On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Darren Coolidge wrote:
> What's wrong with remote X windows?
I think you're missing the point of the terminal project. If you're managing
a significant number of desktops you still have locally installed software
that will likely need to be updated at some point, not to mention periodic
hardware failures (hard drives being the weakest component in the system).
Over the long term there's also the increases to your power and cooling costs.
BTW, remote X works, but it's bandwidth intensive and insecure unless you're
tunneling over ssh.
I see the value of the terminal project but I didn't want to dedicate a
server as the application server so I did things a little different. I have
a bunch of diskless thin clients net-booting the Linux kernel which is
configured to do root over NFS. No swap, so I do have more RAM in the clients
than you typically find, but all applications run locally and I have one
place (the NFS server) to update all the software.
I'll take that over managing fat clients any day.
--Arthur Corliss
Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
"Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue Aug 16 07:46:58 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 16 2005 - 07:46:58 AKDT