Proposed benefits of Terminal Services

So you have the BIG idea that the Church or community needs to develop. Discuss that idea here. Maybe you just want to make a suggestion on a new forum topic. Let us know.
User avatar
Mikerowaved
Community Moderators
Posts: 4734
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Layton, UT

#21

Post by Mikerowaved »

Although I can't argue that a thin-client TS architecture has its merits and is preferred in some business models, I'm just not sure it would fit well here. I'm thinking mostly of ward and stake computers, not the ones on the Church's intranet used for development and generally running the affairs of the Church. Those we know very little about.

What it comes down to is what I think about your proposed ideas is probably moot anyway. 99.9% of us are end users of various ward, stake, mission, and genealogical computers seeking answers to common questions and sharing ideas with each other. We are not the architects of the underlying infrastructure, nor do we have direct contact with them.

Mike
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#22

Post by RossEvans »

Mikerowaved wrote:What it comes down to is what I think about your proposed ideas is probably moot anyway. 99.9% of us are end users of various ward, stake, mission, and genealogical computers seeking answers to common questions and sharing ideas with each other. We are not the architects of the underlying infrastructure, nor do we have direct contact with them.

Ditto that.

Speaking as one of those end users of MLS, I would hate to see such a limited, thin-client solution adopted even for broadband-connected units.

Now that wards are finally starting to get broadband Internet connections, it opens up technical vistas to a myriad of other productive applications. And some of those applications would need a reasonably spec'd and up-to-date deskstop computer to run on. So I would hate to see that resource be crippled.

Now, if stakes are too restrictive in what they allow to be installed on the wards' boxes, limiting us essentially to MLS, a browser and the Open Office suite and saying "No" in principle to everything else, that resource is crippled anyway by policy. So perhaps those limited functions could be performed by a glorified dumb terminal. We shall see.
kennethjorgensen
Community Moderators
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Alnwick, UK

#23

Post by kennethjorgensen »

I still dont understand why the man's original proposal hasnt been taken further forward.

It would be interesting to hear from those on the "inside" of exactly why his proposed solution wouldn't work and wouldn't save a lot of money. The thought of not needing to upgrade a lot of PC's as regular must be a sweet sound on the person controlling those costs.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34417
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#24

Post by russellhltn »

dkjorgi wrote:I still dont understand why the man's original proposal hasnt been taken further forward.

I assume you're talking about post #1.

The first question to ask is why this hasn't had more traction in the corporate world. I've seen the same sales points for the last 9 years at least. From way back in the days of very thin clients running Windows CE.

A few thoughts of my own:
  • You still have to maintain local equipment. What will it be and how much is that going to cost? That out dated computer isn't going to last forever.
  • You need a communication infrastructure. Dial-up isn't going to cut it. Especially since it will tie up the phone line for so long.
  • You need a server farm that can support all the units getting on to it on Sundays while keeping an adequate user experience.
  • While it can make security stronger, it can also make it harder to customize to local needs.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
c-4-p40
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Fredericksburg, VA

#25

Post by c-4-p40 »

RussellHltn's points above are accurate. More importantly, Terminal Services are really the solution of the past decade. The industry tends to be moving into a realm of Server Based Computing (SBC) and Desktop Virtualization (DV). While you can argue that the original poster's solution is desktop virtualization, Microsoft's point solution is being surpassed by much better technologies that solve issues like customization at the remote end and application compatibility that have plagued Terminal Services, ultimately forcing the industry to abandon it.

While you will need a server farm that can handle the user load, this generally represents a much lower TCO than maintaining OS and application patches in remote workstations. You tend to have your life cycle run longer on those remote machines meaning your ROI is extended from 3 years to more like 5. It is hard to place a number on the security benefits that this type of architecture promotes. Data loss prevention is a top priority for most large organizations and since compromises are hard to track, the financial loss is hard to calculate.

Data Center automation technologies will help with the server load on Sundays if the Church is running their data centers in a commoditized fashion.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34417
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#26

Post by russellhltn »

Another point I forgot - the trend today is web services. Turn MLS into a web app and then the ward computer only has to be a web appliance. But it still doesn't overcome the issues I mentioned above.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34417
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#27

Post by russellhltn »

c-4 wrote:While you will need a server farm that can handle the user load, this generally represents a much lower TCO than maintaining OS and application patches in remote workstations.
Is that still true when the remote site staff are all unpaid volunteers? ;) TCO isn't much more then a new computer every 5 years. And it's probably purchased at a good discount.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
c-4-p40
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Fredericksburg, VA

#28

Post by c-4-p40 »

RussellHltn wrote:Is that still true when the remote site staff are all unpaid volunteers? ;) TCO isn't much more then a new computer every 5 years. And it's probably purchased at a good discount.
Good point, but I was referring to the hardware and software TCO. I could have made that more clear.

You are correct though, the human factor does raise the overall TCO of an organization independent of the system, but the Church does not have that "limitation" of pesky employees that require pay :)
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34417
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#29

Post by russellhltn »

c-4 wrote:but the Church does not have that "limitation" of pesky employees that require pay :)
Actually, my point was that the Church has to pay for the employees at the server farm but not the ones in the ward/stake. That's not typical for a business and it could change the whole TCO equation.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
kennethjorgensen
Community Moderators
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Alnwick, UK

#30

Post by kennethjorgensen »

RussellHltn wrote:I assume you're talking about post #1.

The first question to ask is why this hasn't had more traction in the corporate world. I've seen the same sales points for the last 9 years at least. From way back in the days of very thin clients running Windows CE.

A few thoughts of my own:
  • You still have to maintain local equipment. What will it be and how much is that going to cost? That out dated computer isn't going to last forever.
  • You need a communication infrastructure. Dial-up isn't going to cut it. Especially since it will tie up the phone line for so long.
  • You need a server farm that can support all the units getting on to it on Sundays while keeping an adequate user experience.
  • While it can make security stronger, it can also make it harder to customize to local needs.

Russell,

Your right about your questions but thats exactly what I meant about "taken further forward". I simply meant to evaluate it and cost it up to work out the pro's and con's and get questions like yours answered.
On the "dial-up" issue I think the issue should be raised if it isnt possible to have split solutions ie some on normal dial-up and others on broadband.

I have myself heard all the "ill's" about Terminal Services but what stroke me about his post was that he did seem like he knew what he was talking about and more importantly I felt he had experience of it and could compare the "supposed" ill's with his own experience. He was also willing to help out and wasnt in it for money etc.
I have learned not to take everyone's words for "gospel truth" and so it could well be that many of the ill's about TS is not down to the product or the technology used but rather down to lack of knowing how to use it effectively. It is much easier to talk it down rather than giving it a go.
It is very much the same with a product like VmWare, it can run like a dog on a server unless the configuration is optimised properly.

I also agree with c-4 about looking at DV etc but I wouldnt go as far as calling one "past decade" as I can see the two as solutions to different scenarios so both must be looked at rather than discarding one and thinking the latest is the best for any situation.

The whole issue about remote access seems a valid one to explore and it would be interesting to hear what the church is doing in this area. Either the church put the resources into replacing the mature desktop apps or choose one of the solutions discussed.

The benefit for the members using the system is clearly that your time isnt tied up waiting for your turn and having to travel to the chapel etc. Especially the travelling to the chapel is a winner since not everyone has a chapel around the corner.
Locked

Return to “Ideas & Suggestions”