SCO Tuning for Services, Ports Tarantella 87
According to a story on Sm@rt reseller, SCO is tuning now to be a service company (not just to Linux but to AIX and other unices), and they are porting (this is unofficial and not confirmed) Tarantella to Linux. Can anyone post details about Tarantella? What is it? How is it compared to Citrix's Metaframe?
Tarantella info (Score:3)
SCO Rocks (Score:1)
Long in coming (Score:2)
J
Oh... now they love Linux? (Score:2)
Remember this story from last September where SCO was bashing Linux? To quote:
The bandwagon is getting a mite crowded...
Re:unofficial news (Score:1)
Tarantella - pretty groovy bit of software (Score:2)
D'oh! (Score:1)
I keep forgetting to hit the damn "HTML format" option. Sigh. Here's that link [slashdot.org].
Re:Oh... now they love Linux? (Score:1)
"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:2)
For example:
Airline terminals (oops, they're using Java)
Remote offices (but probably not telecommuters, bandwidth issues).
I would include Linux users to that list, but the amount of quality software that works with Windows is increasing by the day, so compatability with Windows doesn't matter anymore.
Anyone remember SCO's nice comments about Linux maybe 6 months ago? We don't hold a grudge. Welcome to the party.
Re:unofficial news (Score:1)
I have the unfortunate luck to actually have to admin some OpenServer boxen. Yuck. I can't speak for UnixWare, since it won't install on my test machine at the office, but I hear it really isn't bad (of course, SCO didn't write it, they bought it from Novell...)
I hope to get a reseller/developer freebie of Tarantella for Linux to play with, now that I know this is for real.
I hope SCO services are better than their OS (Score:2)
SCO UNIX might have had it's place in the market 10 years ago, but the steamtrain that we call Linux robbed it of it's right-to-existance many years ago.
After my experiences with the above mentioned SCO UNIX box, I can only hope that their services are better than their software. SCO UNIX felt like a car at the crash derby, with bits and pieces falling off to the left and to the right constantly. In my mind, there's not real justification to their (continued) corporate existance.
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:2)
Re:Tarantella info (Score:2)
Death to marketroids (Score:4)
Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up!
Ok, so it gets slightly more informative, but apparently the most important thing about the product is that it's fully buzzword compliant.
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:2)
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:1)
Tarantella for Linux? (Score:1)
Following this [sco.com] link on the above page mentions Tarantella for Linux.
Interesting, they say "SCO has been working on Linux and Open Source initiatives for more than two years," but weren't they talking about how crappy Linux was not 6 months ago(as someone else pointed out)?
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:1)
Re:SCO Rocks (Score:1)
It was asked above how this compares with Citrix. The article mentions that Citrix has to tinker with MS Terminal Server, while this RDP interface is what is normally used by MS NT TS to talk to an "ultra-thin client" (MS term in above link).
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:1)
I've also seen alot of ASPs arise in the last few months. The contractors here provide ASP services and are doing quite well at it, many of there clients are small shops that don't want to spend the money on a service contract, and have no in-house IT. With ASP all the servers can be centrally located and administers, also you can use junk PCs as the end workstation, so upgrading isn't necessary every year.
Re:Death to marketroids (Score:1)
Muzzdie!
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:2)
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:1)
Re:unofficial news (Score:2)
From what I've seen of it, it is pretty much a formula SVR4 product (based on older versions, I don't know how much it has diverged since then). It reminded me a lot of other direct SVR4 descendants like Solaris 2.x). Compared with OpenServer which has a lot of goofy baggage from Xenix to carry around, UnixWare seems like a lot more clean product.
(of course, SCO didn't write it, they bought it from Novell.
Who in turn bought it from AT&T.
Other than add-ons of Netware connectivity, the last version of UnixWare I saw didn't look all that much different than when AT&T still owned USL. I think one of the reasons that Novell sold USL was that they never really figured out what to do with it, and what they did wasn't that much.
Update the marketdroids (Score:2)
"Enterprise class features"? Antimatter warp drives, voice controlled computers with interstellar communication links? Control panels with colored smears which require special training? Okay.
for customers demanding an extensible, scaleable solution.
I'll settle for several hundred staff members to start with. If extension requires more ships, I'll deal with the accountants when that is needed.
Tarantella Enterprise II servers can be configured as a centrally managed array, supporting thousands of users. They can also connect to hundreds of application servers providing the reliablility, availability and scaleability needed for enterprises.
Well, I'll have to see some reliability figures. It seems to me that the Enterprise class encounters major problems on a weekly basis.
What is Tarantella software? Is it middleware? In a way it is middleware, but that term does not truly describe the full capabilities of the Tarantella product ("Tarantella"). Tarantella is middleware in that it sits between your appliation servers and client devices.
I thought the Enterprise class did not sit between things, it tends to travel between things.
But unlike most traditional middleware, Tarantella allows you to deploy existing server based applications, as well as new ones, over the network, via a web interface, without the need to rewrite anything.
Can I deploy remotely with a photon torpedo?
Re:Why SCO is BAD!!! (Score:2)
Re:unofficial news (Score:1)
Re:Why SCO is BAD!!! (Score:1)
Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:3)
I have seen a piece of the technology used for Tarantella in a tool provided in UnixWare 7.1.x called Webtop. It allows a administrator to adminstrate the system from any browser. It also allows clients to execute X applications in a browser. One of the coolest things I saw was a full X desktop in a browser. This can be done in any client. I know for windows you would need an X emulator, but this solution now does away with that for windows clients.
It is a very cool product that I see being a very good addition to the applications available for Linux. You can also look at it as another way to attack Microsoft dominance.
Re:unofficial news (Score:1)
Tarantella is an "application webtop" (Score:1)
Greetings!
We evaluated Tarantella a while back as an interesting way to make a single, cohesive environment out of a variety of application environments (shell apps, X apps, Windows apps). Then we woke up and realized that it was overhead and that user training was the most critical function necessary - not hiding the applications behind a web browser.
If you're interested in having business users that don't understand X use a Linux app in a browser, then you'll also be interested in products like GraphOn [graphon.com], Exceed Web [hummingbird.com], and the X11R6.3 X browser plugin (also known as Broadway or LBX) [broadwayinfo.com]. Sun/Netscape/iPlanet/AOL/Time Warner/Great Satan also has a competitive product they acquired from a startup that if I recall properly gave them the "iPlanet" name. This can be found at http://www.iplanet.com/products/infrastructure/rem ote_access/s_web_entprs/index.html [iplanet.com] .
Tarantella is a derivative of VNC (Score:1)
Re:Death to marketroids (Score:1)
(OT) - OK, that's one good thing about SCO ;) (Score:1)
On-topic aside: remember how SCO was denigrating Linux as inferior to the "proven" SCO what, 6 months ago? Interesting.
timothy
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:2)
-----
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:1)
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:1)
Thanks for the correction.
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:1)
Re:WTF are "unices"? Plural of "unix" is "unixen"! (Score:1)
"...almost anything ending in `x' may form plurals in `-xen'... But note that `Unixen' and `Twenexen' are never used; it has been suggested that this is because `-ix' and `-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural."
Re:SCO Rocks (Score:1)
Re:WTF are "unices"? Plural of "unix" is "unixen"! (Score:1)
box -> boxen
Just follow the pattern.
ox -> oxen
box -> boxes
Just follow the pattern. Oops, what pattern?
Isn't SCO Micro$oft? (Score:1)
SCO and the Change of Direction (Score:2)
I have had most experience with SCO OpenServer 5. Its a nice enterprise solution. Its sort of a unix that you dont really want to work on, probably set it up for a company requiring an e-commerce solution but too scared to run a Linux box. It does not come with the development package by default (gcc/libraries/header file) - so its not targeted at developers at all. Being a descendant of Xenix, it has a lot of superfluous anomalies. It does not like talking to other operating systems too much either. The technical support by SCO was good, however. SCO OpenServer has pretty good security too. SCO Unixware 7 is also a nice OS, but face it, you can't cross UNIX and Novell and expect something nice to come out. It's a great thing for novell entusiasts, i'd say, but UNIX guys probably wont like it. Even still, UW7 is WAAAAY better than UW2 and earlier!
These are limited application OS's.
SCO unfortunately did not see the direction the community was going, and targeted too much on servers to please the Managers, not the techs. Their OS's are too hermitic to compete with the versatility of Linux and BSDs and Sun. Its better now to target their attention on thing that would be beneficial to both the community and to themselves.
Re:WTF are "unices"? Plural of "unix" is "unixen"! (Score:1)
We use Tarantella as a Low Bandwidth Xserver... (Score:1)
Re:Tarantella info (Score:1)
Tarantella is a Java applet that implements an X Server ("webtop"). Applications are requested to run via a web page and are actually hosted by whatever they used to run on, but now the Xdisplay gets piped through the Tarantella/web server to the applet. (We have this at work, I've used it.)
SCO Tarantella (Score:1)
Tarantella offers a new twist on thin-client computing, and it packs extraordinary
Web-based functionality. Developed by SCO, Tarantella lets users access and run
applications hosted on Windows NT Terminal Server, Unix X Window servers and legacy
mainframes with little more than a Java-enabled Web browser.
More than VNC or Citrix (Score:1)
One might compare Tarantella to VNC, Citrix and other products in the same genre. However, Tarantella is more "Enterprise-oriented" than these:
In my view, Tarantella is as much an enterprise and management solution as a technical solution. In a number of companies, this counts as much as the technology part.
Re:Isn't SCO Micro$oft? (Score:1)
Re:Isn't SCO Micro$oft? (Score:1)
You got it reversed: OS good, service so-so (Score:1)
I didn't use their support much because first, the os was rock solid (luckily), and also support was expensive and so-so. But SCO also supplied a daunting stack of manuals.
I think what SCO brings to Linux is years of experience in sales and support for large customers, and partnering with other software companies to develop apps for SCO, similar to what DEC brought to Compaq.
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:1)
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:1)
Re:Tarantella vs. MetaFrame (Score:2)
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Re:Tarantella info (Score:1)
SCO invoved with Linux? (Score:1)
-------------------------------------------------
About Tarantella (Score:2)
However, it is EXTREMELY expensive. It runs around $400/seat, plus deployment costs, and, as such, it only seems useful in special cases, not as a simple workgroup-level solution, if you ask me. I think GraphOn targets this lower-end market, but I'm not as familiar with their stuff.
As for VNC, it competes much more closely with PCAnywhere, not Citrix or Tarantella. It's a really cool program, but you can't use it to provide access to SAP to 20,000 desktops.
Overall, I think they have some issues with their product placement/pricing strategy that'll really hurt them. For instance, to use it with Windows apps, you still need the per user license for Terminal Server. So why not directly access the Terminal Server from desktops? There are certainly situations where Tarantella would help here, but it's hard to justify the huge cash layout that this'll incur, in my opinion.
As enterprise software (especially ERP and accounting packages) moves more and more to a great web-based front-end right out of the box, Tarantella will lose even more relevance.
--JRZ
Java Applets don't work on Linux (Score:1)
It's a moot point but Netscape for Linux is their weakest platform. I haved used it under other operating system with pretty much works okay.
Re:unofficial news (Score:2)
App porting (Score:1)
Re:Java Applets don't work on Linux (Score:2)
Re:unofficial news (Score:1)
Re:Bull is in there as well (Score:1)
... but that wasn't necessarily the one you were thinking of. Humm... can't find a link on our web server...
(I work for Bull)
(OT) Plurals in Latin (Score:1)
I remember seeing 'virii' somewhere
Well this clarifies their investment strategy (Score:2)
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:2)
Those clients are pretty "thin" if you lay off all the custom controls on the VB app. They run fine on a p166 w/32meg, which you can get for about $200 ($300 with monitor) I run the install from a web deployment package. I have code in the vb app which checks for a newer version of the exe on the network, if so copies it down. Unless the controls upgrade, I don't need to run the install again.
Reports and COM objects that actually get database info and validate inputs are on the server. As long as the class interface doesn't change on the COM object, I just replace it on the server and the client never notices. I KNOW from experience that this setup is a LOT easier to maintain than a Citrix server.
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:1)
The future of home computing (ie, non-tech consumers) is in "applicances". How do you manage to get the ease of use AND the diversity of functionality -- terminal server type applications.
I'm not saying that Metaframe/NT-TS will be the end product that will carry the day, but given the pervasiveness of Windows and Windows applications you can guarantee that the MS product will continue to evolve to fill this market. The challenge will be MS ability to move their OS from a single user to a multiuser model, and to depend less on a Windows client backend and to open MS RDP protocols to other vendors.
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:1)
Re:"Thin Clients" are pretty much dead. (Score:2)