I wonder how much money the library, from where I am writing this post, has spent to buy and install windows and office 2000 on all computers. I can’t help wondering how much cheaper it would be if they were all based on Linux.
As a matter of fact, I have seen many systems around running on [tag]Windows[/tag] only in order to run another application, for example, for displaying a looping video all day.
The train schedule display in London bridge, and by that I presume everywhere else, obviously runs on windows (I noticed that after they performed an illegal operation and crashed the schedule). Why? Why not run on a lightweight Linuxbox, or thin client? Why do they need the whole (expensive) windows package when they don’t even use it?
The post office’s ad display runs on windows. The only thing that does is cycle through marketing images. Did they really pay the price for an OS just to be able to put a few images in a loop?
This just doesn’t make sense.
Of course, they could have used Macs on the first place. Imagine a library with the superb-design of the iMacs.
But, on the other hand, for public organizations, institutions, schools, I would also recommend open-source solutions. It is best for the pockets of the tax-payers.
Άμα μου δείξεις και κάνα πρόγραμμα να κάνω αξιοπρεπή μουσική σε linux, το γύρισα κι εγώ… :-p
When you say to make music, you mean electronic music or just record and mix?
Unfortunately it’s up to the companies that create those programs to take the time to make the platform independent or atleast port them to Linux.