Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?
-
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
t is not the hardware itself that make something a thin client, but it is the embedded software
Neither, actually, it's the use case. But this thread isn't about thin clients, it's about the hardware used by thin clients.
You are discussing what is and isn't a thin client, but no one else was. We were discussing hardware built to do nothing but be a thin client (no general purpose potential) and general purpose hardware that can run thin client software (like yours.)
It seems like we are in agreement and your company's products are simply embodying what I was saying - that the kind of hardware you are using could be used for anything, and that is more effective in a thin client setup than custom building extremely limited power hardware that only serves one purpose.
Market pressures make this make sense... general purpose CPUs, RAM chips, etc. are so cheap that custom making something "less capable" just to be limited to being a thin client no longer makes sense. We used to do it because fat client hardware was costly and it was a place to cut corners. Today, the massive volume of general purpose hardware outweighs the "overbuilding" aspects of it.
-
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
i agree that 1GB ram and 1GB flash is more like a thin client, but thin clients like that i stopped selling back in 2013
Right. This is what my article was saying, exactly. You are just repeating what I had said. That stuff doesn't make sense any more, you can do thin clients better using standard "fat client" hardware.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
t is not the hardware itself that make something a thin client, but it is the embedded software
Neither, actually, it's the use case. But this thread isn't about thin clients, it's about the hardware used by thin clients.
You are discussing what is and isn't a thin client, but no one else was. We were discussing hardware built to do nothing but be a thin client (no general purpose potential) and general purpose hardware that can run thin client software (like yours.)
It seems like we are in agreement and your company's products are simply embodying what I was saying - that the kind of hardware you are using could be used for anything, and that is more effective in a thin client setup than custom building extremely limited power hardware that only serves one purpose.
Market pressures make this make sense... general purpose CPUs, RAM chips, etc. are so cheap that custom making something "less capable" just to be limited to being a thin client no longer makes sense. We used to do it because fat client hardware was costly and it was a place to cut corners. Today, the massive volume of general purpose hardware outweighs the "overbuilding" aspects of it.
Just adding the "thin client" software frequently makes those systems more costly. If you have AD already, management of Windows on those remote access devices running windows is included - if not, something like salt could be used on the Windows install on those devices, likely saving a ton over buying/etc "thin client" software.
-
@Dashrender said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
Just adding the "thin client" software frequently makes those systems more costly.
You mean because you have to manage it in some completely unique way?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@Dashrender said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
Just adding the "thin client" software frequently makes those systems more costly.
You mean because you have to manage it in some completely unique way?
No, because that software is likely more expensive than a Windows license. But yeah, you could toss that on the pile, it's one more thing to learn how to maintain/manage (though that really shouldn't matter - we are IT after all, but it does still play at least a consideration)
-
@Dashrender said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
No, because that software is likely more expensive than a Windows license.
All major thin client software is free.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@Dashrender said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
No, because that software is likely more expensive than a Windows license.
All major thin client software is free.
well eLux is FREE, but the management is not
.. anyway the reason i linked to the video before is that at least 2 contributors said "not same functionality" "chrome is better" "slow as fuck" "pc desktop is better"... so i just wanted to show it basically possible to have same user experience on a thin client.. with "shitrix" or "PooOip". .. noamally i user the rigth name... but i still wanna be a "gang member" -
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@Dashrender said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
No, because that software is likely more expensive than a Windows license.
All major thin client software is free.
well eLux is FREE, but the management is not
.. anyway the reason i linked to the video before is that at least 2 contributors said "not same functionality" "chrome is better" "slow as fuck" "pc desktop is better"... so i just wanted to show it basically possible to have same user experience on a thin client.. with "shitrix" or "PooOip". .. noamally i user the rigth name... but i still wanna be a "gang member" The management piece is often where the cost is.
You can use eLux effectively on most any "fat" hardware, correct? I see it has an ARM version, does RP4 work?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@Dashrender said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
No, because that software is likely more expensive than a Windows license.
All major thin client software is free.
well eLux is FREE, but the management is not
.. anyway the reason i linked to the video before is that at least 2 contributors said "not same functionality" "chrome is better" "slow as fuck" "pc desktop is better"... so i just wanted to show it basically possible to have same user experience on a thin client.. with "shitrix" or "PooOip". .. noamally i user the rigth name... but i still wanna be a "gang member" The management piece is often where the cost is.
You can use eLux effectively on most any "fat" hardware, correct? I see it has an ARM version, does RP4 work?
forget the ARM... not developed.. as the were many "client apps" not made for arm... so it is kind of discontinued... ps: i have to do a lot of cleaning up on my website... so current info is on myelux.com
any yes.... eLux works on "almost" any X64 platform... though wireless drivers can be an issue... rigth now the have a "free everyting" offer if you run it from a USB stick .. until 31. October....
-
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
forget the ARM... not developed..
Oh, that's too bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
forget the ARM... not developed..
Oh, that's too bad.
yes... but it is still the same issue ... where is the volume... as with hardware and thin clients , and with software.. where is the volume... the volume is on X64 hardware.. and not on ARM... i know citrix did some work there... but "others" dont... so the volume is not there.. ps: to my knowledge there we too many firmware updates to the "Texas Instruments" used by Fujitsu.... so we never did a ARM terminal (luckey us)
-
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
@jkaspersen said in Is the Physical Thin Client Era Dead?:
forget the ARM... not developed..
Oh, that's too bad.
yes... but it is still the same issue ... where is the volume... as with hardware and thin clients , and with software.. where is the volume... the volume is on X64 hardware.. and not on ARM... i know citrix did some work there... but "others" dont... so the volume is not there.. ps: to my knowledge there we too many firmware updates to the "Texas Instruments" used by Fujitsu.... so we never did a ARM terminal (luckey us)
RP is the best selling single hardware of all time. It's a bit of volume. In fact, essentially every SMB I know that does thin clients of any sort use it. The performance is so good, at a cost so low, hard to imagine using anything else. It seems to have the volume these days.
