Talk:Remote desktop software

Proposed merge with Virtual Desktop Infrastructure
Someone proposed that remote desktop software be merged with virtual desktop infrastructure but the two are completely different things. Yes, VDI is dependent on remote desktop software, but the latter can be (and usually is) used independently. VDI is more about management of those desktops, than about the actual relaying over the wire. samj (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I believe the articles should be kept separate. Davidfstr (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Virtual Desktop Infrastructure was renamed Desktop virtualization, I think the thought to merge them shoul be reconsidered. See my comments below.--Lefton4ya (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am of the firm opinion that Desktop Virtualization is very different from the content currently under this nomenclature. I propose it to be have a different category all together as Workspace Virtualization for functioning of personalized desktop environment to individuals irrespective of the platform that they are using, which is generally a server centric architecture similar to the Citrix or similar platforms. However Desktop Virtualization, as the name suggests should indicate ability for the user to switch between multiple OS flavours seamlessly on a single hardware platform of PC configuration. Something similar to what we have seen on the server virtualization environments. The examples I can give is that of Parallels on Mac OS where one can work applications on Windows OS while being logged in on to the Mac OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaraprasan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Remote control software and/or Desktop virtualization?
I think we only need two of the four: Remote administration, Remote control software, Remote desktop software, and Desktop virtualization. The rationale is that there are two types of software, one that is used to log in remotely/virtually on another program for the ability just to run programs on that machine's resources/licenses, etc. The other is for administration to configure a computer remotely. The problem is overlap where you use a remote desktop for the purpose of administration.

So my question is which should stay, which should be merged, or what new titles should be created (if any) to contain all relevant info?

My vote is Remote administration should stay as is (but needs clean up), and Remote control software, Remote desktop software, and Desktop virtualization should be merged into one, namely Remote desktop software. That is just my thought. Any seconds - either seconding my idea or a second opinion? I would be willing to do some merge/rewrite work if a consensus is found. --Lefton4ya (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 3 of 4 needed
After thinking some more, I can see 3 separate uses, both what someone listed on Talk:Desktop virtualization as well as my humble opinion: I still think all four is not necessarily, maybe merging Remote control software and Remote desktop software into one or the other. Either way, some major clean up on all would be needed. Again, I am planning on doing some of this, but first I wanted to see if any should be merged/renamed/deleted. --Lefton4ya (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remote administration without remote control of desktop. This includes telnet, remote registry, ActiveDirectory managers, or other utility which does not actually take over the machine.
 * Remote control/desktop, where you log into a machine, but either a user at the computer sees what you do or is locked out, and either way no more than one person can log into a machine at a time. Mostly used for the purpose of remote administration, but could be used as a type of remote desktop for multiple users, but one user at a time, to share a computer or pool of computers.  Examples include Windows RDP/Terminal Services, Apple Remote Desktop, VNC, DameWare, and others listed on Comparison of remote desktop software
 * Desktop virtualization where one machine acts as a server which can have multiple users log in and use its resources for the purpose of having transient settings, saving money with thin clients, and sharing licenses on a machine. Examples include Citrix fams, VMware View, and others listed on Desktop virtualization.

I feel that the Desktop virtualization content to be removed and new content which actually indicates the actual functionality of the technology to be reflected here. All along the virtualization technologies have indicated ability to create a virtual environment where the user is not aware of the physical characteristics of the platform being used. So we have technologies in the storage arena that ensure that the user gets to use the storage device without having to bother about the underlying technology whether it is FC or SAS or SATA on the devices, whether it is fiber or iSCSI or SCSI or SATA or IDE in terms of the data movement protocols. Coming to Server Virtualization we have the ability of being able to have multiple Guest OS's running on a virtual server to facilitate optimal usage of hardware resources. Thereby reducing green house gases, eco friendly datacenters etc.

Hence I feel that we should not have multiple terminologies floated around to indicate the same thing, while in terms of meaning they point to totally different worlds. I am of the view that we should have articles on Desktop Virtualization which actually means virtualization of hardware infrastructure of a PC to facilitate multiple guest OS's being used by one single user depending on his application requirement. While we have a different article on Workspace Virtualization which should indicate the ability of the user to create his own workspace irrespective of the hardware platform he is using or where is connecting to get the service (do I hear Cloud computing here or ASP or SaaS?). Kumaraprasan (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All references I can find to desktop virtualization are of the type currently in the article. For example, zdnet. What you seem to be asking for is already covered under platform virtualization. Multiple desktops on a single OS is covered in virtual desktop. A subtle but critical difference in terminology. Perhaps in an effort to clear things up, some are moving to the term Hosted Virtual Desktop instead of desktop virtualization. I got here while reviewing a possible merge of our current Hosted Virtual Desktop stub into desktop virtualization. I'm now thinking that perhaps desktop virtualization should be moved to Hosted Virtual Desktop and a redirect left on desktop virtualization. However, we have tons of links to desktop virtualization and virtually nothing to Hosted Virtual Desktop. The redirect will of course make that point moot, but it's perhaps an indication that there isn't a consensus for such a move. Thus, I think I'll just redirect Hosted Virtual Desktop to desktop virtualization for now. We can then swap names down the road if a better consensus develops. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged Remote control software
I moved content from Remote control software to Remote desktop software & Desktop virtualization. Feel free to clean up these articles further. I redirected Remote control software to Remote control software, but discuss or be bold in redirecting to Remote administration, which needs some clean up as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefton4ya (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Server
Article states that this pertains to "server". This is way too specific. remote desktop service can apply to any machine or device that hosts a "desktop". Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have edited accordingly.--SimonBramfitt (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

kamal fci
i am shaha¢ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.138.17 (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

security
I deleted this entire section, it was a blatant advertising refspam for NetOp --SimonBramfitt (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Remote Display protocols
I'm considering creating a new article just for remote display protocols

Your feedback would be appreciated

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Stone or promoters of Wayland
I'm sure you'd like to force people to stop using X11 (defaming it as inept - whereas it is complete to its intended uses and wholey extensible) and use Wayland

However your comment that X11 is not network transparent is a bald lie to attack the technology of which you wish to avoid copyrights and wish to have world domination over.

please stop your attempts to use online slander are obvious

"Wayland is not really duplicating much work. Where possible, Wayland reuses existing drivers and infrastructure of X11." (a quote to asnwer a supposed asked question of why wayland uses X11 on wayland site) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Scams
Since remote destktop software is frequently used in scams I think it needs to be mentioned here, I'm gonna try putting it in see also. Mathiastck (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RDP is not Windows-specific
I believe it is incorrect to say that Remove Desktop Protocol (RDP) is a "Windows-specific protocol". Remote Desktop Protocol lists some non-Windows clients and non-Windows servers. Perhaps say instead "is a proprietary protocol developed by Microsoft." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin A. Meade (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)