OT: Thin Clients

[Fairlight]

This public service announcement was brought to you by Brian K. White:
> 
> It doesn't require _Windows_, let alone it's gui.

Then your earlier assertion was incorrect in the context given.  Someone
mentioned PuTTY and FacetWin (notice the WIN) in the same breath.  I look
at that and presume they're using 'doze based emulators.

You hop in and claim PuTTY doesn't require Windows, when I say it requires
the Windows GUI.  Well on a -Windows- platform, apparently it -does-.  Your
assertion that it doesn't require it, combined with the original context,
led me to believe maybe it had a fallback fullscreen DOS mode I had never
found because I didn't need it.  Apparently -not-.

I quote from:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#faq-ports-general

"Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on full Win32 systems
and Unix. .Win32. includes Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it includes Windows
NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP."

So yes, if you're not using something with X11, and you want to use PuTTY,
your Windows-based solution requires....(*drumroll*)...WINDOWS--just as I
asserted originally.

> Just for the record, I didn't say that I would use putty in X on linux
> for a thin client though.

NOW you wanna get all "just for the record".  Try being clear the first
time.  I knew damned well it has an X port.  The problem was that the
context of the previous post cited all 'doze environment based solutions,
and if you're going that route, there's really not a stripped down MS
Windows...there's nothing thin about it.  Just as I originally said.

Now that we're back where I left off because I was actually noting
context...  The original first half of the sentence:  "We use FacetWin and
putty on our XP boxes..."  Well that's what I was addressing.  It's trivial
to get a linux-based thin client--they're falling out of the sky,
practically, so it barely needs addressing.  I was addressing the actual
relevant half that might be an issue.

mark->