On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:07 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 21:06, Craig White wrote: > > > > > > > Basically a Macintosh is really cool hardware > > > The interface is stale - singular in view - stupidly conceptualized for > > idiots with a single button mouse as Apple finally figured out that > > there is a benefit to having a mouse with more than one button. Not only > > the OS but most applications do little to implement alternate button > > options because of Apple's lack of vision. > > You have to give them some points for itunes where they make the > software do the right thing for you without much intervention. > It is hard to beat subscribing to some podcasts with itunes set to > collect and keep unlistened copies and an ipod set to sync them. > When you've listened to one on the ipod, the next sync back sets > the itunes 'listened' timestamp, then next itunes podcast refresh > (scheduled or manual) will delete the listened items and pull any > new available copies, and the next ipod sync will propagate the > deletion and update the new versions. ---- conversation wasn't about iPod but I do have one and I am hooked ;-) ---- > > > > > > Perhaps they noticed the OpenOffice users complaining about how > > > the conversions didn't always work. > > ---- > > I guess I hadn't noticed much of a problem since OOo 2.0 > > A bad reputation is hard to live down. Many of those Office 2004 > copies may have paid for themselves in time saved before OOo 2.0 > was available. ---- Mac users woundn't know that anyway because OOo was so slow in coming to Macintosh (still only beta), NeoOffice version (Native Quartz) is a performance dog, OOo requires the extra hassle of installing X11 AND completely eschews the the Quartz interface which requires extra training for each user...thus, OOo in a Macintosh environment is a hard sell. It's not that Office 2004 saves time, it creates proprietary Microsoft format documents which is the problem, not the solution. The battle is actually over and Oasis / Open Document formats have won. Some of the participants want to deny that fact and most of the world's computer users don't understand this yet. That is one of the principal strategies that Microsoft is trying to accomplish with their deal with Novell...to get Novell to implement the extensions for the Microsoft XML formats into OOo because those are the file formats that they can control - not the Open Document formats. If you're a business, do you really want to continue shelling out $400-$600 per copy of Microsoft Office Professional? Microsoft's XML formats whose documentation is abusively vast? Microsoft's XML formats that embed DRM that could possibly lock you out of your own data? It is simply not possible to justify the cost of Microsoft Office when the alternatives are free or nearly free and when the file formats are documented, public, easier to comprehend. From this point forward, the only thing that is going to drive Microsoft Office sales is consumer ignorance. ---- > > Allow me to pose this conundrum to you... > > > > I have a non-profit client without a lot of excess funds. Having just > > recently figured out how to implement roaming profiles on Macintosh via > > LDAP/NFS/Netatalk it allows me to consider them as peers on a network > > that has Windows and Linux desktop machines which already had roaming > > profiles so I am relatively at peace with the Macintosh at the moment. > > > > They have several iMacs and G3 systems that are still running OS 9 and > > are due to be updated. Do we upgrade them to Tiger considering... > > - $ 129 per system > > - most of them don't have a DVD drive and we would need the CD's and if > > you go to > > this page on Apple's web site > > http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html > > you will see a link in the middle of the page to get CD media for just > > an additional > > $ 9.95 - the link has been dead for over a month > > > > or do I just say - screw Apple and install Fedora Core 6 on them? > > I'd guess that you'll have to add RAM and the cost along with > the OS is going to approach a new Mac Mini with nowhere near > the performance. And you'll likely see the same thing with > fedora running locally. If you have a decent server available > on the network, I'd give LTSP a try, running them as thin > clients. I've seen people on the k12ltsp list say that they > work fine. ---- Most of them have enough RAM. I can purchase thin stations or faster PC's for about the same price. I have my own yam repository and kickstart scripts that can perform a pre-configured setup in about 30 minutes. I'm not sure I want to go the thin client route but I have the LTSP in the back of my mind anyway. ---- > > In this instance, it's evident that if I don't have to run any specific > > Macintosh software on these systems, Fedora it is - even if I can't > > locate PPC based versions of things like flash/etc. > > As clients, you wouldn't have to worry about that since the > apps run on the server. ---- +1 for thin client -1 for thin client because some applications run much better on client ---- > > > By logical extension, the only difference between this client and any > > other user is the willingness to spend money to feed the corporate > > beast, whether it is Microsoft of Apple and to be honest, and to > > paraphrase one of my favorite lines of all time...one is a monopoly, the > > other is a monopoly wannabe. > > If you aren't willing to spend $100+ about every year to keep the > OS up to date, you probably shouldn't even consider apple. But, if > the employees are paid it doesn't take much time savings to > make that back. If they aren't and you really have to go the cheapest > route, take a good look at the k12ltsp distro which is essentially > fedora with the ability to boot thin clients included in the base > install. ---- I've been on the mail list for a few years but have never implemented it. We have it as an option but to implement, we will have to buy 1 big iron system for the server. Thanks Craig
