Amazon Jumps Into Desktop Virtualization With "WorkSpaces"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Jumps Into Desktop Virtualization With "WorkSpaces"

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:04PM from the try-it-out dept.

mattydread23 writes "Amazon is getting into the desktop virtualization space. This is potentially huge news for providers like Citrix, but as writer Nancy Gohring points out, the company is starting small. Very small: 'The administrator console only allows managers to provision five WorkSpaces at a time. It's possible that will change when the service becomes generally available. For now, Amazon is accepting sign ups for a limited preview of the service. '"

92 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No Linux client? by hawguy · 2013-11-13 13:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Their devices page says:

Amazon WorkSpaces clients are available for both Windows and Mac computers as well as for the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Android tablets. When WorkSpaces are provisioned for users, they will get an email containing details on how they can download the clients. The WorkSpaces PC or Mac client provides users with full access to their desktop and includes support for multiple monitors, audio, and video.
Linux support would make this more interesting so I could retask some old desktops and laptops with a linux thin client to let them access their Amazon virtual desktop. Though $50/month for a virtual desktop that includes MS Office seems a little expensive when a Dell desktop with Office Pro costs around $800 - 16 months worth of Amazon's pricing.
1. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 13:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  See IBM for that.
  Us old farts who saw the older farts scratching their heads over virtual desktops and wondering, "and this is different from dumb terminals or xwindows ... how gain?" and being thrown aside for not knowing the new technology.
  IT is worse than music - at least music will pay SOME homage to the previous artists.
  Next post, I'll describe how the entire "entrprenuerial" community in Silcon Valley are a bunch of rip-off artists.
2. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  They're using Teradici's PCoIP protocol like VMware View and View has a Linux client, so hopefully they just do it already.
3. Re:No Linux client? by girlintraining · 2013-11-13 14:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Linux support would make this more interesting so I could...
  You know, this kind of thing has been tried pretty much since the mainframe was invented. After that it was timesharing, after that it was dumb terminals, after that it was thin clients, after that it was virtualization, after that it was cloud, after that... well, and here we are. Hi Amazon.
  Look, ever since Moses descended from the Mountain and brought with him two stone tables, 0 and 1, and said to us Thou Shalt Not Goto, and other things... people have been trying to get this off the ground. And it's always ended in failure because it's a bad idea.
  The fact that it's Amazon's turn to derp it up shouldn't get your hopes up... and neither should adding Linux support. Or MacOS, or anything else. It's technology that has died more times than the Daleks have in Doctor Who... and yet it stubbornly comes back in via another whack plot-twist... also, just like the Daleks.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:No Linux client? by ahabswhale · 2013-11-13 14:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yeah, it's wildly overpriced for the value it provides. I'm generally fond of Amazon and I think Bezos is a genius but I think this idea is a real dud. Computers suitable for most office drones just aren't very expensive and any company that cares about employees being able to access desktops from remote locations already have VPNs setup.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
5. Re:No Linux client? by slashmydots · 2013-11-13 15:32 · Score: 2
  
  Linux support is the only thing that would make this interesting. My users have a hard time remembering if something is saved on their desktop or the shared network drive. You give them a PC with a windows desktop and a link that opens a remote virtual desktop that's identical? They won't remember which desktop they saved things to. Plus, half your data is off in virtual cloud land in AWS and half is local to the computer. In fact, I take it back. Even with Linux this is an incredibly stupid idea that confuses users and doesn't save one ounce of productivity.
  
  By the way, I'm saying this because the mention of dumb terminals or similar hardware is not mentioned in the entire article. You're running a real desktop to host this software.
6. Re:No Linux client? by Decker-Mage · 2013-11-13 15:41 · Score: 2
  
  Except in each iteration the code gets sloppier.
  
  --
  "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
7. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's technology that has died more times than the Daleks have in Doctor Who
  It reminds me also of the "anyone can program" meme and products that promise to replace your software engineers with your secretary or even more improbably that programs will write themselves after you dictate to them what it is that you want, ala Star Trek. These sorts of ideas always rise from the dead, no matter how many times they fail, because some managers just cannot stand the fact that some workers are necessary and that relative to the secretary or the burger flipper, they cost more. Of course, it could be argued that these ideas are just brilliant scams designed to get money out of tight fisted fools, but at least some the past failures were a bit too elaborate to completely dismissed as hoaxes.
8. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Centralized remote "desktops" and remote computing were always a good thing. There are many many advantages to having a remote desktop that is yours that you can access from any number of devices from any number of locations. It makes sense for the user for the reasons I stated above and it makes sense to IT departments providing them because of ease of management, backups, deployments etc. The price for maintaining and managing large pools of desktops is coming down and the dust is settling on the protocols, management and methods of implementing them are starting to show some standardization (unlike a few years ago when everyone and their mother had proprietary solutions that all became obsolete even before you were done deploying them). It was MS that brought the stand alone computer to the home and made it available to everyone in masse but now that internet and virtualization are more mature, it makes sense that it would migrate back.
9. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  | a Dell desktop with Office Pro costs around $800
  Curious, for this model, is the price with or without monitor, keyboard, etc...?
10. Re:No Linux client? by hawguy · 2013-11-13 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  | a Dell desktop with Office Pro costs around $800
  Curious, for this model, is the price with or without monitor, keyboard, etc...?
  http://www.dell.com/
11. Re:No Linux client? by cheater512 · 2013-11-13 18:35 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect it is more about control.
  And no need to replace computers as often either.
  Doesn't take much (if any) grunt to be a dumb terminal.
12. Re:No Linux client? by fuzzyf · 2013-11-13 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Control by the business or by Amazon?
  
  I'd argue that _not_ using Amazon would give the business a bit more control.
  
  Also; computers are usually replaced based on service rather than performance these days. If a company buys a dell laptop with 3 years on site service, then it's most likelly replaced after 3 years just because it need a SLA to go with it. And a new computer with SLA cost almost the same as an old computer with SLA.
13. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  how has virtualization died ?
  I use the Vmware View Client every day. And it's a heck of a lot better than Tarantella that we used 10 years ago.
14. Re:No Linux client? by rvw · 2013-11-13 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  Control by the business or by Amazon?
  Control by the IT department. Or control by business by downsizing the IT department by moving to Amazon Desktop.
15. Re:No Linux client? by Monoman · 2013-11-13 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  and the experience for the user gets "better".
  
  --
  Keep the Classic Slashdot.
16. Re:No Linux client? by Monoman · 2013-11-13 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  Overpriced? Probably for big shops. Don't forget MS typically gets a piece of the action for every "device" that connects remotely to their servers. For smaller shops that don't have the infrastructure already in place hosted VDI *might* be the right call.
  The industry trend is to virtualize as much as possible throughout the datacenter and stack. In the long run it will have some interesting implications but it won't be cheap in the short run.
  
  --
  Keep the Classic Slashdot.
17. Re:No Linux client? by mwvdlee · 2013-11-13 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that it's Amazon's turn to derp it up shouldn't get your hopes up... and neither should adding Linux support. Or MacOS, or anything else. It's technology that has died more times than the Daleks have in Doctor Who... and yet it stubbornly comes back in via another whack plot-twist... also, just like the Daleks.
  The reason it keeps popping up is because there are valid reasons for it. Just as there are valid reasons for decentralized.
  The problem is that every iteration is hyped as being the perfect solution for all situations everywhere, whereas in reality it's just one of a number of possible solution for a specific subset of situations.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
18. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  By the way, I'm saying this because the mention of dumb terminals or similar hardware is not mentioned in the entire article. You're running a real desktop to host this software.
  This is the only significant issue with Amazon's WorkSpaces for home users at the moment. Amazon needs to provide a small device with embedded GNU/Linux to boot-up a thin client which can be configured to automatically connect to Amazon Web Service and the device provides multiple VGA/DVI/HDMI ports, Bluetooth connection for keyboard and mouse, and of course both wired and wireless network connectivity. My primary concern remains - we need a means to self-generate SSL certificates and have encrypted file system storage.
19. Re:No Linux client? by couchslug · 2013-11-14 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Linux support would make this more interesting so I could retask some old desktops and laptops with a linux thin client to let them access their Amazon virtual desktop."
  What makes that preferable to tossing together your own server or snagging one cheep off Ebay?
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
20. Re:No Linux client? by DragonDru · 2013-11-14 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Next post, I'll describe how the entire "entrprenuerial" community in Silcon Valley are a bunch of rip-off artists.
  As a person seeking to work for myself, I would like to see a detailed analysis. Although, this may only be so I don't feel bad becoming a rip-off artist myself.
  
  --
  20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
21. Re:No Linux client? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-11-14 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's technology that has died more times
  Some things just have to wait for the technology to be ready.
  I switched a couple years ago to running my daily work desktop via a VM on a server, at HD resolution, and it works great. The only time I remember I'm in VNC is when I try to play a video; not because the video stutters but because I haven't taken the time to hook up a network sound adapter yet.
  You need fast networks, fast CPU's, proper segmentation, and lots of cheap storage for it to work.
  I did testing of a prototype network computer for a big fruity computer company in the 90's. I worked great on the LAN, but over the T1 links on our WAN it wasn't practical. They were aiming it towards home users who were mostly still on dial-up. One of the execs there had a T3 to his house and couldn't understand why the project was going to be cancelled since it worked great for him.
  Here were are in 2013 where HD video streaming to the living room is commonplace and the other IT parts have come into being in the past few years.
  Heck, I remember when carrying a brick phone and a Newton was something that only high priests of geekdom would do. Technology marches along and these things become usable for the masses.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
22. Re:No Linux client? by deathcloset · 2013-11-14 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  ..."and this is different from dumb terminals or xwindows ... how gain?"...
  Although they offer similar functionality, horsepower and a car is different from horses and a cart.
23. Re:No Linux client? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's not hyped that way. At least I don't think so. It is the isolated IT/IS people that only see what they do and say no way, it's stupid, it doesn't run Linux, I need a 8 core processor and 24GB RAM, super fast raid 10 on SSD and I do 3D rendering and upload 1TB files to process, this is the fail, it can never work!
  We guess what...Outside of the developer/programmer/system administration world there is a whole different thing happening with businesses and people that sit down in front of a computer to work. The other 99% of people using a computer in a business atmosphere do NOT need what you do and a standard load Windows 7/8 desktop with 4GB-6GB ram does perfectly fine for them as long as they have their apps that they use to do the work they need to do.
24. Re:No Linux client? by zero0ne · 2013-11-14 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  What happens when that 600 dollar computer shits the bed or gets a virus?
  most of these offerings come with backups, proper setup, etc...
  THat tower dies and so does that users excel / word / powerpoint documents they had stored locally.
  The second you bring up "oh but they have a server that it gets stored on" you complicate things 10x and Amazon's offerings (or other companies for that matter) become competitive.
  Also if they are using PCoIP, I feel bad for them - All my tests show that the protocol citrix uses is far more efficient and offers much better control of quality / bandwidth consumption.
25. Re:No Linux client? by zero0ne · 2013-11-14 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hate to respond to myself but I forgot to add:
  I don't necessarily agree that every company should just drop their hardware and get thin clients...
  I think the right type of company, with the right amount of users will save money long term by properly building their own private cloud and offering virtual desktops. Even if that private cloud of theirs is being managed by a 3rd party.
  100+ users I would say go create your own private cloud.
  You are a collection agency / call center? Even better reason for this... I can't tell you how many times I was forced to move computers around or re-image a huge group of physical PCs because some client decided to cut their staffing levels in half.
  Managing a cluster of enterprise level hardware will always be easier than managing a hodgepodge of general purpose workstations that were all bought at different times... (assume your "replacing 1/5 your towers every year" or sooner based on customer requirements).
26. Re:No Linux client? by hawguy · 2013-11-14 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's not hyped that way. At least I don't think so. It is the isolated IT/IS people that only see what they do and say no way, it's stupid, it doesn't run Linux, I need a 8 core processor and 24GB RAM, super fast raid 10 on SSD and I do 3D rendering and upload 1TB files to process, this is the fail, it can never work!
  We guess what...Outside of the developer/programmer/system administration world there is a whole different thing happening with businesses and people that sit down in front of a computer to work. The other 99% of people using a computer in a business atmosphere do NOT need what you do and a standard load Windows 7/8 desktop with 4GB-6GB ram does perfectly fine for them as long as they have their apps that they use to do the work they need to do.
  Aren't those the same people for whom VDI works so well for? They don't need to know, or even care where their desktop is.
  Few corporate IT/IS people care of their hardware runs linux - they care if it runs Windows Server. Linux is for the geeks in Silicon Valley, not for mature corporations.
History Repeats? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 13:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

They're providing 5 workspaces. Eventually someone will make a few accounts so they can have multiple sections of 5 workspaces and he/she will call them groups. Thus Amazon for Workgroups will be born.
Google Hangouts are mostly for general groups of people. I expect Google to release a version tailored to work groups as well.
Amazon for Workgroups. Google for Workgroups. It seems Windows was ahead of it's time.
Why? by DogDude · 2013-11-13 13:35 · Score: 1

Why would anybody want to use this service? Why not just use PC's, which can be gotten for next-to-free in thrift stores or refurbished equipment resellers, everywhere?

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re:Why? by nurb432 · 2013-11-13 13:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Support.
  Portability.
  Accessibility.
  For starters.
  Just because you are wiling to use sub-par flea-market hardware, pirate the software, and deal with all the problems, does not mean a corporation wants to waste resources on stupid stuff too.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  It depends what you're doing. You may want to buy low end desktops or tablets to use as thin clients to access high end systems with fast GPUs over the Internet, which is what OTOY, Autodesk, Mozilla and Amazon have worked on delivering.
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  These don't have hard drives that crash or require much in the way of technical support.
4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  You have user with internet access you will need support. 99% are software problems.
5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yea IT is basically just finding old PCs. You are a computer wizard.
6. Re:Why? by Decker-Mage · 2013-11-13 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  Actually? No. 99% of all problems are with the wetware device between chair and keyboard. No joke, just a few decades of experience in & running support.
  
  --
  "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
7. Re:Why? by Karl+Cocknozzle · 2013-11-14 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  ---- Booth was a patriot ---- If you dont agree with me, dont bother replying as i dont care what you have to say ----
  Booth was a murderer, a coward, and a traitor. "The South" was not populated by patriots--or at least, not American patriots--it was populated by traitors who wanted to keep human beings as property, and were willing to murder as many people as they had to in order to protect their unconscionably evil economic system operating.
  For that matter, you're a coward for posting something so ridiculous and then preemptively telling us you "won't respond."
  
  --
  Who did what now?
8. Re:Why? by nurb432 · 2013-11-14 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  You sir are incapable of following rather simple directions.
  With that out of the way, why would i even want to debate your inaccuracies and complete misunderstanding of what happened, and why? ( And apparently an inability to read as well. Or at least comprehend simple sentences )
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
9. Re:Why? by Karl+Cocknozzle · 2013-11-20 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  You sir are incapable of following rather simple directions.
  With that out of the way, why would i even want to debate your inaccuracies and complete misunderstanding of what happened, and why? ( And apparently an inability to read as well. Or at least comprehend simple sentences )
  I'm under no obligation to follow your directions. ...But like all petty cowards, you continue to attack the messenger without defending the ludicrous assertion (that Booth was a patriot.) I say he wasn't: If you fail to respond directly to the argument you've both lost the debate and proven yourself a coward in the mix. It was slavery--100% slavery. None of those "other issues" could exist without the slavery issue. "State's rights" is a code-phrase for the "states' right to have slavery." If you think something different happened the obligation is 100% yours to demonstrate it to us.
  
  --
  Who did what now?
10. Re:Why? by nurb432 · 2013-11-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Lets see, you initiated an unsolicited attempt to instigate a debate with me where i have clearly stated there will be no debate, so yes, you are obligated to follow my directions. Conversely since you are incapable of understanding and/or following directions that even a 5 year old child could understand, i have no obligation to you in any stretch of the imagination.
  You are the failure in this situation.. And i bet most any other venture in your life.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
Canonical should get into this... by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-11-13 13:35 · Score: 1

I've always wondered why Canonical is hitching it's wagon to advertising. I suspect because it's easy - but it's always seemed like there's an opportunity somewhere between EC2 virtualization and the benefits of remote X that would've meant they could've set up a "run on the cloud" type service that would be nicely integrated into the deskop.
Thin clients which can farm out their heavy lifting to EC2 (for say, graphics/CAD etc) seems like a possible winner if they could claim some referral money from it.
Printing will be so easy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 14:59 · Score: 1

Printing to the office xerox will be much better than it is in Citrix right?
1. Re:Printing will be so easy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Printing to the office xerox will be much better than it is in Citrix right?
  I use Hewlett Packard ePrint-capable printers primarily these days without issues unless my Internet connection is down.
Nothing New Under the Sun by ApplePy · 2013-11-13 15:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I liked this better when it was called "mainframe".
Now get off my lawn!
It's funny. A friend of mine was trying to pitch this DaaS stuff to me a month ago as his great new genius business idea. I think my exact words were "if this is a good idea, Amazon or Google will beat us to it and sell it cheaper." Hell, even if it's not a good idea they'll kill us. And it's not. Nerds just have no concept of economics.
There are good things to be said about vertical integration, economies of scale, etc., particularly when we're talking about the manufacture of automobiles or bulk steel or what have you. But I am a firm believer in decentralization whenever possible: local government, local foodsheds, solar power, local computing. The PC gave us that when I was a youngun'... and Big Iron has been trying to find a way to take it away ever since.

--
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
1. Re:Nothing New Under the Sun by Decker-Mage · 2013-11-13 16:00 · Score: 2
  
  Right. My first PC occupied the entire first floor of the Science building and that was while I was a preteen. Centralization is okay for some things but I'm definitely more in the mind of a libertarian cluster pervading my universe. [That even sounds nice.] A veritable (virtual?) device cloud that connects or disconnects as suits, each autonomous (rule-guided) as required, and constrained by budget. Here, I'm personally hardware rich but well, my wallet (and accounts) look mighty bare. Others usually the opposite.
  
  So, Amazon is bringing something more to the table, beyond their free tier in my case. Now to fiddle with other stuff while they bang things a few million times to work out the kinks.
  
  That's what I have in mind.
  
  --
  "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
2. Re:Nothing New Under the Sun by jma05 · 2013-11-13 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  > My first PC occupied the entire first floor of the Science building
  Does not sound at all like a *Personal* Computer :-).
so unbelievably stupid by slashmydots · 2013-11-13 15:27 · Score: 1

I'm a head IT manager. Here's my take on it:
Wow, it's like a slow-responding piece of crap. If my hand feels like it's in sand with a wireless mouse's 300ms delay, just wait until my entire desktop is offsite! It's like upgrading it carrier pigeons. And the one thing I love about remote desktop environments is the complete inability to manage them, stop users from doing stupid stuff, and a complete lack of control over everything. Oh and the double layer problem where you technically have to be running a network login and OS on the physical computer that's remote viewing the virtual desktop is fun. Oh and security? Fuck security, it's not my computers. I don't even know where they are or what they're running for software. The virtual desktops have downtime? Wooo, vacation time cuz I sure as shit can't do anything to fix it. It's because of a cloud outage? Yeehaw, let's do arts and crafts with the reception and accounting staff. They fucking love that shit. Working is overrated anyway. The system came back up and everyone's desktops are reset to default settings? God knows I don't have a backup of it, it's a remote virtual desktop! This is the best invention since the root canal! I'm definitely going to jump on this...as in jump on it to crush it out of anger at how stupid an idea this is. This is going to burn like the Hindenburg.
1. Re:so unbelievably stupid by neonmonk · 2013-11-13 15:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  All nonsense. While I'm no fan of "desktop in the cloud" - anyone that uses RDP regularly knows that responsiveness is not that much of a problem anymore. As long as Amazon throws enough network & hardware resources at this it'll work fine. The real question is whether it's economical.
2. Re:so unbelievably stupid by ApplePy · 2013-11-13 16:12 · Score: 2
  
  Oh and hey... just wait til Amazon starts charging for bandwidth usage while your employees are spending their work days endlessly scrolling Facebook on their virtual cloud desktops!
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
3. Re:so unbelievably stupid by LordLimecat · 2013-11-13 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  If your wireless mouse has a 300ms delay, you have serious problems.
  Your crappy mouse aside, 300ms is sufficient to get halfway around the world; If I had to guess, your average latency to a big co like Google or Amazon shouldnt be much higher than 30ms. Its also not like minimizing perception of lag hasnt been figured out a million times before, with every online game ever, RDP, etc etc etc. Clientside prediction + efficient netcode can make the perception of lag all but disappear.
  You clearly havent used this product though, so Im really not sure why you thought being an "IT manager" qualified you to review it.
4. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  So how is that some super graphics intensive shit like Call Of Duty can have sub 50ms latencies every damn day but a fucking word processor is causing you 300ms lag?
  Sounds to me like somebody needs to put your baby boomer ass out to pasture, gramps, cuz you're obviously out of touch.
5. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  > not that much of a problem anymore.
  I disagree. I live in downtown Seattle, and with the fastest connection I can get locally, I still have a 190 ms ping to my ec2 servers at US West (Oregon). I've used remote desktop to a couple of Windows servers there. It is too slow to be usable.
6. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-13 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a head IT manager. Here's my take on it:
  Wow, it's like a slow-responding piece of crap. If my hand feels like it's in sand with a wireless mouse's 300ms delay, just wait until my entire desktop is offsite! It's like upgrading it carrier pigeons. And the one thing I love about remote desktop environments is the complete inability to manage them, stop users from doing stupid stuff, and a complete lack of control over everything.
  How can you be a "head IT manager" and not know how to manage your desktops (whether remote or local) with AD policies? Why would a remote virtual desktop give you less control than one sitting on someone's desk?
7. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-13 17:29 · Score: 2
  
  > not that much of a problem anymore.
  I disagree. I live in downtown Seattle, and with the fastest connection I can get locally, I still have a 190 ms ping to my ec2 servers at US West (Oregon). I've used remote desktop to a couple of Windows servers there. It is too slow to be usable.
  You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies -- from the San Francisco Bay Area, from home, I have 105ms ping times to our East Coast AWS servers, and 58ms ping times to AWS Oregon. At the office, we have a better connection and I see around 85ms to the East Coast, and about 45ms to Oregon. I regularly use RDP to both sites and it works quite well. The 250ms to Sydney is more challenging.
8. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  If you are an head IT manager and you have never used or saw a usable virtual desktop solution or at least see the benefits that some organizations gain from using them, you need to find another job. People were running PCAnywhere over dialup with a 28.8 modem over a decade ago and had a better experience than what you are describing. There are companies that have a large part of their desktops are virtualized and they are working fine, mant more companies are using them strickly for a remote solution and still have real desktops at desks considering moving all the way to virtual desktops. Really, they are.
  Just for idea of where this technology is going, look at Citrix Xenapp and XenDesktop and storage devices like Tintri (one I am familar with but there are others in this market that do the same thing). Desktop virtualization is not something that just came about this month, this year, or even two to three years ago and it's not just another industry buzzword.
  Your comment about not being able to manage remote desktop pools is comical.
9. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 17:34 · Score: 0
  
  PCoIP at 190ms is quite respectable, provided you have adequate bandwidth and no devilish appliance/router queuing up your packets to something like 600ms or more...
  Just don't play video games on it ;)
10. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  If you're a CIO and want reduce IT footprint and IT Spend while at the same time pissing off every single one of your existing end users, this is a fantastic way to accomplish just that. After all you can view each users VM as a construct of OS, apps and storage and it's easy enough to abstract and version the OS and apps for thousands of virtual machines. The storage is the hard part but still abstractable down to the point you hit a button and the OS or Apps restore themselves in minutes.
  My previous employer moved over to citrix zenapp for ALL Their apps. They have 3 environments; the hub sites on a dual OC192 fiber ring, the spoke sites on legacy copper hooked to the hub sites, and thousands of mobile employee's on laptops with always-on air-cards.
  For the hub sites it's great, but that's only half of the userbase. For those at the spoke sites it's between slow and murder and is tantamount to shifting cost to department heads to force them to upgrade existing legacy copper or deploy fiber and they are already being charged per head. For the aircards, heh, they have apps that are designed to sip throughput; introduce remoteapp for an app that gets used for 100's of hours a month and you think the cell charges won't skyrocket?
  If the app is non-trivial and part of the core business, no business is going to run it on a 3rd parties system using a license for said 3rd parties software. They will seek alternatives. If it is trivial, e.g. backups or email or some other service that doesn't host a lot of company data; then it's possible it makes sense but you've got to do it by a use-by-use case. I think it's kinda stupid considering the cost of all the enterprise grade hardware involved.
  This fix-all panacea supposedly lets you fire a whole lot of your IT Staff. My Previous employer had all their IT Staff outsourced via a shitty 3rd party provider who paid peanuts with no benefits to the majority of the staff and, at one point, was hiring anyone they could get off the street. Then they in-sourced while paying them the same shitty rates so instead of being a sub-sub-sub contractor now we're just a subcontractor. During the transition the majority of the staff lost a couple of paychecks because they decided to burn the bridge and not pay in full, and at the end of the chain the sub-sub-sub contractor declared bankruptcy. Those missing paychecks were the last straw for those hired on as company employee's and those left as mere subcontractors with shit pay and benefits; the market is good, and demand is very high for good people. They didn't want to tell those who they were letting go months in advance they're doomed, so they played coy to the point everyone thought they were all being let go and this caused practically everyone to test the waters and find out the market is good. Their best and brightest are gone. This is a company that engages dozens of headhunting firms to find the very best of the best and who they are hiring are absolute shit people who are either leaving, quitting, or fucking up enough to be fired because nobody is going to wait on your for 6 months to get back to them about a job, then quit the job they found to go work for you after (and I mean literally here folks) 6 interviews. The people who have left are gone; the current management staff has gone out of it's way to burn bridges.
  10,000 PC's and in the last year the internet has been down several days company-wide, apps are down for days at a time, data gets lost now and again. end users are down for days at a time. It's a mess.
11. Re:so unbelievably stupid by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-11-13 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  So how is that some super graphics intensive shit like Call Of Duty can have sub 50ms latencies every damn day but a fucking word processor is causing you 300ms lag?
  Sounds to me like somebody needs to put your baby boomer ass out to pasture, gramps, cuz you're obviously out of touch.
  Because it renders locally and only has to tell the game engine the vectors that the players and bullets are moving as all of the maps and other data is available at the clients locally.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
12. Re:so unbelievably stupid by serviscope_minor · 2013-11-13 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies
  So, firstly you'll be asked to reboot Windows, then your router. Then you'll be directed to the ISP's test website. Once it appears you are connected and get web pages, they'll try to hang up. If you persist past that stage, they'll probably disconnect the call at some point forcing you to restart from scratch.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
13. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Antique+Geekmeister · 2013-11-14 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because you, and your overpriced set of AD admins, will be spending all your time every day tweaking and overriding those settings. Most developers and systems people I know will revolt, actively or passively, against the necessary web of policies necessary to lock down Windows servers in large environments. They can, and will circulate, workarounds to get past IT's top down policies in such environments.
  Desktops sitting around locally do provide large control over VLAN based security, firewalls, proxies, and the AD account management itself. Similar resistance happens when any new email system, network storage, backup, or authentication system is brought into play.
14. Re:so unbelievably stupid by slashmydots · 2013-11-14 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? We use RDP across our gigabit LAN and it's too slow.
15. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-14 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies
  So, firstly you'll be asked to reboot Windows, then your router. Then you'll be directed to the ISP's test website. Once it appears you are connected and get web pages, they'll try to hang up. If you persist past that stage, they'll probably disconnect the call at some point forcing you to restart from scratch.
  Sounds like you have the wrong ISP -- this is a good time to plug my favorite ISP -- Sonic.net. When you call tech support, you get to talk to a real support engineer, not a low paid customer service rep that only knows how to follow a script. When you tell him that you've already rebooted your border gateway and still see high latency and packet loss, he knows what you mean and doesn't have to page through his script to find out how to reply to a customer when he says "packet loss" and when you read the IP addresses from a traceroute, he recognizes all of their router IP's. Oh, and they aren't confused or surprised when you say you're running Linux and tell you that they only support Windows.
16. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  Or go to a web page with a Flash ad on it. At work, our companies web page now takes over 3Mbps continuously over RDP because of a small Flash ad that was added to the footer. The percentage of traffic that is RDP went from less than 5% to over 60% after that. Of course, I can't get management to remove the abusive Flash.
17. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  > to plug my favorite ISP -- Sonic.net
  They only offer service in a tiny portion of California. Why recommend a little company like that to an international audience?
  The GP mentioned they were in Seattle. When I lived there, the city granted a monopoly to Comcast, but Comcast doesn't offer Internet access to much of the city. I was stuck with 1.5 Mbps DSL from Qwest. Using SSH over Qwest with the 250 ms ping to Level 3 was so annoying that I often went back to dial-up for the lower latency. To be fair, the consistency and reliability with Qwest was amazing. In four years, it only went down once , and I was able to get the full 1.5 Mbps from just about everywhere. I currently have Comcast, and while I love the higher speed, I miss having a reliable connection. I've had to give-up on online gaming because the connection goes down so many times per day.
18. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  > You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies
  Very funny. I mentioned Seattle so that should clue you in that because this is a liberal shithole, there are no choices and no competition. CenturyLink is the only company that offers access faster than dial-up on my block. Their second level support doesn't even know what the words latency or traceroute mean. There are several other ISPs trying to service my block, but the anti-business mayor is fighting them with everything he has. The mayor elect is pro-Comcast monopoly so he is going to be even worse. He has already publicly stated that he doesn't think the city should enforce service level or coverage minimums so expect Comcast to, as hard as it is to believe, get even worse. They'll probably drop even more unprofitable blocks in the city and further reduce their bandwidth.
19. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-14 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  > to plug my favorite ISP -- Sonic.net
  They only offer service in a tiny portion of California. Why recommend a little company like that to an international audience?
  They cover nearly all of California's 40 million customers. There are probably one or two people in Sonic.net's service area that read Slashdot.
  http://www.sonic.net/sales/maps/broadband/dsl-map.gif
  
  The GP mentioned they were in Seattle. When I lived there, the city granted a monopoly to Comcast, but Comcast doesn't offer Internet access to much of the city. I was stuck with 1.5 Mbps DSL from Qwest. Using SSH over Qwest with the 250 ms ping to Level 3 was so annoying that I often went back to dial-up for the lower latency. To be fair, the consistency and reliability with Qwest was amazing. In four years, it only went down once , and I was able to get the full 1.5 Mbps from just about everywhere. I currently have Comcast, and while I love the higher speed, I miss having a reliable connection. I've had to give-up on online gaming because the connection goes down so many times per day.
  So complain to your city representatives - tell them that you're tired of them granting a franchise license to a provider that provides substandard service. And tell them to encourage projects like Gigabit Seattle to bring better internet service to the area.
  But don't blame Amazon for poor network latency to their datacenters, when it's the fault of the local ISP.
20. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  > But don't blame Amazon for poor network latency to their datacenters,
  I didn't, dumb ass.
21. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  > But don't blame Amazon for poor network latency to their datacenters
  No one ever said it was. Go take your irrational hatred of Amazon elsewhere. They are a good company and the best cloud company in the world. Trying to build a strawman of your hatred of them to knock down is pitiful.
  > when it's the fault of the local ISP.
  And several posters were bitching about Qwest, CenturyLink, and Comcast. How in your world of stupid is that blaming Amazon? Just because you hate them doesn't mean that every single negative statement is about them. Most people here do not agree with your position.
  You should feel bad for your pitiful attempt at Amazon trolling. You have so much trouble with reality that you should seek professional help.
22. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-14 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  > But don't blame Amazon for poor network latency to their datacenters
  No one ever said it was. Go take your irrational hatred of Amazon elsewhere. They are a good company and the best cloud company in the world. Trying to build a strawman of your hatred of them to knock down is pitiful.
  > when it's the fault of the local ISP.
  And several posters were bitching about Qwest, CenturyLink, and Comcast. How in your world of stupid is that blaming Amazon? Just because you hate them doesn't mean that every single negative statement is about them. Most people here do not agree with your position.
  You should feel bad for your pitiful attempt at Amazon trolling. You have so much trouble with reality that you should seek professional help.
  Umm...I thought I was being an Amazon fanboi by pointing out that poor network latency is the fault of the user's ISP, not Amazon. Was I accidentally hating on them instead?
23. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-14 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  > You ought to talk to your ISP about the high latencies
  Very funny. I mentioned Seattle so that should clue you in that because this is a liberal shithole, there are no choices and no competition. CenturyLink is the only company that offers access faster than dial-up on my block. Their second level support doesn't even know what the words latency or traceroute mean. There are several other ISPs trying to service my block, but the anti-business mayor is fighting them with everything he has. The mayor elect is pro-Comcast monopoly so he is going to be even worse. He has already publicly stated that he doesn't think the city should enforce service level or coverage minimums so expect Comcast to, as hard as it is to believe, get even worse. They'll probably drop even more unprofitable blocks in the city and further reduce their bandwidth.
  In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
  Sounds like you and your other downtrodden citizens didn't spend enough time and money supporting your internet-friendly candidates - the election was just a few weeks ago, what did you do to promote and support your interests? Perhaps good internet just isn't that important to your fellow citizens, maybe it's time to move to someplace more aligned with your values. Or maybe it's just not that important to you and you just want to whine on Slashdot about it.
24. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-14 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Because you, and your overpriced set of AD admins, will be spending all your time every day tweaking and overriding those settings. Most developers and systems people I know will revolt, actively or passively, against the necessary web of policies necessary to lock down Windows servers in large environments. They can, and will circulate, workarounds to get past IT's top down policies in such environments.
  So if you can't use AD to lock down your computers, how do you do it? If you start terminating people for intentionally violating security policy, the compliance rate goes way up. If your policies aren't important enough to require people to follow them, maybe they aren't necessary after all. Many corporations have regulatory or industry requirements that mandate a good security policy, and a violation (think HIPAA, SOX, PCI) that results in unapproved information disclosure can result in fines or even criminal liability. Yes, security can get in the way of doing work, but so can a $2M fine for not protecting patient data.
  
  Desktops sitting around locally do provide large control over VLAN based security, firewalls, proxies, and the AD account management itself. Similar resistance happens when any new email system, network storage, backup, or authentication system is brought into play.
  A VLAN locks down a computer? I thought that was network security, like Amazon's Security Policies.
  Firewalls? Proxies? Use your VPC to route your traffic through your firewall, Amazon doesn't care how you want to route your traffic. If it's a software based firewall you can run it in their cloud, if hardware based, host it at your office and use your VPN or Amazon Direct Connect connection to route the traffic through your facility.
  I still don't see how a local desktop is any easier to secure than a remote desktop. Except that the virtual desktop has better physical security from your end users.
25. Re:so unbelievably stupid by ApplePy · 2013-11-14 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  When you call tech support, you get to talk to a real support engineer, not a low paid customer service rep that only knows how to follow a script. When you tell him that you've already rebooted your border gateway and still see high latency and packet loss, he knows what you mean
  Yeah, but for how long? I used to have that level of service with Comcast some years ago. They had a local call center with real engineers, and if Tier 1 didn't understand your question, they'd push you up to Tier 2 without a hassle. Even some of the Tier 1 people knew what ARP tables were and how DNS problems could screw up your service. Everyone was a native English speaker. I knew people who worked there. It was great!
  Now they have a call center gods-know-where staffed by script-readers who do not understand the phrase "Tier 2" in English but have "thank you for that information" down pat, and the only two answers to any issue are "we'll schedule you a technician" or "wait in line for 2 fucking hours at the Xfinity store to get a new modem."
  I'd switch to a different ISP if there were a better one in town, but sadly, there isn't. CenturyLink is even worse.
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
26. Re:so unbelievably stupid by hawguy · 2013-11-14 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  When you call tech support, you get to talk to a real support engineer, not a low paid customer service rep that only knows how to follow a script. When you tell him that you've already rebooted your border gateway and still see high latency and packet loss, he knows what you mean
  Yeah, but for how long?
  
  They've only been in business since 1994, so not even 20 years yet. That pales in comparison to AT&T/Bell's 100+ year history, but I think as long as their CEO and founder is in charge, they'll continue to provide great service. Of course, they are the little guy so they have to work harder. It remains to be see what happens if they become a dominant player, and while I'd like to see what happpens, I think there's little chance of them unseating the established telco and cable companies. Google has a better chance of that due to nearly unlimited funding.
27. Re:so unbelievably stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  > didn't spend enough time and money supporting your internet-friendly candidates
  We did, and the Comcast guy still won. Expect several more years of no competition and no additional choices here.
  I know most people here aren't very pro-Internet (lots of Microsoft employees), but it's sad to see the city so crippled wrt the Internet. There's a reason all of the good Internet-related start-ups are coming from places like the bay area or Austin.
Serious question... by ewhenn · 2013-11-13 16:34 · Score: 1

I don't see how this is a benefit. So you need a desktop to run RDP to connect to virtualized desktop? Since you have to buy a PC for the user to physically sit in front of anyways, why not just run everything on that desktop to begin with? The only real benefit I can see is saving time "re-imaging" the base machine when the end user surfs to www.virus-and-malware-website.com, and frankly the I can't see that overcoming the cost of renting/owning hardware to provide virtual desktops. In terms of data security and portability, I have a laptop with a docking station at the office and the HD is encrypted with PGP, the key is required at boot.
1. Re:Serious question... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  The benefit is that the end user might be on their own desktop today, be at their mother's house tomorrow (redundant, I know), be on their tablet over the weekend, and on a public kiosk at the airport. From every varying endpoint they can hit the same remote PC configured the same way with their data and apps just as they left them.
2. Re:Serious question... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  and tell us gain why that "same remote PC configured the same way with their data and apps" can't be the one that was already purchased at the office?
  Why are so many so easily duped into renting hardware that they likely already own?
  Fucking idiots.
  We setup private clouds for small businesses with up to 50 (sometimes even more, depending on the load) users and 3-5 locations. The hardware cost to have a redundant server (separate backup) capable of shelling out remote desktops, along with a nice firewall and vpn (plus we throw in an enterprise class wireless router for free) is around $4000 - $5000.
  I realize these are small setups, but the performance is quite acceptable and clients remain in control of their data and security. I think the cost of cloud service is insanely high in the case of Amazon here. Sure, you get to have your data replicated over and over on god-knows-what server in god-knows-what facility on god-knows-what country's soil, guarded 24/7 by god-knows-who....
  A single core desktop with 50GB of storage comes cheap folks. $420 (one year @ $35) buys a quad core with 8GB ram and a 500GB drive. If you split that into three or four virtual machines, you have not only created vms that are realistically comparable to what Amazon is offering, but you've also cut the bill in half.
  Am I way off base here? I'm open to criticism.
Virtualised garden. by iiiears · 2013-11-13 16:43 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't you download an easy to use self configuring (platform agnostic) entertainment and shopping framework?
Earn points for your next Amazon purchase today!
Be part of the Amazon community and share your bandwidth to deliver content.
Apple and or Microsoft VMs must be uninstalled.
Linux support comming soon..... (cough)

--
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
Starting small? by greggster · 2013-11-13 18:14 · Score: 1

Yeah sure.. small like "we only sell books" and "provide some online storage and compute". Citrix should be afraid.
VDI has a few good cases.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:44 · Score: 0

While I don't really like Amazon for its costs (and the way it incorrectly passes its self off as being cheap, but really isn't once you reach a certain size) , VDI itself does have a few good use cases. The main one being Bring Your Own Device. If you have external contractors or temp workers who will be using their own devices, mandating that they use a VDI solution means that you can give them the tools they need, and at least have a better chance of them not running off with your data (especially if you lock down file transfers, web browsers, email, etc) - and of course have that air tight NDA/Contract handy.
I don't think VDI is good as a standard desktop replacement for your internal employees though, unless you use a solution with low cost devices running Linux for their clients - and even then you should properly qualify the end user (like Engineering is generally a bad choice!)
Thanks!
S.
If it is an American SAAS.. by Fettnabb · 2013-11-13 19:40 · Score: 1

Then I would trust it as far as I can throw the NSA headquarters.
Hosted in the US? No chance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 22:41 · Score: 0

Yeah lets upload all our corporate secrets to a US company, what could go wrong with that.
C-level executives are planning bigger bonuses! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 00:29 · Score: 0

Sure, thin clients has been tried before, but Amazon has plugged into the zeitgeist and offered executives what they want - Desktop as a service. I think executives are already planning who to fire (system administrators, network techs, etc) and calculating their 2014 bonuses. What's going to make this different from the past is that the knee-jerk reaction of executives today is to fire people and outsource. In the past, thin clients have failed - but not anymore. Executives will see desktop as a service + disposable client computers (which don't need repairs) = fire more people, and go for it. It's like the perfect storm. Netbook-size computers are basically disposable now. No repairable parts, and they're held together by glue. If they break, you don't fix them, you order a new one. If you have a desktop image in the cloud, you don't need anyone to install or configure software. This is a greedy executive's wet dream. The only thing that could possibly be better is if Azure offered this, because executives prefer to outsource to Microsoft - giving money to another company somehow seems wrong to them. If MS had offered an end-to-end service with Azure and Surface, they'd be printing their own money right now. Just goes to show how out of touch MS is.
I hope this improves Citrix for Mac by bjb · 2013-11-14 01:35 · Score: 1

I know that this isn't quite the same as what Citrix does with its Xen Desktop and Receiver bits, but for those who do remote access to work with a Citrix product and do this with a Mac, I'm a bit frustrated that the Mac client is always a step behind.
Specifically, the Windows client now has USB routing and HDX features and this seems to be absent from their Mac client offerings. With a lot of organizations using IP conferencing (read: Lync), this is becoming a bit of a problem.

--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
1. Re:I hope this improves Citrix for Mac by cephus440 · 2013-11-14 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  HA! You only say that because you have a Mac! Wait... did I just post that not as an Anonymous Coward?
I have Xubuntu destop running on an EC2 by 16Chapel · 2013-11-15 04:30 · Score: 1

For the last year or so I've been using an Amazon EC2 small server, running Xubuntu Desktop (and accessed via NoMachine remote desktop) as my main development environment. I'm a LAMP developer who works at home a fair bit, and since I already had the EC2 server running a couple of client sites I decided to try and get remote desktop access to it, as described here:

http://aws-musings.com/4-easy-steps-to-enable-remote-desktop-on-your-ubuntu-ec2-instance/
(ps - see step 6 here also: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FreeNX or the 'sudo /usr/lib/nx/nxsetup --install' command won't work )

Why bother?

Well, I needed a static IP address to access certain things for work (private, ip-locked rss feeds for example). I had got around that previously by dialing in via GoToMyPC to my office Windows PC (where we have a static IP). The main problem there was it could be a bit laggy (especially when our office connection was being hogged by outgoing offsite backups), especially for some reason when I was using my virtual linux environment (running on VirtualBox).

It works really well - I have nice and reliable (linux) desktop environment that I can get access to from any of my machines, with the added bonus that I can demo things straight from my 'local' dev envirnoment as it's actually on the web.