Thin client options for use with Solaris 7?
Eric Williams
X terminals that users access the machine with. NCD doesn't make nice
simple X terminals anymore and I am trying to save money. Another
factor is I do not want to maintain another CPU box or have the noise
if another box running in the room, so a PC with some X terminal server
running is not an option.
I have been shopping around on the web and haven't found anyone that
makes a simple X terminal that will boot from the server and give my
users a CDE login window to get going. The Sun Ray from Sun isn't an
option because I am told you MUST run them on a private network and I
don't have the resources to do that right now.
Can anyone suggest a company that sells basic X terminals that would
work with Solaris 7?
Thanks.
--
Eric Williams
ewilliams@_NOSPAM_wesleyan.edu
Rich Teer
> I have been shopping around on the web and haven't found anyone that
> makes a simple X terminal that will boot from the server and give my
> users a CDE login window to get going. The Sun Ray from Sun isn't an
> option because I am told you MUST run them on a private network and I
> don't have the resources to do that right now.
My understanding is that it VERY strongly recommended that the Sun Rays
run on a private network, due to the amount of traffic. I'm sure they'll
work on your current network - just not as well as they could do.
It might be worth getting some on an eval type deal.
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
Adrian Davis
Chris Newport
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Eric Williams wrote:
>
> > I have been shopping around on the web and haven't found anyone that
> > makes a simple X terminal that will boot from the server and give my
> > users a CDE login window to get going. The Sun Ray from Sun isn't an
> > option because I am told you MUST run them on a private network and I
> > don't have the resources to do that right now.
>
> My understanding is that it VERY strongly recommended that the Sun Rays
> run on a private network, due to the amount of traffic. I'm sure they'll
> work on your current network - just not as well as they could do.
>
> It might be worth getting some on an eval type deal.
The way that I understand it is that *all* thin clients create a lot
of network traffic, so Sun want you to use an unkillable network so
that the system does not get blamed for network overload.
Like everything else, it depends what you are doing.
The SunRays are no worse than any other thin client for network hogging.
Axel Neumann
Hi,
That is not totally true.
Thin Clients do have their own OS (Linux, WindowsCE) in ROM and create only
the amount of traffic on the net as required by the application (i.e.
telnet, X Window, Citrix, etc.).
The Sun Ray is a kind of mixture between a Thin Client and a diskless
client. Due to a stupid protocol (not ICA, RDP or something like that) it
needs much more bandwidth.
HTH,
Axel Neumann
Chris Barrera
Sun simply doesn't support sunRays on non-private networks. However,
the SunRay's will work just fine on non-private networks as long as
you have a fairly solid network that can handle the traffic.
I would recommend no less than 10Mbit switched for the SunRay, 100Mb
preferred. Your uplinks should be minimum 100Mb with giabit preferred.
We have been running SunRays for over a year just fine on public networks.
Chris Barrera
cbarrera@t i . c o m
In comp.sys.sun.admin Eric Williams <wil...@mac.com> wrote:
: I am running a E250 server with Solaris 7. Currently I have several NCD
do...@85.usenet.us.com
:> factor is I do not want to maintain another CPU box or have the noise
:> if another box running in the room, so a PC with some X terminal server
:> running is not an option.
: Check out VNC (www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/index.html).
Since noise is a problem, I think VNC on a WinCE unit is what you are
sugggesting? ;-)
Aren't there laptops with no fans? Then you could run VNC quietly.
Some Macs have no fans. VNC runs there as well.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - do...@email.rahul.net
- Pope Valley (Napa County) CA.
p...@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
> I am running a E250 server with Solaris 7. Currently I have several NCD
> X terminals that users access the machine with. NCD doesn't make nice
> simple X terminals anymore and I am trying to save money. Another
> factor is I do not want to maintain another CPU box or have the noise
> if another box running in the room, so a PC with some X terminal server
> running is not an option.
We have lots of VERY quiet ordinary PC in Europe :-) One of these
running a decent freeOS and xfree86 could be your best bet.
So you should be able to find one that is quiet enough ( you could even
install it some meters away and elongate video and kayboard vables)
> I have been shopping around on the web and haven't found anyone that
> makes a simple X terminal that will boot from the server and give my
> users a CDE login window to get going. The Sun Ray from Sun isn't an
> option because I am told you MUST run them on a private network and I
> don't have the resources to do that right now.
> Can anyone suggest a company that sells basic X terminals that would
> work with Solaris 7?
> Thanks.
> --
> Eric Williams
> ewilliams@_NOSPAM_wesleyan.edu
--
Peter Håkanson
IPSec Sverige (At the Riverside of Gothenburg, home of Volvo)
Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out.
Remove "icke-reklam" and it works.
Kevin Russell
beautiful displays. About $1199 with current rebates. You can drop to a
shell and do rlogin, ssh, nfs, etc...
With OS-X and VNC they are very handy for a Unix environment.
Kevin
<do...@85.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:a1fk28$2ml$1...@samba.rahul.net...
G.T.
>
> Apple iBooks make great VNC Clients. They are essentially silent and have
> beautiful displays. About $1199 with current rebates. You can drop to a
> shell and do rlogin, ssh, nfs, etc...
>
> With OS-X and VNC they are very handy for a Unix environment.
>
Why the need for VNC? If you're using OS X and Unix what advantages
does VNC have over using X?
Greg
--
Never trust a top-poster.
I R A Darth Aggie
G.T. <eth...@pacificnet.net>, in
<3C3B752C...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
+ Kevin Russell wrote:
+ >
+ > Apple iBooks make great VNC Clients. They are essentially silent and have
+ > beautiful displays. About $1199 with current rebates. You can drop to a
+ > shell and do rlogin, ssh, nfs, etc...
+ >
+ > With OS-X and VNC they are very handy for a Unix environment.
+ >
+
+ Why the need for VNC? If you're using OS X and Unix what advantages
+ does VNC have over using X?
Because you'll have to install X on OS X? OS X has more to do with the
Roman numeral than the windowing system... :)
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
Michael Heiming
<a1fg73$qidu8$1...@ID-55633.news.dfncis.de>) wrote at Tuesday 08 January
2002 20:12:
>
> "Chris Newport" <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
>> Rich Teer wrote:
[SNIP]
>> The way that I understand it is that *all* thin clients create a
>> lot of network traffic, so Sun want you to use an unkillable
>> network so that the system does not get blamed for network
>> overload.
>> Like everything else, it depends what you are doing.
>> The SunRays are no worse than any other thin client for network
>> hogging.
>
> Hi,
>
> That is not totally true.
>
> Thin Clients do have their own OS (Linux, WindowsCE) in ROM and
> create only the amount of traffic on the net as required by the
> application (i.e. telnet, X Window, Citrix, etc.).
Nope, Linux thin clients (www.ltsp.org) are loading the kernel via
tftp from the server.
MIchael Heiming
G.T.
>
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:39:40 -0800,
> G.T. <eth...@pacificnet.net>, in
> <3C3B752C...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> + Kevin Russell wrote:
> + >
> + > Apple iBooks make great VNC Clients. They are essentially silent and have
> + > beautiful displays. About $1199 with current rebates. You can drop to a
> + > shell and do rlogin, ssh, nfs, etc...
> + >
> + > With OS-X and VNC they are very handy for a Unix environment.
> + >
> +
> + Why the need for VNC? If you're using OS X and Unix what advantages
> + does VNC have over using X?
>
> Because you'll have to install X on OS X? OS X has more to do with the
> Roman numeral than the windowing system... :)
>
Much easier to install XDarwin on OS 10 (if it's even necessary) on the
iBooks than installing VNC on both the iBooks and the Unix boxes, eh? I
haven't bought my G4 yet but can't OS 10's X server display remote
apps? If not, I'll be installing XDarwin on my G4 as soon as I pick it
up.
Rich Teer
> Much easier to install XDarwin on OS 10 (if it's even necessary) on the
> iBooks than installing VNC on both the iBooks and the Unix boxes, eh? I
> haven't bought my G4 yet but can't OS 10's X server display remote
> apps? If not, I'll be installing XDarwin on my G4 as soon as I pick it
> up.
Pretty much completely OT, but those new iMacs are pretty cool.
What we need for Soalris is for Sun to get Apple to port iDVD,
iPicture, etc. to Solaris so that we can finally use the USB and
FireWire ports properly - and view DVDs too. (About the latter:
yes, I prefer watching them on a big screen, but when the wife
is hogging the TV, what else is a guy supposed to do?!)
Eric Williams
<Axel.N...@epost.de> wrote:
Thanks for all the great input! I think Somone pointed to maxspeed as
an option for a simple X terminal. they are going to let me try one out
and they are rather inexpensive, especially with an educational
discount.
thanks all!
--
Eric Williams
ewilliams@_NOSPAM_wesleyan.edu
Nicholas Bachmann
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, G.T. wrote:
>
>
>>Much easier to install XDarwin on OS 10 (if it's even necessary) on the
>>iBooks than installing VNC on both the iBooks and the Unix boxes, eh? I
>>haven't bought my G4 yet but can't OS 10's X server display remote
>>apps? If not, I'll be installing XDarwin on my G4 as soon as I pick it
>>up.
>>
>
> Pretty much completely OT, but those new iMacs are pretty cool.
You might want to look at the current ./ poll, if you follow such things.
> What we need for Soalris is for Sun to get Apple to port iDVD,
> iPicture, etc. to Solaris so that we can finally use the USB and
> FireWire ports properly - and view DVDs too. (About the latter:
> yes, I prefer watching them on a big screen, but when the wife
> is hogging the TV, what else is a guy supposed to do?!)
You're supposed to go get Ogle!
(http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/groups/dvd/index.shtml). It even has menu
support.
>
> --
> Rich Teer
>
> President,
> Rite Online Inc.
>
> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
> URL: http://www.rite-online.net
>
>
--
Regards,
N
+----------------------------------------------+
+ Nicholas Bachmann <nabac...@yahoo.com> +
+ Promo of the week: +
+ Go check out Leafnode for a good news server +
+----------------------------------------------+
do...@85.usenet.us.com
: Much easier to install XDarwin on OS 10 (if it's even necessary) on the
: iBooks than installing VNC on both the iBooks and the Unix boxes, eh? I
VNCviewer is one application file on a unix box or a PC. I suppose it's
the same on MAC... In fact, I don't know that it's available for OS X.
I just saw "Mac" on the listings, and I didn't look at which OS.
I R A Darth Aggie
G.T. <eth...@pacificnet.net>, in
<3C3B90DE...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ >
+ > On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:39:40 -0800,
+ > G.T. <eth...@pacificnet.net>, in
+ > <3C3B752C...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
+ > + Kevin Russell wrote:
+ > + >
+ > + > Apple iBooks make great VNC Clients. They are essentially silent and have
+ > + > shell and do rlogin, ssh, nfs, etc...
+ > + >
+ > + > With OS-X and VNC they are very handy for a Unix environment.
+ > + >
+ > + Why the need for VNC? If you're using OS X and Unix what advantages
+ >
+ > Because you'll have to install X on OS X? OS X has more to do with the
+ > Roman numeral than the windowing system... :)
+ >
+
+ Much easier to install XDarwin on OS 10 (if it's even necessary) on the
+ iBooks than installing VNC on both the iBooks and the Unix boxes, eh?
Yeppers. The other advantage of installing X will be that you should be
able to compile and run various X apps natively. GCC isn't installed by
default, but is in the CD collection.
do...@85.usenet.us.com
: Thanks for all the great input! I think Somone pointed to maxspeed as
: an option for a simple X terminal. they are going to let me try one out
: and they are rather inexpensive, especially with an educational
: discount.
I missed it. Which of these products works as an X Terminal? They all
look like Citrix/Windows Thin Clients to me.
The Maxterm is just a WinCE with a big screen?
Ottomeister
> "Chris Newport" <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
> > The way that I understand it is that *all* thin clients create a lot
> > of network traffic, so Sun want you to use an unkillable network so
> > that the system does not get blamed for network overload.
> >
> > Like everything else, it depends what you are doing.
> > The SunRays are no worse than any other thin client for network hogging.
>
> the amount of traffic on the net as required by the application (i.e.
> telnet, X Window, Citrix, etc.).
That's (trivially) true for Sun Rays too: they only generate the
amount of traffic required by the application, generally one of
the Sun Ray renderers. Whether the Sun Ray protocol produces
more or less network traffic than other protocols depends on how
the application is being used. If the Sun Ray does happen to
generate more traffic then you get to decide whether that's an
important factor in your environment, and you get to decide how
it weighs out against other factors like cost, ease of
deployment, simplified maintenance, convenience of hotdesking
and so on. If X terminals or Winterms or PC's or workstations
or Macs are a better fit then go ahead and use them, but unless
your network is teetering on the verge of a meltdown it'd be
silly to make that decision only on the basis of the number of
network packets generated by the protocol.
> The Sun Ray is a kind of mixture between a Thin Client and a
> diskless client.
If by "diskless client" you mean "diskless workstation" then
you're mistaken, the Sun Ray is nothing at all like a diskless
workstation. In fact it fits your "Thin Client" definition better
than a lot of thin clients do, it's not unusual for thin clients
to load their OS from local disk (hard drive, floppy, sometimes
CD-ROM like the NIC Linux-based NC) or from the network. The
Sun Ray is closer to a frame buffer than it is to a traditional
thin client or diskless workstation.
> Due to a stupid protocol (not ICA, RDP or something like that) it
> needs much more bandwidth.
"Stupid" how? How much more bandwidth does it need than, say, RDP?
It's optimised for different things than RDP is but that hardly
makes it stupid.
What Sun Ray mostly needs is low packet loss and low round-trip
latency. Lots of bandwidth is nice (if you have 100Mbps then a
full-screen refresh is fast, good for you and good for your
neighbour because it gets your bits out of the way quickly and
makes room for his) but not essential. Sun Ray is perfectly
usable for typical text and GUI work at ISDN bitrates.
Calling for a private network, whether physically private or
logically private through an L2 VLAN, is just a brute-force way of
assuring low loss and low latency. It also guarantees that
the Sun Ray will get its boot-time DHCP information from a known
and fully-configured source, and that's usually the biggest factor
people have to contend with when they decide they want to put Sun
Rays on an existing shared-use LAN. Network-savvy people who've
been able to read between the lines of the "private interconnect"
dictum have been deploying Sun Ray on their LANs since it was first
released. Sun can't commit to making Sun Ray work on any random
LAN so the official line is that it's "unsupported". This doesn't
mean it won't work, it means that if you try it and it doesn't work
then response to your support call might eventually be "don't do
that" if it turns out that the problem stems from the way your LAN
behaves.
If you think you want to try Sun Ray on a LAN segment then start by
engaging your SE and have him find out what to look out for. If
have a decent switched LAN and plan to put the Sun Rays on a subnet
that's local to the server then you almost certainly have good
enough loss/latency/bandwidth characteristics to at least try it.
Figuring out how to provide DHCP to the Sun Rays is likely to be
your biggest headache, especially if you want to put Sun Rays on
subnets that aren't local to the server.
OttoM.
--
ottomeister (reachable @mail.com now that deja mail has gone away)
Disclaimer: I work for Sun. The opinions above are entirely mine,
I do not speak for my employer.
killahertz
> Can anyone suggest a company that sells basic X terminals that would
> work with Solaris 7?
Try tektronics, tftp based X terminal.
Hope this helps.
Joshua Gould
>
> Can anyone suggest a company that sells basic X terminals that would
> work with Solaris 7?
>
I'd reccomend NeoWare. IBM just signed a huge deal with them to
provide thin clients. They make a few Linux based clients (along with
embeded NT and WinCE).
We tested them out about 6 months ago and they where very nice.
Joshua