Remote desktops are great and many times a blessing and cost effective (instead of leasing expensive cables). I am not arguing against remote desktops, just if one have the alternative to use either remote desktop or physical computer, I would choose the later.
Also note that I am not arguing for or against remote work practices. But in my case I am required to be physically present in the office when developing software.
Background, I work in a company which main business is not to develop software.
Therefore the company IT policies are mainly focused on security and to efficiently deploying/maintaing thousands of computer to users. Further, the typical employee runs typical Office applications, like a word processors.
Because safety/stability is such a big priority, every non production system/application, shall be deployed into a physical different network, called the test network.
Software development of course also belongs in the test network.
To access the test network the company has created a standard policy, which dictates that access to the test network shall go only via a remote desktop client.
Practically from ones production computer one would open up a remote desktop client to a virtual computer located in the test network. On the virtual computer's remote desktop one would be able to access/run/install all development tools, like Eclipse IDE.
Another solution would be to have a dedicated physical computer, which is physically only connected to the test network.
Both solutions are available in the company.
I have tested both approaches and found running Eclipse IDE, SQL developer, in the remote desktop client to be sluggish (keyboard strokes are delayed), commands like alt-tab takes me out of the remote client, enjoying... Further, screen resolution and colors are different, just to mention a few.
Therefore there is nothing technical wrong with the remote client, just not optimal and frankly de-motivating.
Now with the new policies put in place, plans are to remove the physical computers connected to the test network.
I am looking for help to argue for why software developers shall have a dedicated physical software development computer, to be productive and cost effective. Remember that we are physically in office.
Further one can notice that we are talking about approx. 50 computers out of 2000 employees. Therefore the extra budget is relatively small. This is more about policy than cost.
Please note that there are lots of similar setups in other companies that work great due to a perfectly tuned systems. However, in my case it is sluggish and it would cost more money to trouble shoot the performance and fine tune it rather than to have a few physical computers.
As a business case we have argued that productivity will go down by 25%, however it's my feeling that the reality is probably closer to 50%. This business case isn't really accepted and I find it very difficult to defend it to managers that has never ever used a rich IDE in their life, never mind developed software.
Further the test network and remote client has no guaranteed service level, therefore it is down for a few hours per month with the lowest priority on the fix list.
Help is appreciated.
