Bob,

>If the client selects you to provide a system and you specify/recomend a Linux Server and the agree, then they will have one.

Unfortunately, this is not how it goes most of the time. Most clients already have a system (hardware and (N)OS), and i 've to write software which works with this. In very few cases I can determine what hardware and OS should be used.

>I believe the goal is to use the Linux machine as a SERVER, not to replace the workstation. And, since most VFP developers write traditional aps that run on the client, then this is not a problem.

Well OK, i did miss this statement... And i agree Linux can have a place in it, But can you run automation servers on a Linux server, COMM, DCOM ?

>Would you tell your client they can't use Oracle becuase it doesn't run on windows?

Well, Oracle does run on Windows....

>>- I seriously do not experience many bugs in the NT os.

> HA! Lucky!

>- The bugs that do exist are mostly due to some functionality added to NT in a previous release, they will be fixed in a next release.

>How many security issues have you heard about for IIS4 and IE? Compare that to how many security issue you hear about for Apache? Security is a very important issue for the enterprise, and a *Nix os has several operation levels... how often have you heard of a *nix virus?

If you talk about IIS and IE, You might be right.. BTW is it a IIS4 and IE matter or a OS matter ?

>>- In windows I've lots of programs that serves my needs, in linux i've virually none.

>Doesn't mean they are not out there. Also, as I said, I belive we are talking about Linux as a server... to service files, serve printers, run a database, be a mail server, route internet packets, etc. (Things it is very good at!)

As a add on server, i agree .. but I don't think it can replace the entire NT server.


>>Seriously, the time there was a battle between Windows and OS-2 cannot be compared with the upcomming battle between Linux and Windows. About 1 Billion people are used to work with Windows. Do you really think that windows is so >


>I think the desktop battle will be hard fought... that is about ease of use and common file formats... actually, I think MS made a crucial mistake if the native file format of Office 2000 documents is HTML and data is XML... this allows people to use the software they LIKE since we can all share documents seemlessly. Office is only so popular because, it had a larger market share do to preinstalls, and people found that, "Hey if we all use office, it's really easy to share documents and spreadsheets." Remember when EVERYONE Used Lotus 123?


Do you think Linux will battle Windows on the Desktop market ?? I find it very unlightly. It is so much different from what users are used to.. Unless it has very clear and powerfull advantages (Like windows over dos) people are willing to switch.

>In the OLD dos day's there were some other companies which tried to get a piece of the OS market, but because MS had a enormous marketshare they were not able to get a significant share.
>


>When i look at linux, I don't see anything what could not be accomplished on NT. Why should i move ???
>

>Set up a mail server that serves 300+ users and is rock solid... Then add a proxy server to it... Oh, and while we are at it, run the companies internal web intranet on it.


Again here we talking about certain servers tasks.. And yes i agree with this statement, though I don't think the Linux server can replace the NT server. Just place it next to it.


Walter,