4 ms·

> "Technology seems to move in circles." VDI, Citrix, et al are less a reaction to how awesome mainframe/terminal architecture is, and more a statement about h

by roc 13y ago

> "Technology seems to move in circles." VDI, Citrix, et al are less a reaction to how awesome mainframe/terminal architecture is, and more a statement about how utterly horrible it is to maintain an enterprise Windows image. It's not unlike the architecturally-similar-situation with web apps exploding in popularity in the mid 2000s. People were primarily responding to how great it was to have "their stuff" anywhere they happened to sit down, and how horrible the native client experience was, on Windows. And we've had a great natural test of that theory, with modern mobile devices: Now that people have their own machine with them, wherever they happen to be, with native client experiences that aren't nearly the hassle that desktop Windows was, web apps are playing second-fiddle. Similarly, this VDI thing is going to run into trouble as enterprise further adopts BYOD and their desktop images are needed by fewer and fewer people.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Similarly, this VDI thing is going to run into trouble as enterprise further adopts BYOD and their desktop images are needed by fewer and fewer people. BYOD is one of the big drivers behind VDI: VDI allows enterprise IT shops a measure of control over the security of enterprise data when the physical hardware being used to interact with the data is less trusted.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Precisely. When VNC (for example) is the only way company secrets ever reach your machine, said machine does not need to be as trusted.
  - roc 13y ago
    As with DRM - you can't make data accessible to an untrusted client and retain any control over how it might be (mis)used. Anyone telling you that you can, is selling something. VDI and VNC might make a certain class of contemporary malicious use/programs less convenient, but malicious code and habits will change far, far faster than enterprise architecture.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Obviously sophisticated screenreading software could extract secrets through VNC, or malware could be entered via keyboard. But the "VNC gap" immediately obviates the risk of unsophisticated attacks. No more viruses spreading over SMB. Rather limited bandwidth (preventing raw copies of The Hobbit in 4k from being ripped via VNC). It isn't bulletproof, but you can't pretend it doesn't help.
- roc 13y ago
  Whether people are adopting VDI as supplemental support for the transition to first-class web/mobile workflow might be interesting during the transition, but the end result is the same. Making BYOD work means building an enterprise that needs far, far fewer Windows desktop "seats" than they do today. VDI has a strong value proposition as a solution for those remaining seats, but that number is going to be very, very small compared to what people deal with today.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  In the long term there are potentially other technological solutions to these issues. Evolutions in sandboxing (broadly construed, everything from what we see with mobile apps up to full virtualization) may give us a point at which an IT department can, for most businesses/purposes, reasonably satisfy itself of the security of the "enterprise apps" running on a non-malicious employee's laptop, without completely taking over the system image.

by roc 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Similarly, this VDI thing is going to run into trouble as enterprise further adopts BYOD and their desktop images are needed by fewer and fewer people. BYOD is one of the big drivers behind VDI: VDI allows enterprise IT shops a measure of control over the security of enterprise data when the physical hardware being used to interact with the data is less trusted.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Precisely. When VNC (for example) is the only way company secrets ever reach your machine, said machine does not need to be as trusted.
- roc 13y ago
  As with DRM - you can't make data accessible to an untrusted client and retain any control over how it might be (mis)used. Anyone telling you that you can, is selling something. VDI and VNC might make a certain class of contemporary malicious use/programs less convenient, but malicious code and habits will change far, far faster than enterprise architecture.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Obviously sophisticated screenreading software could extract secrets through VNC, or malware could be entered via keyboard. But the "VNC gap" immediately obviates the risk of unsophisticated attacks. No more viruses spreading over SMB. Rather limited bandwidth (preventing raw copies of The Hobbit in 4k from being ripped via VNC). It isn't bulletproof, but you can't pretend it doesn't help.
roc 13y ago
Whether people are adopting VDI as supplemental support for the transition to first-class web/mobile workflow might be interesting during the transition, but the end result is the same. Making BYOD work means building an enterprise that needs far, far fewer Windows desktop "seats" than they do today. VDI has a strong value proposition as a solution for those remaining seats, but that number is going to be very, very small compared to what people deal with today.
nknighthb 13y ago
In the long term there are potentially other technological solutions to these issues. Evolutions in sandboxing (broadly construed, everything from what we see with mobile apps up to full virtualization) may give us a point at which an IT department can, for most businesses/purposes, reasonably satisfy itself of the security of the "enterprise apps" running on a non-malicious employee's laptop, without completely taking over the system image.