The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
That is correct. Microsoft is good at PR, so it was
successful at pretending that desktop PCs /WERE/ the
computer. Should it not matter that there are several
billions of smart phones (miniature PCs) out there?
Microsoft is very,very good at PR (poker face). It manages
to convinced people that only an O/S (even for phones)
with "Shutdown" under some "Start" menu at the bottom-left
corner of the display is the 'standard'-- the only
standard which is 'user friendly' (read: like Windows).
But guess what? After about 10 years in the field and huge
spending (losses too, which they hid by combining
divisions), Microsoft has only 6% market share in this
area.
Future is in virtualisation and thin clients. It is easier
to manage a handful of "terminal servers" serving thin
clients instead of a slew of thick clients.
How "thin" is thin here? I see a multilayer problem, and the
Web brower is getting extremely fat -- to the point of
becoming a development environment itself (Javascript can do
Erastothene's Sieve without much difficulty, for example).
Contrast this to dumb glass tube terminals which might have
have to make a decision on where to put the cursor based on
8-bit codes, but that's about it.
If we are talking about weight, then I guess I am a fat client. :-)
You are talking about dumb terminals like DEC VT100, VT220,
Concurrent PE6312, Tektronix 4312, etc., which we back some 20
years ago called "smart terminals".
Now we are getting into flavours of virtualisation. That is
where diligent IT planning and purchase comes into play.
X terminals are somewhere in the middle and are very rare
nowadays. Nowadays it's cheaper to get a new or used Laptop
and slap Linux on it running an X server and using SSH
tunnelling.
True. Haven't tested as of late but a while back had X on a 100
MHz 486, ran fine.
In April last year, Microsoft did an "about face" and now is
working to support thin clients, albeit at roughly twice
the cost of their thick client licenses. They are not yet
supporting per user license. (One has 1,000 machines but
only 500 users must pay 1,000 licenses, not 500.)
Gosh, how nice of them to overcharge us! :-P Of course part
of the problem with a "thin" client is authenticating that
client; think of a laptop on a corporate network, for example.
Best I can do there is put something in .ssh and that would
allow login to a server; the server can also use HTTP for
session authentication if the laptop has a web browser (even
Dillo can handle cookies).
I am sure there is a way to authenticate. I was referring to
hardwired clients, not laptops. One would most likely not use
thin in residences and smallest businesses.
My previous employer had exactly this problem, as they used X
Windows to draw their stuff -- and X has an inherent remoting
capability, which can be exacerbated by various proxies to
allow more than 1 user to share a window or desktop (the most
obvious one nowadays is VNC).
There are merits in this as the servers maintain the
software, an upgrade to a server upgrades all thin clients.
Actually, it doesn't ... but never mind; I'm being pedantic.
Suffice it to say that the thin clients do not need to upgrade
nearly as often as the servers since the thin client protocol
is relatively simple, and that lessens IT work. Of course
upgrading the server allows the thin clients to access the new
version -- transparently.
No doubt that's what you meant, and it can be a *big*
advantage.
Also having software managed at server level has better
control over viruses, trojans, root kits, etc. Server can't
be back doored or "bypassed" through an infected thick
client, since thin client is essentially a terminal.
Backups are simplified since they are done as server level.
It is inherently easier to backup user files.
This is where Linux shines. With Linux running an
alternative to Windows API's to run software applications
negates the need for the Windows operating system. Vista is
the best thing that ever happened to Linux.
And the worst thing to happen to Microsoft. :-)
Microsoft. Where did you want to go today?
I still remember Corel Linux showing, "Where do you want to
go tomorrow?" when mouse was hovered over the "Start"
button. :-)
Heh. Can't say I remember that, but that's because I've not
used that distro.
It was very nicely done, using KDE 1.0. Those who say that KDE
was amateurish say without experience, Corel had a very nice
implementation of it. They even had SMB integration where one
could see similar to Windows Network Neighborhood other Windows
clients.
Anywhere which is warmer. Scottt Douglas lives in Canada
and I think that the cold weather prevents blood from
reaching all of his brain cells.
As Microsoft and some major software houses with heavy
Microsoft ties will not want "food taken off their plate"
(AKA maintain the monopoly), the FUD campaigns against Linux
and other alternative operating systems will continue.
Best form of freedom is for people to simply try Linux and
other FOSS software out, judge for themselves.
If they're aware of it. At least the "buzz" is still around
Linux, and if Microsoft denigrates Linux in their ads, it is
also *mentioning* Linux -- a double-edged sword.
You are right about that. The fat lady is singing and they can't
seem to shut her up. :-)
--
HPT
|
|
