Re: RDi and Linux

[David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe Pluta wrote:
> In my session at Rational, George Farr asked the audience who thought 
> that having RDi on Linux was important.  Only one or two hands went up.  
> Although this really wasn't a session on RDi, it was on RDi-SOA, and the 
> audience was more non-i people than i people, it was still a little 
> surprising to me.

Doesn't surprise me much ... Windoze is probably still the most 
prevalent desktop OS in organizations that run i & z boxes,

> I then began to wonder whether my own personal anti-Microsoft bias is 
> really skewing my perception.  Personally, if I were running an IT 
> department I'd be very interested in a pure Linux network.  With the 
> exception of a couple of specific-use programs, I don't use Windows-only 
> products anymore and I'm pretty happy.  My biggest issue today is that I 
> have to use Windows for RDi.

From my perspective ... Linux still has a long ways to go to make 
inroads onto the desktop.

There's a number of factors ...

1. Lack of first class driver support ... video, network, etc. which 
ties directly into...
2. Lack of vendor support.
3. Wide variety OS version and distros (which effects #2).
4. (Relative) Lack of applications.
5. Usability factors (having to edit config files, having to restart X 
to apply changes, etc).

> On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important and 1 being not 
> important at all, how would you rate the importance of having RDi 
> running on Linux?

2.5 ... it would be nice, but I run XP on my personal laptop and desktop 
at work, so I'll still run the Windows version.

david