Compaq Announces Thin Client Running Linux 88
ansible writes "
Saw this story on Techweb.com: Compaq has announced thin client hardware, including one that runs Linux. " The most interesting thing
is the fact that the thin clients have a PCMCIA port and 2 USB ports.
USB? Wouldn't it be swell if Compaq had some code for us? (he says
eyeing the unusable USB port on his desktop and laptop)
Aha, but there *IS* USB support (Score:5)
Both USB Host Controllers (UHCI and OHCI), Keyboards, Mice, Printers, some bulk devices (Hard Drive's, Floppies, etc) and some webcams have drivers off the top of my head.
With many more to come and it's all in 2.3!
USB? (Score:1)
What's this about busted USB? (Score:3)
--
Re:USB? (Score:1)
Yay! (Score:1)
It's interesting to note that they couldn't manage to cram a decent web browser onto Windows CE. It's a good thing we have Linux instead.
Compaq is okay in my book, provided they don't mess up the Alpha too much. It's nice to see them not completely locked into the Microsoft vendor path.
USB and Aero 8000 (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be great... (Score:3)
But the USB deal is just one of many things that is keeping Linux from taking greater hold in the desktop market. Once Linux gets things like more games, USB, cutting edge hardware/driver support, etc. then people will consider Linux as a viable alternative to Windows or Mac. I think this is an important step in the evolution of the OS. If Comapq could see their way clear to releasing some code for their USB implementation, then it would certainly help, and others might follow their lead.
I'd really like to see a big name company like Compaq seriously embrace Linux and give back what it develops.
-B
-B
Taint of Microsoft (Score:2)
You should know that this is the "Texan" usage of the word taint.
Example: "Bubba, can you come here and fix my Windows terminal? 'Taint workin' no more."
disclaimer: I'm from Texas. I can make these jokes.
Re:Aha, but there *IS* USB support (Score:1)
(FWIW, the only reason I bought it is because every time I open a computer at home disaster strikes. No case-cracking to install a USB modem, and everybody's happy.)
--- Chris
Thin clients are cool, but... (Score:1)
-- Moondog
Cost? (Score:1)
History repeating (Score:1)
Re:Aha, but there *IS* USB support (Score:3)
They aren't a serial to USB device, nor a WinModem, but they do understand AT commands. They show up as serial devices.
Printers, OTOH, are parallel to USB devices. But, I digress
Re:Finally Catching Up.... (Score:3)
Don't get too excited... (Score:2)
That said, I have no idea about USB in Linux.
Re:What's this about busted USB? (Score:1)
Re:What a bunch of horse****.. (Score:1)
Any Compaq /.'s? (wuz:Taint of Microsoft) (Score:1)
I'm from Texas too, and I know that a lot of Linux users and /.'s have had bad experiences with Compaq; me too.
I do think Compaq is making efforts to support Linux better and I know that they will take a lead in developing Linux on their Alpha and Intel platforms, but yesterday's post about their new Alpha compiler has me worried.
I see them falling right back into their previous trap with SCO and other Unices. The funny thing is that the developers and hackers in Compaq are strong advocates of OSS. They work for a company that simply doesn't understand the model.
I've written them many times about drivers for SCSI cards, tech. spec's for video, IDE, etc. and come up with nothing. I garuntee you they'll support Linux well, but I don't see them contributing to the community in a generous fashion. Thank goodness for GPL.
Are any /.'s also Compaq kin? I'd appreciate knowing a little more about the internals of Compaq's Linux gear-up. Please help us help Compaq! Their servers really do scream.
Spoze that's all I got swurth sayin fer now.
What makes you think their USB is proprietary? (Score:2)
Wyse already has one (Score:3)
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:3)
They're a business. Their job is to make money. If they make money by doing things better, that's great. Right now, they like everyone else that's hopping on to the Linux bandwagon (Oracle, Lotus, IBM, etc...) the interest is twofold.
1 - it lessens their dependence on MSFT
2 - it's because customers are asking/demanding it
That's good enough for me. A company that decides that it's going to screw the notion of profitablility in order to only do things in a "better" manner is the one that won't be around next year.
I'll again reiterate my argument that while Windows NT is extremely vulnerable to the threat of Linux, Windows 9x is less so, and the MacOS is even less threatened... Comparing NT Server to Linux showcases NT's bloat. Comparing Linux to Win9x shows how much further Linux must go. I really don't think that Linux/KDE/GNOME/etc will ever approach the current MacOS in terms of ease of use. We're not talking stability or anything else. That's not a fault of Linux, per se. Just it's heritage from Unix, plus its' development by programmers for programmers aren't exactly "user-friendly" in the way the Mac is for the computing neophyte.
Compaq is not just cashing in... (Score:1)
But you've got to remember that there's a little division of Compaq from Maynard, Massachusetts. Ever hear of Digital Equipment Corp.? Ever hear of a The Man They Called maddog ?
Of course, one only need to look at Compaq's stock performance [excite.com] to see that DEC has, ahem, infected Compaq's culture. I would hope that Linux, seemingly the last refuge of the desperate in corporate circles, might be able to help them recover a little glory.
And yes, they are expected to continue to give back to the community as well.
Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity
Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:4)
I sincerely believe that Thin Clients are the way of the future, especially for businesses. That said, it seems that people are forgetting a couple of things when they impliment them these days...
WinCE, while in and of itself isn't a horrible thing for Thin Clients, depends on Window NT TS, which is one incredibly nasty hack. Personally, I would shoot anyone suggesting we use a NT TS solution.
Linux is great for Thin Clients. Hopefully, the Compaq clients above are well-designed (basically, you should have a sophisticated X-Terminal). The thing here that Compaq and other thin-client makers need to pound on hard is: APPS, APPS, APPS. Being able to run StarOffice is a godsend, but they need to provide alot more to make a Thin Client truly useful.
With the backing of Compaq, I see this as a good thing for thin-clients. Hopefully, we will see alot more software developers produce X-based apps for the community at large.
-Erik
The USB developer for the 2.3.x kernels... (Score:4)
Exciting new USB peripheral for Linux unveiled. (Score:4)
Known as "APOBET" (A Piece Of Black Electrical Tape) it will be applied to both USB ports on their new thin client system, to enhance the appearance of the machine and enhance usability (by preventing user confusion).
The APOBET will also be available as an Upgrade Kit for Compaq customers moving to Linux from the Windows platform. A company spokesperson has been quoted as saying that the APOBET is also being tested for use as a retrofit for machines running Linux across the whole line of Comapq computers.
A Linux spokesperson was quoted as responding that "This fulfills the need for a robust, timely USB solution on the Linux operating system. In addition, it yet again proves that with Linux stability always comes first."
Re:History repeating (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
and who wrote the MacOS.... elves?
Re:Any Compaq /.'s? (wuz:Taint of Microsoft) (Score:1)
Compaq is a company, and anything they do has to be justified in terms of $.
In order to "help satisfy the customers needs" Linux is being "supported" but not "encouraged".
I'm not sure how much of what I know is confidential, so I'll leave it at that...
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:3)
Internal documents outline the use of Elves at Apple in an unpublished commercial. They were going to dance around in shiny, colorfull suits. Then someone scuttled the idea with the "tanks and supercomputers" angle.
Pitty.
PCMCIA? Why, oh why? (Score:1)
Why did they do this? Is the PCMCIA socket stuff cheaper? It's hard to imagine that it would be, since there are all those commodity SCSI cards and intregrated-SCSI motherboards on the market. Does anyone have any ideas? Or is this just an unqualified mistake?
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
USB works fine... (Score:1)
Get with the program, x86 folks
Re:Compaq is not just cashing in... (Score:1)
>Ever hear of a The Man They Called maddog?
Well yes and no. maddog is leaving Compaq, but I think he's going to VA Research so he can do even more Linux evangelism.
Re:Yay! (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
He did say "by programmers for programmers". MacOS was presumably developed by programmers for users. If you're going to quote somebody, it might help to make the attempt to understand what they're saying first.
Re:Wyse already has one (Score:1)
Re:PCMCIA? Why, oh why? (Score:1)
Maybe PCMCIA was really cheap to enable, which makes sense if this hardware is some sort of an adaptation of laptop hardware.
I think you're mistaken (Score:1)
Re:Finally Catching Up.... (Score:3)
No, no, no, no. Linus didn't reject the USB patches because they came from a non-Intel platform. He stated quite clearly that he didn't like the way that those patches tried to do everything all at once for USB, and wanted to take a more gradual and simpler approach. That's why the USB support in the current kernels is the one that Alan Cox and others are working on.
Since when is Linus "not too fond of non-Intel architectures"?
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:2)
How "new"? We use Citrix MetaFrame / TS pretty extensively around here, and it has some ... issues. Nothing too bad, but I can't imagine it being so good that someone would post in it's defense.
Here are some of my proposed Windows Terminal Server / Citrix slogans. (none of which are as cool as 'X Window - You'll Envy the Dead'):
Please note that it's not all that bad, and it is better and easier to manage than a whole mess of desktops - but it's not in any way wonderful.
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
But weren't we talking about GNUStep the other day?
Mac OS X GUI - somehow related to NeXT Step GUI - somehow derived to GNUStep?
What I'm trying to get at here is, couldn't GNUStep be used to hobble together a GUI and tools as nice on newbies (and NHW, or Not Hacker Wannabes) as Mac's?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
USB support (Score:1)
Thin Client? Why not try a cheap PC! (Score:1)
Re:USB and Aero 8000 (Score:1)
Re:Finally Catching Up.... (Score:1)
And ahem.. if he wasn't fond of other platforms.. then why are there axp, arm, sun, and yes.. even ppc ports? Without the compromises, and platform independant code he wrote.. there'd probably never be the quick of migration.
I remember that the 68k port was a fork from linux for a LONG time. PPC will need to cleanly layer into the linux source tree.
Re:PCMCIA? Why, oh why? (Score:1)
Pan
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
Having said this:
TS is actualy quite cool. If you know what a kludge WinNT is behind the scenes, you have to respect how well they managed to separate the GUI from the rest. It uses very litle bandwith : +- 4 clients run reasonably well on a 64 kbit line.
With metaframe It gets better: I ocasionally have to fix a (extremely) bloated in-house access app running on a remote TS server through a 19.200 line and theres little diference from running it on localy (yeah, I *know* that's not saying much)
Yes it crashes, at least as much as NT, but it actually works as advertised.
For M$-products, that *has* to be a first.
If one has to admin NT machines, then I'd rather they're TS: At least I don't have get up as much to fix the damn things
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
I suggest you use a NT TS solution.
*standing back*
(just checking)
What about Sun Ray 1 (Score:1)
The server side software is priced between 250 and 2,500. It is of course a Solaris only thing at the moment. You can get to your Win applications thru a Citrix client running on the Solaris server.
If they can expand the USB support beyond the keyboard mice you would have a very slick system. I would assume that they are planning on this as the device has 4 USB ports.
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
Bang!!!!!
;-)
-Erik
Re:Any Compaq /.'s? (wuz:Taint of Microsoft) (Score:1)
The worst part of Compaq is the corporate culture that refuses to admit that (except for the high end server stuff) they just outsource from the same PC parts bin as everyone else and no longer makes their own NICs, SCSI cards and so on. Thus it is absolutely impossible to determine actually what hardware is in a Compaq from the documentation, which is laden with terms such as "Compaq Business Audio" (actually an ESS chip), and "Compaq NetFlex 3+" (actually an Intel NIC) and so on.
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
Sounds like you are advocating a traditional X Terminal instead of these "framebuffer" thin clients.
Aside from the Does-it-work-with-WTS? question -- I'm not quite sure why X Terminals seem to be dying off (even at Sun). Perhaps X is viewed as too complicated to set up and admin? Not robust enough? Too many 486s to install Linux on for those who need real X?
(As for huge bandwidth requirements - in most cases LAN bandwidth [switched 100 or 1000] will be cheaper than a bunch of PCs to manage.)
Re:Finally Catching Up.... (Score:1)
Game consoles... (Score:1)
Compaq's business is not profit (Score:1)
Um, no. Their job is to increase shareholder value, which is not necessarily the same thing. It could be that becoming part of the Linux/Open Source/GNU/GmOne [dhs.org] movement will mean increased long term profits, even at the expense of short term profits.
Companies are supposed to be fairly long-sighted entities. If they're not, it's bad news.
What could Compaq do? (Score:1)
What would people recommend that Compaq could do to support these fine people at linux-usb.org in their efforts? I'll suggest it!
In a way, just building a cheap thin-client machine with the 2 USB ports and offering a Linux solution creates synergies. If you build it, they will come...
Citrix or NT TS only? (Score:1)
Maybe the second generation will be a little more thoroughly though out...
Re:Compaq's business is not profit (Score:1)
There is no concrete proof that Linux is more than a passing craze by the ABM crowd (Anyone But Micrsoft)... Windows 2000 isn't out the door yet, so, according to the many reports I've read, it's opened a window of opportunity for Linux. What if Win2000 ships with all the features Microsoft has promised, at the top of which it being their most stable OS ever? There'll be a lot of companies who've embraced Linux backing up (even just a little bit) in order t say that Win2000 is their favored platform. I don't mean to be a downer or anything...
With all that said... I hope Linux thrives. I just don't think that a company with years of foundations laid developing and supporting other platforms, should jump head over heels for Linux. Wait it out and see what happens in the next few years.
Lastly, I can't see how supporting Linux/etc... will actually increase long-term profits. Buyers are wise... They see a WinNT server selling for $3500... Even if $100 of that is the profit margin from them preinstalling NT and $500 is the actual NT cost, they're going to ask why they should spend any extra money above the bare-bones cost of the hardware. After all, most likely they'll just recieve the computer and then re-FDisk it in order to set the partitions the way that they see fit... A few years from now I may realize I just put my foot in my mouth, but today I feel comfortable with that statement.
Shareholder value goes up in accordance with a companeis ability to make money, unless you're a
Am I off topic here? Hope not!
Have a good night, everybody...
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
I was criticizing this comment. I meant that programmers wrote MacOS, just like Unix. What makes you think that the same type of people(programmers) have two different styles for different people.
You see you make it sound like users wrote the MacOS for themselves and programmers wrote Unix for themselves.
Programmers like to write elegant solutions. Unix is just a little bit older than MacOS and was also designed as a solution to different problems. But I think you would get alot of feedback from the people at Gnome or KDE about programmers writing for programmers.
Re:What about Sun Ray 1 (Score:1)
/me too.
It virtualizes the screen, sound, microphone and 4 USB ports (only supports keyboards and mice at the moment) back to a centralized server. It looks very slick with the smart card based access (you can just use a user id/password if you want.)
Especially the smart cart feature is interesting: You can pull the card out of one box go to the next room, plug it into another ray and you can immediatly continue the session exactly where you've left it.
(Even if you treat your Ray with your Beaked Axe of *Slay* Hardware (2,6) (+8,+11) (+2) very badly you just have to get a new one and haven't lost even your last keypress. :-)
Re:Thin Client? Why not try a cheap PC! (Score:1)
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
I don't get the picture here... (Score:1)
I remember a long time ago when computers were extremely expensive things. They designed computers with software meant to be mult-user because it was the only way one could make computing efficient. The way one would communicate and interact with the computer was through a node or a `terminal'. These often got called _dumb_ terminals, because they were essentially a screen, a keyboard and some kind of interface to the computer system. It so showed that these systems were extremely efficient and stable, because all the effort of making it stable was put on the back end. The risk of a monitor getting a hickup wasn't all that great. In fact, in many places these kinds of computing scenarios are still in place and far from being exchanged.
Then came the PC from IBM. The PC was the breakthrough because it was cheap and reasonably efficient. Now each employee could have their own computer. Since most data was processed through linefeed printing rather than databases, this was a good thing. People liked having `their own' computer. They could finally keep their data to themselves. Microsoft tried to mimic the file and directory structure of the Unix filesystem (UFS), but failed immensely.
Ever since, the PC has been just that. A _personal_ computer. Each person has one. This becomes expensive since each person makes a claim of a computer for at least $1200. Calculate that with a 100 people and that is well over a million bucks. Then you still need a server to all of the sudden _SHARE_ data. This is of course a salutation because most organizations today make use of databases and printer sharing, but still. Computing is still computing. Wheather people today like pretty mouse cursors and colorful buttons, better than a green and black monitor. Actually, even I can understand that... Now Sun and many other companies have solved this by using X-terminals. A screen with a little box with rendering capabilities. The thought here is once again to move all processing to the backend, thus making the need for a desktop computer less important. It is also better for upgrades because your X-terminal doesn't go out of style. We still use X-terminals from 1989 and they work great. Wanna speed up things? Upgrade _ONE_ server.
But as soon as Microsoft announces something (not entirely) new, the TERMINAL Server version of NT, this gets out of hand. Let me tell people that this has been around for ages. No longer can we remind people that Microsoft is using old and thought-through technologies, but lets name them _thin-clients_. A thin client is still a PC. With a slightly smaller demand for hardware, but still has a CPU, a VGA board, a possible sound card, a harddrive and memory. IT IS STILL A PC! A cheaper one perhaps, but still. Moving semaphores and most of the computation to the backend is merely a fallback to the old and tested way of doing it.
Enough about history, and to the point. What is Compaq's goal with this? Are they making a Linux version just for the hell of it, or are they in fact going to do some work on it? Are they looking to integrate the Windows CE version with the NT Terminal Server and the Linux version with their AlphaServers on Tru64? As far as i understand, if this is supposed to be called a thin client in the sense of it being a `terminal', it must be integrated with some other product for the backend...
Sincerely,
Alexander
Re:Wouldn't it be great... (Score:1)
Their is one loophole in that: they could release their code as a binary-only module. AFAIK, this would be perfectly legal.
(This doesn't mean that Compaq will actually take this option, of course.)
Re:I don't get the picture here... (Score:1)
Windows Terminals are certainly new - the idea isn't - but it's new to windows - even citrix based stuff like winframe/metaframe/multiwin are all only a few years old.
What you're saying is synonomous to saying "what's all this hype about the internet - we had it a 100 years ago - it's called the telegraph".
Re:Thin Clients, WinCE, and Linux... (Score:1)
The server is only a "online" disk.
The programs are running on the clients.
Re:History repeating (Score:1)
Can't you come up with a response that's at least original, if not pertinent?
Not every user wants to code their own shit, or has the programming ability to do so, it's the nature of the world - so get over it!
Re:Thin clients are cool, but... (Score:1)
Course, we mighty geeks never consider that market because it's beneath our notice. However, consider how many terminals are in use today at, say, airport desks, hotel front desks, warehouses (shipping and receiving), many customer service jobs, telemarketing, yatta yatta yatta. It's a huge market and it's an important one, and if I ever get stuck running something like that I want to be using thin clients, cause they're easy to swap out and cheap cheap cheap to maintain.
And -- this is the really important thing -- easy to upgrade. Remotely. Yeah.