[H-GEN] The State of X

Robert Brockway robert at timetraveller.org
Mon Apr 28 21:29:48 EDT 2003


[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Nikolai Lusan wrote:

> I like use in remote X and am feeling disapointed that I am going to
> have to resort to long VGA and PS2 cables to keep my machine away from
> me should I wish to do certain things. I don't view all these new
> additions to X servers as a good thing,  they seem to me to be limiting
> the use of X in general.

Hi Nikolai.   I've also experience the problems with XTerminals not
functioning well because they lacked X extensions.  However, I don't see
the problems with XTerminals equating to problems with X's remote display
capabilities.

XTerminals have always been overpriced.  I suspect this was greed on the
part of the manufacturers.  Anyway, I blame them for harming the spread of
thin client technology in the early 90s and allowing the "PC on ever
desktop"[1] idea to take off.  It was on the back of this that Windows got
its foothold.  Having a PC on every desktop has a high TCO and I suspect
thin client will have a new beginning in the next year years (actually it
has already started).

I am an advocate of thin client but I believe it will take off on the
backs of cheap PCs running Linux or *BSD not hardware XTerminals.

So, imho, the XTerminals will fade in to the distance but they will not
take X's poweerful remote display capabilites with them.

Having said all this, I think XTerminals are great for home use if you can
pick them up at a good price.  I just think that the future of thin client
(especially in the business arena) lies with projects like LTSP and cheap
PC hardware.  Some companies are already putting together PCs designed for
thin client use.

[1] I believe PCs should be on _some_ desktops.  I wouldn't begrudge the
Developer, Sysadmin, or Engineer a personal PC.  This is virtually
mandatory.  However, the majority of modern PCs sit on the desktop of
secretaries, and office staff who would be served better[2] by a thin
client.

[2] a thin client is a commodity item that can be replaced on a moments
notice.  No local files or setting are lost if the thin client dies.  Just
drop another one in and the person gets back to work.  Too many times I've
seen an office worker completely unproductive for an entire day because
their PC was playing up and required the attention of a tech for several
hours.  What a waste of time.

I really think that anyone wanting to argue against the lower TCO of a
thin client for office staff these days is working uphill.  Initial
savings are $500-1000 per seat, followed by further savings.  This is all
well documented of course.

The types of thin client I advocate are normally unix based.  There are
now plenty of options to allow the user to access MS-Windows apps through
a unix desktop.

Cheers,
	Rob

-- 
Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert at timetraveller.org  ICQ: 104781119
Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org)
"The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah

--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/



More information about the General mailing list