Re: RDi and Linux

[Scott Klement <wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
>