That's true. Traditionally though the enterpise customer base has been
been more ethical. Companies that buy e-machine's (or the like)
typically never bought Sun and vice versa. But now that Sun Ray Server
can run on an e-machine with linux, the game is changing. Hopefully the
business team
but you could buy 3rd party clients if you so choose or pickup used
ray's on ebay. granted those 3rd parties still need to purchase the
boards from sun.
if you don't enforce licenses in SRSS you may always be losing revenue.
kind of like being able to use all 0's or 9's as the license key for
Perhaps that you need to buy a Sun Ray?
Darin Perusich wrote:
but there's no license enforcement in the software to begin with so how
is it problematic from a revenue standpoint?
Craig Bender wrote:
It's really the enforcement of the license. Which we don't do
currently which would make som
but there's no license enforcement in the software to begin with so how
is it problematic from a revenue standpoint?
Craig Bender wrote:
It's really the enforcement of the license. Which we don't do currently
which would make something like a soft client problematic from a revenue
standpoint.
It's really the enforcement of the license. Which we don't do currently
which would make something like a soft client problematic from a revenue
standpoint.
David Mackintosh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:41:02PM -0700, Craig Bender wrote:
That's awesome!
I hear you on the softclient. I
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:41:02PM -0700, Craig Bender wrote:
> That's awesome!
> I hear you on the softclient. I'm in your camp. I always try. Two
> questions though (being serious here):
> Would pay for a soft client?
> If Sun Ray changed it's licensing that it was per connection (i.e. like
On Jul 28, 2005, at 14:04, Ivar Janmaat wrote:
You would only want to pay for the client software (altough I like
the opensource idea also)
But illegal copying of client software is hard to prevent.
So I can imagine Sun wants to implement some server side
restrictions to prevent this.
Conn
You are right.
The unlimited license is good for Sunrays everywhere.
Softray clients should not change that on the server side.
You would only want to pay for the client software (altough I like the
opensource idea also)
But illegal copying of client software is hard to prevent.
So I can imagine
On Jul 28, 2005, at 02:58, Ivar Janmaat wrote:
If per connection billing would be used based on the number of
attached DTU, instead of concurrent users, it would go against the
sunray everywhere principle because of the extra license costs per
DTU.
I believe that is why they offer an unl
On Jul 27, 2005, at 20:41, Craig Bender wrote:
That's awesome!
I hear you on the softclient. I'm in your camp. I always try.
Two questions though (being serious here):
Would pay for a soft client?
If Sun Ray changed it's licensing that it was per connection (i.e.
like Citrix), how would
On Jul 27, 2005, at 21:24, Jerry Callison wrote:
>Would pay for a soft client?
Yes, I would pay, and already do for other vendors products. And
their cost is MORE than a sunray client.
Actually I am still a little miffed about a Sun Ray client license
fee at all. Would you pay Texas I
On Jul 27, 2005, at 20:38, Derek Konigsberg wrote:
If Sun released the Soft-Ray, how would they make any money (asside
from SW
licensing, which doesn't appear to be a business focus) off the thing?
Sun will have to adjust for what customers want. The real issue is
there are other companie
Who at Sun should be contacted in order to get some information about
this prototype service?
I am trying to get this information for half a year now but with no luck.
We are setting up this service ourselfs since there seems to be no
display grid service available in Europe.
If we could use Sun
My understanding is that the problem with Sun offering a SunRay software
client is support: As soon as folks try to download and use that client,
not only will they encounter issues with the SunRay client itself, but
also with running that client in the user's environment, e.g., Windows,
etc.
So
First, to the narrow issue of the original question, a softray client
for Sun Solaris/Sparc workstations. It seems to me that whatever the Sun
business model is, they can only make more money selling the workstation
than the Sunray. The fact that we can't move a Sunray session to a Sun
workst
A live CD would make a nice Soft Ray option. Writing the Soft Ray
in Java gives you a lot of good choices, which is convenient, because
the same solutions don't work everywhere. The Soft Ray software
should:
1) Run in a browser, because sometimes rebooting the machine isn't an
option. You might
On Jul 27, 2005 at 20:41 -0700, Craig Bender wrote:
=>That's awesome!
=>I hear you on the softclient. I'm in your camp. I always try. Two questions
=>though (being serious here):
=>Would pay for a soft client?
I would like to see the SunRay server software and JDS (which I believe
includes St
Hello Craig,
We would also pay for a software client.
I would not advice a softray client but in some cases it could be very
useful.
This makes the softray a special feature that can be added to the normal
sunray infrastructure.
Special features can be charged.
The per connection billing I wo
Thanks for the feedback Jerry. I'll pass this on to the folks in marketing.
Jerry Callison wrote:
>Would pay for a soft client?
The short answer is, yes, I would pay for a soft client. Of course, the
value proposition has to play out well. Soft Ray competes against VNC
(free), NoMachine
>Would pay for a soft client?
The short answer is, yes, I would pay for a soft client. Of course, the
value proposition has to play out well. Soft Ray competes against VNC
(free), NoMachine (cheap), and other X Server products. I would not pay
a Sun Ray price for a Soft Ray client. Sun woul
That's awesome!
I hear you on the softclient. I'm in your camp. I always try. Two
questions though (being serious here):
Would pay for a soft client?
If Sun Ray changed it's licensing that it was per connection (i.e. like
Citrix), how would you feel about that?
Jerry Callison wrote:
Count
> Regarding a Soft Ray... almost every potential customer I have talked to
> has inquired about this feature. A Soft Ray introduces many issues
> (e.g., protecting the client OS) and should not be necessary in the long
> run. But for where the market is today, a Soft Ray would be a fabulous
> tra
Count it more than theory. I have put an open source Linux (OpenWRT) on
an inexpensive Linksys device and used it to configure several Sun Rays
for use over a DSL link. It's a little tricky to setup (at one point, I
had to "debrick" the router!), but it works well once configured. The
Linksy
There is a simple remote sunray setup if you register a domain and add
the following entries with your providers DNS:
sunray-servers.yourdomain.net (SRS) and
sunray-config-servers.yourdomain.net (TFTP server)
Buy a cheap $30 router with DHCP server.
Configure the DHCP server to tell the connecte
btw - has anyone run up the Sun Ray s/w on one of the new Ultra 20's.
I'm looking to upgrade my Sun Ray server at home and my other half has
just given me the ok to upgrade from a P3 700 !!
No but I run it from a W2100Z under VMWare Workstation. I can have
multiple SRS's running from one
Setting it via firmware would be a great step forward for home based
solutions.
I've got a sunray (or two) running from a server at home, it would be
great to give my daughter a sunray to have at her mum's (as she has
dsl), but I'm not going to fork out for a whole lot of vpn hardware.
Anyon
We also have many customers, mainly in the .miland .gov that would be greatly disappointed by us releasing a soft client.
I don't understand why. Can you explain further.
While I would love to see a soft ray, there are lots of different ways
to get similar results. I really like NX, but recent e
On Jul 27, 2005, at 12:52, Derek Konigsberg wrote:
Just get a SunRay for home, then. They go for ~$30 on eBay. I
have several at home, love 'em.
Think about this scenario. Your SunRay cluster is behind a firewall.
you use VPN. The sunray hardware doesn't support VPN as well as not
ver
WRT the VPN, it all depends on what your security requirements are.
Some customers are happy with the RC4.
I know the Linksys firmware is open sources. In theory it could he made
to provide the minimum information the SR needs to boot, which would be
to use option 49.
In the future we hope
http://www.sun.com/blueprints/0204/817-5490.pdf
http://www.sun.com/sunray/docs/SunRay_atHome033105.pdf
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ThinGuy?entry=the_importance_of_mtu
In other words...
"We provide users with an expensive Cisco so-ho VPN router, which
establishes a VPN-style link to our ne
http://www.sun.com/blueprints/0204/817-5490.pdf
http://www.sun.com/sunray/docs/SunRay_atHome033105.pdf
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ThinGuy?entry=the_importance_of_mtu
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Jul 27, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Derek Konigsberg wrote:
Just get a SunRay for home, then. They go fo
On Jul 27, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Derek Konigsberg wrote:
Just get a SunRay for home, then. They go for ~$30 on eBay. I have
several at home, love 'em.
While I do have SunRays (both client and server) at home, and love
them, I would be quite interested in tinkering with remote SunRay
units served
Just get a SunRay for home, then. They go for ~$30 on eBay. I have
several at home, love 'em.
While I do have SunRays (both client and server) at home, and love them, I
would be quite interested in tinkering with remote SunRay units served
from a co-located server. Since I have never seen an
On Jul 27, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Matthias Ernst wrote:
What is the problem of having a software client implementation for
government
or military people? One could always configure the server such that it
can
not accept software clients. We would also be very interested in a
software
client - prefe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What is the problem of having a software client implementation for government
or military people? One could always configure the server such that it can
not accept software clients. We would also be very interested in a software
client - preferably usi
I did not say it was a bad idea, I quoted the article that it is not on
the product roadmap. We also have many customers, mainly in the .mil
and .gov that would be greatly disappointed by us releasing a soft client.
Matthew C. Aycock wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:43, Craig Bender wrote:
T
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:43, Craig Bender wrote:
> The key take aways from that article are:
>
> "Soft Ray, at its Sun Labs research arm"
>
> and
>
> "The application is not yet on Sun's product road map, according to O'Neill"
>
>
> The labs create a lot of stuff and only a fraction of it beco
37 matches
Mail list logo
