Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:24:55 -0400 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <hornback@wireco.net> To: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> Cc: "FreeBSD Questions" <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <006c01c0c204$b0414860$0e00000a@tomcat> 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: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Duke = Normandin > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:34 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: FreeBSD > Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. =20 =20 > > But, before we forget, there's one other type of system: > >=20 > > standalone: A host that is intended and generally uses services = that it > > provides itself, and where network connectivity is not=20 > particularly critical > > to it's operation. >=20 > 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=20 > rule of thumb > > is that if you can pull the network connection out of it and not = notice, > > it's probably a standalone. >=20 > 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. --- Andy 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?006c01c0c204$b0414860$0e00000a>