Linux distributions have been constructed as small as a single floppy disk (1.4 

Mb). The enterprise distributions will install to several Gb in a default installation.

Task oriented distributions

Because of the freedom to include and remove components and the absolute 

freedom to add other applications from the open source community, it becomes 

possible to create special task oriented distributions. It is possible to create a 

distribution (and a Linux client based on it) for audio/video work or for signal 

processing. These task oriented distributions are useful when there are some 

very specialized desktop client requirements in an organization. 

Desktop design

One of the most obvious differences between the design of a Microsoft Windows 

client and a Linux based client is the freedom of choice you have in selecting 

desktop session managers and window managers in Linux. Also, most session 

managers (certainly KDE and GNOME) also provide extensive sets of theme 

options that can be used to further customize the look and feel of the desktop 

user interface. These themes are essentially a collection of icons, colors, window 

frames, backgrounds, and widgets, which combine to provide the selected look 

and feel. 

2.1.5  OSS philosophy

In some cases the fact that Linux is open source software is reason enough for 

the migration. This is mainly because organizations want to avoid vendor tie in. 

Another reason that organizations want to use open source software is that the 

source is available and can be studied or adapted to their specific needs when 

necessary. 

For these reasons a lot of governmental organizations, especially in Europe, are 

studying moving to OSS and Linux based clients.

2.1.6  Ease of use of the client

Because nowadays desktop clients are used by a majority of workers in many 

enterprises, it is a useful property of a client to be easy to use. A desktop client 

that needs extensive training before it can be used leads to enormous 

investments in training of end users.

 Chapter 2. The case for migration 

19