Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VMware Unveils Workplace Suite and NVIDIA Partnership For Chromebooks

samzenpus posted about three weeks ago | from the check-it-out dept.

Chrome 60

Gamoid writes At VMworld today, VMware introduced the Workplace Suite, a platform for securely delivering applications and content across desktops and mobile devices from the cloud. The really cool part, though, is a partnership with Google and NVIDIA to deliver even graphics-intensive Windows applications on a Chromebook. From the article: "The new VMware Workplace Suite takes advantage of three existing VMware products: Tools for application, device, and content management as well as secure cloud file storage that comes from the January acquisition of enterprise mobile management company AirWatch; VMware Horizon for desktop-as-a-service; and brand-new acquisition CloudVolumes for app delivery. "

cancel ×

60 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Flashback to the 90s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47759199)

Remember when the dream was a computer that was just a node for the Internet, and everything ran elsewhere?

Re:Flashback to the 90s (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about three weeks ago | (#47760825)

Right. It was a dream before we realized how much we'd be nickeled and dimed once the providers know we can't get what we need locally.. then it became a nightmare. It's amazing how quickly people forget.

Re:Flashback to the 90s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761093)

Right. It was a dream before we realized how much we'd be nickeled and dimed once the providers know we can't get what we need locally.

How so? I've got Netflix and Hulu which is far more economical than setting up my own streaming system at home and buying all the movies/shows for it. I've got gmail which is far cheaper than running my own email server (and optionally webserver for webmail). I've got google apps which is a LOT cheaper than MS Office and a lot more convenient than Open/Libre Office as I can access it from any web-connected system.

Im not sure where you are (or think you are) getting "nickeled and dimed".

Re:Flashback to the 90s (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about three weeks ago | (#47761323)

I'd still rather own the copies outright than 'rent' them repeatedly and get low quality streams. Gmail is cheaper in dollars, yes, but not in terms of privacy or access. Google apps are also a lot less capable than ms office, and a lot less secure.

So you want to trade convenience for control.. This is a popular trend these days. If these choices become the only ones, giving up control of your data to remote hosts and providers will result in the same kinds of shit that goes on with identity fraud, from both private entities and governments.

Re:Flashback to the 90s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761593)

I'd still rather own the copies outright than 'rent' them repeatedly and get low quality streams.

1080p and 720p streams, not "low quality". I get access to a lot more of them than I could ever afford to buy outright, if i want to watch some movie a few times i'll just stream it a few times and it's still cheaper than buying it outright.

Gmail is cheaper in dollars, yes, but not in terms of privacy or access.

I dont know what you mean about it not being cheaper in terms of "access" and you are deluded if you think privacy is an issue here. The NSA has shown that all your communications can be intercepted so unless you encrypt the message it hardly matters what platform you use, and you can encrypt the message on any platform you like, even gmail.

So you want to trade convenience for control.

In *some* situations yes, because in those it is a *lot* more convenient and cheaper and because "control" is a meaningless term in that context. What you have is the illusion of control, if you transmit data over the internet it can be intercepted, you do not control that. But why do I *need* control of my own email server or one of my backup file storage locations? i back up to the cloud (and to hard disk on my local network) and if the cloud gets to a point where it is no longer suitable ill back up to something else.

If these choices become the only ones, giving up control of your data to remote hosts and providers will result in the same kinds of shit that goes on with identity fraud, from both private entities and governments.

and how exactly is such a thing going to happen? actually try and detail for me how that could happen and you will see how ridiculous that idea is. you think all these competing corporations and governments all over the world are going to mend all their differences and collude in a conquest against the users (which are also their employees) ... for fuck sake if that happens then good going because youve probably brought about world peace in the process.

Re: Flashback to the 90s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761759)

So, when someone wants to send that spreadsheet or document created on google docs to their boss, How does that work out? Yea. They only use Microsoft products.

Re: Flashback to the 90s (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about three weeks ago | (#47788361)

You can download them as a Microsoft document. If the formatting is off, then just blame it on being a different version of Office. Everyone in business knows Microsoft Office is only partially compatible across product generations. In fact, I've wasted over 12 hours because an important Excel function stopped working correctly in 2013 (or possibly earlier), and I still have no fix.

Re:Flashback to the 90s (1)

Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) | about three weeks ago | (#47761795)

You can go back a little further. We used to call this 'mainframes and terminals'. There's a reason why we got away from it. Lots of them in fact.

Hmmm .... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about three weeks ago | (#47759219)

Why does this sound like remote desktop to me?

Just sayin'.

Re:Hmmm .... (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47759431)

Because it is. What they're doing is selling remote desktop as a service. Rather than your windows machine, they're offering a windows machine. It's not new, not as a technology, nor explicitly as a service.

But sometimes all you want is useful.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about three weeks ago | (#47760865)

I would argue that 'a' windows machine is less useful than 'your' windows machine because the latter offers you full rights while the latter does not.

In this era of egregious NSA and government offenses towards our liberty, we really shouldn't have such enthusiasm for doing all our computing remotely on some fortune 500's remote machines. You can almost guarantee that such hosting companies will be compromised by NSLs.

I'd rather keep my data as private as possible, running my own copies of software on my own local hardware.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about three weeks ago | (#47760869)

*while the *former* does not, sorry.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47761139)

In this era of egregious NSA and government offenses towards our liberty, we really shouldn't have such enthusiasm for doing all our computing remotely on some fortune 500's remote machines.

It isn't about doing all your computing there. Most of your private stuff is pretty mundane and can be accomplished on even the lowest end hardware locally but if I want to run CAE simulations from my chromebook then this certainly sounds preferable to lugging around 5kg of expensive hardware that is virtually unused 95% of the time.

The problem is this absolutist view of cloud computing, you do realize that it isn't an "all or nothing" proposition don't you?

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about three weeks ago | (#47761305)

It's the high performance stuff that I want local. I don't want to pay the exorbitant prices for hosting, storage, bandwidth, and renting of applications, esp the high performing ones, which will use more of everything. If it becomes SOP, the ASPs and ISPs will jack up the rates knowing people will have no choice. Also, the laws of physics will make this laggy as hell. The low performance stuff is mundane, but I still would not want that stored on a remote host.

The problem is this absolutist view of cloud computing, you do realize that it isn't an "all or nothing" proposition don't you?

Yup. It's proponents don't.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47761371)

It's the high performance stuff that I want local.

Like what for example?

I don't want to pay the exorbitant prices for hosting, storage, bandwidth, and renting of applications

From what I've seen the prices generally aren't "exorbitant" by any means.

If it becomes SOP, the ASPs and ISPs will jack up the rates knowing people will have no choice.

Yeah that argument has always been used as a scare tactic, over the years I've been doing much more stuff online (larger email attachments, remote desktop, remotely accessing my NAS, streaming videos) and these days I get orders of magnitude more data allowance a hell of a lot cheaper than I ever did before.

Also, the laws of physics will make this laggy as hell.

Make what laggy as hell? Remote desktop - which is what this is - works pretty well. And this is just a remote desktop system, remoting into another Windows system that you could just as easily run directly on your system, on your desktop at home that you remote into or on a VM.

Yup. It's proponents don't.

Like who? Certainly not the big players like Adobe, Apple, Google (even GApps runs offline), Microsoft, Autodesk, etc ...

Re:Hmmm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761961)

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is actually a real difference with regard to remote desktop, which operates using the RDP protocol and must operate under a non-accelerated graphics driver, vs. Nvidia's GRID offerings. Those GPUs have access to the same H.264 encoding capability as all Kepler-series chips as well as drivers which allow them to be shared seamlessly by multiple virtual machine instances, meaning the performance is MUCH better than most previous solutions. You can check out a demo here. [nvidia.com] Now of course a significant portion of the gamer market would still find the input lag acceptable even if we could stream uncompressed 4k (though that is being worked on) [slashdot.org] , but companies that do CAD and/or 3D modeling may find that the TCO of a couple of GRID servers is lower than going through a full hardware refresh cycle every few years while offering very comparable performance, particularly if the servers are on your LAN.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

spieters (312206) | about three weeks ago | (#47763383)

This is something that Citrix has been doing for a while now, and it's funny to see that when VMW even go so far as to blatantly rip off the name of the product (which by the way is Workspace Suite, not Worplace Suite), they can claim to be innovative and people actually believe it.
Oh well, not like that's never happened before.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

jabuzz (182671) | about three weeks ago | (#47763895)

One concludes that you have not heard of RemoteFX and multimedia redirection then because the basic premiss of your comments is factually incorrect. Now VMwares solution might be better than Microsoft's but both do the same thing.

Re:Hmmm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47764221)

RemoteFX only applies to DirectX apps, and the performance isn't anywhere close to what can be done by GRID. Just see for yourself, the demo is very easy to sign-up for and run, you get a full Win7 desktop with some graphics demos already installed, plus you can run any software of your choosing to see how capable it is. I didn't claim remote graphics hadn't been done before, simply that it hasn't been done this well.

Re:Hmmm .... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about three weeks ago | (#47762557)

But sometimes all you want is useful.

Holy shit, reed... that's the third intelligent thing I've seen you post in as many days; what gives?! ;)

No more "Cloud", please (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about three weeks ago | (#47759249)

Enough. No, I do not want "Cloud" services, thanks. I want my good old desktop with local applications that do not need be connected to the internet 24/7 to work, not everyone have a fiber connection available all the time for this.

I hope it dies down... (3, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | about three weeks ago | (#47759333)

It is a market segment that is seeing growth, and the hype machine has gone into overdrive under the assumption that anything that grows will grow indefinitely overtaking anything it conceivably could in its path.

The reality like all other times before is that it might get more adopted than it should before receding to the appropriate amount as it plateaus as the hype gets done. Thin clients have been around for ages even as the hype behind them has erupted and died out multiple times. They clearly have their role but it is clearly not the end-all, be-all that these companies bill it as.

Re:I hope it dies down... (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about three weeks ago | (#47759585)

I know, my patience is running out for this hype. And my fear is that this gets to a point where applications you need to work (or operating systems) begins to stop working without "cloud" services and reliable 24/7 internet connections that simply do not exist everywhere in my country. And I will not even get into the subject of the serious security breach that is trusting critical data to third-party "cloud" servers on which you have no control.

Re:I hope it dies down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761169)

Then the alternative is free/open source software. With all these providers making this apparently terrible choice to "move to the cloud", free software has yet another chance to do something decent, the opportunities presented by the missteps of proprietary vendors (Microsoft with ME, Vista and 8, Apple with things like FCPX and every second OSX release) have been missed so many times over the past 2 decades, dont let this be another example of a time when free software had the chance to be the answer and fell over itself yet again.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47759385)

Thanks for tuning in to "Dispatches from the Lonely Basement".

Be sure to tune in next week for our next exciting episode "Momma Forgot to Shop Milk. Again."

Re: No more "Cloud", please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47759421)

Agreed!!!

Re:No more "Cloud", please (3, Interesting)

Scutter (18425) | about three weeks ago | (#47759733)

HIPAA, PCI, Sarbanes Oxley, Et. al. I'm seeing more and more call to implement ways to control data in the age of bring-your-own-device and mobile workforces. If a company can let a user work from the coffee shop but still keep the actual data inside the datacenter, then a thin-client solution becomes more and more attractive.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about three weeks ago | (#47759819)

You're probably not the target demographic for this product - it's aimed at "Chromebooks" which are ~3lb cheap laptops. Similar to terminals connecting to mainframes in the past except smaller and with WiFi.

If it helps, you can replace "Cloud" with "Server cluster".

Re:No more "Cloud", please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47760369)

You're probably not the target demographic for this product - it's aimed at "Chromebooks" which are ~3lb cheap laptops. Similar to terminals connecting to mainframes in the past except smaller and with WiFi.

If it helps, you can replace "Cloud" with "Server cluster".

Does it work with Microsoft VPNs? Because if it does, then it's not like a ChromeBook...

Re:No more "Cloud", please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47759859)

Eh. I do. I use Amazon Workspaces instead of a laptop/desktop anymore for my work environment. I'm often out of the office traveling between locations, so I carry my personal laptop with the workspaces client, or my 4g connected iPad with the workspaces client so I can work from where ever and keep my personal and work machines separate. it doesn't use much bandwidth. Where are you nowadays that you don't have access to wifi/cellular connections? Some of our specialized software needs to be connected back to the central databases to function correctly anyway, so I would always be connected anyway. The only thing Workspaces lacks is Chromebook support, which is really what I would like to replace my laptop with.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about three weeks ago | (#47760357)

Brazil, you only have 3G connections in large cities and in an unstable manner, 4G is still only in the promise. Short version, you can not depend on internet access here because is too erratic.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47762301)

So we shouldnt have *any* cloud services because in some places you cant use them?

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about three weeks ago | (#47759939)

I don't know about you, but this is generally how I've always worked when I WFH.

I have my desktop at work. The company provides a great laptop, that I simply used to VPN and remote desktop into my work desktop.

I don't have fiber. Just a regular cable connection.

This kind of service is definitely doable.

The obvious question becomes... what happens IF the internet goes down. I think this really depends on your work place. But in many places, the work simply shuts down anyways if you have no internet or network connection. Downtime is pretty low anyways.

Yes, there is still a need for people who travel a lot or are in more remote areas, but for a lot of work, this is all they will need.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47760115)

Speak for yourself. I LIKE having a 200$ laptop that I can throw in the trash whenever I want. I don't have to keep backups anymore. When I open a document at the same time as someone else, we can each see the other's cursor and edits in real time.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about three weeks ago | (#47760189)

Enough. No, I do not want "Cloud" services, thanks.

So don't use them. Last I checked, no-one was being forced to do so.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about three weeks ago | (#47760323)

But this is exactly the problem: So far no one is forced to use. But for how long?

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47761237)

But this is exactly the problem: So far no one is forced to use. But for how long?

What's your theory on why you would be forced to use them?

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about three weeks ago | (#47761287)

I hope that does not happen. But think what happens if your favorite operating system - that you need to make your computer run - begins to work only if connected to a cloud?

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47761427)

Oh come on, Microsoft couldn't even get rid of the start menu from Windows without a backlash so large were forced to put it back in in the next version and you're actually suggesting vendors would force every desktop and laptop to be always connected to the internet for them to work and that users would accept that?

Stop spreading FUD, you're just fear-mongering.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about three weeks ago | (#47763653)

Except the GP's argument does indeed apply to the Adobe Cloud, today.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47797549)

Wrong, you don't have to be always on to use the Adobe Cloud, you can use Photoshop, Illustrator, etc... offline just like you always could.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

Donkey_Hotey (1433053) | about three weeks ago | (#47760569)

Enough. No, I do not want "Cloud" services, thanks.

So don't use them. Last I checked, no-one was being forced to do so.

Yet.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about three weeks ago | (#47760831)

If ever.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about three weeks ago | (#47760557)

Enough. No, I do not want "Cloud" services, thanks. I want my good old desktop with local applications that do not need be connected to the internet 24/7 to work, not everyone have a fiber connection available all the time for this.

So don't use it. Why does it have to be an either/or situation? If you need your desktop, continue using it.

This service is more for those who have a desktop only because they need to run something on it. You know, like how some people ran Windows just to play a video game. Or for one application they use infrequently but have to use.

Hell, this is practically an ideal situation for parents who basically neglect their PCs and to whom you spend every thanksgiving fixing their PC. You replace it with a chromebook (locked down web browser) and use a cloud desktop for the few things you need a desktop PC for.

It's like those who complained tablets will replace desktops, yet Jobs was far more accurate in that we'd always have desktops even in the age of "Post-PC".

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about three weeks ago | (#47761149)

Enough. No, I do not want "Cloud" services, thanks. I want my good old desktop with local applications that do not need be connected to the internet 24/7 to work, not everyone have a fiber connection available all the time for this.

I was about to moderate but I couldn't resist to say that Slashdot moderators should be given a new mod tag called, "GOML" or "Get off My Lawn" because that's what this is lol.

Nothing is stopping people writing desktop applications. Are you just annoyed that people are choosing cloud services out of convenience?

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about three weeks ago | (#47761251)

Nothing is stopping people writing desktop applications. Are you just annoyed that people are choosing cloud services out of convenience?

No. My fear is that they end up trying to implement the "cloud" in anything and everything just because it's "cool", no matter the consequences. Just imagine: Windows depending on the cloud to work, Linux too, Eclipse refusing to work unless you have a connection all the time with a cloud, Photoshop or GIMP refusing to save your images in any other place than a cloud, Word or LibreOffice refusing to save your files because you are offline. Everyone embarking on the cloud hype without worrying about what happens when you lost your connection.

Re:No more "Cloud", please (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about three weeks ago | (#47761957)

Just imagine: Windows depending on the cloud to work, Linux too, Eclipse refusing to work unless you have a connection all the time with a cloud, Photoshop or GIMP refusing to save your images in any other place than a cloud, Word or LibreOffice refusing to save your files because you are offline. Everyone embarking on the cloud hype without worrying about what happens when you lost your connection.

Linux, Eclipse, GIMP and LibreOffice are all FOSS, even if that did happen - and for some reason (maybe you can come up with one because I can't) nobody considered the prospect of offline use - then you could just change them. So there you go, crisis averted, you don't have to fear anymore.

Yawn (0)

stevez67 (2374822) | about three weeks ago | (#47759251)

When Google absolutely, positively must data-mine you deeper! And on a Crap-book too!

Re:Yawn (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47759455)

Look, search, followed closely by email, is clearly the most powerful way to data-mine you.

The applications you run are almost useless noise in comparison to your interests and correspondence. I don't doubt that they'd monitor it, but the cash-money here comes from getting people to buy chromebooks. Even if those, in turn, are about spying on you by getting you to use google search and gmail.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47759717)

And to a billion-dollar business, "almost useless" can translate to millions of dollars. So even if you're not wrong - and I think you are - that still doesn't mean that data-miners won't try to mine *all* your data, if there's a profit to be made.

And like most VMWare things.... (3, Interesting)

HerculesMO (693085) | about three weeks ago | (#47759453)

Is heavily marketed and works like absolute dog shit.

Yes, they have a great hypervisor. The rest of their products? Total, and utter shit. They can't compete on so many fronts they are running to provide anything with "Cloud" in it so people buy it. vCloud Automation Center. AirWatch. CloudVolumes. Horizon.

It's going to be interesting to watch a company who sat on its laurels while the cloud rush started and now is running to try to catch up.

Re:And like most VMWare things.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47759593)

You mean like Microsoft and the Internet? Google and shared storage? Etc. History proves that because a company is late to the game, does not mean they are out of the game. Also you obviously are not a VMware customer, or perhaps a very small one. Their DR solutions are top notch when integrating with array vendors.

Re:And like most VMWare things.... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | about three weeks ago | (#47759799)

Just as it pertains to cloud, really. Their offerings are pretty terrible and far behind others in the space. If you're still in a datacenter with physical equipment, it's still a great player.

Re:And like most VMWare things.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47760293)

mainly because their parent company is EMC. No shit it integrates well with a SAN

Re:And like most VMWare things.... (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | about three weeks ago | (#47760535)

I've been using AirWatch for some years now, and it works great. There's nothing "cloud" about my environment either... I hope this isn't the beginning of the end, though. With them leveraging a piece of AirWatch for something else, I hope this isn't a precursor to the discombobulation of the MDM suite...

Re: And like most VMWare things.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761141)

I'm an AirWatch employee (so posting AC) and I've seen no evidence of that. We're operating as an independent subsidiary so it's business as usual for our main products even as VMware incorporates some of our stuff into theirs.

Re:And like most VMWare things.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47761375)

Is heavily marketed and works like absolute dog shit.

Yes, they have a great hypervisor. The rest of their products? Total, and utter shit. They can't compete on so many fronts they are running to provide anything with "Cloud" in it so people buy it. vCloud Automation Center. AirWatch. CloudVolumes. Horizon.

It's going to be interesting to watch a company who sat on its laurels while the cloud rush started and now is running to try to catch up.

What utter bollocks. So easy to hate on them b/c they are a big company, doesn't make it true.
NSX is a !@#$%^ fantastic SDN.
VSAN drove out some big, old expensive storage.
Airwatch is the best MDM solution in the biz.
I could go on but please don't let me stop you ranting.

"cloud" and "securely" do not go together (1)

gweihir (88907) | about three weeks ago | (#47761643)

This merely enables the NSA and other bad actors to not even have to break into your computer anymore.

the really cool part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47764499)

"The really cool part, though, is a partnership with Google and NVIDIA to deliver even graphics-intensive Windows applications on a Chromebook."

slaveware peddling losers.

Mainframe2? (1)

clifffton (912293) | about three weeks ago | (#47771869)

Still waiting on Mainframe2 to come out of hiding. Uses streaming video for the display, seems so solve a large number of problems..... except for Microsoft.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>