Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:06:06 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: "Andrew C. Hornback" <hornback@wireco.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010410210605.G206595@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <006c01c0c204$b0414860$0e00000a@tomcat>; from "Andrew C. Hornback" on Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 05:24:55PM References: <20010410113403.C206595@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> <006c01c0c204$b0414860$0e00000a@tomcat>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Andrew C. Hornback wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:46:39AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > Desktop: That which is primary purpose is to serve as a user interface > > > between the human and the services provided by servers on the network. > > > > So the "dumb terminal" hung on a DEC mainframe that I use to have in my > > office would then fall into this category? Is it then accurate to say that > > the terms "workstation" and "client" also fall into this category in a > > distributed processing model? > > I think the proper terms anymore would be Clients and Servers, at > least that's how I see things. > > But, yes, your Dumb Terminal would be in the Client class, while the > DEC 'frame would be in the Server class. Workstations, basically, > would be nothing more than servers with the high performance > alternative to Desktop peripherals. > > > > But, before we forget, there's one other type of system: > > > > > > standalone: A host that is intended and generally uses services that it > > > provides itself, and where network connectivity is not > > particularly critical > > > to it's operation. > > > > So a "standalone" can behave as both a server *and* a client/desktop/WS? > > It would have to be. Otherwise, it couldn't stand alone. It would > act as it's own application and file server, at the most basest of > levels. > > > > What's confusing is that many people have taken the word desktop used it > > > when they are talking about a consumer standalone system. One rule > > > of thumb is that if you can pull the network connection out of it > > > and not notice, it's probably a standalone. > > > > I think that I've made that very mistake, but with a twist. The > > server/client or server/work-station distinction were/are clear to me for > > the most part. However, for some reason, I interpreted a "desktop" > > machine as one running X-Windows and used as what you describe as a > > desktop above. I guess that it hadn't sunk in that your "desktop" > > machine could very well be running only console apps. The previous > > discussions on this thread are now fitting into place a bit better, ;) > > If you really have to split hairs and make a differentiation between > desktops and workstations, I'd say the quality of the hardware and > the applications used. Workstations are generally used for more > higher end applications, not just your basic word processing, spread > sheet/number crunching sort of thing. Workstations of the past > generally had better graphics systems when they were used for > modelling, etc. and better sound systems when they were used for > music/signal analysis/etc. It was never my intention to split hairs about anything. I simply needed clarification with the terminology. I now understand that a workstation is simply a "super" desktop. The question was asked as to what the definition of a desktop was. I simply wanted to know how the term workstation fitted into the scheme of things. Thanks for clearing that up, bud. -- -duke Calgary, Alberta, Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010410210605.G206595>