I rememeber Oracle also had this vision. From what i've seen in many organizations, with PC's they usually just image them with the correct image for each department, since installing the software could take hours now a days. It would last for a while until windows would become unstable, and was full of junk, then it would have to be imaged again. It makes me wonder why Oracle's idea wasn't more successful since it solves this problem entirely, and imaging each PC individually seems foolish. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Robert Brockway wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, JoeHill wrote:

...

I've been reading articles like this for years now, in various forms

Yeah this idea of remote servers under someone elses control has been around for quite a long time.

...

proclaiming that the home desktop PC is a flawed and obsolete model, and that all of our software should be run from secure servers instead.

I see two seperate issues here...

Personally I think the desktop PC is a flawed idea overall (from a system management point of view) but giving up control of data to a remote entity is even worse.

The middle ground is a thinclient solution. I can giveup the desktop PC (replacing it with a "dumb" display device) but still keep the central server under the control of the owners of the data.

Rob

-- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml