
> I've decided the best course of action to save money for the company
> is to run a kickarse
> Microsft 2K3 server Terminal Server, then use "SOME SORT" of ULinux
> OS to run on the client machine with a compatible TS client like
> rdesktop, PXES etc. possibly including a  combo with LTSP, Rdesktop
> and Wilisystem if I want an EPROM diskless total boot from ULinux
> workstation desktop to W2K3 Terminal Server without user
> interaction.

Can be done using freebsd too. Look into bootp, PXE, and whatever...
http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/pxe/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/pxe/article.html
http://www.tnpi.biz/computing/freebsd/pxe-netboot.shtml

And there is even more info out there on how to do it. ;)
 
> The question is, out of all the ULinux flavours, which one should I
> run which costs nothing or very little and will last for 4-6years in
> that time period? "Very little" equates to somewhat less than
> running Windows XP for a similar period. 

You can DL freebsd and get it all working with everything you need for
free. Cheaper than running WinXP is easy in this area.
 
> Cost savings include at least virus scanners and significant patch
> updates from Microsoft. Of course I'd rather update a single server
> than around 500 workstations both LAN and VPN remote machines. Virus
> signatures, multiple Microsoft patches etc. can be avoided.

Depends on how the antivirus is liscensed.
 
> Reminder is I'm used to using XP. Our users range from Windows NT
> 4.0,Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP. Based on a decent TS client,
> this shouldn't matter anyway.
> 
> Your advice appreciated.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Aaron Benson
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vulpes Velox [mailto:v.velox at vvelox.net] 
> Sent: Monday, 26 July 2004 4:43 AM
> To: Jorn Argelo
> Cc: Aaron Benson; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?
> 
> 
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST)
> "Jorn Argelo" <jorn at wcborstel.nl> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > >  
> > > This email is going to any Linux house whom has pitched
> > > themselves via their websites and reviews, from my research as
> > > being possible alternatives to XP at this stage. Depends on your
> > > Google hit and thereafter (if found within 2 pages) site FAQ's I
> > > suppose.
> > >  
> > > As a currently dedicated M$ house (apart from Oracle Databases),
> > > we question the move to a XP desktop amid the Linux hype in
> > > recent times. Any IT department trying to save company money is
> > > only doing the right thing and ask the question, what can Linux
> > > do for us?
> > 
> > As mentioned before, FreeBSD is NOT Linux. Keep that in mind.
> > 
> > > I've flipped through your FAQ's and over forums but result in no
> > > 
> > > answer for Active Directory 2K3 and Exchange 2K3 server client 
> > > connectivity, integration and functionality? Note that we have
> > > not moved to these product versions yet. Hence this email.
> > 
> > KDE's Kmail can connect to Exchange servers, I believe. As for
> > logging
> 
> > into active directory ... That doesn't exist AFAIK. Perhaps there
> > are programs that allow such things, but I wouldn't count on that.
> > Windows
> 
> > is an excellent OS for integration with Active Directory.
> 
> AFAIK sylpheed-claws can too... IIRC Exchange is imap... or
> something...
> 
> Windows see below for more info on active directory integration. :)
> 
> > > I ask because I cannot see a server based centralised
> > > authentication
> 
> > > and administrative option in Linux. If there were, say a 
> > > "centralised server option" for Linux, this would be seriously 
> > > considered. Is there a User Manager equivalent (NT4 domain for 
> > > example) or Exchange Administrator equivalent (Exchange
> > > 5.5) "functional" alternative? More importantly, 2K3 Server and 
> > > Exchange integration?
> > >
> 
> YP/NIS works and can be gotten to work on Windows(using something
> free similiar to below from Microsoft.) Many unixes(note lower case
> :P) are also begining to supprt LDAP now. IIRC FreeBSD 5x does.
> 
> > Not AFAIK.
> > 
> > > Failing that, connecting clients as above to M$ servers would be
> > > 
> > > sufficient. Stay with M$ in servers, go with Linux in desktops.
> > > I've
> 
> > > seen enough "glossy brochures" and want to know the facts.
> > 
> > Again, you can't do this when you want centralised server option.
> > 
> > > The cost difference is obvious. The functional difference is
> > > not. I've still no reason to choose your Linux over Windows XP
> > > Pro at this stage. Cost is not enough. Any sane IT department
> > > doesn't need screaming users due to lack of pure functionality.
> > > Experience suggests most find it difficult enough getting around
> > > the OS to even
> 
> > > perform basic functions, let alone usability.
> > >  
> > > Assuming aforementioned functionality, where does your Linux
> > > stand with converting between M$ Office 97/2K/2K3? Will our
> > > accounts department be able to work with their previous 40Mb
> > > Excel files full
> 
> > > of VLookups and Formulas straightup, or is it going to be bigger
> > > 
> > > than a Lotus 4.1 to Excel 5 conversion debacle? Of course 
> > > Word,PowerPoint,Publisher and Access are questioned also.
> > 
> > OpenOffice.org can do the job there, but a file created with OOo
> > will be rather misshapen when opened with Excel and vica versa. So
> > it's not
> 
> > advicable.
> 
> What about gnumeric? There are also other assorted programs out
> there to fill the need desired.
> 
> Remember, on unix you are not as limited in vendor options as you
> are on windows and there is a much larger software base to choose
> from. :)
> 
> > > I'm talking up to 500 user desktops to be upgraded. Upgraded
> > > need not be a literal word. Installing Linux from scratch would
> > > be expected. Anything "upgrade wise" extra would be a bonus.
> > >  
> > > Outside of M$ Office, current application functionality would
> > > have to be trialed. This is expected. A list of currently
> > > supported M$ applications would be helpful.
> > >  
> > > Your detailed reply appreciated
> > >  
> > 
> > So, for your needs, upgrading to Linux or BSD or whatever is a BAD
> > 
> > idea, IMHO. Your employees and your desktops simply don't have any
> > use
> 
> > of it, with the desires mentioned above. As long as you wish for 
> > integration with Active Directory, then an Microsoft OS is still
> > the best for you.
> 
> Can be done :)
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/features/default.asp
> 
> Those idiots still have not put in ssh, thought!?!?! :/
> /me feels telnet should be a executable offense :P
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I have been using unix since it is simpler to type than
> unix-like os or unix derivative... not to be confused with the upper
> case UNIX ^_^