I actually disagree tbh - web browsers are so ubiquitous at this point that I would consider them a core part of the desktop at this point. If I can use just the "core tools" of my OS to access something I would consider that clientless for all intents and purposes

Moreover, something VNC has so many variants that one server might only support one client vs another. So even with a standardized “client”, you can still have issues. I don’t think this is much of an issue with RDP, but by using HTML5, this just avoids that entire issue.

It's hard to believe this was 20+ years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

They do, immediately. I was confused for a second but since the next sentence clarified it I can't see the issue.

"You don't need a hammer to bang our nail. Simply use a hammer."

vs.

"You don't need a special hammer to bang our nail. Simply use your existing hammer."

More like "You don't need any tools for this, just use your thumb."

The idea being that every computer you own and happen to come across has a browser already. You will not need to install a client so it doesn't matter that you don't have rights to do so or don't want to pollute someone else's computer.

It is pretty straight forward.

I hate this description too, because client software is needed, it's just that special or dedicated client software is not needed. It's just misleading to add flavor to the description.

Because every modern device has a modern browser included. I think most people understand this and that might be why you’re getting downvoted.

What would a clientless (aka no additional client software to install) might work?

Well, networking always requires some sort of client software, calling it "clientless" because most systems most likely already have the required software rubbed me the wrong way.

But I think I get it now, it's probably a tongue in cheek reference to "serverless" :P

I'm with you. I was confused by that term. Why not 'browser based remote desktop'? I've never heard anything happening in a browser called clientless before. In fact it is usually explicitly called a client, e.g. client side rendering.

That’s a good point. Avoiding calling it browser based and using a euphemism like client-less probably should have annoyed me more.