Amazon WorkSpaces(aws.amazon.com)
aws.amazon.com
Amazon WorkSpaces
https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces
31 comments
>You can only be logged in from device at a time. That is too bad. It would be nice to share.
I wonder if this is to do with licensing.
>Using a IE. Oh this is interesting – when going to Google, I am at google.tw
>Where is this machine hosted? Showing an IP of 54.85.209.100 (US), odd...
I bet Google's GeoIP DB has some flaws, and this is the result of one of them.
I wonder if this is to do with licensing.
>Using a IE. Oh this is interesting – when going to Google, I am at google.tw
>Where is this machine hosted? Showing an IP of 54.85.209.100 (US), odd...
I bet Google's GeoIP DB has some flaws, and this is the result of one of them.
Google recently thinks I'm in India and has been serving me up Indian YouTube adds recently. I work in Beijing using a Japanese proxy, so I don't really get how that works.
I noticed the google.tw from AWS instances that are hosted in the US. Seemed odd to me at the time, but it's even more odd that it's the same on workspace instances too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank you very much for you explanation, I wasn't able to make it work.
I've scratched my head on what exactly the use-case for this is. I'm going to need a computer of some sort to access my remote anyways. So what's the point?
Then I remember the remote freelance job my wife had for a while. They mailed her the employment paperwork, she filled it out, once they processed it they sent her a remote desktop URL, username and password and voila she was "at work". A day or two later she had everything she needed installed by the IT staff and off she went. She never actually went into the office, even once, and never met any of the employees there face-to-face. When she completed her contract they simply nuked the account she was using and reclaimed the licenses. They didn't ship her a laptop to work from and she didn't have to ship it back. If she had ever needed to go into the office, they could have let her use an aging extra machine with Remote Desktop to get back to work. Not a single piece of the company's "property" ever needed to come in contact with my wife's home computer and if she was waiting for her work computer to do something she could just minimize the RDP client and do something else.
I have no idea what they would have been paying for the Terminal server on their end, I've heard it runs north of $100k/year, and this service seems to be competing with that.
Then I remember the remote freelance job my wife had for a while. They mailed her the employment paperwork, she filled it out, once they processed it they sent her a remote desktop URL, username and password and voila she was "at work". A day or two later she had everything she needed installed by the IT staff and off she went. She never actually went into the office, even once, and never met any of the employees there face-to-face. When she completed her contract they simply nuked the account she was using and reclaimed the licenses. They didn't ship her a laptop to work from and she didn't have to ship it back. If she had ever needed to go into the office, they could have let her use an aging extra machine with Remote Desktop to get back to work. Not a single piece of the company's "property" ever needed to come in contact with my wife's home computer and if she was waiting for her work computer to do something she could just minimize the RDP client and do something else.
I have no idea what they would have been paying for the Terminal server on their end, I've heard it runs north of $100k/year, and this service seems to be competing with that.
It's the Citrix killer.[0] I suspect the price is way lower than what Citrix charges and goes into a fairly untapped market of "non-biz" folk that might have use cases for it.
[0]- http://www.citrix.com/products/xendesktop/overview.html
[0]- http://www.citrix.com/products/xendesktop/overview.html
Citrix seemed to have been a partner to Amazon:
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/global-solution-providers/ci...
Not sure if Workspaces has any sort of collaboration with Citrix.
Not sure if Workspaces has any sort of collaboration with Citrix.
It wouldn't be. This is powered by Teradici's PCoIP solution (I worked on that) which is the competition to the Citrix HDX protocol. Teradici used to partner primarily with VMware and compete with Citrix in VDI.
This could be especially useful for health professionals accessing big enterprise systems like Epic.
Assuming all the HIPPA concerns are addressed. Last I checked, healthcare businesses want nothing to do with AWS, and either run their own infrastructure or begrudgingly use things like Firehost.
It's supposedly possible.
http://aws.amazon.com/compliance/#hipaa
http://aws.amazon.com/compliance/#hipaa
Yep, it's possible, but to get them to sign a BAA with you, you need to agree to only use a very small subset of the AWS products (basically just EC2 and S3. No RDS, no ELB, etc.). Additionally, any EC2 instance you provision need to have the "single tenancy" bit set on your instances. Which, when set, you start getting hit with a very high flat per-day "single tenancy" fee in addition to higher hourly costs for your instances.
Correct! Once you need single tenancy, you might as well be buying your own gear and colo'ing it (unless you have a desperate need for low latency access to other AWS services you simply can't move away from).
Epic (hyperspace) is generally accessed through Citrix. It just runs in a single application container instead of exposing a full desktop.
This is going to be big for Chromebooks, I suspect.
And IT departments that don't want company data to ever exist on the laptops. We're back to dumb terminals and mainframes.
Except this time the mainframe is "The Cloud", and there are graphics, so fast internet connectivity is going to be even more essential.
"The Cloud" is still a mainframe in Virginia.
This made me laugh -
".. or to meet IT requirements to not have company data on end user devices"
Ya, just put it on Amazon's servers instead. That's way better.
Ya, just put it on Amazon's servers instead. That's way better.
It is better. You can be HIPAA and other obnoxious-acronym compliant in an amazon VPC. You can't with data on random laptops...
> You can't with data on random laptops...
Well, yes you can, you just document the procedure.
I really can't understand the disconnect between setting a policy that you can't have company data on company owned/controlled desktops but can have all that data sitting in a 3rd party system.
Well, yes you can, you just document the procedure.
I really can't understand the disconnect between setting a policy that you can't have company data on company owned/controlled desktops but can have all that data sitting in a 3rd party system.
3rd party cloud systems don't get stolen out of backpacks and left behind in coffeeshops.
I've got a free year of credit monitoring because a hospital laptop was stolen with patient data on it and they have no idea where it went. Yippee.
I've got a free year of credit monitoring because a hospital laptop was stolen with patient data on it and they have no idea where it went. Yippee.
And in the future you'll be able to get another free year because AWS was breached and all your health data has been accessible over the internet for god knows how long. Or maybe you won't because it wasn't the hospitals fault, it was Amazon's and you're not their customer. I know I'm looking forward to it.
But whatever, just hope that Amazon does the right thing, it's not like you or your healthcare provider can check up on it.
But whatever, just hope that Amazon does the right thing, it's not like you or your healthcare provider can check up on it.
It's all about the tradeoffs given the constraints. Both dumb terminals and smart PCs have their advantages and disadvantages.
When a single system is cheaper (counting total ROI) than distributed systems, the mainframe approach will win. Otherwise, the distributed approach will win. The tradeoffs change from year to year and even company to company.
PS -- internal web apps are essentially dumb terminals as well, and businesses have been making those since the late 90s.
When a single system is cheaper (counting total ROI) than distributed systems, the mainframe approach will win. Otherwise, the distributed approach will win. The tradeoffs change from year to year and even company to company.
PS -- internal web apps are essentially dumb terminals as well, and businesses have been making those since the late 90s.
I think there is a market there. VMware and Google have already announced a partnership on VMware's DaaS and Chromebooks - http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2014/02/vmware-to-bring...
VMware's DaaS has been available since earlier this month - http://www.vmware.com/products/daas
VMware's DaaS has been available since earlier this month - http://www.vmware.com/products/daas
It very well could be if the experience does not seem laggy. I've been using a Windows VM from Azure whenever I want to do something that my Chromebook can't do. I get to the VM with Chrome remote desktop in a new window and it works pretty well.
So having given this a try. To setup a user with a machine is trivial. You enter their name, email address and what type of machine to give them.
Then an email is sent to them with all instructions and a validation code.
They do not need to have an AWS account.
And, it can tie into a firm's existing directory of users: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/conn...
Then an email is sent to them with all instructions and a validation code.
They do not need to have an AWS account.
And, it can tie into a firm's existing directory of users: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/conn...
We have a use-case down at the office.
Some of what we do is processing legal files. This involves managing 'our' ftp site, provided by the vendor.
Turns out this is a 'windows' server, connected via iscsi, to a directory where their FTP server dumps the files. This is, judging by the hostname, a vmware host.
I suspect an AWS workspace would be a lot cheaper to run than a VMWare cluster.
Some of what we do is processing legal files. This involves managing 'our' ftp site, provided by the vendor.
Turns out this is a 'windows' server, connected via iscsi, to a directory where their FTP server dumps the files. This is, judging by the hostname, a vmware host.
I suspect an AWS workspace would be a lot cheaper to run than a VMWare cluster.
I think the primary use case is not for personal use but for large corporations. The high availability (which we've also seen in aws) and pay-as-you-go pricing are probably the biggest selling points.
I hope other providers will follow suit. Amazon's offers are great but outside the US, using Amazon services becomes more and more of a legal problem due to privacy concerns.
Which is why Amazon AWS is available in Europe.
Which is _great_ because we're going after the EU market in a little bit.
Which is _great_ because we're going after the EU market in a little bit.
It appears WorkSpaces requires a client which is not available for Linux desktop users nor ChromeOS. :/
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/clie...
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/clie...
Android-x86 VM?
Hm. I wonder if anyone is doing the work to get Android apps runnable on desktop Linux systems. Some googling suggests that at this point, Android-x86 can more or less run in a chroot already...
Hm. I wonder if anyone is doing the work to get Android apps runnable on desktop Linux systems. Some googling suggests that at this point, Android-x86 can more or less run in a chroot already...
Is there something new about WorkSpaces?
Here's a discussion about it from a few months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962
Here's a discussion about it from a few months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962
It just went GA today: http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2014/03/amazon-workspaces-now-ava...
Sounds a lot similar to what people used to do back in the day with a terminal connected to a central computer. Technology seems to move in circles.
Anyway if it can beat my horrible corporate VDI I am all for it. Although Initech probably wont be switching to some fancy new AWS anytime soon.
Anyway if it can beat my horrible corporate VDI I am all for it. Although Initech probably wont be switching to some fancy new AWS anytime soon.
> "Technology seems to move in circles."
VDI, Citrix, et al are less a reaction to how awesome mainframe/terminal architecture is, and more a statement about how utterly horrible it is to maintain an enterprise Windows image.
It's not unlike the architecturally-similar-situation with web apps exploding in popularity in the mid 2000s. People were primarily responding to how great it was to have "their stuff" anywhere they happened to sit down, and how horrible the native client experience was, on Windows.
And we've had a great natural test of that theory, with modern mobile devices: Now that people have their own machine with them, wherever they happen to be, with native client experiences that aren't nearly the hassle that desktop Windows was, web apps are playing second-fiddle.
Similarly, this VDI thing is going to run into trouble as enterprise further adopts BYOD and their desktop images are needed by fewer and fewer people.
VDI, Citrix, et al are less a reaction to how awesome mainframe/terminal architecture is, and more a statement about how utterly horrible it is to maintain an enterprise Windows image.
It's not unlike the architecturally-similar-situation with web apps exploding in popularity in the mid 2000s. People were primarily responding to how great it was to have "their stuff" anywhere they happened to sit down, and how horrible the native client experience was, on Windows.
And we've had a great natural test of that theory, with modern mobile devices: Now that people have their own machine with them, wherever they happen to be, with native client experiences that aren't nearly the hassle that desktop Windows was, web apps are playing second-fiddle.
Similarly, this VDI thing is going to run into trouble as enterprise further adopts BYOD and their desktop images are needed by fewer and fewer people.
> Similarly, this VDI thing is going to run into trouble as enterprise further adopts BYOD and their desktop images are needed by fewer and fewer people.
BYOD is one of the big drivers behind VDI: VDI allows enterprise IT shops a measure of control over the security of enterprise data when the physical hardware being used to interact with the data is less trusted.
BYOD is one of the big drivers behind VDI: VDI allows enterprise IT shops a measure of control over the security of enterprise data when the physical hardware being used to interact with the data is less trusted.
Whether people are adopting VDI as supplemental support for the transition to first-class web/mobile workflow might be interesting during the transition, but the end result is the same.
Making BYOD work means building an enterprise that needs far, far fewer Windows desktop "seats" than they do today.
VDI has a strong value proposition as a solution for those remaining seats, but that number is going to be very, very small compared to what people deal with today.
Making BYOD work means building an enterprise that needs far, far fewer Windows desktop "seats" than they do today.
VDI has a strong value proposition as a solution for those remaining seats, but that number is going to be very, very small compared to what people deal with today.
In the long term there are potentially other technological solutions to these issues.
Evolutions in sandboxing (broadly construed, everything from what we see with mobile apps up to full virtualization) may give us a point at which an IT department can, for most businesses/purposes, reasonably satisfy itself of the security of the "enterprise apps" running on a non-malicious employee's laptop, without completely taking over the system image.
Evolutions in sandboxing (broadly construed, everything from what we see with mobile apps up to full virtualization) may give us a point at which an IT department can, for most businesses/purposes, reasonably satisfy itself of the security of the "enterprise apps" running on a non-malicious employee's laptop, without completely taking over the system image.
Precisely. When VNC (for example) is the only way company secrets ever reach your machine, said machine does not need to be as trusted.
As with DRM - you can't make data accessible to an untrusted client and retain any control over how it might be (mis)used.
Anyone telling you that you can, is selling something.
VDI and VNC might make a certain class of contemporary malicious use/programs less convenient, but malicious code and habits will change far, far faster than enterprise architecture.
Anyone telling you that you can, is selling something.
VDI and VNC might make a certain class of contemporary malicious use/programs less convenient, but malicious code and habits will change far, far faster than enterprise architecture.
Obviously sophisticated screenreading software could extract secrets through VNC, or malware could be entered via keyboard.
But the "VNC gap" immediately obviates the risk of unsophisticated attacks. No more viruses spreading over SMB. Rather limited bandwidth (preventing raw copies of The Hobbit in 4k from being ripped via VNC).
It isn't bulletproof, but you can't pretend it doesn't help.
But the "VNC gap" immediately obviates the risk of unsophisticated attacks. No more viruses spreading over SMB. Rather limited bandwidth (preventing raw copies of The Hobbit in 4k from being ripped via VNC).
It isn't bulletproof, but you can't pretend it doesn't help.
And echoed in the 90s by the likes of the Sun Ray series of thin clients.
Wait…thin clients…virtual reality goggles…are we back in 1995 again?
Wait…thin clients…virtual reality goggles…are we back in 1995 again?
At least we're not about to claim that Javascript is the next big--oh wait.
Shit.
Shit.
The circle has already completed, for me. I do 99% of my work over corporate VDI, which is thankfully not horrible at all.
For my company, I dont believe its the actually VDI causing me problems, I'm pretty sure its our horrible internal network.
There appears to be a pretty big gap between the pricing of the WorkSpaces Windows machines and the same(?) machines purchased through EC2. For example, an m3.medium is 1 vCPU, 3.75GiB and is ~$126/mo. The Standard WorkSpaces machine is 1 vCPU, 3.75GiB and $35/mo.
Are there reasons not to move Windows workloads from EC2 to WorkSpaces?
Are there reasons not to move Windows workloads from EC2 to WorkSpaces?
Probably WorkSpaces is not designed to be active 24/7. Desktop CPU usages are also usually much lighter than server usages.
The windows EC2 machines are also designed for web traffic (IIS servers). I suspect these machines will still get traffic but not at the volume of a web server.
Maybe the impending EC2 price drop (predicted by many in light of the new Google cloud pricing) will bring it in line.
They just announced the new pricing [0]. It's much cheaper, but still about 2x the price of the WorkSpaces. The only difference I can see is the local storage: 4 GB SSD on EC2 vs. 50 GB on WorkSpaces. I have to assume WorkSpaces is using a spinning HDD in that case.
[0] http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/effective-april-2014/
[0] http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/effective-april-2014/
it's probably priced assuming 40hrs/week usage, not 168hrs/week usage.
Cloud Desktops could be how next generation Desktop computing looks like, i am just not sure how fast we can get over latency and bandwidth limits, especially if you consider coming standards like 4K+, so in the meantime it will probably evolve the way it already does with desktop apps that talk to the cloud but run locally.
But for normal office work, eg, Ms Office, this is already fine.
The network is what kills this idea before it leaves the womb.
Everyday ISPs/Content Providers are constricting the pipes more and more.
All the physical equipment and meatspace savings from this will vanish[shift rather] and the network costs will take their place.
Everyday ISPs/Content Providers are constricting the pipes more and more.
All the physical equipment and meatspace savings from this will vanish[shift rather] and the network costs will take their place.
I seriously doubt this claim that the network costs will be at all significant.
So the access providers will change their behavior on the basis of your serious doubt?
Will they add new infrastructure and absorb that cost without price increases?
Netflix's issues with ISPs is actually a counter example to my position?
As time goes on, we'll use less data rather than more?
Video[GUIs are video] require a lot of transfers even when you have good connections/protocols. I do remote work[a lot] and I have a typical uplink and it stinks. I use CLI/SSHFS as much as possible to avoid lags and it is still laborious.
Will they add new infrastructure and absorb that cost without price increases?
Netflix's issues with ISPs is actually a counter example to my position?
As time goes on, we'll use less data rather than more?
Video[GUIs are video] require a lot of transfers even when you have good connections/protocols. I do remote work[a lot] and I have a typical uplink and it stinks. I use CLI/SSHFS as much as possible to avoid lags and it is still laborious.
Still on the other hand things like Onlive/Gaikai realtime game streaming are really quite impressive and responsive. But they obviously had cost issues as well and it remains to be seen when that experience would be possible in real 1080p at a high bitrate. Not even thinking about 4K here...
I waiting for Plan9 to show up.
No no, that's already been done. I've got my eye on Scheme9.
It looks like it'd be handy if I could spin up a Mac or Windows desktop to test stuff with, but it looks like you can't connect to it from Linux. Too bad.
VMware View uses the same protocol (Teradici PCoIP) and has a linux client. Have any VMware View linux users here tried to connect to Amazon Workspaces?
I'm pretty sure the View and AWS clients will not interoperate. Teradici does have the technology so it's a question of how important it is for Amazon to deliver a Linux client.
"WorkSpaces provide users with the Windows 7 Experience"
I don't really want to have a Windows 7 Experience.. wonder why they don't provide a linux desktop.
I don't really want to have a Windows 7 Experience.. wonder why they don't provide a linux desktop.
I agree...I'd like a Linux desktop as well. However, what client software on the Linux side performs as well as RDP? How can I get that same performance?
VNC certainly doesn't do it. NX is about as close as I've come, and it can still be laggy at times. I think Spice may be the future on this side, but not sure.
For those of you who run remote Linux desktops in the cloud and actually use a UI, how do you do it and get an adequate desktop experience (sound, video, etc)?
VNC certainly doesn't do it. NX is about as close as I've come, and it can still be laggy at times. I think Spice may be the future on this side, but not sure.
For those of you who run remote Linux desktops in the cloud and actually use a UI, how do you do it and get an adequate desktop experience (sound, video, etc)?
You can actually use RDP for Linux. Most of what I do is server stuff, so this really hasn't been a concern of mine, but recently I was playing with the custom cryptocurrency mining distro, BAMT. You connect to it via RDP client (in this case, I used Microsoft's OSX client). I can't say anything about performance relative to VNC/NX, however.
You can do that easily yourself with EC2. Windows requires a little more hand-holding on their part on AWS.
Licensing, Licensing, Licensing.
Feel free to imagine Ballmer running around a stage yelling this.
Feel free to imagine Ballmer running around a stage yelling this.
To be fair, they're not really jazzing up how great of an experience Windows 7 is, but rather referring to enabling the Desktop Experience feature[1] of Windows Server 2008 that installs/enables standard desktop features and allow it to be used akin to an end-user desktop.
[1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772567.aspx
[1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772567.aspx
How much bandwith is necessary to run their client per user?
I am thinking about travelling through south-east asia and/or africa for a few months, would this (in addition to ssh) be viable for working/freelancing from remote locations with throwaway hardware?
I am thinking about travelling through south-east asia and/or africa for a few months, would this (in addition to ssh) be viable for working/freelancing from remote locations with throwaway hardware?
Latency might not be great in SE Asia or Africa. The blog post linked elsewhere in these comments indicates that this is currently served up only from Virginia and Oregon.
You would be surprised how fast internet can be even in remote parts of Laos. I use similar software and was easily able to use my workstation from there. I agree though that it can be hit and miss...
What they need to do is add a way to access the remote machine without Windows/Mac. Something as simple as "use this usb to boot your computer and enter your credentials to login to your remote machine".
When there's a Linux client, you could do this easily by adapting any one of several distros.
The video says "to replace the support and security headaches of physical desktop machines" but wouldn't you still have to worry about the end device's security? Especially so in this case since the user likely has admin access on it?
What if the device a user is logging in from has a keylogger/screencapper that captures everything they do with their 'cloud desktop'? What if they contract malware that specifically pulls data from the 'cloud desktop' (i.e. from a targeted attack)?
What if the device a user is logging in from has a keylogger/screencapper that captures everything they do with their 'cloud desktop'? What if they contract malware that specifically pulls data from the 'cloud desktop' (i.e. from a targeted attack)?
Hmm; one interesting bit is WorkSpaces Sync - https://sync.amazonworkspaces.com/
At first glance it looks something like Dropbox with S3 as the storage backend. They suggest it being used to keep files in sync between a standard PC and a WorkSpace. I wonder if it can be used without the WorkSpace?
At first glance it looks something like Dropbox with S3 as the storage backend. They suggest it being used to keep files in sync between a standard PC and a WorkSpace. I wonder if it can be used without the WorkSpace?
Yes, the AWS s3 cli [1] has a --sync option that does that.
[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/s3/sync.html
Edit: Actually this isn't the dropbox functionality. For that you'd have to wrap it in an inotify loop:
"while true; do inotifywait -r -e modify . && aws s3 sync <local> <s3 bucket>; done"
[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/s3/sync.html
Edit: Actually this isn't the dropbox functionality. For that you'd have to wrap it in an inotify loop:
"while true; do inotifywait -r -e modify . && aws s3 sync <local> <s3 bucket>; done"
OS/360 is back!
It never left
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Z/OS
It's just not cool
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Z/OS
It's just not cool
I didn't get this when it was first announced and don't get it now. $600/y will get you your own hardware and software licenses. Access with RDC or VNC. Hardware can easily last 3 years so now you're looking at $600 vs $1800 (excluding power, bandwidth and IT staff). Why would anyone use this?
I have a use case. It's 'niche' but that's where I have been working for almost a year.
In the legal field there are a scatload of organizations that process data. Data is moved by FTP or SFTP. It's organized by case and/or client.
The directories can hold hundreds - or thousands - of files, compressed file sizes nearly 500mb are not uncommon.
To _manage_ this mess o' bytes users are given 'a windows server', login by RDP. The server has (the ones I've seen) a connection via ISCSI to a 'drive' that is (tada) the FTP repository. Move, delete, rename using Windows Explorer.
The several that I've seen are vmware instances. Living - I guess - on a dedicated vmware cluster.
This is _made_ for uses like that.
The _heck_ with paying for, and maintaining, an expensive machine. Boot up a workspace, create the user. Bill them cost. When you're done, shut it down.
This is good because we, ourselves, are aiming to be a data processing org (in part) but we have to do it better and cheaper. Which we can, with workspace.
Assuming, of course, that we can have some control over what is installed, and connections to our already existing ebs volumes.
In the legal field there are a scatload of organizations that process data. Data is moved by FTP or SFTP. It's organized by case and/or client.
The directories can hold hundreds - or thousands - of files, compressed file sizes nearly 500mb are not uncommon.
To _manage_ this mess o' bytes users are given 'a windows server', login by RDP. The server has (the ones I've seen) a connection via ISCSI to a 'drive' that is (tada) the FTP repository. Move, delete, rename using Windows Explorer.
The several that I've seen are vmware instances. Living - I guess - on a dedicated vmware cluster.
This is _made_ for uses like that.
The _heck_ with paying for, and maintaining, an expensive machine. Boot up a workspace, create the user. Bill them cost. When you're done, shut it down.
This is good because we, ourselves, are aiming to be a data processing org (in part) but we have to do it better and cheaper. Which we can, with workspace.
Assuming, of course, that we can have some control over what is installed, and connections to our already existing ebs volumes.
One thing to note that took me awhile to find - Workspaces requires installation of local client software to function, so if your devices or computers have software install restrictions you will want to work with your infrastructure / change review folks to get it approved before buying.
Yay, this is a big step towards making DaaS a reality. The Teradici PCoIP client they use improves the user experience a lot, especially for video. Now just waiting for an API so we can incorporate Workspaces into Leostreamdesktops.com as another DaaS option.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_as_a_service) "Daas" also means "data as a service". Something tells me you meant "desktop as a service", i.e. desktop virtualization, though?
I guess my point is that "*aas" acronyms are (besides ugly, but that's just my opinion) not always very clear; please consider writing what you mean at least the first time before using an acronym.
Don't assume everyone knows what you know, especially for rather new and up-in-the-air technology terminology such as this.
I guess my point is that "*aas" acronyms are (besides ugly, but that's just my opinion) not always very clear; please consider writing what you mean at least the first time before using an acronym.
Don't assume everyone knows what you know, especially for rather new and up-in-the-air technology terminology such as this.
Paas can be platform as a service or pretty colored easter eggs. Shit happens.
I work for an IT company, and this is very cool. Especially if they make good strides in backups and management (application deployment, etc..).
Much better than buying $100K of hardware for a Terminal Server, and paying $100K of support a year to maintain it ;)
Much better than buying $100K of hardware for a Terminal Server, and paying $100K of support a year to maintain it ;)
Nobody spends $100K / yr on "a Terminal Server", either for hardware, software licensing, or support. If you are then you're not going to manage this "solution" any better, or you're going to be at a scale where Amazon's offering will be leaps and bounds more expensive.
Well okay, it's not just a terminal server. But the purpose is for several dozens of users to connect with their "think clients."
It's a virtual host that has a terminal server + a few other servers.
It's a virtual host that has a terminal server + a few other servers.
But what about the bandwidth costs to support a large number of users. I have to imagine that adds up quickly.
It adds up, but not so quickly.
RDP is "smart." The bandwidth requirements can vary from a few KBPS to ~100.
What ends up happening is, if you need more bandwidth in this scenario you're going to need it in general - for downloading files, emails, etc..
Email, usually, takes about the same bandwidth. So, if Amazon is taking that burden, you should be OK.
RDP is "smart." The bandwidth requirements can vary from a few KBPS to ~100.
What ends up happening is, if you need more bandwidth in this scenario you're going to need it in general - for downloading files, emails, etc..
Email, usually, takes about the same bandwidth. So, if Amazon is taking that burden, you should be OK.
And people will download the emails, files to the Amazon box using amazons fast connection. It may actually reduce peak bandwidth use.
The experience is laggy, as the top reply suggests. Your users which aren't doing much[should they even have their own box anyway? (No)] won't notice, but people who actually use the box[I was a quant in a former life] will hate you for it.
Dual monitors are also somewhat common nowadays[vital for actual productivity], how the heck is that gonna do over Comcast lines?
When the day comes[never] that we have ubiquitous/cheap bandwith, this idea is nearly practical. Until then it is DOA for "real work".
Dual monitors are also somewhat common nowadays[vital for actual productivity], how the heck is that gonna do over Comcast lines?
When the day comes[never] that we have ubiquitous/cheap bandwith, this idea is nearly practical. Until then it is DOA for "real work".
Even with ubiquitous/cheap bandwidth latency is still an issue (until we get Tachyon Display Port) in any real world scenario.
This might serve a subset well enough but got would it be painful (as you correctly observe) for anything who is hammering the machine.
This might serve a subset well enough but got would it be painful (as you correctly observe) for anything who is hammering the machine.
I (didn't) launch a similar service in 2000. I just wrote about it here:
http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/officemaster/#content
http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/officemaster/#content
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962
Am I the only one that read this and thought, "Brilliant! Amazon's getting into co-working!" From AWS to Co-working to buying AirBnB, Seamless and Uber (I'm spackling) Amazon could own a startup kid's life from cradle to grave.
Pardon my ignorance, for an individual on a mac that wants to use this, what's the difference between this and a Windows instance on EC2? I'm assuming this product is for managing teams, versus my solo EC2 instance?
Argh. It's a shame that the ReactOS "Thorium Core" Kickstarter didn't get funded. It would have been nice to see ROS developed to a point where it'd be a good OS to virtualise (for free).
I wish I could spin up a Mac desktop to test some stuff with htis. Anyone have any inside info re: whether they have plans for Mac WorkSpaces?
Your much better off virtualizing Mac OS X locally. With small tweaks, you can even do this with VMware on Windows.
Doubt it because of licensing issues. Apple does not allow virtualising OSX on anything except OSX ;)
Probably not, as they currently offer no OSX-backed instances.
Even if they did, Apple restricts OSX to Apple hardware. There are a few companies out there that offer this, but typically you'll pay $25-40 for a fairly anemic setup (say 1-1.5 GB). This is likely a direct product of the hardware cost, as opposed to the ability to use commodity hardware for Windows/Linux.
Even if they did, Apple restricts OSX to Apple hardware. There are a few companies out there that offer this, but typically you'll pay $25-40 for a fairly anemic setup (say 1-1.5 GB). This is likely a direct product of the hardware cost, as opposed to the ability to use commodity hardware for Windows/Linux.
(T_T) Waaaaah:
REGION UNSUPPORTED
WorkSpaces is not available in Asia Pacific (Tokyo).
Please select another region.Why did Amazon build a new replacement for Desktops, in 2014, and package it with IE 9?
Microsoft execs would be kicking themselves for not coming into this market first.
Except Azure VDI is already a thing.
Id love to have a workspace app on my smart tv though...
IE9?
and this is why I left IT
The UX for the account setup and workspace admin is pretty rough, feels MVP (but it works).
It took about 30 minutes for my machine to be provisioned. Then I got an email. Downloaded the OS X client, about 30 megs.
Launched. Took about a minute to login and get my machine booted.
GUI performance for small area updates is great, dragging a window not so great. It is usable, but not fluid.
My connection is showing 70Mbps/10Mbps with 12ms latency on speedtest.net
Using a IE. Oh this is interesting – when going to Google, I am at google.tw
Where is this machine hosted? Showing an IP of 54.85.209.100 (US), odd...
Visiting Youtube, Youtube.tw comes up, video is a bit choppy, audio is fine.
Visiting nytimes.com. Loading is a bit slow, scrolling is very choppy. Text selection is very fast.
Downloaded some CSV, opens in Excel. This is fast, and very usable.
Disconnect.
Log back in, everything is just as I left it (of course).
--- continued ---
I download the client for the iPad, enter the registration code, and login.
There is a 13 part tutorial on gestures (way too many for me to remember) Fortunately you can drag a menu of commands from the left side easily.
I play around a bit, it works fine.
Now I login from my computer, oh bummer, my iPad session was disconnected.
You can only be logged in from device at a time. That is too bad. It would be nice to share.