Like a lot of companies, Farpoint Group closes between Christmas and New Years. Given that Christmas was on a Tuesday this year, that effectively means we shut down on the 21st and, well, we're sort of back open now, but things won't really be rolling again until next week. That's fine - like most of you, 2007 was so intense that a break is most welcome. But I'm personally not a big believer in formal vacations; I just need to work at something else, whatever that might be. Traditionally, the end-of-the-year shutdown has been spent re-building the network, installing new equipment, etc., which is always wonderful therapy for techies everywhere, despite the bad language sometimes involved. But the network itself required just about zero work this year; we converted to gigabit Ethernet last year and this year's activity was limited to adding just a little more .11n equipment. The big project, though, was re-thinking our overall computing philosophy.
I have been working on and with PCs since they were invented (the mid-1970s), and I some time ago came to the conclusion that they have outlived their usefulness. At least partially because of Microsoft's marketing practices and business strategy, the PC has become a bloated monstrosity that is cheap to acquire but very expensive to use. Vista seems to be a case of change for change's sake; there appears to be nothing new here that will make me want to either upgrade our XP-based machines or buy new PCs with one of the (far too) many versions of Vista installed. Indeed, if Vista is Microsoft's path to the future and offers essentially nothing (apart from increased training and support costs, dealing with application incompatibilities, and Lord knows what else), then our computing strategy may need to move in an entirely different direction. The first iMac arrived around Thanksgiving, along with two Macbooks. These are going to be used largely for media production (audio and video) for now, but we might convert to Macs entirely over the next couple of years. The Mac is fast, stable, easy to use, and, well, cool. It's got its own set of quirks, but, so far, so good.
Cool yes, but it ain't cheap. Macs cost roughly double to acquire what a PC does, although we hope to make that up on long-term operational savings. Still, is there another alternative? Well, I'm glad you asked because yes, there is. I have to admit I never really got it about LINUX, open source, and free software. OK, as techie, I get it, but as a business person, such makes no sense. But the argument is basically that the economics of manufacturing and distributing software result in a cost that is close to zero. All we need are programmers who just love to practice their craft, everyone doing a little bit, and voilà, free software. Microsoft is terrified of this scenario, as they should be. But it is unstoppable. For example, assuming Google is successful with Android, as I think they will be, LINUX-based handsets could become the norm.
So, anyway, I loaded up the Ubuntu LINUX distribution, and I am so impressed I can't express how impressed I am. It installs like a breeze, it's easy to use (OK, a little background in UNIX is required, but this can be fixed over time), it's fast, and it includes everything one might need - the Firefox browser, OpenOffice, and a Virtual Network Computing (VNC) client (see here for an example, but there are lots of free and other distributions available). VNC is particularly important here because, using VNC, one can access other VNC-equipped machines, of any form, and control them remotely - just like Microsoft Remote Desktop, but platform-independent. So, put Ubuntu on your PCs, put Microsoft Office on your servers (if you don't want to use OpenOffice, which is remarkably good), and there you are - everything you need, with most of the software being, yes, free. Don't dump old PCs - recycle them as thin clients. And, yes, all of this works just fine over wireless - you can even get VNC for handheld devices; I'm not sure if this is a viable remote-access strategy yet, but I'm intrigued and will be investigating this option further.
Regardless, my guess at this point is that the Ubuntu strategy is going to work just fine. We plan on buying no new PCs at all this year, save for the possibility of a server to host the VNC server software, and Microsoft Office licenses as required, unless we cut over to OpenOffice altogether, which is TBD but certainly possible at this point. But we may be done purchasing new Microsoft operating systems and PCs to run them, and that is a thrilling prospect for the bottom line. Note that the VNC approach very much fits in with my vision for the future of mobility, thin clients accessing remote computational and data resources. I'll explain my reasoning here in more detail shortly, but, for now, give Ubuntu a try. I think you'll be as impressed as I am, and I am not easy to impress.
Mathias is a principal at Farpoint Group, a wireless advisory firm in Ashland, Mass.
|
|
VNC not needed
You don't really need VNC for remote-desktop or remote-application purposes when the remote end is running Unix. X11 on it's own is designed to allow network access to the display (screen, keyboard and mouse). Once you configure your local X server to listen on the standard TCP port, you can run a client application on the remote machine with it's DISPLAY setting pointed back to your local X server and the application's windows will appear on your local screen. SSH will tunnel X11 over the encrypted session, avoiding any security issues with allowing direct outside access to X servers. Finally, for whole-desktop purposes, there's the Chooser. This lets you bring up the login screen for any machine configured to allow it, log in and get your full desktop on that remote machine displayed on your local screen. Working over the network's a little less responsive than local, but on a 100-megabit Ethernet LAN I've found the difference only noticeable when displaying or working with images and video. Sound beyond basic beeps tends to not be available remotely, but for a lot of purposes that's not a negative (think Flash ads with annoying sound effects in an office environment).
VNC's a really neat thing, but I'd only use it when the remote end's a Windows application server. And OpenOffice runs just as well on Unix boxes as Windows if you need to use it remotely.
Re: VNC not needed
Precisely. Put VNC Server only on PCs. That's all I have in mind.
Thx. Craig.
VNC?
My preferred alternative is to host any Microsoft instances as VMWare sessions on a *nix server. Since VMWare for 'nix is a full X client [1], the X network transparency (see previous post) applies.
[1] X is strange until you get used to it; the "server" is the display/keyboard/etc. and the "client" is the application that requests access to it.
Re: X
I like X a lot; in fact, I was part of the multi-company team that originally announced X back in 1988 (I think it was 1988; it's all a blur now). But I'm going to stick with VNC since I have it and it works fine.
Thx. Craig.
The Future of Thin Clients
"Note that the VNC approach very much fits in with my vision for the future of mobility, thin clients accessing remote computational and data resources."
VNC, X, and NX are all interesting for thin clients. 802.11g was marginal. 802.11n practically demands thin clients. Last year I paid $400 a line for 1000base-T connections at a remote site. This year, I will use 802.11n at every opportunity. The benefits with thin clients are undeniable and a perfect match to the enormous increase in server power that multiple cores gives and the matching technology like the Geode in thin clients. It is Christmas all year long for computer geeks these days.
Re: The Future of Thin Clients
I couldn't agree more. But let's hope that developers of thin clients don't get it into their heads that it's OK to go crazy with bandwidth requirements just because more bandwidth is available in technologies like .11n. We still need to consider the growing number of users and their growing requirements (including more time-bounded traffic). If the protocols get thicker, responsiveness will suffer no matter what the PHY.
Thx. Craig.
The business of Free Software
The point of free software from the software business perspective is to sell your time. Write a program, distribute it under copyleft (the GPL or the like) and you insist that any competitors who use your code do so on your terms, not theirs. Deliver quality to your clients and they'll come back to you, even if your competitor is offering something identical.
Or, if you'd rather, think of it as a Zaibatsu for software developers. One that anyone can join.
The business of free software is so much more than "programmers who love their craft", although that's a part of it. It's also more than the business of software development. Use Linux and you'll most likely find you contribute. Why, because it's so much cheaper than doing the ongoing maintenance yourself. Recall, ongoing maintenance is 70% of all software development costs.
Welcome to the community. Like any group, we're disfunctional in some respects. Like other groups, we like to think that makes us more endearing. :) For the reasons given, unlike other groups, and most certainly unlike most companies, we will be around for a very long time.
VNC tips
If you're looking to control the screen that a user actually sees (such as troubleshooting or assistance), look into x11vnc (GPL) or NoMachines (commercial and free, and also a Free (GPL) version). These allow you to remotely see and control a desktop, whereas a lot of the standard VNC programs give you a "graphical shell" to run programs, but not necessarily the same screen as the person on the other end of the phone.
All, unix, overly simple for multi-user access ;)
But yes, running ssh -X ip.of.ser.ver will also allow you to launch graphical applications.
Open Office and Open Source in general
Just quickly on Open Office. We love it. It's more versitile than Office and a hell of a lot cheaper :) . As far as running Office under linux there is a well known product called Wine which gives a windows application layer to linux. The vast majority of Windows programs will run (I've had problems with a few however).
The biggest knotch in the linux belt I see is it's application as a server platform. Most distributions will act as a web and email server out of the box with not a whole heap of configuration. To add to this tools such as webmin make configuration easy....... although there is nothing like getting your hands dirty and editing the config files direct.
Re: The business of Free Software
I find the concept more attractive all the time. Surprisingly, I've not found much I need to write myself; almost everything one could need is available - with the proviso that bugs and obscure user interfaces often come with the bargain. Nonetheless, you make a good point. And the fact that Microsoft hates it makes it all the more interesting.
Thx. Craig.