Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:24:55 -0400 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <hornback@wireco.net> To: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> Cc: "FreeBSD Questions" <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <006c01c0c204$b0414860$0e00000a@tomcat> In-Reply-To: <20010410113403.C206595@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Duke Normandin > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:34 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: FreeBSD > Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:46:39AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > Desktop: That which is primary purpose is to serve as a user interface > > between the human and the services provided by servers on the network. > > So the "dumb terminal" hung on a DEC mainframe that I use to have in my > office would then fall into this category? Is it then accurate to say that > the terms "workstation" and "client" also fall into this category in a > distributed processing model? I think the proper terms anymore would be Clients and Servers, at least that's how I see things. But, yes, your Dumb Terminal would be in the Client class, while the DEC 'frame would be in the Server class. Workstations, basically, would be nothing more than servers with the high performance alternative to Desktop peripherals. > > But, before we forget, there's one other type of system: > > > > standalone: A host that is intended and generally uses services that it > > provides itself, and where network connectivity is not > particularly critical > > to it's operation. > > So a "standalone" can behave as both a server *and* a client/desktop/WS? It would have to be. Otherwise, it couldn't stand alone. It would act as it's own application and file server, at the most basest of levels. > > What's confusing is that many people have taken the word desktop used it > > when they are talking about a consumer standalone system. One > rule of thumb > > is that if you can pull the network connection out of it and not notice, > > it's probably a standalone. > > I think that I've made that very mistake, but with a twist. The > server/client or server/work-station distinction were/are clear to me for > the most part. However, for some reason, I interpreted a "desktop" > machine as one running X-Windows and used as what you describe as a > desktop above. I guess that it hadn't sunk in that your "desktop" > machine could very well be running only console apps. The previous > discussions on this thread are now fitting into place a bit better, ;) If you really have to split hairs and make a differentiation between desktops and workstations, I'd say the quality of the hardware and the applications used. Workstations are generally used for more higher end applications, not just your basic word processing, spread sheet/number crunching sort of thing. Workstations of the past generally had better graphics systems when they were used for modelling, etc. and better sound systems when they were used for music/signal analysis/etc. --- Andy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?006c01c0c204$b0414860$0e00000a>