LTSP vs. Win Terminal Server vs. Citrix

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 02:07, Alan Dayley wrote:
> I need someone with some real world experience to shed some light on this.  It's funny how hard it is to find real data on how proprietary systems work and what they really cost.  No body wants to publish anything unless you wave $$ at them.  Citrix has their price sheet right there on the web but the combinations of licensing programs and product capabilities are confusing.  You would have to go get the sales pitch before you could ever understand what it really all means.  I gues that is the point: Obfuscate the data so the prospect has to subject themselves to the hard sell.
> 
> Oops, that turned into a rant.  Sorry.  I'll now fire some bullets to stay on topic.
> 
> 1 - Boundaries: I know the Freedom and Open arguments.  LTSP wins on this alone, as far as I am concerned.  I don't want to start a discussion on that.  I know many PLUG'ers work or have worked with these proprietary systems.  I want to tap their practical experience here.  License costs are also not up for debate since there is no argument.  Zero license cost is less than non-zero.
> 2 - Citrix runs on Windows Terminal Server to support thin clients.  What additional features does Citrix bring for the additional cost over a pure Terminal Server solution?
> 3 - What relative horsepower is needed at the server to achieve similar performance at the client?  I assume Citrix takes more than Terminal Server which is more than LTSP.
> 4 - I have some idea from reading and hearing what the maintainance effort of LTSP is.  How does the other two compare?
> 5 - We are talking about a system of about 15 - 20 thin clients, all PCs. Is Citrix overkill for that?
> 
> The goal here is for me to gain a knowledge base to talk from to my higher-ups as they are talking more and more about thin clients.  Just saying "Linux is great" does not cut the mustard.  I still am working to overcome the "everyone else uses [insert proprietary office software and format here] so we have to" argument.  That stand leads to "Linux can't run [proprietary software and formats] so we need a MS based solution" that cannot be defeated by shouts of "Freedom!"  (Sad but true.)
> 
> Thanks for reading.  More thanks if your can respond with some meat.  I'll keep googling for data too.
> 
> Alan
> 
> PS A funny aside: I discussed OpenOffice today and was told "I don't think it is compatible enough yet."  I went to the Citrix web site and downloaded their license prices that they publish as an MS Excel spreadsheet file.  I loaded it in OpenOffice Calc and printed it perfectly, unretouched.  I have created a cover sheet for the document pointing this success out to the skeptic.
------
Here's my one and half cents worth...

Windows Terminal Server is a somewhat incomplete package of a thin
client system and Citrix completes the setup. Citrix smooths out the
wrinkles and makes the system redirects (printers, serial devices, drive
assignments) work properly. In addition, Citrix provides a client for
virtually all desktop OS's whereas Microsoft Terminal Server has a
client only for computer already running Windows. Lastly, Citrix
provides a very sophisticated data compression enabling the thin client
to have acceptable performance on low bandwidth connections (dial up).
Citrix isn't overkill and it is scaled to be most effective (costwise)
for 20 users.

I think a comparison of Linux to Windows is about the philosophical
discussion. I would have a hard time convincing myself that running Wine
or Cross whatever it is so that I could use Windows applications is
worthwhile. The philosophical point is that with Windows, one is willing
to accept the notion of paying an amount of money to buy software which
we know going in, will have only a short life and the acceptance that it
will require continual 'repurchase'. I believed in the system until I
saw the phenomenal offerings of open source/free software and have faith
that it only gets better.

I would suppose the concept of whether Linux cuts the mustard depends
upon the hotdog and bun. If you think that you need the latest /
greatest everything and feature glut then Windows would have to be the
better solution. I would submit that I know less than 5 computer users
that could ever make use of features within Word/Excel/PowerPoint that
aren't currently supported in OpenOffice. BTW...OpenOffice has macro's
too. Linux is certainly ready and fully capable of being the only OS in
an office environment...there are businesses, government offices etc.
that are already proving that. Lastly, simply paying for software
doesn't guarantee that it is not without problems or bugs. It probably
only guarantees that the company will be around to 'rent' you an updated
version of their buggy program. What I am seeing now as prevalent in the
software industry, is a notion that 'they have fixed that problem' but
only in the new version and it is $ xxxx.xx to upgrade.

Craig