OS X vs. desktop Linux

[Richard Pieri]

On Jun 21, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Rich Braun wrote:
> Over half the time, I'm finding that these folks are choosing a Mac,  
> despite
> the fact that each person's job title starts with the word "Linux".

That doesn't surprise me.

> That said--we do have a lot of challenges dealing with Macs because  
> of the
> infernal dependency on Internet Explorer that so many apps have.   
> (Including

I have a few solutions for this -- and in fact they're the same  
solutions that I'd use with a Linux desktop or notebook as I would  
with Macintosh.

The cheap, quick & dirty solution: run IE with WINE using IEs 4 Linux  
or IEs 4 Mac: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page
Pros: cheap.  Cons: some ActiveX controls don't work.

The brute force solution: dual-boot with Windows as a secondary OS.
Pros: reliable.  Cons: painful, potentially costly depending on  
Windows site licensing, users can mess up configurations and render  
the computers unbootable without sysmonsterly assistance.

The elegant solution: build a Windows appliance in VMware and run it  
with VMware Player (Linux) or Fusion (Mac).
Pros: reliable, not painful like dual-booting, easy to deploy and  
maintain.  Cons: potentially costly depending on Windows site  
licensing, there is no Player for Mac and Fusion is not free.

The clever solution: assuming a sane VPN that Macintosh can use, set  
up a Windows machine inside the network for remote users and use VNC  
or Remote Desktop or whatever you like to drive it.
Pros: inexpensive, reliable.  Cons: dependent on users not screwing up  
their own computers, nearly useless with slow network links.

I'm partial to the VMware solution.  While it can have the highest up  
front monetary cost it is also the easiest to manage.  Appliances are  
easy to deploy as ZIP files and they are their own backups.  If an  
appliance is corrupted or destroyed you can delete the damaged  
appliance, unpack the ZIP file, and run with the clean copy.

--Rich P.