Linked by David Adams on Sat 20th Aug 2011 15:38 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Editorial In five years, Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst sees the traditional desktop becoming obsolete.
Thread beginning with comment 486235
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Business Computers
by Delgarde on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Business Computers"
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

tablet or laptop, doesn't matter, it's mobile and they'll merge. In fact there are already combination tablet/laptops out there. My employer is tearing out traditional desktop pc and putting in either thin clients (that start with browser for access to server running windows apps remotely), or laptops or all-in-one PC doing what thin client does. Traditional desktop workstation in the corporation is a pain in the neck for management.


It's a pain, yes - but so are thin clients. That's been done many times over the years, and every time, the world has moved away from them again. Remember the "network computer" fashion of the '90s, and the many predictions that the traditional desktop would soon be obsolete? Yeah.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Business Computers
by phoenix on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 18:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Business Computers"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, "thin-client" computing is stupid, has been tried many times, and has yet to succeed anywhere that requires a GUI (TUI and CLI environments like point-of-sale terminals work well). The local hardware is anemic (since everything is done on the server), the local "OSes" are horrendous (usually just an RDP client, or a web browser, or an X11 server), and the demand on the network and server are huge! Supporting more than 50 thin-clients with a single quad-core server is hard.

However, "diskless" computing gives you all the benefits of thin-clients (central management, central storage, central everything), with all the benefits of fat-clients (local CPU, local RAM, local video, local audio, local everything except storage). You don't need a skookum server, since it's just a file server. You don't need a skookum network (10/100 between client and switches; gigabit backbone between switches; bonded/trunked gigabit backbone to the server) since once the clients are booted, only files/apps go across the network.

It's really too bad that Microsoft has made it so hard (almost impossible) to network boot Windows, with user profiles/home directories on network storage.

Desktops should be replaceable appliances without any local storage in them to worry about.

(Diskless computing works so nicely with Linux-based desktops/servers. We have over 5000 of them in place already, with over 90% of all desktops -- staff included -- running diskless Linux.)

Reply Parent Score: 3