[THIN] Re: Sun Ray

  • From: "Andrew Wood" <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:28:08 +0100

it can - potentially at a higher cost with more hardware.

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Monroe, Frank
Sent: 07 September 2006 20:33
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Sun Ray


Well that's what I thought.  But Sun is in here claiming "This can replace
Citrix".


  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:40 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Sun Ray



That is a good analysis. Sun Ray's are dedicated frame buffer devices that
attach to a Sun UNIX host for processing. The pro's are good performance and
nicely controlled environment, the cons are high cost and proprietary
technology.

 

Sun Ray's are not an alternate to Citrix per se because they still use TS,
PS or Tarantella to present Windows applications. If you run Citrix on a Sun
Ray, the Citrix client runs on UNIX on the host and is displayed on the Sun
Ray. Good for when you want to mix with Sun based apps, extra layers and
cost if you only want to execute Windows...

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85262

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 


  _____  


From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:44 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Sun Ray

 

As far as I can tell - its not 'Citrix' as a direct comparison is it? It
offers a slightly different architecture and I'd suggest is aimed at a
semgent of the citrix market rather than a direct competitor.

 

SGD allows you to federate your applications from the back end and present
them to the user's java based client via a single protocol (AIP) - this does
seem the same as Citrix with say ICA and web interface. But, AIP runs from
the client to the sgd server(s) - the sgd server(s) act as a client for the
backend session (be that ica/rdp/x11)

 

So instead of combining the citrix/windows terminal server on the same
hardware (like citrix does), potentially you not only introduce the SGD
software, but you have to have separate hardware to run it on.

 

When I've read through the documentation I saw the architecture more like
that of, say, a secure gateway server - in that it took session protocols
from the internal network, and allowed them to be published to the clients
securely via a different protocol. 

 

I saw it more useful for an environment that might have a mix of protocols
(such as x11/rdp) and wanted to provide a single interface and management
structure for access to that. So - if i was deploying Citrix to allow my
linux/unix environment access to windows based servers via ICA, SGD could be
an alternative. However, for a pure windows enviroment it would adding a
level of complexity (due to the extra hardware/different OS) that wouldn't
come from a citrix/provisionnetworks type solution.

 

I've only just started to look at this - I'd be grateful if someone else has
looked and has any feedback on this as well.


 


  _____  


From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Monroe, Frank
Sent: 28 August 2006 19:41
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Sun Ray

Has anyone done a comparison of this with Citrix?
<http://www.sun.com/software/products/sgd/>
http://www.sun.com/software/products/sgd/ 

Other related posts: