BSD Question's.

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Danial Thom [mailto:danial_thom at yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 9:00 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Michael C. Shultz; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>Cc: Daniel A.; Andy Sjostrom
>Subject: RE: BSD Question's.
>
>
>
>
>--- Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at toybox.placo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On
>> Behalf Of Danial Thom
>> >Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:34 AM
>> >To: Michael C. Shultz;
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> >Cc: Daniel A.; Andy Sjostrom
>> >Subject: Re: BSD Question's.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--- "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01 at gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Saturday 24 December 2005 06:54, Daniel
>> A.
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Andy,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am sorry for the trouble you have had
>> with
>> >> Windows XP.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suggest that you use Linux, as FreeBSD
>> >> really is not targeted at
>> >> > people who want to use graphical user
>> >> interfaces.
>> >>
>> >> In a few key areas FreeBSD is a better
>> desktop
>> >> OS than Linux:  Easier to keep
>> >> the kernel/world and installed ports up to
>> date
>> >> for example without having
>> >> to resort to the microsoft/Linux fixall
>> method
>> >> of removing and reinstalling
>> >> everything every now and again.  Your
>> opinion
>> >> is correct IMO that FreeBSD
>> >> managers put most emphasis on FreeBSD as a
>> >> server and little as a desktop.
>> >> My guess is because donations(cash) and
>> >> hardware support for developers
>> >> come from people who want servers while
>> people
>> >> who want a desktop OS tend to
>> >> donate squat....
>> >>
>> >> > The linux developers really have been
>> trying
>> >> to make a valuable
>> >> > replacement for Windows, as they somehow
>> have
>> >> experienced the same
>> >> > issues with Windows (And Microsoft
>> products
>> >> in general) that you have.
>> >> >
>> >> > One Linux distribution in particular that
>> I
>> >> think you might like, is
>> >> > Ubuntu. You can download it at
>> >> http://www.ubuntulinux.org/, or order a
>> >> > CD (Free shipping, free CD, you pay
>> nothing).
>> >>
>> >> Advertising Linux in a FreeBSD mailing list?
>>
>> >> Sounds like you may have more of
>> >> axe to grind against the FreeBSD management
>> >> folk than a desire to offer sound
>> >> advice....
>> >>
>> >> -Mike
>> >
>> >Why not just tell the truth, which is that
>> >Windows XP is the best that you can do for the
>> >desktop, and that there is no perfect solution
>> >that works perfectly in every scenario?
>>
>> This ignores a very important fact: the needs
>> of
>> a home user for a desktop OS are rapidly
>> becoming
>> very different than the needs of a corporation
>> for
>> a desktop OS.
>>
>> Windows XP is the best desktop OS you can have
>> on
>> the $499.99 computers that they sell with the
>> operating
>> system preloaded down at Best Buy, and that are
>> purchased
>> by the typical home user.
>>
>> But it is a serious problem for the average
>> corporation.
>> Many of them are deploying Microsoft Terminal
>> Server
>> and using Winterms, or Linux systems running
>> remote
>> desktop, terminal served into the TS.
>>
>> In this manner they can provide the user with
>> access to the apps that they are trained on,
>> such
>> as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. in a
>> controlled
>> fashion that does not permit the user to
>> download
>> the latest virus-of-the-month, or crap-up their
>> system with the latest screen-saver from the
>> Weather channel that tanks the Internet
>> connection
>> every 3 minutes downloading a 1MB jpg file of
>> the
>> weather in San Francisco.
>
>This thinking is more about the lack of
>innovation of consultants and network staff than
>necessity. There are simple filters and bandwidth
>management that can manage networks at the egress
>without having to adulterate your network with a
>lot of crap like this. What you do on the
>intranet and how you interact outside of your
>local network are mutually exclusive components.
>

It depends on the business.  If your running a call
center in Punjab, India you can pretty well lock down
access to the Internet because your employees are
supposed to be answering the telephone, not surfing
Ebay.

But if your running a modern office then it is
a lot harder for businesses to deny access to the
Internet, websurfing, etcetera, espically when
the person demaning access happens to be, for example,
the Director of Marketing who's pulling down 6 figures
and is ordering you to permit unfettered Internet
access to himself, and all his employees that work
under him.  And he's one of the CEO's golfing buddies
to boot.

The other issue is suppose the corporation decided
a while back to outsource every last man-dog IT person
they had.  Now they are paying some outsourcing firm
to manage their desktops.  That firm charges quadruple if
they have to send a warm body to a desktop to fix
something vs if they can fix it remotely.  If everyone
is terminal served in, then the outsourcing firm can
have a guy in Punjab, India, remote into the terminal
server and fix it.

I'm not saying that terminal server is a solution for
all offices, or even a good solution for any of them.
But, there are very different issues that become
important for a corporation supporting a lot of Windows
desktops, that aren't an issue for a single Windows
home user who is competent to manage his own Windows
system.  Most of the criticism I see in this mailing
list of Windows is from the home-user perspective, and
not from the business user perspective.  People complain
for example of Windows being unstable - because they
are running it on some $200-made-in-basement clone,
whereas most businesses buy Dell or HP/Compaq desktops
that come preloaded, and have been tested 6 ways
to Sunday for stability with Windows.

>With laptops being so prevalent now; the ability
>to allow users to pop a standard machine onto a
>corporate network is absolutely ESSENTIAL for
>maximum productivity.

I got news for you, the laptops are disappearing, and
being replaced by Windows CE devices, running
Windows CE Terminal Services Client (CETSC).  People
like these systems better than laptops, they are
lighter and more portable.  And nowadays you can
get wireless cards for them that will do higher speed
cellular-style wireless so you can use them anywhere.

Laptops in particular are
the bane of the corporation, they are expensive,
very very fragile, and very prone to being stolen.  (I've
personally had 3 stolen out of my car in the last
5 years, all of them the thieves broke windows,
fortunately all of them were old devices I only used
for running ASCII terminal emulators on)

And for the road warriors that do run laptops, the
big thing I see these days are people yarding laptops
around with wireless NICs in them, jacking in at
coffee shops, airports, and wireless networks at
their customers offices, then running a VPN client into
their home company network and firing up terminal
server client.

>The ability to
>transparently protect your users without having
>to deploy "different" equipment than standard
>XP-type desktops is what separates the men from
>the boys.
>

It is not that companies can't protect users that
run standard legacy approaches to computing, it is
that it is more expensive, in many cases a lot more
expensive, than simply setting the systems up as
dumb terminals and terminal-serving into a Microsoft
terminal server.

If done right, the vast majority of users don't even
realize that their copy of Word or Excel or Powerpoint
or whatever isn't even executing on the CPU of the system
that they have in front of them.

Microsoft has recognized this, which is why they are
releasing Windows Fundamentals, see:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/benefits/fundamentals.mspx

>Something important to understand is that what
>"corporations" do is a function of the talent
>that they have making recommendations. Its not
>necessarily the "right" thing; in fact is almost
>never is.

That is accurate.

>What's ironic is that "corporations"
>hire cheaper consultants who end up making them
>spend much more in the long run because of their
>lack of innovation.
>

You don't "spend more in the long run" because of
lack of innovation.  In fact, innovation is a really
overused word, it's used as a political label by
most people to attack people and products, they say
"he's not innovative" or "it's not an innovative product"

Well, if I go down to the store to purchase stainless
steel tableware, the knives, forks and spoons I'm going
to get are the same as the ones they were selling 30
years ago, that must mean those manufacturers do not
innovate their products, so they all must be bad, so
we should just stop buying knives, forks and spoons and
eat with our hands.  You see how silly an attack on
"lack of innovation" can be without any context to
explain the charge.

People spend more in the long run because they make
bad decisions on what will happen in the future, either
they are incompetent and the decisions are bad from day
1, or the decisions were the right ones at the time and
become bad later on.

It is true you have a greater chance of getting an incompetent
consultant if you hire consultants on price only - but even
a competent consultant can make a good decision that over
time becomes the more expensive one - because things change
unexpectedly.

Ted