Asus Chromebox versus Asus VivoPC
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Why are there so few? Do developers have to pay a licence fee to use Microsoft RDP?
RDP is an open protocol. Anyone can use it anytime. There are fully open source implementations available. On Linux in general, RDP clients are mature and robust.
Not according to this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2013/12/11/remote-desktop-protocol-licensing-available-for-rdp-8-0.aspx
Microsoft requires RDP implementers to obtain a patent license for RDP
That's for Microsoft RDP 8. Not just RDP. Notice they used the term 'Microsoft RDP' everytime. Standard rdp is open. The license would be to use microsoft only features like RemoteFX.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Notice they used the term 'Microsoft RDP' everytime.
I can't see them use that term anywhere on that page? I didn't know there was a non-Microsoft RDP. Wikipedia just has an entry for RDP and it says it's proprietary protocol.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Why are there so few? Do developers have to pay a licence fee to use Microsoft RDP?
RDP is an open protocol. Anyone can use it anytime. There are fully open source implementations available. On Linux in general, RDP clients are mature and robust.
Not according to this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2013/12/11/remote-desktop-protocol-licensing-available-for-rdp-8-0.aspx
Microsoft requires RDP implementers to obtain a patent license for RDP
To use THEIR RDP. Protocols cannot be patented in the US. Just because they obtained a patent doesn't mean that they can use it. Their implementation is protected, but not the protocol itself.
-
This is the standard open specification for basic use. It does not include the fancy rdp features like remotefx.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc240445.aspx -
@scottalanmiller said:
Just because they obtained a patent doesn't mean that they can use it. Their implementation is protected, but not the protocol itself.
Say what?
Let me put it another way - if I want to write and publish a client that will connect to a standard Windows desktop using RDP, do I need to obtain a patent licence from Microsoft (as they are saying I do) or don't I?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Just because they obtained a patent doesn't mean that they can use it. Their implementation is protected, but not the protocol itself.
Say what?
Let me put it another way - if I want to write and publish a client that will connect to a standard Windows desktop using RDP, do I need to obtain a patent licence from Microsoft (as they are saying I do) or don't I?
You Dont. And they aren't saying you do. You only do if you want to implement Microsoft RDP. And specificly in this case it was Microsoft RDP 8.
-
OK. So how do I connect to a Windows desktop using non-Microsoft RDP?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Let me put it another way - if I want to write and publish a client that will connect to a standard Windows desktop using RDP, do I need to obtain a patent licence from Microsoft (as they are saying I do) or don't I?
No, you do not. There are laws that protect the usage of an API / protocol. Microsoft doesn't have to give you the details, but they can't stop you talking the language either.
It would be the same as making a patent on English and demanding anyone who wants to speak it pay for a license to your tongue movements, even if they are just mimicking the sounds.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
OK. So how do I connect to a Windows desktop using non-Microsoft RDP?
It's a protocol. You just speak the language.
-
OK. Cool. I still don't have a free Chromebook RDP client, mind.
-
Its the same as VNC there is the standard open version. Then there are portierairy ones using extra features. Any vnc client should connect to it but, will not have the extra proritetarty features.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
OK. Cool. I still don't have a free Chromebook RDP client, mind.
Right free being key. Okay, will keep looking.
-
It doesn't have to be free. It has to be able to run full screen though.
-
Is lacking full screen what is wrong with this one?
-
Yes.
-
Gotcha. Not sure if there is a full screen option. It doesn't do full screen even if you make the browser full screen?
-
The latest version doesn't run in the browser. Older versions did. That seems to be a complaint amongst a lot of long-term users.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
The latest version doesn't run in the browser. Older versions did. That seems to be a complaint amongst a lot of long-term users.
Oh, it launches from the browser but runs on its own? Interesting. Didn't even know that it could do that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
The latest version doesn't run in the browser. Older versions did. That seems to be a complaint amongst a lot of long-term users.
Oh, it launches from the browser but runs on its own? Interesting. Didn't even know that it could do that.
Lovely. Chrome is becoming IE with ActiveX
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
The latest version doesn't run in the browser. Older versions did. That seems to be a complaint amongst a lot of long-term users.
Oh, it launches from the browser but runs on its own? Interesting. Didn't even know that it could do that.
I thought this was the way Chromebooks worked? More than just a browser these days.. don't ask me why I thought that though.
