OK, here's what I've got.
The language confuses, a little, low-cost software with GPL/open-source
software. Most open source software is of course available at low or no
cost, and much low/no cost software is now being released under an open
source license, but IMO there should be a little clarification that one is
not necessarily the other.
In the list of things that GNU/Linux brings to those accustomed to a
proprietary environment, all the list items are applications except PDF.
(You could argue that AIM refers not to the application, but to the TOC
and OSCAR protocols, but that's too nitpicky even for me.) You could
switch this to Adobe Reader, and list Xpdf as an auxiliary PDF reader (or
vice versa, if you want the focus to be on the libre software.) In this
vein, you could mention Mozilla in the Netscape item, and GAIM with the
AIM item.
A small nit with the XFree86 description: it doesn't actually handle all
the KVM for GNU/Linux - there's plenty of keyboard, video, and mouse
activity at the console. I realize that a detailed explanation of this
fact is probably beyond the scope of your whitepaper, but the existing
wording could be amended a little.
In your list of advantages of using a GNU/Linux LTSP solution, you have
separate items for GNU/Linux and the available GPL applications. However,
the reason we identify GNU/Linux is *because* of the GNU applications that
transform Linux from a mere kernel into a system distribution. I'd
consider consolidating those two items.
Another point states that KVM traffic will be less than that of
transferring data back and forth between workstations and servers - is
there any documentation or statistics supporting that? (My apologies if
they're in the spreadsheet - I didn't read it (No OOo at my workplace).)
It has been my impression that the KVM traffic would probably tend to
exceed routine client/server data transfer, except in outside cases.
An additional disadvantage of the LTSP solution: since it harkens back to
the mainframe-style network, it brings back the problem of single/few
point(s) of failure. If for some reason the servers go down, every thin
client becomes helpless.
On the other hand, you could list GNU/Linux's excellent stability and high
MTBF as an advantage, offsetting the previously mentioned disadvantage.
Some stats would be nice here as well.
HTH,
Levi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:56:38 EDT