Talk:Desktop virtualization

Completely unreferenced article

There is no referenced definition of remote control software like VNC or RDP or GoToMyPC as being called virtualization. Instead I would argue that desktop virtualization is simply virtualization on the desktop, ie, Parallels Desktop, VirtualBox, VMware workstation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.217.178 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone care to include brief discussion of the various virtualization software used specifically in the desktop space? Amigaguy (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

g.ho.st

Where does g.ho.st fit into this paradigm? Google desktop is another odd-ball that rewriting the rules for desktop virtualization ... where does it fit into this paradigm? Would these be called Browser Desktops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davea0511 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A New Start

I've just thrown out three of the (alleged) types in favour of the only one which really qualifies. Even with this reduced scope this is an area with a lot of alternatives - let's not make things harder for ourselves and readers than we can... Snori (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs lots of work

This article needs lots of work to be both more objective and complete. VDI certainly has some advantages, but also some disadvantages that should be called out in fairness. Disadvantages include higher cost than traditional PCs as well as (in most cases) other forms of SBC and blade PCs. There are also SW licensing and support issues. And there is some very real complexity with getting such an environment set up (though once set up it can be a very compelling model). Additionally the article largely sidesteps a needed discussion about transport protocols such as MS RDP, Citrix ICA, HP RGS, and others that can make or break many remote PC solutions. In the spirit of full disclosure I get credit for selling components of VDI as well as other related solutions such as Server Based Computing, Thin Clients and Blade PCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlandAd1 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Link cleanup

I propose removing links to products which are external links or are wiki-links to non-existent pages. Additionally, i would leave editor comments warning future editors not to add either of those types of links back to the article.

If there's no objection prior to 17.00 GMT on Sunday 16.November.2008, then i'll make these changes. Quaeler (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Remote desktop software and/or Remote control software?

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) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

they are all needed

Remote administration, Remote control software, Remote desktop software, and Desktop virtualization are all completely different things... remote administration : you telnet to a router, rather than using the console cable...that is remote administration remote control s/w : is like microsoft remote assistance. you are remotely controling someone elses desktop remote desktop s/w : you login to a different PC from your PC using the RD s/w...using your credentials Desktop Virtualisation: a base image of an operating system sits on a server. when a client initiates the VD s/w from their PC, they instantiate a VD on the server (where ever it might be located) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdaw (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Desktop Virtualization means No PC on the Desktop AT ALL

I don't think any of the comments show understanding of what NOW is meant by "desktop virtualization". While years ago, desktop virtualization may have included the idea of a PC on your desktop, the whole purpose of desktop virtualization is to do away with the PC on your desk ENTIRELY. Thus, the PC's software is run on a server. What's on the desk is a hardware box like the Pano Logic device (http://www.panologic.com/). I'm looking for other devices like the Pano Logic box and its accompanying server side software (drivers, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfredsr (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 3 of 4 needed

Thanks for your input. After thinking some more, I can see 3 separate uses, both what you listed above as well as my humble opinion:

• 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#Products.

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)

References are inadequate

I noticed that all references in the article are forums. I'm okay with that, as long as these references are only temporary and will be replaced with reliable sources as soon as possible. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also inserted the {{coi}} tag in this article, given that it was recently expanded by the editor of http://www.virtual-desktop-forum.com, which is the main reference used here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

TheVirtualizer (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC) RESPONDING TO PREVIOUS POSTS HERE - Am trying to work out what your actual objection to my editing of this post really are but after reading all of your comments I still dont understand what your objections are.

This is an incredibly neutral and well balanced article that I took it upon mysely to re-edit when I saw that you had let someone basically cut and paste from the VMware and Citrix websites. That original article was on there for a long time and nobody seemed to object. If you can find a better definition of desktop virtualization anywhere please let me know and I will change the definitions we give to new users on our forums. Remember that there are lots of different types of dexktop virtualization and the second we any more technical than I already have you run into issues.

I was always under the assumption that Wikipedia was not a technical website and therefore did not delve into the myriad of different VDI technologies in this article and tried to explain the actual term "desktop virtualization" in the most neutral terms what exactly dsektop virtualization is for the layman user in the same way I do on my forums. Am sorry but anyone with any knowledge of virtualiztion already has a hundred technical sources available to them on the internet and we dont need to provide a further technical source whilst arguing over which technological solution is best at the same time.

Also with regards to the reliable sources comment from Blanchard, there arent any reliable sources such as academics and other websites, just vendors puching their own version of events and various scattered news articles on the subject which offer a wide range of different definitions.

Quite literally the forum which I edit, the virtual desktop forum IS THE only reliable source on the internet and I painstakingly triple check everything I say on that website before i give a definition because I have like 250+ registered members, approximately 25% of which are desktop virtualization professionals of some sort. We cannot afford to have sloppy definitions and what you see is the result of us arguing relentlessly over the subject until we could come up with a definition that everyone could agree on that would articulate to new users exactly what desktop virtualization is all about. In order to do this we basically had to simplify the definition making it solely about the actual term and what it means rather than the different types of technology, their compartivive advantages and disadvantages, etc.

Everything changes in DVI every few months so by keeping the definition simple we avoid having to change it everytime someone comes out with something new or the comparitives change as they so often do when multiple vendors are trying to play catch up with each other. Currently there are HUNDREDS of desktop virtualization organisations all developing some kind of VDI techology of their own.

The second you try to make this article any more technical than it is, its going to become a minefield. TheVirtualizer (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that I may have a slight conflict of interest in this and am attempting to find some better sources to reference other than my own forum. The main problem here is that I wrote the article from scratch apart from the technical definition which was writted by another member of the virtual desktop forum team who is a volunteer and works within the desktop virtualization industry. I think it is going to be very hard to find some solid academic references for example but I can find lots and lots of white papers. The problem here again is that these white papers are generally produced by commercial organisations and generally describe one kind of desktop virtualization technology, despite some similarities between the main types of desktop virtualization.

I am posting a topic on my forum asking members to submit their links to referenceable material and we will shortly begin to build a library of these links so we have a directory of this sort on our own forum, but as of yet there is no definitive source for this kind of thing. Its just news articles which tend to either very general or way too technical and white papers. Its a relatively new tech.

I read on the comments from a year ago that some were saying that we should list suppliers and providers of desktop virtualization technology and I disagree. In fact I deleted the section of the earlier article because it contained a very narrow focus and listed four companies. The article was basically and advertisement.

If people want to find suppliers and providers of anything related to desktop virtualization they have google and there are hundreds of different companies. We should not attempt to be a guide to these here but we should direct people to sources where they can learn for themselves about the differences between the technologies and this is why i have added links to various forums, blogs and websites in the external links section. There are PLENTY of guides and directories of companies out there, we dont need to replicate that here.

I am completely open to any editing ideas for this article and if we decide to incorporate or polish anything, I will change my definitions on the virtual desktop forum to reflect this and maintain a standard definition along with Wikipedia on this matter. For now I am going to source other references and you shall notice the small changes that I will make over the next week or so when i update the references.

Have deleted the conflict of interest and the references tags although I am not sure if this is bad ettiquete or not, I genuinely do not think they are deserved and have deleted them on the basis that I am actively trying to respond to these tags. I would also like to say that the forum and the forum team are all volunteer, we have no real commercial ties with any desktop virtualization organization. If you look on my forum you will see the occasional advertisement within specific forums but there are no banners, no text links and no general advertising at all and thats the way we want it, we are a community moderated, not-for-profit forum and we will remain that way. Our forum is aimed at educating newcomers to desktop virtualization on exactly what the technology is, the benefits it unarguably brings and the key players and companies involved along with the respective technologies they push. We aim to be a neutral guide and server our members by providing independent advice and reviews of the subject and this will alsways be reflected in anything I write here. TheVirtualizer (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Look I have no idea of who keeps placing the tages on this article but would really appreciate it if you would describe your reasoning for doing so rather than just pasting tags on it because you dont like the look of it. This article IS NOT written like an advertisement because it is not advertising a product or a service but describing a technology. How does anyone think that this is written like an advertisement ? How would you re-write this so it doesnt look like an advertisement in your eyes ? Please paste your comments and thinking before adding a tag without really thinking about it. TheVirtualizer (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

An article's history will let you know who does edits (and hopefully they've left reason text in the history, as opposed to simply removing text without giving any reason). Additionally, please try to present some indenting in discussion threads; thanks.

WRT the state of the article, i'm not sure what your standards for advertisement are, but when one reads sentences like As a private virtual desktop user, you are going to be happier with the end result of desktop virtualization. Your desktops will get better, more functional and more socially aware as we move away from the MS Windows model of desktop and we can predict this from the relatively large number of desktop virtualization start-ups all developing their own desktop virtualization platforms as well as the relatively large number of Open Source projects that are doing exactly the same thing but intend to give you a virtual desktop for free ! (!Exclamation mark! to boot - fantastic) — this is exactly the type of verbiage one would see in a vacation brochure, and not the verbiage one would see in an encyclopedia.

Further, the far majority of the the "References" point to a single site that pretty much seems like a blog; aside from not being generally accepted sources to cite, this appears as little more than a backdoor way to avoid WP:ELNO. It is better that this article remain as a stub, than as an advertisement. Quaeler (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand and agree, it does need a rewrite from that point of view. We are working on compiling a list of source links that would be acceptable to Wikipedia at the moment and for our own forums but its proving difficult because the subject matter is relatively new and the technology is in its infancy so there are not too many academic sources or white papers out there that are not sponsored or produced by commercial organisations operating in the space. Will update this page into conformity shortly. TheVirtualizer (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Made a few changes to the page, namely I took out the END USER PERSPECTIVE section which was getting this page marked as an advertisement and I also deleted the really bad links that somebody put in without commenting to two Desktop Virtualization vendors pages on the basis that this is not a directory of desktop virtualization providers or an advertisement for them. TheVirtualizer (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. Cited references which are blogs / forums / basically anything already covered under WP:ELNO are discouraged, so what exists for almost all of the references will have to go as well. Quaeler (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The desktop virtualization forum is an internet authority on the subject of desktop virtualization and was founded by a group of desktop virtualization professionals who volunteer their time to work on the forum. Its a public and community-driven resource and not a commercial one like practically any other source of information on the internet and features no advertising whatsoever. I would argue that they are by far the most neutral authority on the subject and the whole forum is about raising awareness of this technology and nothing more. I am going to rewrite the references in the article to include other sources but the links will generally refer to commercial websites and sponsored articles by desktop virtualization vendors describing one kind of technology. The amount of deception and misleading that goes on at vendor level is shocking and when newcomers to the technology read some of these publications they can make decisions which would be wrong for them and their businesses. Wikipedia cannot be a party to those shenanigans and again must remain above this i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirtualizer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article has large "benefits" and "advantages" sections without balancing discussion of the drawbacks. Mkcmkc (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point actually which needs to be adressed in any definition of desktop virtualization and it is a subject which we are just about to publish an article on in our forums but again this is a hugely complicated subject. Desktop virtualization just isnt one technology and is fragmented between the key providers operating under this umbrella. Some of the currently available desktop virtualization technologies have drawback which are not shared by other kinds of technology. Our forums have members who are IT professionals, actively engaged in desktop virtualization implementations and migrations and they tell us that most of the key drawbacks have been overcome and using mixes of the different technologies out there, they can pretty much achieve anything they want to. The few limitations that this technology does have is specific to key vendors and again these hurdles are overcome by mixing the desktop virtualization solution with other technologies. You see adressing the drawbacks is a complicated subject and the fact that most of the Fortune 500 and the FTSE 100 have already embraced this technology means that any discussion of tthe drawbacks of desktop virtualization are secondary, big business is already using this tech across the board because there benefits outweigh the negatives. That and the incredible pace at which this technology improves and moves forward, driven by over 500 companies all working on this at once means that anything we write here covering the drawbacks and is vendor specific would quickly become out of date and would need to be regularly updated as these companies imporve their service offerings.

I would argue that we need to keep this definition as clean and uncomplicated as possible, they are here for a definition of the basic technology, not a discussion of the merits of different vendor solutions and in keeping things simple we avoid the editorial conflicts that occur when we are seen to be favouring one kind of technology or solution over another. There is no right answer to this whole subject because its such a big subject, but we can remain neutral and we can protect the basic definition to make sure that it is not taken over by special interests. Too much of what is on the internet in terms of information on this subject on the internet is already produced by commercial organizations all pushing their own definitions, I think here we need to rise above that.

I still agree though that it is wrong to give just one side of a story, so if any of you wish to propose any drawbacks that we can generalise to encompass the whole technology then put them forward for discussion. Until then I will post the text of our latest article on the subject here in this discussion thread so we can all become informed on this and work on presenting the drawbacks to wikipedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirtualizer (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I made some changes to the page, found some further references and will add more shortly. We touch on the disadvantages of desktop virtualization with input from others but its a tough one because you may as well ask what the disadvantages of using personal computers are.TheVirtualizer (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Hosted Virtual Desktop

A lot of the confusion over this article could be solved if we moved it to Hosted virtual desktop because the term more clearly describes the article content (and is in fact already used in the article). This term seems to be catching on in the industry, although most wikilinks still go to Desktop virtualization. We previously had a useless stub at Hosted Virtual Desktop. For now, I made both Hosted virtual desktop and Hosted Virtual Desktop redirects to here so development can continue on a single article. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would completely disagree with that. A Hosted Virtual Desktop is just a small slice of the desktop virtualization pie.

When we talk about client side (type 1 or type 2) hypervisors, hardware based desktop virtualization and other assorted technologies, they too are an important part of desktop virtualization. besides which most hosted virtual desktops are actually deliverd to the user using presentation virtualization and this is not technically desktop virtualization infrastructure. TheVirtualizer (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)