Application Virtualization in Linux Environment
-
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@IRJ said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
It seems like it be best to do the reverse. Make your workstations run linux desktop, and then only access Windows terminal services when needed. That would be a more efficient use of resources IMO.
Excellent point. I do this with Remmina on Linux.
Still would require the RDS server licensing, but way cheaper in the long haul.
Only if using Windows Server. If you use Windows desktops, it does not. Or if you do VDI.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@IRJ said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
It seems like it be best to do the reverse. Make your workstations run linux desktop, and then only access Windows terminal services when needed. That would be a more efficient use of resources IMO.
Excellent point. I do this with Remmina on Linux.
Remmina works great if I need RDP
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I had some problems with it when I tested it with NX as it only supported the older open source protocols.
Can you not install the commercial NX client onto it?
I can't remember but I think NoMachine didn't have the RPi3 version at the time. Maybe I should give this entire thing a new spin with the new RPi4 I have. In the past the problem with graphics on the RPi has been the GPU support and hardware offloading.
That was definitely what I found to be a problem. Thin clients back in the early 2000’s (and again tested by me in 2013) just could do local Flash processing worth a damn!! The screen would flash all white then show the desired page. This made them all but useless.
Hell a PC from 2002 running XP with 2 Gb RAM worked better as a fat client than almost any thin client device I tried.
The cost of thin clients was just to fraking high.
The problem with fat clients was managing them though. -
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@IRJ said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
It seems like it be best to do the reverse. Make your workstations run linux desktop, and then only access Windows terminal services when needed. That would be a more efficient use of resources IMO.
Excellent point. I do this with Remmina on Linux.
Still would require the RDS server licensing, but way cheaper in the long haul.
Only if using Windows Server. If you use Windows desktops, it does not. Or if you do VDI.
This is assuming you have Windows 10 licensing for every user, and only that 1 user is using that computer.
Still would require the Windows license.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@IRJ said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
It seems like it be best to do the reverse. Make your workstations run linux desktop, and then only access Windows terminal services when needed. That would be a more efficient use of resources IMO.
Excellent point. I do this with Remmina on Linux.
Still would require the RDS server licensing, but way cheaper in the long haul.
Only if using Windows Server. If you use Windows desktops, it does not. Or if you do VDI.
This is assuming you have Windows 10 licensing for every user, and only that 1 user is using that computer.
Still would require the Windows license.
Some licensing, yes. But only RDS under certain circumstances.
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I had some problems with it when I tested it with NX as it only supported the older open source protocols.
Can you not install the commercial NX client onto it?
I can't remember but I think NoMachine didn't have the RPi3 version at the time. Maybe I should give this entire thing a new spin with the new RPi4 I have. In the past the problem with graphics on the RPi has been the GPU support and hardware offloading.
That was definitely what I found to be a problem. Thin clients back in the early 2000’s (and again tested by me in 2013) just could do local Flash processing worth a damn!! The screen would flash all white then show the desired page. This made them all but useless.
Hell a PC from 2002 running XP with 2 Gb RAM worked better as a fat client than almost any thin client device I tried.
The cost of thin clients was just to fraking high.
The problem with fat clients was managing them though.And it requires windows 10 Pro, not home!
-
@Dashrender said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
And it requires windows 10 Pro, not home!
Or just use Linux.
-
@Dashrender said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
And it requires windows 10 Pro, not home!
Why would you use home edition for anything? Aren't we pros?
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Dashrender said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
And it requires windows 10 Pro, not home!
Why would you use home edition for anything? Aren't we pros?
We actually use Home most of the time as we don't use AD 50% of the time. Pro has very few useful features other than AD joining.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Dashrender said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
And it requires windows 10 Pro, not home!
Why would you use home edition for anything? Aren't we pros?
We actually use Home most of the time as we don't use AD 50% of the time. Pro has very few useful features other than AD joining.
Hmm, I never given it that much thought since the machines we buy usually comes with pro or they are servers. For machines that doesn't come with windows, for instance NUCs, we just get the oem pro version. Looking at it now, we would pay $30 less for the home version. Makes no real difference for us but we don't buy many machines either.
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Dashrender said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
And it requires windows 10 Pro, not home!
Why would you use home edition for anything? Aren't we pros?
We actually use Home most of the time as we don't use AD 50% of the time. Pro has very few useful features other than AD joining.
Hmm, I never given it that much thought since the machines we buy usually comes with pro or they are servers. For machines that doesn't come with windows, for instance NUCs, we just get the oem pro version. Looking at it now, we would pay $30 less for the home version. Makes no real difference for us but we don't buy many machines either.
It makes a lot of difference for us servicing many small businesses because the shift from Pro to Home also meant that suddenly it is viable to pick up laptops at Costco, Walmart, Fry's, etc. when needed. Not that that is the way to go, we normally buy from our dealer, but it gives us loads of more options for faster or cheaper. On its own, it saves relatively little, but when you add it to the overall larger selection to work from it quickly tends to turn from saving $30 per machine into more like $100-$200 per machine.
-
So how we did it the last place I worked. We used a mix of X2Go, X-11 forwarding/MobaXTerm, and RDP. It depended on the user as to how they wanted to do it.
RDP gave them a full desktop since X2Go couldn't any longer on GNOME 3. X2Go gave them just applications from a menu to pick. People who were used to the cli used X-11 forwarding because it's what they were used to.
