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 would not like.
That is, if it is implemented as a per Sunray connection.
It might be acceptable if it is implemented per connected user.
The basic idea is to put sunrays everywhere.
This is possible because you don't have any administration and they last
very long.
The user connections are expensive. They require server resources and
support.
So an ISP would charge per user and not per sunray.
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.
Ivar
Craig Bender wrote:
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 (cheap), and other X Server products.
I would not pay a Sun Ray price for a Soft Ray client. Sun would
have two marketable advantages over these other offerings: single
admin for Sun Rays and Soft Rays and professional/commercial support.
>If Sun Ray changed it's licensing that it was per connection (i.e.
like Citrix), how would you feel about that?
Actually I am still a little miffed about a Sun Ray client license
fee at all. Would you pay Texas Instruments for a fancy graphing
calculator and then pay an additional surcharge to actually use
it?!? "Never ask your customers to do something that you wouldn't."
(Guy Kawasaki, _Rules_for_Revolutionaries_) Charge the Sun Ray
server license per CPU and skip both user and connection licensing.
Make it easier on all of us. :^)
-jerry
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 you feel about that?
Jerry Callison wrote:
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 Linksys runs dnsmasq which supports the
DHCP options needed by the Sun Rays:
# dnsmasq.conf
# Increase the default time-to-live; see
http://www.cse.nd.edu/~striegel/HowTo/WANRay.html
dhcp-option=23,25
# X windows server
dhcp-option=49,<ip_address>
# TFTP server
dhcp-option=66,<ip_address>
Even with this setup working, however, I am still a big advocate
for having the ability to configure these settings in firmware.
DHCP configuration is a great solution for many situations, but
fails miserably when you do not own or control the network in which
the Sun Ray clients are deployed.
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 transitional step.
-jerry
Craig Bender wrote:
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 to offer you a way to set this via the
firmware. If you've ever seen a Tadpole Sun Ray, it would be like
that.
Derek Konigsberg wrote:
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 network, and serves the right
DHCP parameters to the Sun Ray"
(which makes me wonder if there is an equally portable cheaper
option for those of us that got cheap SunRays off eBay and want
tinker-setups to take on-the-go, without having to build a whole
mini-PC running OpenBSD/Linux/etc. and the relevant VPN/DHCP
software)
-Derek
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
