RE: [LUG] Thin clients

["Brough, Tom" <Tom.Brough@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brough, Tom wrote:
> > I believe Citrix sits on top of a "normal" windows
> > installation so Im not quite sure where the "thin" bit comes in


> Or on top of a GNU/Linux installation, but it isn't free software.

OK so it runs on GNU/Linux as well (biological knowledge base updated).

My point is be it GNU/Linux or Windows I'm still maintaining a larger base
of software to support the client software, and additional hardware (i.e.
hard disk) to run it on. IMHO if its got moving parts (disk drive) then it
has more potential for failure and is more expensive unit cost on the client
side. You have got to admit that kernel + drivers + X11 server (which is
practically all you require for LTSP) is a much less bloated solution.
Although the software has to be loaded each time the client reboots this is
offset by the fact that the software is very minimal, if you leave a client
on all day (like a normal office PC) then the hit is even less evident.

> The longer people stay locked in the more expensive
> wil be the change when it comes, just look how long it took SWW to lose
> their mainframe.

Hence the reluctance to change at all, or the willingness to be convinced by
your existing suppliers argument that it would be better to migrate through
them because they will reduce the TCO. We may be a devil but at least you
know what sort of devil we are.

It is an very interesting point, take the ECDL. The spirit of ECDL is
enabling end users to be confident to use generic applications, word
processor, spreadsheet, presentation tools, but if you go a look at the
books in WHSmiths etc. ... you will see ECDL for Windows 2000, ECDL for XP
Office, ECDL for <insert specific os / apps here>. Why is this so, partly
because MS pushed it that way, partly because employers want employees to do
it this way, partly because those that produce the literature for ECDL are
most likely to be sitting in front of a PC with a specific setup.

Its difficult to fight against this culture, even when the same people (like
IBM) are championing change. How many times have we heard the likes of IBM,
Sun etc... get up and say ECDL is not as generic as it should be? And yet
surely it would be in Sun's interests to have ECDL as generic (and therefore
users who are technically competence in Star Office) as much as it is in
Microsoft's interests to have users who are technically competent to in
XP/Office. Even Microsoft should see the value of doing this way (how may
times has Microsoft changed its office suite), surely a better informed user
would be quicker to adapt to any changes ?

Of course its not in the control of the ECDL body (who every they may be),
and to a certain extent I'm against enforced controls (otherwise I couldn't
call myself an advocate of freedom), but maybe ECDL should be more
controlled.

A possible alternative would be to test the ability of a ECDL student to go
cross platform. OK you proved that you can create a document in XP/Word, now
do the same thing on GNU/Linux/Gnome/OpenOffice, and Or
GNU/Linux/KDE/Koffice etc... etc... This may seem harsh but it would at
least prove that principal of operation had been taught and not specific
drilling, it would also mean that individual would be able enabled in a more
diverse working environment, surely not a bad thing.

Tom.

Information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is the intended solely for the person ( or persons) to whom it is
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender,
and please delete the message from your system immediately. The views in
this message are personal, they are not necessarily those of Torbay Council

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Waters [SMTP:Simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:20 PM
> To:   list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      Re: [LUG] Thin clients
>
> Brough, Tom wrote:
> > I believe Citrix sits on top of a "normal" windows
> > installation so Im not quite sure where the "thin" bit comes in
>
> Or on top of a GNU/Linux installation, but it isn't free software.
>
> My experience is Windows thin client is nowhere near as good as good old
> X, but it is livable (more livable than managing Windows desktops) with
> good network hardware, if you don't want much in the way of graphics.
>
> Sounds like a good opportunity to move to GNU/Linux going to waste - if
> you rebuilding networks and servers get all that email and surfin stuff
> off MS Windows and onto something more robust. I mean XP SP2 may be a
> step in the right direction but just look at the pain it takes MS to
> change direction. The longer people stay locked in the more expensive
> wil be the change when it comes, just look how long it took SWW to lose
> their mainframe.


--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.