Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Posted Feb 17, 2013 22:57 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Remote desktop vs. remote display by dskoll
Parent article: LCA: The ways of Wayland
We tried it. Doesn't work without a dedicated admin.
The amount of custom tasks that are required in a small business environment is simply too large. Your setup might handle 90% of them, but the rest 10% would case unending problems.
Examples? An owner bought a security camera and its software only works on Windows. Or maybe a printer/scanner/fax combo with configuration utility for Windows only.
All these finicky details cause problems in real life. Sure, it's possible to avoid them by careful analysis and planning. But small shops simply don't have anyone who is interested in doing it.
>You keep saying that. I don't know why you think that argument by repetition is valid.
Corporations want integration with the AD for central package and resource management. For example, I work in a large company now - we have a central user database. So adding a user to a project requires a couple of clicks in the AD manager and this user gets access to all required files (on all of the hosts), devices, shared email inboxes, calendars, etc.
>I think I've demonstrated pretty convincingly that Linux excels in the corporate world; you just keep saying things without offering any evidence.
Nope. You've demonstrated that it works in your case. Corporate world is predominantly Windows.
Posted Feb 17, 2013 23:42 UTC (Sun)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (21 responses)
Corporate world is predominantly Windows
Um? So? How does that make Linux less suitable? Just because something is, doesn't mean it always has to be. 40 years ago the corporate world was predominantly IBM mainframes or else typewriters. Windows is successful now just as dinosaurs were successful for millions of years. But conditions change.
Examples? An owner bought a security camera and its software only works on Windows. Or maybe a printer/scanner/fax combo with configuration utility for Windows only.
So don't buy things like that. Here's a brilliant piece of advice: If you want to get things done, hire competent people to do them. It works for us and it can work for you too. Our security camera, for example, is a cheap webcam and we use motion plus some scripting to save photos remotely and batch up a day's worth of pictures into movies that we archive. Cost us $30 in hardware, $0 in software and about 4 hours of my time for Perl hackery.
For example, I work in a large company now - we have a central user database. So adding a user to a project requires a couple of clicks in the AD manager and this user gets access to all required files (on all of the hosts), devices, shared email inboxes, calendars, etc.
I do it too, albeit with a couple of commands rather than clicks... GUIs are incredibly stupid for managing users, especially if you have to add more than a few at a time. And your comment about "all required files (on all of the hosts)" is charmingly quaint... it's funny to read about people who work with IT infrastructure where the physical location of files matters. :)
Posted Feb 18, 2013 2:40 UTC (Mon)
by dpquigl (guest, #52852)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Feb 18, 2013 4:47 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (6 responses)
Companies routinely run Linux and Unix on tens of thousands of servers, and keep all of them up to date with all the right patches. Why would that same infrastructure not work for Linux desktops?
apt and yum both provide you will all the info you need to keep your systems on the software that _you_ want them to be on (which isn't necessarily the latest and greatest that's been released, you can trivially run your own repositories that only contain approved software and everything can trivially update from there)
Posted Feb 18, 2013 6:36 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
For servers it's easy - you create config files and start required services. Easy peasy lemon squeeze.
It's much more difficult for desktop software. Puppet has lots of useful templates for servers, but almost nothing for desktop. For example, some HP printers require hplip setup that can only be done interactively. Fail.
> apt and yum both provide you will all the info you need to keep your systems on the software that _you_ want them to be on (which isn't necessarily the latest and greatest that's been released, you can trivially run your own repositories that only contain approved software and everything can trivially update from there)
On Windows it can be done by an MCSE (Minesweeper Consultant, Solitaire Expert). They'll probably won't understand how this devilish ActiveDirectory works, but it'll work good enough.
That's the problem with Linux - you HAVE to have a solution that can be deployed by average technician. And right now the only way to do it with Linux is to restrict functionality to a known-good set (Chromebooks, various set-top box devices).
Posted Feb 18, 2013 6:51 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (4 responses)
your MSCE isn't going to do any more than what the auto-update will do. And just like the MSCE, most of the time everything will 'just work' and when it doesn't, the answer can be the same 'just reinstall the OS'.
And just like your MSCE isn't going to be able to handle a large company this way, the auto-update from the Internet repository isn't going to scale to a large company.
but to claim that this means that it can't be done is redefining "can't be done"
If you have a company with tens of thousands of systems, you had better have a team of highly paid admins checking everything before it gets pushed out to them.
Enterprises running Windows don't rely on windows auto-update, they verify all the patches, roll them out in waves and cross their fingers to find out what business critical software Microsoft broke this time.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 14:47 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
The problem are not updates, but all kinds of small maintenance.
>And just like your MSCE isn't going to be able to handle a large company this way, the auto-update from the Internet repository isn't going to scale to a large company.
For small companies it's different. They usually don't have anybody with sufficient knowledge of system administration - and simply contracting third-parties doesn't really work as well.
While with Windows you can get one of the MCSEs to setup something that almost works. It won't be perfect, but it'll be good enough.
That's what Linux has to do - offer an easy-to-use _complete_ system. So that a trained monkey (MCSE) can setup everything, including commercial third-party software. It also must work all the time for the most common scenarios. Right now it's not really possible with the "regular" distributions, but it's becoming possible with the _new_ Linux distributions (Chromebooks and Android).
Posted Feb 18, 2013 16:12 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (2 responses)
I have a friend who owns a small residential seminar centre about 150 km from where I live. Her PC, which I set up for her more than five years ago, is used for the usual office-type tasks and is running Linux. I see her once or twice a year, and among other things we usually spend an hour or so over coffee going over user questions and doing the type of »small maintenance« she can't do by herself. (She can, and does, install distribution security updates on her own.) Very occasionally I get a phone call if something goes wrong, but whatever it is is usually nothing to do with her computer – it is more likely to be an ISP outage of some sort or other.
There is no way whatsoever that this sort of arrangement would work with a Windows machine.
Please explain why it is impossible to get a modern Linux install to a point where »it won't be perfect, but it'll be good enough«. It is funny how many people are willing to cut Windows huge amounts of slack but will tolerate nothing short of absolute perfection when it comes to Linux.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 16:45 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
> Please explain why it is impossible to get a modern Linux install to a point where »it won't be perfect, but it'll be good enough«.
In my experience EACH company has at least a couple pieces of infrastructure that are not supported under Linux. From softphones with T.38 fax sending to high-end printers with Windows-only configuration utilities. Or maybe that nice order-tracking system with WinCE-based wireless scanners. Or maybe that small Access database that tracks lab samples. Etc.
Seriously, start a company and try to offer migration services. You'll quickly see that the RealWorld(tm) is quite a bit different from "just use OpenOffice instead of MS Office".
What can be done? First, you need to start from a "known good" situation. Chromebooks offer a nice opportunity here - they work just fine, have a nice management infrastructure and are explicitly designed NOT to replicate all desktop tasks. So using Chromebooks to augment existing Windows-based infrastructure should be quite easy (we haven't tried it yet, to be honest). Then this platform might become attractive to third-party developers, so it can be slowly expanded into more general 'desktop' usage.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 17:38 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
My friend's (external) accountant takes care of that.
We're talking »office PC«, remember? Here in Germany, you get to deduct the cost of your office PC from the taxes you pay for your company, but if you do so the tax office doesn't like you to play games on such a computer. Hence, no games. (My friend is not a computer-game person, anyway.)
A lot of that software is software you may not really need (as dskoll has aptly demonstrated) if you're willing to think outside the box.
And for most categories of hardware there are specimens that are well-supported by Linux. Hence the problem reduces to one of getting the right hardware to begin with. Of course if you buy the el-cheapo-stuff-of-the-week and then expect it to work perfectly with Linux you may be in for a surprise every so often. And on the other hand, it isn't as if every piece of hardware worked perfectly with Windows all of the time, either.
It's funny, but the guys in the office next to ours (our sister company) are doing exactly that, among other things. AFAIK they're doing fine and I don't hear them complaining more than one would expect. I guess it helps if you're competent …
Posted Feb 18, 2013 19:04 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (2 responses)
Cyberax has a very good point about corporate infrastructure management
Maybe so, but does that apply to small companies? Remember, Cyberax is arguing that small companies are the worst candidates to run Linux desktops.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 19:43 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 18, 2013 20:58 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
Make up your mind. You yourself wrote: Sure. That's why it makes sense for large organizations to move to Linux.
Your position seems to shift like sand every time you want to avoid the issue.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 3:29 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (9 responses)
>It works for us and it can work for you too. Our security camera, for example, is a cheap webcam and we use motion plus some scripting to save photos remotely and batch up a day's worth of pictures into movies that we archive. Cost us $30 in hardware, $0 in software and about 4 hours of my time for Perl hackery.
Thought so.
Another customer had a similar problem with keycard access system which supports only Windows for its configuration utility.
Do you think all these vendors operating on razor-thin margins are going to spend time writing custom software for 1% of users? Ha!
That's what I mean by "power of networking". And that's why it's so complex to regain the lost marketshare.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 4:53 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (4 responses)
I could be snarky and say something along the lines of "he said hire someone competent" :-)
but instead I'll say that with your anti-linux and pro-windows attitude, any competent consultant you hire is going to figure out what you prefer and find some way of making it work that fits your bias
In any case, it's clear that you refuse to be convinced.
You say it's not possible to run Linux as a desktop.
We show you large organizations that do so and you dismiss them because they are large (saying that small organizations can't do it)
We show you small organizations that do so and you dismiss them because they are small (because of the requirements of large organizations)
We have many people who speak up and say they are using Linux this way, and have non-technical relatives that are using Linux this way.
you label all these examples as fringe cases that don't matter.
It's not that Linux can't work on the desktop, it's that the network effect and pre-training of people makes it easy to run Windows as a desktop. This is a "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" thing, not a "windows is the obviously better choice" thing.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 6:52 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
As I've said, I was so pro-Linux that I've founded a company to help with migration services. This company actually still exists (I'm no longer involved in its day-to-day operations), but business is not that good - it can't charge much more than the price of Windows-based software licenses, and just a couple of extra support cases per customer can ruin all the profit margins.
>You say it's not possible to run Linux as a desktop.
>We show you large organizations that do so and you dismiss them because they are large (saying that small organizations can't do it)
>We show you small organizations that do so and you dismiss them because they are small (because of the requirements of large organizations)
But:
The only thing that matters is the marketshare. And it's been stagnant for many years now. That speaks louder than any words.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 19:01 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (2 responses)
Nope, I've said that it's not really feasible to just run Linux desktops as a straightforward replacement for Windows. It always requires planning and competent personnel.
Look. I have proven that not only is it feasible to run Linux desktops instead of Windows, it's also cheaper and more efficient. Granted, we started with Linux so we didn't have migration costs.
And if you plan on running a business without planning and competent personnel then you should not be in business.
The only thing that matters is the marketshare. And it's been stagnant for many years now. That speaks louder than any words.
That speaks to fear. It speaks to monopoly market share. And most of all, it speaks to legions of Cyberaxian "consultants" who spread FUD and live on the fat profits they get from foisting commercial crappy software on their clients. The entire Windows IT ecosystem is a giant scam that fattens consultants and Microsoft at the expense of end-users and small businesses.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 20:06 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
>And if you plan on running a business without planning and competent personnel then you should not be in business.
You can offer them better software? Fine! However, your offer doesn't replace the existing functionality - it won't be even considered.
>That speaks to fear. It speaks to monopoly market share. And most of all, it speaks to legions of Cyberaxian "consultants" who spread FUD and live on the fat profits they get from foisting commercial crappy software on their clients. The entire Windows IT ecosystem is a giant scam that fattens consultants and Microsoft at the expense of end-users and small businesses.
I think that all Linux fanbois should be forced to spend a year working with a well-supported Windows network and a year working with an average MCSE. It'd greatly improve the general quality of Linux software offerings.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 20:56 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
No you haven't. You've shown that you can run Linux with highly competent admins in an organization that can outsource non-Linux tasks.
Any organization can outsource Linux administration to competent admins. Quite a lot of small businesses already outsource their Windows administration (at fairly high expense, I might add.)
And yes... my company does outsource things like payroll and tax filing because other people do it far more effectively and cheaply than I can do it. It makes sense to outsource that to people who are good at it rather than try to do it myself, especially on Windows. It's a pure business decision.
It might be a news for you, but most businesses are not IT-related. They treat software as a business expense - like office chairs or printer paper.
In my consulting days, I set up a lot of Linux machines for businesses exactly as you describe. They were of course servers and firewalls, not desktops, because the businesses already had a significant investment in Windows. However, a small business starting from scratch with no computers at all could get by just as easily on Linux as on Windows, and far more cheaply.
I think that all Linux fanbois should be forced to spend a year working with a well-supported Windows network and a year working with an average MCSE. It'd greatly improve the general quality of Linux software offerings.
I think you need to be less closed-minded. You need to think outside the box and see how Linux tools enable you to get things done. You need to think of tasks that need doing instead of specific pieces of software.
Use some creativity, if you have any.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 18:57 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (3 responses)
Done that. They've recommended Windows Server.
I said competent.
Yup. Does it support writing 24 parallel h264-compressed streams with automatic highlighting of movement, archiving support and indexing?
No, because that is not a requirement of ours. I'm fully confident I could do all that with free software should I have the motivation and requirement to do so.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 19:58 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
I have really checked it and there's nothing available for Linux - the only project is Zoneminder and it has extremely poor hardware support.
That's one typical task in Linux migration in the real world out there. And I have encountered tons of problems like that.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 20:50 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (1 responses)
I can offer you $2000 (it's about the breakeven price for this task) for a solution that can utilize hardware not more expensive than in Windows, with similar features. It also should be done within a couple of weeks.
No thanks, because I don't need the product and I don't need the $2000.
Besides, my solution does things yours doesn't. For example, does your solution pop up a small window on our receptionist's desktop whenever motion is detected so she can see who has entered our office? Same thing for the display monitor in our kitchen in case we're all at lunch.
Does it email me when someone's in the office outside normal office hours? Does it securely archive after-hours video on a remote server so even if our office is trashed our video is still accessible?
Those are all more important and more useful to me than your features.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 21:00 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
>Does it email me when someone's in the office outside normal office hours? Does it securely archive after-hours video on a remote server so even if our office is trashed our video is still accessible?
>Those are all more important and more useful to me than your features.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Because it's much harder to do it for desktops. And I've actually wrote my own cluster computing system for Amazon EC2 that has more than 2000 nodes (Linux, of course) during peak times.
So now we're talking about running your own repositories and checking all changes. That'll require at least one $100k-a-year high-level sysadmin.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Tried that (I really did!). Didn't work.
>but to claim that this means that it can't be done is redefining "can't be done"
Nope. Can you read my arguments, please? I'm saying that for large companies it's certainly possible to migrate to Linux because they have a good IT stuff (or they can just stay on Windows, because they have good IT stuff that can make it work).
Remote desktop vs. remote display
The problem are not updates, but all kinds of small maintenance.
While with Windows you can get one of the MCSEs to setup something that almost works. It won't be perfect, but it'll be good enough.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
How about QuickBooks or TurboTax or something like it? Or maybe a couple of games?
Because it is. A lot of software is simply not available on Linux, a lot of hardware STILL doesn't work completely.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
How about QuickBooks or TurboTax or something like it?
Or maybe a couple of games?
A lot of software is simply not available on Linux, a lot of hardware STILL doesn't work completely.
Seriously, start a company and try to offer migration services.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Done that. They've recommended Windows Server.
Yup. Does it support writing 24 parallel h264-compressed streams with automatic highlighting of movement, archiving support and indexing?
Remote desktop vs. remote display
> Done that. They've recommended Windows Server.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
> but instead I'll say that with your anti-linux and pro-windows attitude, any competent consultant you hire is going to figure out what you prefer and find some way of making it work that fits your bias
Actually, that was about 4 years ago when I was flamingly pro-Linux and tried to push it everywhere. I've actively searched for security companies that offered Linux-based solutions - and couldn't find any. At most a couple of companies offered a solution (hosted on Windows Server) with a buggy Java applet to viewing the security footage.
Nope, I've said that it's not really feasible to just run Linux desktops as a straightforward replacement for Windows. It always requires planning and competent personnel.
Yep, see above.
Nope. THAT you have not yet shown. You've shown that ONE small company can use Linux. My company also uses Linux (and now also Mac OS X) on desktops - I know it can be done.
>you label all these examples as fringe cases that don't matter.
Exactly.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
No you haven't. You've shown that you can run Linux with highly competent admins in an organization that can outsource non-Linux tasks.
It might be a news for you, but most businesses are not IT-related. They treat software as a business expense - like office chairs or printer paper.
And powers these businesses along the way. And if you check prices - they are usually quite reasonable.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
I can offer you $2000 (it's about the breakeven price for this task) for a solution that can utilize hardware not more expensive than in Windows, with similar features. It also should be done within a couple of weeks.
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Remote desktop vs. remote display
Yep. With tunable triggers and alarms for any channel, including keycard system and various detectors.
It actually stores all the video on a locally secure (in a vault) RAID array for a month. Certain triggers can also start live streaming to a remote storage (it's not feasible to do it all the time).
Sure, these are typical features of mid-level security systems. Unfortunately, there are no such systems offered for Linux. Even though there are security DVR systems running embedded Linux.