"Curt Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to the THINC site, another key difference between Sun Ray and > THINC is how the server is implemented. Sun Ray uses a customized X server > while THINC uses a virtual display driver.
As far as I can tell the THINC X server implementation uses basically the same model as the Sun Ray X server implementation. Sun Ray doesn't use "a customized X server" (where is that wording? I don't see it in the paper), it uses a standard X server configured with Sun Ray drivers in place of the more usual drivers that expect to talk to a local frame buffer, mouse and keyboard. My reading of the THINC paper has THINC doing the same thing, it refers (section 5, page 8) to the X server implementation being constructed as "a dynamically loadable module". You might be getting tripped up by a terminology quirk here. None of these are "drivers" in the sense of a "kernel driver", they execute in user space. > The virtual display driver approach is portrayed as a big performance and > maintenance win. Would you care to comment on this approach? It's a fine approach. Sun Ray has been very happy with it. > Also, is there any technical reason this approach couldn't be used for a > Windows version of the Sun Ray Server? I don't know enough about the MS Windows graphics architecture to have an opinion on what might be a good strategy there. OttoM. __ ottomeister Disclaimer: These are my opinions. I do not speak for my employer. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
