On 2/5/07, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You stated in a previous post that you have a Linux box (for most software) > and a Windows box (for > Fox and Quickbooks), as did Whil, to run your business. I was using your > example. Am I remembering > wrong?
Yeah, or I'm not communicating as well as I should. My blog's subtitle says "Mission: Interoperable" and while I use (several) Linux and Windows laptops, I also run a desktop Mac. While my goal is to get away from packages that tie me to a single vendor, your suggestion that One Distro To Bind Them All was my solution isn't correct: diversity is a necessary part of a healthy computing industry. > > Interesting, when I look up "monopoly" on Dictionary.com, I see your picture > in the definition <bg> I think you misread. It's more likely "monotony." ;) . > It has been 20-something years since I got my minor in Econ, but I doubt the > definition of monopoly > really applies to the "other computer guy" in Contoocook, NH. > Hard as it is to believe, there's actually two other Fox development shops in town. > My assertion is most normal businesses are not going to put 2 machines on > every employees desk in their business so they can do > their jobs. I hadn't heard that before. I agree. Yes there are exceptions like meteorologist at NOAA (each has three if I recall > correctly). And trading desks. Those folks seem to think five or six screens are some sign of rank! >You have two desktops just > to run your business (and several others for supporting clients, which is > very normal in our > business). I have one laptop to develop, keep my books, correspond with > clients and associates, do > research on the Web, watch movies to relax, and everything else. I have > several other machines to > support my clients, but my business is run on one machine, and one OS, and > this is the norm for > general business. I guess I am not following what "running your business" means to you. I have many machines I operate on. You have many machines you operate on. If you're making the point that my accounting system runs on a different OS than everything else, I'll conceed that's unusual, but not unheard of. Most business users have only one machine on their desktops. However, especially in large businesses, there can be a lot of variation across the business in what that machine is, what it is running and how it is configured. My doctor has a locked-down Windows machine that runs nothing but their practice management app. My dental tech has nothing but her dental scheduling app. The dental receptionist has a DOS-based greenscreen practice management and accounting app (I suspect it might be FoxBase.). Some clients run dedicated 3270 terminal emulation. For all practical purposes, these people are not even running an OS. Most of my clients these days run a machine with a browser, an email client, a word processor, a spreadsheet and a dedicated database application, either rich-client or browser-based. > People I know who work with Linux every day. I am sure if you are just using > office apps and > browsing the web the compatibility is there. But I have friends who have > scientific type apps > running and they need specific configs (hardware and software). Then we're not talking general-purpose business applications. My friends who run AutoCAD have some pretty funky hardware and software requirements too. But that's not mainstream. Every package has dependencies (like FoxPro's XML functionality needs MS's XML libraries), and some are easier to configure than others. But that's a problem we see bundling up 3rd party ActiveX controls with Windows, too. > Actually I only had the SCT-deleting script file run by an employee hours > after we told him not to. I think I know him ;) > Never with a client. With the SCTs or even deleting the EXE the users are > destroying something where > I can send them a new copy. If they change the OS under the hood (whether it > is an in-house IT > department or hired out) I don't get to fix this. I think there is a big > difference. I'm sorry, I'm really being dense here. Could you explain again the two cases and the difference you're pointing out. I'm afraid I missed the point. > Reminder to self: my point is confusion in the marketplace. This is not a > technical issue, it is a > business issue. I'd be interested in hearing about your experiences in the marketplace where you run into this confusion and how you address it. I have clients complain "well, it's just Windows, why doesn't your software just work on it?" when they want a FoxPro app to run on their cell phone. There's confusion! My experience with clients is that their level of cluefulness with Linux is all over the place. Some are not aware their backroom is running it; with some, it is a corporate mission. Some are willing to try a Linux desktop is the office; others reject the idea out of hand. (Many the same ones we've talked about here who had a bad dBASE experience in 1987 and still forbid FoxPro from their shops). So, I'm sorry if I'm being abtruse (maybe my medications need adjustment), but I'd appreciate if you could restate your thesis here. > I am not bashing Linux. Me, neither :) -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
