[X2go-dev] EyeOS

[Gerry Reno]

On 02/22/2011 06:36 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 18:21 -0500, Gerry Reno wrote:
>   
>> On 02/22/2011 05:59 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 17:11 -0500, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On 02/22/2011 04:42 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Hello, all.  I'd imagine none of us have the time to investigate this
>>>>> but I just took a quick look at EyeOS (http://www.eyeos.org).  It is an
>>>>> open source cloud desktop solution.  Version 2 was very slow and buggy
>>>>> but version 1 was amazingly fast.  
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember if it was eyeos, but we looked at some of these "web
>>>> desktop integration" solutions a while back.
>>>>
>>>> It's not the same experience as having a "real" desktop. 
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they've managed to write some office-style apps and email clients
>>>> and other things. 
>>>>
>>>> But that does not truly duplicate a bona-fide native desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the clients we pursue have very industry-specific software they
>>>> need to run. 
>>>> It needs to run the same whether we put it on their machines or ours in
>>>> the cloud. 
>>>>
>>>> With good remote access there's no retraining of users because they are
>>>> using the same software they've been using for years.  Just accessing it
>>>> remotely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the end, we opted to not go the WDI approach and instead looked for
>>>> good remote access technologies such as x2go that gives us the
>>>> flexibility to offer nearly any type of local/remote/cloud solution for
>>>> the client.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> <snip>
>>> That is exactly why we chose X2Go instead.  However, what caught my eye
>>> (no pun intended) was how responsive the video and sound were -
>>> significantly better than what we are doing in X2Go.  So, in the
>>> openness of open source, I wonder what we can learn from what they have
>>> done to improve X2Go - John
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Since most of these WDI offerings are browser-based my guess is that
>> they are passing a link down to the browser and accessing the video and
>> sound through an embedded media player directly rather than playing the
>> media on the server and then passing the output through to the client.
>>
>> Just a guess.
>>     
> <snip>
> That is definitely the case in one scenario.  When starting a YouTube
> video, I was asked it I wanted to allow a redirect and, sure enough, it
> opened up as a local browsing session on my physical computer.  However,
> if I did not allow redirection (answered no), the video opened in the
> EyeOS browser and played remarkably well.  I'm assuming (ignorantly)
> that that was not using a local media player - John
>
>   

I think they are just giving you a choice of viewing the video as
embedded or non-embedded.

Either way it's still playing locally.


Regards,
Gerry