Hot topic: Linux thin clients on the rise ;-)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Greetings!

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9549899975.html

and a link to a story, history, and picture of Larry Ellison's New
Internet Computer:

http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4788478084.html

"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about Linux
thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can start a
buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed Usenet
posts. ;-).

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:32:27 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

>Greetings!
>
>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9549899975.html
>
>and a link to a story, history, and picture of Larry Ellison's New
>Internet Computer:
>
>http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4788478084.html
>
>"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about Linux
>thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can start a
>buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed Usenet
>posts. ;-).

"It's dead, Jim"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:32:27 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Greetings!
>
>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9549899975.html
>
>and a link to a story, history, and picture of Larry Ellison's New
>Internet Computer:

Hmm, that must have saved Larry some taxes. Wonder wht his next SQL*Nuts
idea will be?

>http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4788478084.html
>
>"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about Linux
>thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can start a
>buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed Usenet
>posts. ;-).

Hey it's based on an IDC err, study.<cough><splutter>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5qiul0t6cv7tphn8b76f8k6n7r502395nf@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:32:27 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Greetings!
> >
> >http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9549899975.html
> >
> >and a link to a story, history, and picture of Larry Ellison's New
> >Internet Computer:
> >
> >http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4788478084.html
> >
> >"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about Linux
> >thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can start a
> >buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed Usenet
> >posts. ;-).
>
> "It's dead, Jim"

Can a router count as a thin client? What about a mobile phone that is
based on linux? How many devices use the Gnu/Linux iptables/ipsec as a
starting point for security?

I agree that the buzz is a little perplexing, but with DRM comming
more and more down the pipe, its seems that gnu/linux in general could
be a benefit to NonDRM, hardware. Also as stated on various forums
like slashdot, how long have *nix terminals been around, 20 30 40
years. It seems that people and some groups of businesses have
discovered the benefits of terminals.

Wasn't it last week that we had a big discussion about usb devices and
the work place, how to secure said workplace from employee theft. Now
we start hearing about thin clients.

This is the original article from news.com.com describing that the
company is shutting down.
http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-1012119.html

Here is the other link talking about the full article on linux thin
clients.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7230383075.html

Both links above worked for me, but these are the actual articles, not
a small description to what the article said.

I still think the definition of a thin client needs some work, because
their are a lot of devices without harddrives, that might not count as
a thin client.

Gnu_Raiz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:32:27 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about Linux
>>thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can start a
>>buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed Usenet
>>posts. ;-).
>
>
> Hey it's based on an IDC err, study.<cough><splutter>
>

You wouldn't be intending to equate the value of my insights with that
of the work of... analysts... Would you? ;-).

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BfT7d.194557$3l3.154675@attbi_s03...
> George Macdonald wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:32:27 GMT, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about
Linux
> >>thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can
start a
> >>buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed
Usenet
> >>posts. ;-).
> >
> > Hey it's based on an IDC err, study.<cough><splutter>
>
> You wouldn't be intending to equate the value of my insights with
that
> of the work of... analysts... Would you? ;-).

No. Wrt 'thin clients', you're more like the crazy uncle who escaped
from the locked room in the attic. C'mon, Robert, just how many
..chips denizens are prepared to trust *all* their personal data (now
on their hard disk) to the not-so-tender mercies of Amalgamated ISP
Heavily Incorporated at the far end of a serial line? Besides
yourself, I mean. ;-) ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:

> "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BfT7d.194557$3l3.154675@attbi_s03...
>>
>>You wouldn't be intending to equate the value of my insights with
>>that of the work of... analysts... Would you? ;-).
>
>
> No. Wrt 'thin clients', you're more like the crazy uncle who escaped
> from the locked room in the attic. C'mon, Robert, just how many
> .chips denizens are prepared to trust *all* their personal data (now
> on their hard disk) to the not-so-tender mercies of Amalgamated ISP
> Heavily Incorporated at the far end of a serial line? Besides
> yourself, I mean. ;-) ;-)
>

I wouldn't venture to guess. I haven't figured this crowd out yet.

It's actually not something I'd be willing to guess about in general
were there any of my own money on the table. Somebody trying a cold
start on this would be facing some serious up-front costs: get enough
test subjects to try it, then find out what they really think about it.

Google has the advantage that they can just reel people in by slowly
expanding the boundaries of what's available. How much reeling would it
take before any substantial number of people were ready for diskless
operation? I don't know, but, unlike you, I don't see any show-stoppers.

I see two very hard problems, but I don't think they are show-stoppers.
One problem is that you need a way to establish enough bulletproof
trust between the diskless client and the managing server to allow
actual remote management in a situation where EFI presents the very real
possibility of the equivalent of a BIOS break-in. If trusted computing
is going to work for, say, corporations, it has to solve that problem.

The second problem is that you need to find a way for the remote storage
to act like a safety deposit box to which the bank doesn't have ready
access. I'm assuming that existing corporate remote storage services
must solve that problem in some way.

..chips denizens keep *all* their personal data on hard disk? You're
kidding.

A properly-managed remote service should be able to provide better
security and privacy than most people actually have today. Actually
convincing potential customers of that might, I admit, be a challenge,
but that's what focus groups are for.

RM

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:08:06 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

>
> "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BfT7d.194557$3l3.154675@attbi_s03...
>> George Macdonald wrote:
>> > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:32:27 GMT, Robert Myers
> <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>"It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the current buzz about
> Linux
>> >>thin clients began," the first link muses. I know that you can
> start a
>> >>buzz, even on apparently dead topics, with strategically-placed
> Usenet
>> >>posts. ;-).
>> >
>> > Hey it's based on an IDC err, study.<cough><splutter>
>>
>> You wouldn't be intending to equate the value of my insights with
> that
>> of the work of... analysts... Would you? ;-).
>
> No. Wrt 'thin clients', you're more like the crazy uncle who escaped
> from the locked room in the attic. C'mon, Robert, just how many
> .chips denizens are prepared to trust *all* their personal data (now
> on their hard disk) to the not-so-tender mercies of Amalgamated ISP
> Heavily Incorporated at the far end of a serial line? Besides
> yourself, I mean. ;-) ;-)

....and all three of the three AOL subscribers.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> Can a router count as a thin client? What about a mobile phone that is
> based on linux? How many devices use the Gnu/Linux iptables/ipsec as a
> starting point for security?

thats not really thin client stuff, thats more advanced
single-system-image plan9 juju mysticism. which i fully believe
dragonfly bsd will lead us into the golden age of... in another 12 years.

myren