[AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!"(was Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])

Thu Aug 12 14:10:22 EST 2010

Citrix predated Windows Terminal Services with the release of WinFrame (which was a heavily modified instance of Windows NT Server 3.51).

It wasn't a "band-aid" solution, it was the answer to a lack of server-based computing solutions on the Microsoft platform. As far as I am aware it predated Propero, Tarentella etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Pinkerton, Eric
Sent: Thu 8/12/2010 2:02 PM
To: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!"(was	Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])

Let's not overlook the fact that Citrix came about as a band-aid solution for high latency/low bandwidth.

<irony>
Perhaps the gov't would be better spending money on a big Citrix farm!
</irony>
________________________________
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Oskam
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:37 PM
To: Curtis Bayne
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net; Tom Sykes
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])

What if something better than Citrix comes along in 10-20 years time?

Things change. Technology eventually becomes redundant.

Andrew Oskam

E  percy at th3interw3bs.net<mailto:percy at th3interw3bs.net>

NOTICE:

These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates. All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon those statements.

On 12/08/2010, at 10:43 AM, Curtis Bayne wrote:

Beyond 1Mbps and with appropriate latency a Citrix session is indistinguishable from a local host.

There are many regional mining companies with 4Mbps/4Mbps ATM circuits from Telstra with 100-400 thin clients hanging off the end who have great success.

A 1.5Mbps DSL circuit is perfectly suitable for teleworking.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Hood [mailto:dsmhood at gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 8/12/2010 10:11 AM
To: Curtis Bayne
Cc: Andrew Oskam; Tom Sykes; ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])

Fine and at normal speed are two very different things.

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Curtis Bayne <curtis at bayne.com.au<mailto:curtis at bayne.com.au>> wrote:
> Citrix runs perfectly fine under 512Kbps, ensuring latency is less than
> 100ms end-to-end.
>
> I used to do this over VodafoneAU GPRS many moons ago...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> on behalf of Daniel Hood
> Sent: Thu 8/12/2010 9:57 AM
> To: Andrew Oskam
> Cc: Tom Sykes; ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was
> Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])
>
> Yea come on guys.
>
> Botnet providers would only need maybe 10 bots to successfully bring
> down a 100mbit datacenter connection without the bot infected pc
> owners finding out.
>
> Or even better, you could brute force a data center server and have
> the only bottleneck being both end-points processors, no longer the
> slow 6mbit DSL or such.
>
> Think of the positives guys!
>
> But more importantly. I like the fact that I could actually get
> employee's to start working properly from home. E.G, they have a
> netbook loaded up with just a thin client then they have their work
> pc, that they can connect from they're home 100mbit fibre, work
> 100mbit LAN or 42mbit (Telstra's just about got them out) mobile
> internet card. Seriously, when I can have mobile employee's connecting
> to a virtualised pc at work, my life becomes a lot easier.
>
> Also, the other positive is the possibility for people to be able to
> do home / SoHo offsite backups. House fires, floods and other natural
> disasters... Thief... All wouldn't matter as much anymore. Because
> your data would be safe...
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Andrew Oskam <percy at th3interw3bs.net<mailto:percy at th3interw3bs.net>>
> wrote:
>> I also dislike that people either forget or assume that the Internet will
>> be the same in 10 or 20 years.
>>
>> Look how much it's changed in 15.
>>
>> In my own opinion we are are just barely able to cope with the content we
>> have now on the current model.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> -------------
>> Andrew Oskam
>>
>> On 11/08/2010, at 11:46 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at creative.net.au<mailto:adrian at creative.net.au>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010, Anand Kumria wrote:
>>>
>>>>> to 3, that means in the slightly above average case there are 5 people
>>>>> living in a residence. If each of those people wants to conduct a high
>>>>> definition video conference at the same time, that is approximately 5 x
>>>>> 8 Mbps symmetric bandwidth [0], or 40Mbps. That is of course peak
>>>>> bandwidth, and worst case. 3 children is not that common, and I think 5
>>>>> concurrent HD video conferences is even less likely to happen. However,
>>>>> it is a feasible and possible use case.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what is the other 60Mbps for?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever the hell people dream up.
>>>
>>>> I see that close to 30% utilisation across some (others have close to
>>>> 10%)
>>>> of my DSL links is just Internet background radiation.
>>>
>>>> I assume things will be even less predictable when TV providers decide
>>>> to
>>>> 'pre-stream' shows to a bunch of households as well.
>>>
>>> I dislike how people keep focusing on traditional media rather than
>>> wondering
>>> what people could do with it.
>>>
>>> (Besides porn, of course.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100812/c7eb43aa/attachment.html>