Hello, J.E.,
I read the article you posted to Silug and I think that yes Paul Murphy is talking about removing the PC from the desktop picture, and focusing on simple network computers.
His reasoning seems to be that currently in parts of the business world
the idea is to replace windows on the desktop with *nix on the desktop. And while many champion this as a step in the right directions the author expresses that this is short sited. In the long run it is a waste of resources to use a complex PC when a simple dumb terminal/network computer would be more effective.
Furthermore, the implementation of linux in the U.S. is going to be hampered by the Windows Colored Glasses that MCSEs and the general IT public are going to be looking through.
The core of commercial data processing has been terminal-to-host. Yet since the early 80's and the adoption of the PC, we have begun to change over to a client/server society. I feel this change could be attributed to the implementation of low cost computers in small to medium sized businesses. Though these companies have grown larger, they continue to maintain the client/server architecture.
Companies around the world don't have the same romance with the PC and have continued to be true to their terminal-to-host past. Because of this the author seems to be saying that this romance with terminal-to-host computing allows them to be more efficient and flexible. Thus allowing them to exploit the strengths of the *nix mindset more effectively.
Personally I agree with what he is saying, yet no matter what our current situation we need to start somewhere. I believe that even an implementation which might be considered poor by the author would normally be better than what has come before. The author mentions the use of cats pulling a dog sled, but I would say that the current implementation of Linux is more analogues to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. But with Linux at least you have one less fly, and the sledgehammer is free.