1 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM, lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
4 |
>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
5 |
>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 7:26 PM, lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
7 |
>>>> |
8 |
>>>>> However, while an RDP-like solution protects you from some types of |
9 |
>>>>> attacks, it still leaves you open to many client-side problems like |
10 |
>>>>> keylogging. I don't know any major corporation that lets people RDP |
11 |
>>>>> into their applications in general. |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>> What do they use instead? |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> As I mentioned in my previous email - they just hand all their |
17 |
>>> employees laptops. Control the hardware, control the software, |
18 |
>>> control the security... |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> I mean instead of rdp. It's a simple solution which works really well |
21 |
>> on a LAN with Windoze. What's the equivalent that works with Linux? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Well, I've never been in a company that runs Linux on the desktop, or |
24 |
> which even provides VDIs for Windows. |
25 |
|
26 |
I'm doing that at work, and nothing speaks against doing it on the |
27 |
thin-clients other than that the users would need to get used to it and |
28 |
the poor graphics performance --- you can't really call that |
29 |
"performance" --- of thin clients. Other than that, we'd be much better |
30 |
off. |
31 |
|
32 |
What we would need are cheap thin clients that can drive at least two 4k |
33 |
displays each, and there are none that could even drive one. I don't |
34 |
understand why they make thin-clients that aren't usable because their |
35 |
graphics "performance" is from the '90ies. |
36 |
|
37 |
> The most common solution is to provide windows laptops to users with |
38 |
> various software packages for management/security/etc. |
39 |
|
40 |
Laptops have slightly better graphics and add a maintenance overhead |
41 |
thin-clients don't have, and they cost more. Other than that, they |
42 |
could replace the thin-clients, and nothing speaks against putting |
43 |
Gentoo onto them. |
44 |
|
45 |
Desktop machines require too much electricity. That's another thing I |
46 |
don't understand: Why can't they finally manufacture hardware which is |
47 |
really power efficient /and/ provides decent performance? |
48 |
|
49 |
> The closest thing to RDP for Linux that I'm aware of us various |
50 |
> NX-based implementations, like x2go, which I've mentioned a few times. |
51 |
> It can be somewhat finicky. And of course there is VNC, which is much |
52 |
> less efficient. I don't think either really gets to the level of RDP |
53 |
> in general. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> I do sometimes wonder how the #1 server OS in the world somehow lacks |
56 |
> decent facilities for graphical remote login, and for sharing files |
57 |
> across the network. (For the latter NFS is a real pain to set up in a |
58 |
> remotely secure fashion - part of the problem is that it is hard to |
59 |
> use some kind of a UUID to drive file permissions, and kerberos/etc is |
60 |
> a pain to set up. There is certainly nothing approaching the ease of |
61 |
> just setting a password on a share or connecting to a windows domain |
62 |
> (even a samba-driven one)). |
63 |
|
64 |
Indeed, it's really strange that there's such a big lack. |