Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:49:49 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> Cc: "FreeBSD" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <000201c0c242$d71ff600$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010410113403.C206595@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: Duke Normandin [mailto:01031149@3web.net] > >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? > Well, workstation is usually used as a _hardware_ term, while client is more generic - ie: a client can be a software program, a entity like a host (which is a combination of hardware and software) or just the hardware. I try to avoid use of the terms Client/Server when discussing hardware, because I view them more as software programs. any dumb terminal has cursor control, so in part it is contributing to the distributed processing model, although in a very limited way. >> >> 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. When dealing with X it gets very difficult to clearly discuss because from most people's point of view, X flipped the terms - they say client when most people think server, and vis-versa. However, if you get into the X protocol, your correct in that a desktop machine runs X windows (actually the X server portion of X windows) and that a server runs the actual X clients. Thus, the desktop _is_ using server resources. In a purely UNIX shop, I'd expect that the desktops would indeed be running X Servers, and that the server systems would be running X client programs. In a purely Windows shop, I'd expect the desktops to be running user interface application programs, while the server systems ran back-end processing like SQL, file serving, mail, etc. In both shops, the desktops are primarily concerned with user interface code, while the servers are doing the real work. >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, ;) In the UNIX way, the presentation apps are programs like window managers, web browsers, etc. In the Windows way, the presentation apps are programs like wordprocessors, spreadsheets, etc. In the Windows method, slightly more processing is moved from the server to the desktop, but really, it's insignificant when you consider how much of the Windows OS is concerned with UI junk like dancing paper clips. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com 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?000201c0c242$d71ff600$1401a8c0>