Slimming down - Teh Forum

From:	graphitone	6 Mar 2013 10:58
To:	ALL	1 of 25

40379.1
We're about to do a PoC for a possible thin client roll out and have some demo units from Sun, fairly pleased with them so far (though they don't seem to support our dictation equipment :C ), but we're wanting to show the powers that be some alternatives. One of these would be using our existing fat client infrastructure and converting them to thin clients. Can anyone recommend any software for doing this? I'm downloading Thinstation, Meego and VMware view open client at the moment - is there something else/better I should be looking at? Drawings n' that

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	6 Mar 2013 11:55
To:	graphitone	2 of 25

40379.2 In reply to 40379.1
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/multi-seat.html device for ^^^ (there are others) ---- "Some ideas make you dumber the moment you learn of them."

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	graphitone	6 Mar 2013 12:13
To:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	3 of 25

40379.3 In reply to 40379.2
Looks interesting. I'll have a proper read of that article later - though a quick skim turns this up: quote: On the Plugable USB hardware you get a full GNOME Shell session with all the usual graphical gimmick Are these not compatible with Windows? We're gonna have a hard time migrating users from XP to Win7, nevermind getting 'em used to linux. Drawings n' that

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	6 Mar 2013 14:29
To:	graphitone	4 of 25

40379.4 In reply to 40379.3
I figured that would be the case. The device(s) also works with Windows Multipoint Server. ---- "Some ideas make you dumber the moment you learn of them."

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dave!!	6 Mar 2013 18:43
To:	graphitone	5 of 25

40379.5 In reply to 40379.1
Citrix XenDesktop is also worth considering. We use that at work as it's compatible with both our normal desktops and our remaining thin clients. ---

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	graphitone	6 Mar 2013 21:00
To:	Dave!!	6 of 25

40379.6 In reply to 40379.5
Cheers dude, I will look into that tomorrow. Do you use it over a WAN? If so, what's the performance like? Drawings n' that

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dave!!	6 Mar 2013 21:08
To:	graphitone	7 of 25

40379.7 In reply to 40379.6
We do use it over the WAN and find that performance from home machines etc. is usually fine. At least, it's nice and brisk on my PC here! ---

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	6 Mar 2013 21:14
To:	ALL	8 of 25

40379.8
I think I asked this a few years ago and Dan gave a reason. But what is the point of thin clients? There used to be some in a study area in the union when I was in Sheffield and they were dire. So so slow to start, slow when running, you could only browse the net and they crashed often. These were made by Sun. Is it just a way to be able to keep the systems in use very tightly restricted and secure? ┌─────┐ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ └─┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	graphitone	6 Mar 2013 21:20
To:	ANT_THOMAS	9 of 25

40379.9 In reply to 40379.8
Not only that, but they're cheaper (just) than the desktop PCs we'd get. Also, it's a way to ensure everyone's got the same spec of machine, it cuts out the bickering between staff of who's got the best PC. Trivial, but it happens. Updates are easier to roll out and maintain, s'all central management, innit? Drawings n' that

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	6 Mar 2013 21:32
To:	graphitone	10 of 25

40379.10 In reply to 40379.9
What sort of spec server do you need to make sure that things run smooth? Am I right in thinking most of the computing is done on the server? ┌─────┐ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ └─┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	graphitone	6 Mar 2013 21:43
To:	ANT_THOMAS	11 of 25

40379.11 In reply to 40379.10
Aye, the thin client passes keyboard, mouse, peripheral and network signals back to the server and all the work's done there with the video signals being sent back to the thin client. Actually, I've not taken too much notice of the specs of the servers :-$ . We've been mainly looking at what storage solutions to take on board and leaving the server spec (for now) in the hands of the companies pushing their wares. As I said we've got a PoC in work at the moment, I'll check out the server stats tomorrow and let you know. Drawings n' that

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	6 Mar 2013 21:50
To:	graphitone	12 of 25

40379.12 In reply to 40379.11
I don't really need to know! I'm just curious how practical thin clients actually are. I'm not in the business so it doesn't really matter to me! I guess I've never understood why people put out thin clients that these days don't cost much less than a fat PC but are surely vastly less powerful. There must be decent reasons or the industry wouldn't exist. ┌─────┐ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ └─┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	7 Mar 2013 00:35
To:	graphitone	13 of 25

40379.13 In reply to 40379.9
That's easy: I have the best pc, 'cause it's not an imac (though actually, the latest 27" imacs we got in are very nice indeed for adobe stuff. I much prefer a linux box for development). ---- "Some ideas make you dumber the moment you learn of them."

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	7 Mar 2013 07:27
To:	ANT_THOMAS	14 of 25

40379.14 In reply to 40379.12
It's definitely more elegant for a company with a lot of people doing undemanding stuff (office, email, web). Rather than upgrading several thousand PCs every few years you upgrade a few servers. Also makes sense for a company which has server CPU cycles going spare (since many server applications in business are disk heavy but CPU light). It made sense back in the 70s when computers were fucking expensive and people would just log in to some Unix system through a terminal. And there's still remnants of that, if I SSH into a server I'm kinda doing thin client stuff. Linux is set up for being a thin client from the ground up, really. Everything from the command line to the graphics and sound are accessible over a network, can forward your desktop over SSH with like two commands. But yeah, literally never used it beyond trying it out for the novelty. It does seem redundant these days. By the time you've got something that can put the pixels on a screen and receive input, you've got a PC that could run an OS for office stuff just fine. Maybe when something along the lines of ChromeOS is more popular and you can get your virtualised desktop in a browser but... still, a chromebook isn't much cheaper than a decently specced laptop. </ramble> , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dan (HERMAND)	7 Mar 2013 14:43
To:	graphitone	15 of 25

40379.15 In reply to 40379.1
Are you looking to do virtual desktops or an terminal services style solution? As Dave says, check out Citrix - XenApp (Terminal Services), XenDesktop (Virtual Desktops) or even VDI in a Box (Virtual Desktops, but simpler and perhaps not as scalable as XenDesktop) You've also got RDS 2012 which is looking surprisingly decent. Dan Herman

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	7 Mar 2013 16:35
To:	ANT_THOMAS	16 of 25

40379.16 In reply to 40379.8
One of the big reasons we used them at my previous job was because they were used in a very dirty environment. The lack of moving parts and hard drives let them last a lot longer than a normal computer would have. You can also lock them down nicely. And when they would get a virus all you had to do was reboot and it would be back to a new state. ------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	7 Mar 2013 16:46
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N) Ken (SHIELDSIT)	17 of 25

40379.17 In reply to 40379.14
These... quote: One of the big reasons we used them at my previous job was because they were used in a very dirty environment. The lack of moving parts and hard drives let them last a lot longer than a normal computer would have. You can also lock them down nicely. And when they would get a virus all you had to do was reboot and it would be back to a new state. are reasonable reasons. And... quote: It's definitely more elegant for a company with a lot of people doing undemanding stuff (office, email, web). Rather than upgrading several thousand PCs every few years you upgrade a few servers. Also makes sense for a company which has server CPU cycles going spare (since many server applications in business are disk heavy but CPU light). I totally get this and being energy efficient whilst cutting costs is a great idea. But are thin clients actually a good user experience? I guess my only experience was a very limited one that was very bad. The cheap low-spec PCs I've used in various libraries/IT centres were still a million times better than the thin-clients I used. ┌─────┐ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ └─┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	7 Mar 2013 17:27
To:	ANT_THOMAS	18 of 25

40379.18 In reply to 40379.17
For what we were using them for they were fine. Mostly on the shop floor to display blue prints and drawings. I wouldn't want to force someone to do productivity work on one though. When we were using them they weren't much cheaper than PC's, that's probably changed by now but I wouldn't bet on it. ------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dan (HERMAND)	7 Mar 2013 17:42
To:	ANT_THOMAS	19 of 25

40379.19 In reply to 40379.17
I'm literally on the last 2 days of an install so I've just recorded a vid for you. I'll upload it in a bit. Dan Herman

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dan (HERMAND)	7 Mar 2013 18:00
To:	ANT_THOMAS	20 of 25

40379.20 In reply to 40379.17
Try this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cztagt0fa50y8hs/VIDEO0003_1.mp4 Camera work is shit cos I was holding it in my left hand and there is no commentary because I'm not alone! Dan Herman

0/0

Reply Quote

More