Brian,
all that talk of "design flaw', "bug" etc. .. when you get that from a
customer, things to include in your response .. #1 remind them they
were created by 2 different companies as fine, independent and
completely standalone products in their own right; #2 you can get what
you want by deploying in the manner I suggested.
As an aside, making SGD support/speak additional protocols out the
backend (between SGD and the app server) is a great design. Now we just
need SGD to support ALP as an application server protocol the same as
it does RDP and X11 and we'll be in great shape :)
Curtis.
Brian Knoblauch wrote:
I've had customers who were concerned they couldn't "move" their Sun
Ray session and access it from a different client using SGD. Some went
so far as to call this a bug!
While it may not be a true "bug", since the software was never meant to
do that, it's definitely a bug in the eyes of the user. From an
end-user standpoint, I agree. It's a serious system design oversight
when looked at that way. Of course, due to knowing the history of
Tarantella (I experimented with it way back when SCO was selling it) I
understand exactly why it is that way. Still annoys me though... :-)
1. CAVEAT - only really a viable option for larger deployments..
if you've only a handful of users you might not have budget
for all these distinct layers. Some very small deployments
indeed could have Sun Ray, SGD and the application server all
as the same box. Good luck with that :)
That's our situation right there... :-) They can only afford a single
box and it's got to run *everything*!
|
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
