Re: RDi and Linux

Running on Linux, I'd give it a 3.
Running on FreeBSD I'd give a 5.

I'm happy with every aspect of running my desktop on FreeBSD, except for two things: a) WDSC/RDi and b) System iNavigator.

Unfortunately, these are pretty large parts of my job, and more and more are forcing me to use Windows. I think it's ironic that IBM wants use to use server-neutral programming languages, making it easy for us to eliminate the i (which is what I *want* to use, and is what I'm paying IBM for!) -- but requires a particular platform (Windows) for the client -- something that I don't want to use, and never asked IBM for.



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.

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.

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?

Joe