[K12OSN] Plans for K12Linux EL6 and Future Fedora
charlie at smbis.com
Mon May 9 02:16:06 UTC 2011
On 5/8/2011 8:49 AM, Charlie wrote:
> If Terminal Services is not a part of Red Hat's RHEL6 core business
> strategy, there won't be any consideration given LTSP when making
> updates or changes to RHEL6. K12Linux was a major disappointment due to
> this very reason. Without a firm commitment from Red Hat, I don't see
> LTSPv5 on RHEL6 ever being a viable reality.
This is a bit of an overstatement. I personally made sure that the
technology in RHEL6 would be capable of supporting legacy LTSP no worse
than previous versions of Fedora. RHEL6 contains GNOME 2 which works
fine with LTSP and remote desktops. The ONLY major issue is the 32bit
i686 minimum arch which excludes the vast majority of past LTSP client
NOTE: I no longer work for Red Hat.
I would think updating minimal hardware technology requirements as
simply being a part of technology evolution. This is not something that
should get in the way of developing a product strategy. Given that i686
is in reality a very mature technology and most businesses have phased
it out, so there should be plenty of i686 used/donated product out
there. Why is it that Debian/Ubuntu have a LTSPv5 solution and Red Hat
does not? I'm not talking about well if this or if that then RHELv6
would support a Fedora version, that is maybe one or two revisions
behind and possibly not getting updates any longer, as being the
solution. Again, Red Hat needs to get serious with a clear desktop
solution strategy. VDI is only one, Terminal Services is another,
Diskless Fat Client, Full stand-alone desktop is another...
> In MHO, I would think it would be more wise for Red Hat to seriously
> invest in Terminal Services as much as or more than they have in VDI.
> They could overcome a large part of the limitations of multimedia
> through optimizations made to the remote desktop protocols like SPICE,
> and how buffering and bandwidth are managed and utilized between the
> server and the thin client.
I don't dispute that VDI has significant penetration, but the harsh
truth is the LTSP approach to Terminal Servers has NEVER made any money
for anybody. Ubuntu has tried and failed to sell support contracts for
LTSP as a business model. It is a fantasy to believe that the old
Terminal Server model makes business sense for anyone.
Actually the point was that VDI has only about 2% market penetration
after two plus years as compared to Terminal Services. I also have to
disagree with you here on Terminal Services model not making any
business sense, please take some time and check out the
http://www.brianmadden.org/ blog which totally refutes this. There are
companies built around that model; Citrix, NX, 2X... M$ reworked their
Terminal Services strategy a while back with Server 2008 to address this
growing market. I know first hand companies that have recently deployed
Terminal Services using thin clients to replace desktop PCs, primarily
to reduce help support and PC upgrade costs. Reality is that as we
migrate back to the central server in the data center (think mainframe
era, only with a new twist) and cloud computing, where you have SaaS,
Terminal Services makes more sense. Ideally a multiple approach to
desktop solutions makes better sense, be it Thin-Client using LTSP or
VDI, or Fat or Full Client desktop solutions, they all need to be on the
table as options to meet customer requirements.
Thanks for your feedback here as well as everything you do.
K12OSN mailing list
K12OSN at redhat.com
For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the K12OSN