Linux.com

Feature: Linux

Making a home terminal/server network with LTSP

By on December 12, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- By William G. Canaday -
When my wife asked me to remove Windows and install Linux on her computer, I was happy to oblige. She is familiar with Linux from watching me use it and was quite upset that Windows had lost her desktop photograph -- again. This gave me an excuse to try setting up a terminal / server network. Since we each had beefy desktop machines, this also gave me an opportunity to turn her machine to another use. After resurrecting two retired computers from the basement, we each use a lame workstation as clients to my former desktop machine, now acting as a server only.

I am now looking for a way to dual-boot the clients to Windows to use our hold-out programs from her old machine (which still has Win98 loaded on her HD). This machine will also see use with my old scanner and webcam. The scanner and webcam work flawlessly. I can't justify replacing them with Linux-compatible equivalents until they fail or no longer suit my purposes. I have not yet found Windows terminal software, so the Windows machine sits idle for now. VNC would work, but it can be painfully slow.

With the caveat that the equipment you use should be in good repair (an intermittent ram problem greatly complicated setup for me), I can heartily endorse the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP). Once set up correctly, it has not failed in 3 weeks of use. It, as my friend Tom A. on MDLUG says, 'simply works'. I press the power button on the workstation and the monitor. The HP Vectra I am using for a workstation spends most of its boot time checking its bios. Then one quick (4 second) read of the floppy diskette, a quick handshake with dhcp on the server and it's time to login.

The principal is pretty simple. Most desktop machines are wildly overpowered and, even when being hammered on by a 'power user', spend most of their cpu capacity waiting for a user request to do something. The great majority of their capacity is simply wasted. The LTSP allows multiple users to access the same fire-breathing desktop machine and thus put more of it to use without any noticable decrease in performance. It calls for a single strong machine acting as a server to support a large number of truly lame client terminal machines that have been told they are workstations. At boot time, each workstation identifies itself and is passed a copy of the kernel, some networking code and a login splash screen. From that moment forward, all the action is on the server.

The hardware specs are pretty simple, too. The server should be a pretty strong machine. For SOHO use, a single processor machine should work just fine. Load on the ram and give it a 500mHz or better CPU and a decent sized hard drive. Since all the programs are shared and only the data files are unique, a 10 gig hard drive should handle several people unless there are a lot of MP-3's, a large database or large graphics in use. Each adopter will have to establish their own needs in this area. Both ram and disk storage are currently relativley inexpensive; err on the side of too large.

For the client machines, however, the opposite is true. They only need a 486 or slow Pentium cpu, 32 meg of ram and no hard drive. A good graphic card is in order but all of its instructions will be coming over the Network Interface Card (NIC), so extreme capacity here is just wasted. Both ends need NIC's of course and I recommend 10/100 speed cards but don't go spastic about it ... gigabit speeds are not warranted even for gamers. Ten megahertz is probably plenty but, again, 10/100 cards are relatively inexpensive so the vastly greater speed potential makes economic sense. It is possible to buy nics that can login to the server, but I recommend starting with the diskette version until you are comfortable with the whole bundle. The bootable prom is only about four seconds faster at boot than the diskette and not faster at all once things get running. Since there is only one diskette read at boot time that is all the time you would save. Where the bootable prom comes in handy is when security is likely to be a problem and it is useful to eliminate the diskette drive. In my SOHO setting, I can fully trust all the other users.

Neither my wife nor I can tell we are not actually running the server directly. Probably it would take another 20 users before we noticed any loss of speed. This is good. Interestingly, as soon as we started using 'Linux over the wire', my wife noticed that it was faster than running Win98 directly on her (K7-800mHz, 256m ram) machine. My wife is not 'a computer geek'. She wasn't looking for a speed increase ... it was just there boldly enough that it called attention to itself.

The relevant parameters of the equipment we actually use are as follows:

Server: Athlon K7-750, 1.5g ram, 40g HD, 10/100 NIC. Mandrake 8.0 installed, upgraded to kernel 2.4.19, running LTSP 3.0.x

Workstation 1: P5-200, 64m ram, No-brand pci video card, 17 inch svga monitor, MS mouse & MS-Natural keyboard, 10/100 NIC, LTSP 5.0.7 bootrom

Workstation 2: P5-233, 128m ram, ATI pci video card, 19 inch svga monitor, Logitech optical mouse (w/ wheel), MS-Natural keyboard, 10/100 NIC, LTSP 5.0.7 bootrom

You could lower the server to probably 500mHz, 512m ram for office use. On the other hand, if you are buying new equipment, (or supporting more than a few, light weight, uses) you might as well grab additional ram and cpu speed. The workstations could come down to a 486 with 32 m of ram, but we used what we had laying around and would encourage others to take this route. A faster workstation does not alter the overall performance by much as the real work ... all of it ... is done on the server. Did you notice that the workstations do not need a HD? ALL the workstation does is pass user input to the server and display the server output on the local monitor. That's all; and you really don't need much processing power to do that. All the needed code fits easily in the first 32 meg of ram. Spend your money on the monitor and keyboard, if you wish, but go light on the workstation itself. Both of my workstations are horribly overpowered.

How well your first installation of LTSP goes will depend on your general level of computer knowledge, with knowledge of both Linux and networking being at a premium. Most people reading this review in its original form will have the required skills.

Basically, to install LTSP, you need at least one server and one workstation configured more or less along the lines above. Unless you enjoy getting ensnarled in multiple levels of complexity, you should already have a working LAN and the machine you plan to use as a server should already be able to find the internet. In fact, if you can get a LAN working under an existing install of Linux, you have the skills to install LTSP. If you can't, you don't. Adding more workstations is a very simple, and totally obvious, matter of matching up more boot disks with more nics and then wiring the nics to a switch or hub and editing the config files on the server to accommodate the new workstation.

From , obtain a copy of the rom matching your NIC. You may have to do some sleuthing to locate it ... but there is support for well over 100 NICs so your card is probably in there somewhere. Use dd or cat to copy it to a diskette. I prefer dd, but either should work. If you don't know how to use dd or how to find the manual page for it, you aren't ready for LTSP.

From http://www.ltsp.org/ obtain the current versions of:

ltsp_kernel-3.0.5-0.i386.rpm

ltsp_core-3.0.7-0.i386.rpm

to run a text-only server.


To run a GUI server, also grab the current versions of:

ltsp_x_core-3.0.4-0.i386.rpm

ltsp_x_fonts-3.0.0-0.i386.rpm

Most people will want to get the GUI stuff, too.

That's it. Put all four of the .rpm files in the same directory and run them all at once with #rpm -i ltsp.rpm <enter> They are smart enough to run in the correct order. Notice the octothorpe? You have to be root to do this. Find ltsp_initialize and run it. It will create a couple sample config files.

Now go find dhcpd.conf.example, edit it to suit and cp it over to dhcpd.conf. Then find ltsp.conf and edit it likewise. No details about the editing here because there is an excellent series of how-to's on the LTSP website. If you get stuck (after carefully RTFM'ing!) login to the irc channel listed on the LTSP website. The main programmers and how-to authors hang out there. They are there to answer questions, but not to set your machine up for you.

There are four other programs that must be running for this to work. They are dhcpd, tftpd, nfs and portmap. The how-to's tell you how to verify their presence and function. I want you to read the how-to's. That is why I am not detailing them here. In fact, I left a couple details out that will cause it not to run. RTFM.

Who should use this? Linux users looking to expand a network cost effectively or wishing to learn how the client-server model actually works.

What does it take to do this? You'll need moderate skills, one beefy machine, one or more lame workstations, a working internet connection, a working LAN and a handful of freely available program files. If things go well, allow a couple of hours for the first install. Additional machines should come online for about 15 minutes work apiece.

When should you do this? As soon as you recognize that the need may arise eventually. This will probably add to your skills with Linux and that implies a learning curve. Don't wait until your job or reputation is on the line to learn this.

Where is this beneficial? I would tend to think that the smaller business would benefit most. These are the companies that do not yet have a major investment in other technologies and for whom even a small savings is critically important. Competing technologies, such as those from Microsoft, require more in terms of hardware and software expenses with no reduction in training or other personnel costs. Larger companies might want to convert existing installations on a department by department basis at upgrade time. A SOHO should simply embrace it immediately because it greatly simplifies administration and capital outlays. The less tolerance your operation has for waste, the more important the LTSP is to you.

Why? My goodness. If you don't like learning, don't want to save money, aren't interested in simplifying administration and are joined at the hip to some other technology, LTSP has absolutely nothing to offer you. Everyone else should give this a very carefull consideration because all these benefits, and more, accrue to adoption of this technology. It costs little to begin, is greatly expandable, causes even minimalist machines to run like scalded cats, can simply be unplugged at one location and moved to another with very little fuss and no loss of security typical to wireless lans.

The only thing I didn't like about it is that networking problems can mimic hardware problems and it can be difficult to sort them out. Once I got the hardware problem (L2 ram cache developed a nervous twitch) diagnosed, isolated and corrected, LTSP installed like it had eyes of its own. So ... start with known-good hardware. If problems arise, try installing a different workstation. If it works, fix the hardware on the flakey workstation. If it doesn't work, take a fresh look at those config files. Ninety-nine dot nine times out of one hundred, that's where your problem will be. Of course, the other dot one time, you have TWO flakey workstations; or a flakey NIC or a flakey server or bad cabling or ...

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Making a home terminal/server network with LTSP

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 06:45 PM
Like C-Sharp ala ms, instead of C-pound?

There are four other programs that must be running for this to work. They are dhcpd, tftpd, nfs and portmap. The how-to's tell you how to verify their presence and function. I want you to read the how-to's. That is why I am not detailing them here. In fact, I left a couple details out that will cause it not to run. RTFM.


What you need is a good bitchslap. And fast.

ps, hope the two bits you got for writing the article was worth exposing yourself as the ahole that you show yourself to be.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 09:01 PM
Right, this article is worth nothing, and shown the bad habit of many linux users.
He thinks is smart to post a "broken" article.

#

tic tac toe board

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 09:39 PM
The correct pronounciation of '#' is "tic tac toe board".

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:48 PM
With a 'tude like this, you must be a real joy to live with. Remember that bad karma brings bad karma and you have nobody to blame but yourself. Also remember that your name is now well known to be owned by a jerk and that the IT world is pretty small at times. I can easily see a time where this might bite you in the ass and I sincerely hope it does. You need a dose of humility.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:55 PM

Another M$ bigot!


So he left details out, you know why? Because if he had not left any details out then he would have had to cover everything from installing Linux on the Server, then about configuring the entire network and none of that is relevant.


This is a good article becuase it stays clear of too many distro-specific details. There are a few specific details but anyone not running a RedHat-like distro will Know What They Are Doing so this is not a problem.


On a side note, I expect you have written a really good terminial server, low cost, solution using Windows, yes?

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 01:00 PM
Another M$ bigot!

So he left details out, you know why? Because if he had not left any details out then he would have had to cover everything from installing Linux on the Server, then about configuring the entire network and none of that is relevant.


Let's start with your first sentence. M$ bigot? I have a half dozen boxes running Gnu/Linux here. Only two dual boots as a concession to the resistant faction in this household. And they will eventually be converted. Especially when the new laptop about to enter the picture will only run Gnu/Linux.

The bastardization of the # is by ms and corporate types attempting to stay in fashion. I laugh in the suits faces when they absurdly refer to 3.1 as 3dot1 instead of 3point1 Or when they say Csharp instead of Cpound. Somebody actually saying octothorpe in front of me will get a quick smack to the face if not more if someone were to pull that bullshit on me.

I once saw a note that someone had written to announce to their company staff that they would be moving, and by the next week everything would be settled. It took two long paragraphs to explain this, and the note could only have been written by someone with many years of postgraduate schooling. It was the perfect example of someone who finds it necessary to display their superior abilities to the lowly people who serve under them. And someone who needed a good bitchslap into reality.

The same goes for those superior people who insist on Csharp and RTFM.

Have you ever told someone to RTFM and not helped with an explanation? Then you need a good bitchslap as well.

So he left details out, you know why? Because if he had not left any details out then he would have had to cover everything from installing Linux on the Server, then about configuring the entire network and none of that is relevant.

Wrong. He didn't say he left out the details of four other programs needed to run. He left out details of what he is explaining. In these type of articles, in most cases, whatever is required to have the program run, it also requires other services as well, including some configuration of those other services. What we have here is someone offering a broken solution for the main application he is explaining, not a missing explanation of how to configure other needed services. Big difference. And then we have the golden RTFM.

Either he is 15 years old, or he is an ahole. That's the two things that explain RTFM. Gnu/Linux users experienced enough to know to RTFM know it already. Telling a newbie to RTFM implies that you resent someone non-technical, or someone who doesn't deserve or have the right to use Gnu/Linux to go away, you don't want or feel the need to help them, and you want to turn them off to Gnu/Linux at the same time. Or you don't want them to have an easier time of learning Gnu/Linux than you had.

I'm on a mailing list for a Gnu/Linux group that includes newbies. We once had someone on the list who was a very smart and talented Gnu/Linux and other os user. He was also starting his own isp after having worked at a competing isp for a few years. Needless to say his pricing was/is very attractive. He also offers broadband accounts without PPPoE, which is very attractive. But instead of jumping, I watched his posts for a while. Eventually, the RTFM lexicon was included in some of his smartass answers to newbies. He even included a link to some site where it "explains how to ask the right question". After that post, I decided this was not the isp for me. Shortly after that, he was ignored by everybody, got into an online flamewar with others, and left the group. He now posts his RTFM smartass responses on other lists that I'm on. He's not 15, so this leave one other option.

Nice way to win clients to your service. And nice way to welcome others into the Gnu/Linux fold. Fuck off and read the fuckin manual you lazy bastard. Nice attitude.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Mandrake Magician on December 13, 2002 06:07 PM
I am neither 15 nor about to match your childish profanity.

What made the article worth doing is the fact that I and my wife are "Mr. & Mrs. Joe Sixpack". I presently work as a temporary laborer and my previous job was as a 50 year old pizza delivery guy. Before that, I was working in a stamping plant. I have a high school diploma and a few college classes. I graduated in the bottom third of my high school class but have a 3.85 gpa in college.

I outlined the basic process and the thinking that prompted it and directed others to better sources of info. For that you launch a cursing tirade and want to 'bitchslap' me? You have a problem.

I left the gory details out and referred others to the how-to's for several fairly simple reasons.

The first is that I don't know how to install it on every computer ever made. Nor is there any reason why I should. There is a better source of information than I can provide and I pointed others to it. This is not a haughty "RTFM,dipwad!", but simply giving good directions to others who might want to follow the path I have taken. There was no need to plagiarize already excellent instructional material by repeating it on Newsforge. The authors of the how-to's on the LTSP web site have actually done commendable jobs. Since I couldn't improve on what they have written, I referred others to the best resources I know of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the how-to's written by the programmers themselves. Whether people read the instructions here or from the LTSP site, they will still have to do about the same amount of reading. Why not direct them to the 'authorized' information?

The second is that there are a fair number of alternatives to consider and a simple article of this type does not permit considering all of them. I don't even plan to explore most of them. I never use Shockwave Flash so I haven't bothered with installing it and can't report on it at all. I haven't tried setting up to use a local floppy drive or local sound or a local browser. I really don't need to, so I haven't.

The third is that a new version was about to be released and I thought it better to direct interested parties toward current documentation to match the software they would actually find available for download. You seem to have a problem with this. I sure don't understand why.

I dealt with your complaints about the use of the term "octothorp" earlier but overlooked signing in. I'm taking responsibility for that post here.

When are you going to take responsibility for posting a review / article of your own instead of just taking pot shots at others? How about letting some of us rip your use of English to shreds for the fun of it?

C-sharp is the proper name that has been given to some programming coming from Redmond. MSFT has the right to name its programs pretty much whatever they want. They could have called it "Stray Cat on Toast" if they wanted to. You don't have to like it, but neither can you change it. It is not C-pound. C# is properly pronounced C-sharp because the # symbol is only pronounced 'pound' when it follows a number<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and is pronounced 'number' when it precedes one.

Got that?

But, then again, I covered all of this earlier.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 07:37 PM
your childish profanity


?

I spelled out what you told newbie readers to do, and it's my childish profanity?

Maybe you don't understand what RTFM stands for? Why use it then?

Maybe you didn't read my response thoroughly. Including instructions on configuring services unrelated to what you are writing about, but are required to run is not expected. A simple listing of other services needed is sufficient, which is what you did. Looking at updated documentation is always a good idea, and something even newbies know in most circumstances I've seen. And including that advice in a sentence or two is good. But providing a broken solution and RTFM advice...

btw, I support your decision on Flash. Don't enable it. It sucks, and Macromedia deserves no support from the Gnu/Linux community.

My slapping term is kinda offensive, huh? RTFM is offensive and condescending. And in many cases I've seen, it implies what I outlined in my response. Stop using RTFM, and I'll stop using my slapping term. Agreed?

#

RTFM is offensive?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 10:09 AM
What planet did you grow up on where it's offensive to tell someone how to do something for themselves?

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 03:51 PM
Now personally I think the author was perfectly good intentioned and just came off a lil strong. RTFM stands for Read The Fucking Manual, yes this is offensive. Better would be

Here is the answer to your question as best I can give it . But if you really want a complete answer and to understand the subject here is some pretty readable documentation. I highly recommend reading it, it only takes a few minutes and will save you alot of headaches.

RTFM IS offensive, it comes off with a strong "get off my ass, I don't have time for you." feel, even if it's not meant that way. We almost use it affectionately, aside from some anal exceptions, but it will turn off a new user in a heartbeat.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 10:48 PM
Don't worry about the complainer.. he's an "armchair warrior" Linux whiner. He had his chance to mention what HE has contributed to the community, and did not.

He might not be satisfied with the thoroughness of your article, but there's always ONE of those types. It's not even like he claims your above-the-water ommision harmed him.

Me? I can't comment on it since I have not tried the software (just like Mr. Peanut Gallery... oops, now I am more motivated).

I already believe the LTSP has good documentation (even the "hand holding" kind) based on other reports. For me what your article did was spark a little more curiousity.

I'm a little concerned how such a setup will handle multimedia such as video or mp3, but I'll have to try it to see.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 12:35 AM

I think you wrote an excellant article and you can safely ignore the troll how seems to have slight problems with it.


Please, please, please could people stop complaining about SPAG (spelling,punctuation and grammer), the content was great and the prose was very readable - who really minds if there are a few little language errors (I know I can't spell so good and I'd like it if I could post stuff here without worrying about whether I've made mistakes spelling words).


Well done, keep up the good work and keep us all updated on things that might be of interst.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 12:38 AM
That would be interest. lol. I knew I was going to get something wrong!

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 12:48 AM

Ok, so I called you a M$ bigot. I'm truly sorry. I did get the impression that you weren't just a M$ guy. I will try to be a little more subtle in future.


The point I was making is that you did sound a bit like a bigot, a regular slashdot poster. You did raise some valid points though.


I also agree with that about the ISP guy - he should have been kindly poiting people to the good docs without flaming them for asking the wrong questions. This is a Linux geek thing (well, not just Linux - maybe just a geek thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) and I want it to stop as much as you do.


Our hero article writer, though, didn't really take such an atitude - he was writing documentation and refering to other documentation - that's the recursive nature of information. I think he did very well. He may have used the term RTFM but I thought in a jokey-sort-of-way, so lets all lighten up a little.


I once endured a very long conversation on #gentoo about whether Linux should be refered to as GNU/Linux or not (with some strong views about 'clueless users' who didn't know that Linux was just the kernel) - how cares? I personnaly think GNU should have at least the recognition to call Linux GNU/Linux, but the argument repells people who percieve the whole community as petty geeks when in fact most of us are very nice geeks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 03:58 PM
This is offtopic but I can't resist. GNU is fine and dandy and is typically bundled with linux as a pair. There is a reasonable argument it would be fair to call Linux GNU/Linux, but that is Linus' call and nobody elses, especially RMS. If RMS writes a program he can call it GNU something, if Linus writes a program, he can call it whatever he wishes. If I write a program and people decide to bundle it with GNU software... I can still call it whatever I wish, RMS doesn't gain a say in what i call my software unless I give him one.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:48 AM
Like C-Sharp ala ms, instead of C-pound?

Outside of your provincial American version of bastardised English, This '#' is called 'hash' and this '£' is called 'pound.'

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:54 AM
>> Outside of your provincial American version of bastardised English, This '#' is called 'hash' and this '£' is called 'pound.'

I think you´re right and have noticed this myself.

I also find "American" English broken (ok, personal opinion). But: how many people live in GB? You know, those people in USA are like rabbits -- there´s more than 200 million of them.

It´s like our situation here in Brazil (nearing 200 million, too) and Portugal (10 million, if I´m not wrong). Our massive literary production alone grants us a powerful influence on language (which probably is *not* a good thing!).

Now, going back on topic, for a non-native speaker like me "octothorpe" is almost a good reason to sue the author...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Mandrake Magician on December 13, 2002 06:15 PM
I just got paid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... now's the time!

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 11:19 AM
You're forgetting the rest of the English speaking world.

Not only does the entire population of Great Britain use proper English, so also do Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India and everywhere else in the commonwealth. The total of proper English speakers is vastly larger than the U.S., whose bastardised (pigeon) version of English has a greater effect than it deserves on the evolution of the language because of Hollywood.

Americans are in general a simple people that attempt to find simple solutions to complex problems. This trait is reflected in their use of a more generalised version of English and their inability to infer meaning from context of unfamiliar words. Try this as an example;

Walk in to any American hardware store and ask for a "Bath plug." (which is the common term for the item Americans refer to as a "bath stopper")

You will need to explain to the nice-but-simple American serving you that the item you require is a "round object made of rubber that sits in the bath to stop the water draining out." As he or she will be _incapable_ of working out what you require due to the unfamiliar word.


 

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: bustachuy on December 15, 2002 01:28 PM
Wow, I'd like you to come over here and see just how untrue your words are. If the person you were talking to could not infer what you are meaning, they are probably some high school drop out, as this is part of basic education in America. On the other hand, I am American and I speak proper English, so I recent your comment deeply.

#

Bastardised English. . .

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 05:28 AM
well, at least you got that part right.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:17 PM
You mean in your proper English, flat=apartment
and shagging your friend's partner or having the queen breed with horses is the proper terminology?

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:19 PM
Let's not forget guilty till proven innocent...

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 05:39 AM
Concider this... musicians automatically notice that a '#' following a letter is a sharp, contrasting with a natural or a flat.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 04:25 PM
I'm sorry; I'm so used to dealing with intelligent people I had forgotten the effect a big word has on a small mind.

I wish there were a way to mod your response down for having your head fully inserted and locked down. Since I can't do that, I've decided to educate you.

The # is a 'sharp' in music, not the command line. Microsoft is in error and so are you. Calling it a sharp, as in C#, is good marketing but rotten English.

It means 'space or more space' as a proofreading mark. I wasn't proofreading; I was illustrating a simple command to demonstrate how easily something could be done. Sadly, you missed that part.

It means 'number' if it precedes a number ( #10 Downing St.) or 'pounds' if it follows it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as in "10# of 'substance' in a 5# bag". It did NOT follow a number in my example so it does NOT mean pounds in my article.

That left me with only two choices: I could either call it by its correct name or I could forward the cause of ignorance. Apparently you prefer the course of ignorance. I wish I were surprised.

As it was, I spelled it wrong; but you didn't catch the error I actually made. You jumped all over me and still totally missed my error. You let me down. I'm disappointed in you.

Before you correct me, you'll need to either locate a good hard-copy dictionary or learn how to look a word up online. You can start by clicking below but you really should learn how to use a search engine on your own.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=octothor<nobr>p<wbr></nobr>

Notice that, once again, I didn't do all your work for you. If you look it up yourself, you'll remember it longer.

It's easy to criticize, hard to create. You have chosen the lazy path. If you think you can write a better article, be my guest. In fact, why not write one on PXES? It's similar in concept to LTSP but requires slightly better hardware. Most folks have the necessary hardware and are only awaiting enlightenment from you, o' guru.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 11:05 PM
The last time I checked, an author is a teacher or an amusement. And since this is not the typical trashy novel, it is teaching document. In a techie document, one is a teacher and this article is certainly not a teaching article. The point of trying to get people to read the manual or to look up some details or even to stay away from distro specific details is admirable but the WAY it was presented is offensive and has done very little to encourage someone to pick up the manual. Or to at least read the MAN pages.

Using a *big* word is dicey with the average reader and if you do plan to use it, get it right. You tried to show off your mental capabilities and missed a rung with the mistake. Was it really required to use that word? I sincerely doubt it so it appears to be a vanity word.

Given the level of sarcasm and hostility in this little exchange, I doubt there is anything you write that I would find useful. There are many others who know how to communicate without offending and can offer advice without patronizing the reader.

#

#10 Downing St ?!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 10:29 AM
It's Number 10.

We don't use "#" to mean "number" this side of the pond, so that was a particularly poor example, showing that you do not know the usage of the symbol which has created far more fuss than the content of the article itself.

Being a techie, I understand that "you lot" use "#" as short for "number", but it is not common practice. Use "#10" and a typical Brit will give you a blank look. Having said that, from your article, whatever you said, to anyone, could well reward you with a blank look.

That, and the "spastic" (the term is "Cerebral Palsy") comment really endear you to me. As if. Who are you going to offend next with your ignorange?

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 03:15 AM
>>Like C-Sharp ala ms, instead of C-pound?

Yes, it is pronounced C-Sharp... # (sharp) is also a musical notation that means: Raised in pitch by a semitone.

>> What you need is a good bitchslap. And fast.

Errr, no. That would be wrong. Although it would be funny to see you get arrested for assault.

>> ps, hope the two bits you got for writing the article was worth exposing yourself as the ahole that you show yourself to be.

There is only one person here showing their ass, and it isn't the author of the article. Hint for the clueless... look in the mirror.

--

Overall this article is a really good discription of how to setup and install the given application.

I do this in a slightly different way that works just as well, and has fewer dependencies. I buy 400MB hard drives from a surplus store for $6 apiece, install linux to that and configure it so that the only thing it does is run an X server that connects to an XDM server running on the main box. This works really well.

I also have a nic computer and it boots from the main server too.

I have also heard that there are programs to map the sound from your running apps back to the sound card on the workstation that you are running on, but have never had the time to work out how to get that working.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 03:16 AM
It is sharp, not pound.

Shebang = sharp, bang = #!

Pound = currency identifier like $ (not on this cursed US keyboard!)

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 02:00 PM
Agreed. # in UNIX is pronounced 'bang'

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2002 09:37 AM
Wrong: # in UNIX is not called 'bang' '!' == 'bang' whereas '#' == 'Hash sign or Octothorpe' with the term Octothorpe explained <A HREF="http://www.sigtel.com/tel_tech_octothorpe.html">here</a sigtel.com>

aside from that, it is worth mentioning that this hardly matters at all, and wasting time arguing about it is pointless.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: k1tty on December 14, 2002 04:46 AM
ps, hope the two bits you got for writing the article was worth exposing yourself as the ahole that you show yourself to be.

I'm sure it was, after all I bet you felt great after exposing yourself for free didn't you?

Bottom of the post comment page
Important Stuff:

Please stay on topic and try to contribute something useful to the discussion.


So again chum, RTFM!

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 11:17 PM
Bitch slapped? Because you can't be caused to read the F* manual? This is your problem, no one elses.

#

Re:octothorpe?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 01:08 AM
Ahh the Linux user... What other group of people more define the word, "elite bastard"? Ever been in a Linux help channel on IRC? That is really a joke because unless you are an expert or ask a question as the Gods wish they to be asked, you get thrown out or simply ignored. Get a life, a few times people need to ask for help so dont just tell them to RTFM and be done with it. Grow up.

#

Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 07:29 PM
I might be sitting in the chair and do nothing till the next thing. But when the next thing comes I expect the system fly and this is what is the most important. Computers today are cheap. And I'm also doubting the performance of such setup described above. On a VMWare test machine (on windows 2000) with 64MB RAM OfficeXP runs like hell but on a real system (1GHz 256MB) the latest Red Hat Linux 8.0 with OppenOffice.org makes me loose time waiting for the interface to load and so on. Latency is a key factor here. What if my system can't be fully loaded ? Do I realy need to do that ? NO ! What I realy need is a low latency (quick responding) OS + Software so my requests are promptly treated and resolved.

Many good things are said about this linux but if you gather them all you will see that some of them contradict themselves. For example some complain about windows having this default interface wich they say "takes so many resources"... Well... how about KDE or Gnome? If I compare them with Windows (2000 or XP, 9x/ME are not in my attention here) you'll see the difference. Same with Office software. Microsoft's software is faster and provides much more many features (which they are often denied as necessary... they say "tons of useless features"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which again I doubt... sooner or later Linux will walk Windows's desktop path because Windows is what a home user or let's say Desktop user is generaly expecting from a machine). I'm not a Microsoft fan especialy. Generaly speaking Windows has a huge legacy of software done by many other companies, real good software, quality software.

Nothing in this world is realy free. You are free to copy Linux but you gotta waste a lot of time and resources to workarround with it and learn it while with Windows you're free to do something else for which you might be payed for and buy the Windows. Same effort, much more to gain.

What about memory management and I/O ? These things are the true heart of a system. Windows screams at these while Linux still lacks at it.
(let's remember about games which are a BIG reason for which computers are selling).
An overloaded server will surely abuse of these two. So a question arrises<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what system will perform better ? The answer is obvious.
So... you want to overload a linux based system using network input/output as "the way". I have no complaints about the networking part of linux which is much ahead of Windows but what about hard drive and memory ? What about performance ?
From my point of view this solution is not an option. Where performance has to stand up (office performance and workstation performance equals productivity in any company) this is no solution.
Nothing is free. Money brings money. Linux supporters tend to forget about comerce and it's essence in this world. They tend to be out of this world generaly speaking. And if I said that this should be no offence to anybody because I'm a linux user as well. I use linux for cheap routers and web servers but my workstation is still a Windows. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to Microsoft to Microsoft.
Linux was borned as an ideal and I'm sure that it will continue it's existence and raise continuously as long as there will be supporters.

Don't forget that money can always do better than passion because they can fill up the true needs of man leaving room for pasison while the needs of a man can always destroy the passion. That's the reason I go comercial and still love both Windows and Linux.
Good luck to everybody!

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 09:24 PM
You seem to be caught in the trap that "Gnome + StarOfice" = "Linux", saying that StarOffice is bloated (which is true) and then blaming that on Linux (which is wrong.) There are other "word processors" out there besides "StarOffice". You may find a more efficient one which meets your needs and allows you to happily use Linux on your desktop.

I'm curious about your assertion that Windows memory management and disk I/O are faster. Have you got any cites for that? I'm aware that early 2.2.x or 2.4.x versions of Linux will fall over under memory load, but these problems are, for all practical purposes, fixed in current 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels. But perhaps that's not what you mean. Please cite your source. I have never heard before now that Windows does notably (if at all) better in these regards.

I am a happy Linux desktop user and, apart from custom Windows-only applications, have no need for Microsoft.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 11:36 PM
yep exactly, if linux has slower i/o performance I'm curious why Samba leaves Windows in the dust on windows own game<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:"))

#

I call bullshit...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:15 PM
Ok, this is simply bullshit. It takes a person with enough grey matter to read the man pages to get software to work in linux. Once it's there, it just works, it doesn't decide 3 months down the road to anhiliate your hard drive.

You ever install a new network card in a windows machine or a linux machine? I'll give you a rundown of how it works.

Windows:
1. With power off, install NIC card.
2. Boot machine, hopefully it will detect the NIC card, and install the drivers.
3. Reboot the machine.
4. Machine is back up, configure the network.
5. Reboot the machine.
6. If nothing is screwed up on your machine, the network should work.

Linux:
1. With power off, install NIC card
2. Boot machine, Kudzu or any number of other similar apps detect your nic card, and load the driver for it into the running kernel.
3. Run netconf to set up networking.
4. Type ifup eth0 and you're on the network. No reboot required.

Open office is not a fair comparision to MS office. It has come a great way recently, but it's still a pretty bloated app. Your poor choice of applications for your linux machine shouldn't be the basis of your theories. Abiword smokes microsoft word starting up on my 400Mhz 192Mb Ram laptop on linux. There are faster bettter alternatives out there, you just have to look a bit. Applix makes some great software, and yes, it is commercial.

As far as memory management and I/O, you've got to be kidding me. If windows has such better memory management and I/O than linux, then why are all the big 3D imaging studios such as Pixar and Industrial Light and Magic switching to linux? Why was an open source app, FilmGIMP, used in Harry Potter, Scooby Doo, Star Wars Episode 2, Stuart Little, Little Nickie, and many others?

Linux is only good for cheap web servers and routers eh? You should tell that to IBM who recently rolled out a linux only mainframe.

#

Re:I call bullshit...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 11:42 PM
I agree with you on win9x/NT4, but on Windows 2000/XP the things were always different:

1. With power off, install NIC card.
2. Boot machine, it detects the NIC card (all PCI ones), and install the drivers. If those aren't provided by MS, just insert CD/Floppy and you have them installed in minutes.
3. If you have DHCP - it just works. If you don't - Start|Settings|Network&DialUp|configure. No reboot needed either.

Linux - ok. But how do you deal with network cards that are not supported with standard kernel modules (third party drivers). You must admit it takes a while.

When you compare 7-year-old system (win95) to brand-new-2.4.999.ultra-patched kernel which has been released just 20 minutes ago it's simply not fair.

#

Re:I call bullshit...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 09:32 AM
-- quote --
When you compare 7-year-old system (win95) to brand-new-2.4.999.ultra-patched kernel which has been released just 20 minutes ago it's simply not fair.
-- end quote --

You're right, we should be more precise with the times. Let me correct this:

1. With Power off, install NIC Card
2. Boot machine, it detects the NIC card (all PCI ones) as a new device, asking you to please insert the manufacturer's supplied CD. What's that? It's not on the Windows CD?
3. If you have DHCP - you have to "ipconfig<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/release ipconfig<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/renew" a couple times before it'll even know whats going on.
I've had this happen quite a few times, and I'm running industry standard equipment, with an Industry standard DHCP server. (doesn't get more industry standard than Internet Software Consortium (ISC) DHCP. Considering the rest of my machines run various flavours of Linux/Unix and have never had a problem, I consider this a Windows specific issue.

#

Re:I call bullshit...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 04:15 AM
Actually, with network cards I've found it to be much more likely for Linux to detect it properly and have the drivers than Windows.

If Windows doesn't have the drivers, what then? You get to do some stupid nonstandard install with your custom drivers.

#

Re:I call bullshit...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 07:33 AM
Show me any modern (i.e. manufactured 5 years ago) PCI Ethernet card that ships with no Windows drivers...

Of course if you want to do arc-net or some amateur radio, Linux is more likely to support it, but what's their use in enterprises?

#

Re:I call bullshit...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 02:12 AM
I think his point was that with Linux, you plug in a new device and it is typically identified -- no need to install drivers from disk/CD or from the net.

With Windows, if Windows itself does not have that driver, you have to use the ones bundled with the hardware and they have to match the version of Windows they support.

I've found that Linux driver support is quite good. Excellent for most older hardware. With Windows, driver support is very good for current hardware and the currently most popular version of Windows.

Which one supports a wider selection of hardware? Probably Windows, though it entirely depends on the hardware and the version of Windows being used.

#

I hate ms, but you are wrong about network setup

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 11:48 PM
I cannot stand Windows, but I do not like it when people compare Linux with Win98 and pretend that is the current state of the art. Win2k and XP are perfectly capable of installing network cards and changing virtually all network settings without a reboot. (Changing your domain does require a reboot and that is stupid, but how many people ever do that? more than once?)

#

you are wrong about network setu

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:07 AM
yeah my wifes work laptop runs win2k, and it pretends to not need to reboot after a change, but about the time the NIC won't work until you reboot. and i am talking a simple release/renew here.

works great......

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:23 PM
The answer to your question is simple..
Performance is useless if you have to restart the machine everytime you play a game or if the machine blue screens in the middle of your game while you are fraging away.

This is what unpredictable is.. In windows sometimes i can play a game for 3 hours straight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... other times i can only play for 30 seconds.. YUP GREAT Memory Management there !! The only thing i can predict about windows is a crash for unknown reasons.

This is what predictable is... In Linux i can sit down and play NON STOP until my wife wants to kill me with a bat. If i dont click on exit game I can play untill my hard drive fries. I can predict each and every single failure if any because Linux tells you exactly what went wrong and you have full control of the system to fix it.

About the Office scene. Same deal..
Windows: you are working on a proyect that has a deadline of 1 hour. you are about to finish.. WAM BAM crash or WAM blue screen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. either way you lost your work and provably your job.

Linux: you are working on a proyect you finish the proyect you get promoted.

Wich one is more Productive ? uhmn.. uuuh.. I DONNOO.. DUH..

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:34 PM
dont forget about macro viruses that are so wonderfull.. and all the other good viruses that are M$ only... wow that is a very productive enviroment to work on.. Geesh..

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 06:32 AM
I'm the original writer of "Performance..." thing. I have windows2000 and I have not seen a blue screen ever ! I'm a delphi programmer and I do appreciate what Windows comes to offer. And on my computer with recompiling kernel... hdparam configs and stuff... still a Windows 2000 SCREAMS when compared with the 2.2 and 2.4 kernels based linux. I'm also a multimedia programmer and my choice is definitely Windows because of the ease of use and performance.
You can't have those new exotic hardware like an Audigy II and fully enjoy it on Linux but on Windows it does just great.
Nothing to mention about USB devices. Just plug and it's working... take my Lexmark 32 printer for example and Windows XP. Just plug the wires and it's all done. I'm ready to print. NO RESTART! Many people are not smart enough to identify their problems and if a bad hardware gives them a problem in windows because the driver which is a 3rd party one is malfunctioning then it's Windows's fault. Man.... I've started working on the early Z80 machines... and when I noticed the low computing power of the 3.5MHz of the Z80 I went straigh to assembler and worked even on a kernel project. I'm well aware of things that truly happen there in the very heart of kernel! I'm not some bozo that likes XP because of the stupid bluesh colors of it !!! I do like Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It's a great system. In fact it's the fastest operating system I've used on my computer (Celeron Tualatin 1GHz overclocked to 1.37GHz with 512MB RAM and Solano Chipset, 7200 80GB IBM HDD... Ge-Force 3 Titanium 200... etc). I use computer for office, gaming, programming and networking (as a workstation and web server) and in Windows 2000 I'm feeling like a free man.
I have no interest in knowing the kernel sources because some time ago I've been there and it's not a happy place. I do realy think that Windows 2000 and XP are great operating systems (I hate XP's interface and bundlings... like when clicking a on a movie and wanting to delete it I cannot delete it because windows is taking a "peek"...) I do see the bad and the good part as well. But when I compared those two systems I liked best Windows 2000 when it comes to memory management and I/O. Programs start very fast. I use my hardware at maximum performance so I'm a HAPPY user. I cannot say the same about Linux. Maybe I didn't had the patience to look into every piece of detail of Linux (I do use Linux as I said for the networking advantages that it offers) and I probably won't. You know why ? Because I don't like to do other's people job. I like to do mine and use what other specialists already did, ofcourse this based on a sense of knowing what's best and comparing different products.
So... don't come on me with rage... but with reason! You people talk about gray matter... You don't know me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 01:10 AM
HAHAHA so you never got a blue screen.. yeah tell that to Santa.. Everyone in the whole world gets blue screens from windows but you dont.. WOW..

The fact is that almost any hardware/software problem on Windows 2000/XP causes a blue screen. In linux you will first notice your catching fire before it will give you any type of error.

why i think windows is not productive/performer.. well simple..
you spend too much time trying to protect your data from : corruption, viruses, hackers, "Illegal Operations"
at the end something will get you and you WIll loose data. Its happened to EVERYONE I know that uses Windows.

Windows viruses alone fudge up networks with shyt. My email servers are Overloaded trying to clean infected emails from windows users .

Please before you decide that Windows is a better performer Get your facts straight and learn Linux First before making such a silly comment. Better yet POST SOME BENCHMARKS..

#

Re(1):Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.210.205.254] on December 14, 2007 10:04 PM
god your a dork

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:36 PM


  Linux sucks at memory management and IO? How much did Gates pay you to say that.


  This is so like MS execs saying Windows is more secure that Linux. Or like the catholic church saying the world is flat despite all proofs.


  I would like to request you to install a good distro, maybe knoppix, or slackware, run a good kernel, 2.4.18, on a measly desktop computer and play around it. Use a good WM if youre using X, like icewm, download software, opera, openoffice, acrobat, and try them all.


  Then start the real testing. Run many virtualhosts using J2EE, PHP, Perl, ASP, setup your system as a DNS server, a samba PDC, fileserver, printerserver (CUPS), fast NAT, IRC server, FTP server, and many other things that youre sure will give Windows2000+SP3 a very, very, blue screen.


  Then run it for a while, say 3 months? Abuse it from outside, DDoS attack it. The least this will do is give you an appreciation of what Linux is, and how well its memory management and IO is. SUN, IBM, IRIX and now Microsoft is NOT giving into Linux because its the hot thing for the next 6 months.


  Among the high number of people flocking to Linux, theres the 'statistical noise' people who had a tough time with RedHat 7.0 and their brand new 2.5 kernel. They just couldnt fix those damn clock settings in X, and mozilla was just too slow. Finding docs were tough, and even tougher to read in txt mode, so they assumed Linux is dead. Else they were successful in installing it all, but didnt get down and dirty into tuning it to see its real power.


  Are you still not convinced Linux has a lousy IO, memory management? Well do the right thing. Run benchmarks on fresh installs of Slackware and Windows2000 and post them online.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 11:33 PM
Biggest gripe I have with Linux is the tuning part<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Current distros do a really shitty job of optimizing the system (and hense a lot of the sluggishness many people find) --

case in point: IDE hard drive optimizations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. default installs of various distros will run the drives about as slow as they will go.. with a few tweaks in hdparm, performance can increase 600-1000%<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what I don't understand is why the distros are NOT doing these optmizations during install?!? Of course, there are a variety of other optimizations (ie turning off a LOT of unused default services), but these little after-install tweaks really suck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. take too much time.

Either distros need to include some better performance tweaking in their installs or someone should come out with an app that will analyze a system and do a step-by-step for those of us who do not want to spend months reading man pages and 1000+ page books on tweaks..

Something like Bastille Linux (network/security analysis for Linux) but for performance would be a great addition to Linux.. does anything like that exist?

#

What are you talking about?

Posted by: malkowich on December 12, 2002 11:50 PM
Hello,

   

        I agree to some extent that Linux is not so easy to use if you new to computers or have only used MS Windows. But, if everything works out of the box, its not a PC it is an Apple machine. A PC itself demands, some amount of operating knowledge. So does windows, a flashy "where did my programs go" movie isn't all that educating.


        Ofcourse, there are various levels of computer users. I guess you will fit in to the category of "I bought a PC and thats all I have to do to use it". Well, my friend I got news for you. If yo u thought that clicking on setup.exe makes your world a lot better, your brains have gone to the dogs. Have you heard this phrase before "You don't buy a car with it's hood welded shut, then why would you buy a PC with proprietary software on it?".


          Next time some virus accesses your outlook address book or your hard drive explodes with fragmented data, think about this, do you trust one company when they say "our product is secure" or do you trust THOUSANDS who read and modify the code of THOUSANDS of Open Source Software that is out there, and oh yes, these are HIGH QUALITY ONES too.


          On the lighter side, have you noticed, how much the new MS Windows XP interface make you feel dumb. Saying things like "Do you really want to see the contents of this folder?".


          Do you know what services come up when you start you windows XP machine, what ports are open?, at one point how many open comm.sockets you have on your machine? Ofcourse you don't need all these to make you PC work, but you don't need freedom of speech either to live - you just need bread, oh...I think the HOLY BIBLE had something to say about that, RIGHT!!!!

#

Watch your atitude and your asumptions...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 07:07 AM
I use no antivirus. I have no viruses. I know assembler long time before you learned anything about PCs. I'm a programmer. I'm also a researcher in the Multimedia field. I'm also working in a company and I use Windows XP as a tool that never failed me. So tell me... Enlighten me... how exactely clicking on setup.exe makes a better world ?
By the way... I use to compile linux kernels too but I find this a boring thing to do and I DO HAVE BETTER THINGS to do with my time than wasting it on some computer that is done by better science than that you're using now against my sayings. Windows never failed me yet. I'm using it with succes while Linux is not an option for me because all the tings I'm doing are going perfect on the computers I use at my home network and at work.
My opinion? Windows gives value to life. You can do other things too... I wonder what measurements you have at your glasses... because I'm not wearing anything like that.
Windows Rulz ! And I do hate Microsoft's intentions that are clear with Windows XP tho it's a much better operating system, a much more mature one.
Time is not infinite "my friend" and when you'll be old you're going to tell your kids or grandchilds how have you played with linux kernel and stuff while life passed you by.
I do my job at work... I bought Windows... I use windows and I have no complains on the fields I'm using (I don't need any web hosting and stuff... you're so dumm when you keep mentioning about Denial of Service attacks and so on... so please stop this... I'm well aware of that) it. I truly enjoy it. Less effort and many things to enjoy about it.
You're just so eager to prove something... I wonder what ? You're not a god or something... still human as I am. Your choices... and my choices. So please watch the atitude and only use reason when addressing to stragers. Also some polite tone would be appreciated.
After all we're here to discuss things, right?
By the way... I'm not against Linux. I just said that Windows is better from my points of view that I've mentioned.
I might be wrong you know ? I'm human and humans only learn by mistakes. Question is... do I realy want to learn something new ? Do I realy need a revolution on my desktop when things are realy going well (great I mean !) already ?
Think again buster...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Re:Watch your atitude and your asumptions...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 09:07 AM
what a choad wank

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:19 AM
What? Windows I/O faster? You are high, or an MS troll. System I/O handlers in Linux are much faster than anything MS ever came out with. That is a fact. Do a little research. your ignorance is showing.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:28 AM
hey jackass -- nice troll there.

FYI, Return to Castle Wolf runs fantastic on my Suse box. Better than win98. This is using native linux binaries, thanks to id.

"memory management and I/O". Do you have a clue what you are talking about? I think not.

You sound like some fucking executive.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 07:21 AM
I wish... HA HA HA HA...
Tho your atitude is filled with rage and hatred I'm answering to your words with mine.
I hate windows 9x/Me.
I love windows 2000/XP.
I hate Linux when somebody says it's better than Windows generaly and in fact it compares it with Windows 9x/Me.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 04:42 AM
That's because for many people who know how to use it, Linux is better than XP/2k. I run both. Linux STILL runs circles around XP on the same hardware.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:53 AM
I don't know which system outperforms which but I do know that windows does a clever thing. It keeps huge quantaties of information resident in memory so if you run word, close it and then run it again it appears instantly because it is still resident. It does more then just having a large disk cache. To the average user this means that windows is more responsive and thus better. If this is a linux kernel, XWindows or filesystem failure I don't know but it would be a good thing to add to linux to boost it's desktop performance.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 01:59 AM
Yes, Linux has had this for a long time now. The problem is if you run StarOffice on Linux or MS Office on Windows with an underpowered machine, your performance will suck. It shouldn't come as a surprise that there's nothing the kernel or the windowing system can do about that.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 10:33 AM
I have a similar setup at home, and as the article mentioned, nobody experiences any slowness.
The specs of the machines are
server: Athlon 1.3GHz + 256meg ram, Mandrake 9.0
client1: pentium 120MHz desktop + 32 meg ram
client2: pentium 166MHz desktop + 64 meg ram
client3: pentium 166MHz laptop + 48 meg ram
client4: pentium 200MHz desktop + 128 meg ram.
networking: 10/100 MB/s connected to a switch.

All the clients are configured to connect directly to server at boot up, and all the clients "feel" just as fast as when using the server directly, granted the majority of applications being run are web browsers, email clients, OpenOffice, GnuCash, Gimp and occasional X games.

Everyone in the family is VERY pleased with how well the whole thing works (and not to mention the fact that they don't have to fight for the computer.)

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 03:48 AM
>>Computers today are cheap.

Nothing cheaper than a computer you already own.

>> And I'm also doubting the performance of such setup described above.

No, really, X over the network runs fast. That is the only thing that many universities use.

>> On a VMWare test machine (on windows 2000) with 64MB RAM OfficeXP runs like hell but on a real system (1GHz 256MB) the latest Red Hat Linux 8.0 with OppenOffice.org makes me loose time waiting for the interface to load and so on.

Linux works great for me on an old laptop with only a pentium II with 96 MB of RAM.

>> Many good things are said about this linux but if you gather them all you will see that some of them contradict themselves. For example some complain about windows having this default interface wich they say "takes so many resources"...

Errr, that is insulting windows, not saying good things about linux. A good thing about linux is that it never crashes or you only have to reboot when you replace the core of the kernel... saying how bad windows is not a complement to Linux.

>> Well... how about KDE or Gnome? If I compare them with Windows (2000 or XP, 9x/ME are not in my attention here) you'll see the difference. Same with Office software.

I do see the difference, both KDE and Gnome take up a lot less resources than windows does.

>> Microsoft's software is faster

Faster than what?

>> and provides much more many features

More features than what?

>> (which they are often denied as necessary... they say "tons of useless features"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which again I doubt... sooner or later Linux will walk Windows's desktop path because Windows is what a home user or let's say Desktop user is generaly expecting from a machine).

I use about 10 % of the features on Office. As do most of the people I know. Any feature that I don't use just wastes my time when I am slogging through the hundreds of screens trying to find out how to make Windows stop auto indenting, or auto auto capitalizing, or for the love of god, make clippy stop coming up.

I will tell you what I want... I want a modular office system that allows me to only install the feature set that I want... and will allow someone else to install the feature set that they want.

>> I'm not a Microsoft fan especialy.

Yes you are. You are a microsoft fanboy, but be proud of that.

>> Generaly speaking Windows has a huge legacy of software done by many other companies, real good software, quality software.

Funny, it all mostly just runs now on my Linux box. WineX is a lovely thing.

>> Nothing in this world is realy free.

Sure there is.

>> You are free to copy Linux but you gotta waste a lot of time and resources to workarround with it and learn it while with Windows you're free to do something else for which you might be payed for and buy the Windows. Same effort, much more to gain.

Wait to see how much time you waste when you want to do something that none of the comercial vendors are supporting yet. 8 years ago I used Linux to build a multi line fax machine that refaxed everything it got to a main office. No comercial vendor offered anything like what I needed, and the closest thing I could find cost $10,000. It took me $2000 and 2 weeks to build a complete solution for linux.

>> What about memory management and I/O ? These things are the true heart of a system. Windows screams at these while Linux still lacks at it.

What planet do you live on???? Linux beats windows hands down at memory management and I/O. The fastest web servers in the world are running Linux, check the spec web 99 web site. And web servers are nothing if not memory management and I/O.

>> (let's remember about games which are a BIG reason for which computers are selling).

Most of the people I know are too busy working to really play that many games.

>> An overloaded server will surely abuse of these two. So a question arrises<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what system will perform better ? The answer is obvious.

It is obvious, networked X windows will be a lot faster and reliable than Windows.

>> So... you want to overload a linux based system using network input/output as "the way".

This doesn't overload a Linux server... A 4 way box with 2 GB of RAM and a gigabit network card can easily support hundreds of Xterminal users.

>> I have no complaints about the networking part of linux which is much ahead of Windows but what about hard drive and memory ? What about performance ?

Linux wins hands down in hard drive I/O and memory usage.

>> From my point of view this solution is not an option.

Nobody is asking you to do this.

>> Where performance has to stand up (office performance and workstation performance equals productivity in any company) this is no solution.

Errr, office suites really really don't use a lot of performance.

>> Nothing is free.

You say that a lot.

>> Money brings money.

Funny, I do great programming Unix boxen, haven't missed windows at all.

>> Linux supporters tend to forget about comerce and it's essence in this world. They tend to be out of this world generaly speaking.

No, we don't forget about commerce... commerce is the exchange of goods to promote the common good. We exchange our programs with one another and theirby we are all wealthier. Wealth is a lot more than just having money. There are other things of value. The source code for a proprietary OS equivilant of a Linux distribution would cost billions of dollars to produce. So that means that if you have the source code for all this software then you are a rich person.

>> And if I said that this should be no offence to anybody because I'm a linux user as well. I use linux for cheap routers and web servers but my workstation is still a Windows. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to Microsoft to Microsoft.

Didn't Caesar get stabbed by Brutus? Wow, that would be cool, maybe we can all get lucky and Balmer will stab Gates... Et tu, Balmer? *laughing my ass off*

>> Linux was borned as an ideal and I'm sure that it will continue it's existence and raise continuously as long as there will be supporters.

Yeah, you can say that, since there are more Linux servers than windows servers now. And I am betting that there are a lot more people running Linux on the desktop than anyone knows.

>> Don't forget that money can always do better than passion because they can fill up the true needs of man leaving room for pasison while the needs of a man can always destroy the passion. That's the reason I go comercial and still love both Windows and Linux.

Funny, I was always told to do the opposite... find something that you love and then find a way to get paid for it.

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 04:09 AM
Latency:

Actually the terminals have lower-latency than the server, because the only thing running on the terminals are the display mechanisms. I've tested this out and know it to be true. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.

As for load time, OpenOffice usually loads slow for the first person, but much quicker for each person after that (because it is already in memory).

"Many good things are said about this linux but if you gather them all you will see that some of them contradict themselves."

Actually, what you have found are people talking about two different things. For example, when people talk about Linux taking fewer resources, what they are really talking about is the fact that it is configurable to be running only what you want. If you want a bloated desktop you can have it, but if you are just running a web server you can cut it out entirely.

"Nothing in this world is realy free. You are free to copy Linux but you gotta waste a lot of time and resources to workarround with it and learn it while with Windows you're free to do something else for which you might be payed for and buy the Windows."

This is the biggest BS statement I hear all the time. You waste _more_ time trying to get Windows to behave than with Linux. Does time cost money? Yes. But you have to spend it with both, and with Linux you don't have to pay for the software, too.

"What about memory management and I/O ? These things are the true heart of a system. Windows screams at these while Linux still lacks at it."

Based on?????? Oh wait, you're full of crap. Samba was 4 times as fast as Windows 2000 serving files. Which measured what? That's right, I/O.

"Where performance has to stand up (office performance and workstation performance equals productivity in any company) this is no solution."

Worked fine for me and many people.

"Linux supporters tend to forget about comerce and it's essence in this world. "

False statement. Linux supporters tend to believe in freedom of information, and believe that commerce should be restricted to things that are scarce, not abundant. Copyright produce an _artificial_ scarcity (i.e. - a monopoly control) which produces an artificial price.

#

Not even a good troll...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 07:11 AM
Try again, man...

#

Re:Performance ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 04:22 PM
Down to the nitty gritty! Windows is all about flash not performance or security (yet.) However, Gates keeps winning all the battles and their business model is killer (literally.) The new MS Project Management process is pure genius. However, their Windows back end is not ready for critical applications unless one throws much hardware and staff at the platform. MS reportably garners 75% of revenue from licenses.

Mission critical still means (your ass) an AS/400, Sun Solaris or the like. The rumor is that even MS outsources to an AS/400 back end. The desktop for the foreseeable future is still Windows (MS Office.)

As far as Linux is concerned, it was developed with the proper spirit and is the only way for a computer professional/business on a Shoe String budget. The issues with Linux is a hacked kernel (just peruse the source code) and will reach entropy fast. Years ago Linus had an opportunity to clean up the kernel and make it more modular such as Solaris and he did not do it. Much progress has been made in the last year.

Some are holding out hope for a better Open foundation such as "Plan 9" from Bell Labs to reach critical mass. As far as a commercial client OS goes, it does not get any better than Unix based OS X from the Next Engineers at Apple. I would purchase the Apple Titanium PowerBook if I could afford one.

Currently, remote users require a web portal using a terminal service connection to a back end application server. People on the move need a consistant fast virtual office no matter where they are located or what computer/connection they are using. Think of the potential (savings) of a Linux based web portal with a terminal service connection to application servers running Open Office/Ximian/MySQL and secure OpenLDAP severs where the remote user only needs a sigle ID and key.

                 

#

Clustering and LTSP.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2002 10:21 PM
Would it be possible to link two beefy machines with something like openMosix and then use the linked machines as the terminal server?

#

Re:Clustering and LTSP.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 11:42 PM
u will probably can if u have such apps that will benefit from OpenMosix... still not true for shared-memory programs i.e. most interesting apps..
But afaik openMosix ppl are working on this...

On the other hand u can split the services<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... say dhcp and tftp on one server, NFS on other...

#

LTSP really is helping us

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:07 AM
We are using it here in the work environment (about 50 nodes) and it works very well for us. I have no complaints.

For us, it costs NO money to setup and operate. If you consider the labor to set it up, then I suppose that cost the compnay as much money as they normally would have paid us had we not set it up. Isn't labor cost a fact with every job though (LTSP or not)?

Anyway, the total cost of ownership (labor + zero cost of software + better up-time + less administrative problems + overhead network bandwidth + zero recycled-computer-parts cost) is far less than our alternatives. Further, looking down the road, it will progressively become a greater total savings cost for the company.

Kudos to the LTSP and those involved in it. We appreciate your efforts.

#

What about secutiry?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:14 AM
Hi, I'm not an expert but the configuration you described is something I thought on several times. The fact that make me worry is the security. From the technical documentation I learned that for home users is safe to have a small, low powered machine as internet interface/firewall that protect a decent client that run the services you need for the desktop (actually I have two, one for me and one for my daughter) and I always thought that this was just a waste of resources (BTW I got to reinstall my small P100 Debian server broken by some useless "hacker" last week). How may I make an LTSP server safe enough to contain all my sensible data too?

#

Re:What about secutiry?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:24 AM
It should have exactly the same security as the way you set-up for each user on the Linux box locally & if you need to then there is VPN that you could also use. LTSP uses the same X11/XDMCP protocol as Citrix Metaframe (ICA) and Win2k RDP version 5, therefore it inherit the built-in encryption and compression features.

#

Re:What about secutiry?

Posted by: k1tty on December 14, 2002 05:10 AM
Unfortunately none of this addresses the inherent danger of using tftp (which is required to get the kernel to the client machine.) This (tftp) is an extremely insecure protocol, the t standing for trivial, which is a generous description of the security of the service. The client is *very* thin so as to be usable in a boot rom, which places some pretty serious size constraints.

So while the X11 potion of things may at least provide some encryption, (which I would be loathe to describe as strong) it certainly does nothing to alleviate the issues with tftp.

Ultimately in a home network, behind a firewall, this really shouldn't be a huge concern. Just so long as you aren't using wireless hubs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Re:What about security?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 05:00 AM
Unless you plan to try and set your Firewall up as a Term Server (A very bad idea), your going to have to rely on your firewall to protect your terminal server.

Using your firewall as your terminal server strikes me as a really bad idea, especially given the documented dangers of tftp.

#

kinda cool

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 12:21 AM
one problem is that when some app borks and starts sucking up 99% of the cpu time it freezes _all_ the thin clients on your network.. it seems that kde is to blame the majority of the time, though. sticking to blackbox or another small, more stable window manager should solve this problem.

i've also had my thin client's X servers restart on me when doing a lot of web surfing (i don't think it's a ram problem since i had it happen a couple times on two different thin clients)..

a video card with decent 2d acceleration is important if you don't want to see your cursor and desktop icons flicker and crap when moving your cursor around. it doesn't really look pretty. my ati rage II+dvd cards w/2mb ram get rid of all unsightly flickering nicely, though. 2d acceleration is all that matters. don't waste money on a 3d accelerated card.

 
also, when scrolling through web pages you feel as if you are using a 133mhz pc and a video card with no 2d acceleration. the scrolling isn't perfectly smooth like it is with a normal pc. every once in a great while you'll also come across a web site that takes like 30 seconds to render.

the flash 5 plugin has a bug in it that causes flash animations to crash when being viewed on a remote desktop. i've heard that the flash 6 plugin fixes this problem, though. konqueror handles the crashes nicely and simply doesnt show the animation. mozilla, however, totally bombs out.

other than those shortcomings, ltsp is pretty cool. its neat seeing openoffice pop up in 6 seconds on a p133<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) if your hardware is fast enough, it might be best to run your web browser locally on the thin client itself. that'll solve many of your problems.

#

Re:kinda cool

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 02:30 AM
What I would recommend if you're really interested in speed is to bump your client specs up to the PII-266 range. You can get used boxes for around $60-90USD (I bought a motherboard w/ 64MB and CPU for $15 on ebay), and with an AGP card with decent XFree86 drivers (nvidia, Matrox, etc) you really can't tell much a difference than running locally for most apps, although again, SDL page-flipping games won't work well over a network. OpenGL should work fine if you have glx drivers.

For most home Linux admins, probably the best use of this would be to set up a very cheap second or third box for the spouse or children or for kitchen/shop terminals. That way you always have the local console on the main box for primary use and for advanced games, etc. This is how I've run for years; if all they need is to browse, type, and play standard X11 games, a $20 P100-166 and a good older Matrox PCI card will do fine.

#

Good use for old laptops

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:06 AM
I'm running LTSP at home also. The best part is being able to make use of 486's. Why? Laptops.

I can get a 486 laptop for much cheaper than a new LCD flat-panel display. It makes a great, small-footprint X terminal.

#

Terminal server LTSP.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:07 AM
"This is good. Interestingly, as soon as we started using 'Linux over the wire', my wife noticed that it was faster than running Win98 directly on her (K7-800mHz, 256m ram) machine."

I personally don't see how she could notice that it is faster using a thin client than directly on a "k7-800mhz & 256megs ram". It must be misconfiguration somewhere or a buggy process that is running in the backgound eating up cpu cycles.

I have some experience with setting up Unix/Linux thin clients & MS-TS (Terminal Services or Remote Desktop Protocol). And, MS-TS (RDP), LTSP are all base of Citric ICA therefore the should have similar in speed.

The apparent problem is because Windows is much slower than a small or minimal Linux distro therefore a good config Linux box should be able to serve twice as many clients, but not faster because it is though the "wire", or because LTSP is a better protocal.

I personally haven't tested Office though Wine with a minimal distro, but I have tested Office through Wine on RH7.x/8.0 and Win98 is way faster at running MS-office (on the same machine at 533mhz with 384megs ram). Therefore I don't believe that a perfectly config Win98 box with such hardware wouldn't run noticeably slower than, a Linux box that run Office though Wine, CodeWeavers Crossover Office (or Enterprise), Win4Lin, or Vmware.

#

Re:Terminal server LTSP.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:29 AM
Oop!

I mean: Therefore I don't believe that a perfectly config Win98 box with such hardware [b]would[/b] run noticeably slower than, a Linux box that run Office though Wine, CodeWeavers Crossover Office (or Enterprise), Win4Lin, or Vmware.

#

Re:Terminal server LTSP.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 06:09 PM
And, MS-TS (RDP), LTSP are all base of Citric ICA therefore the should have similar in speed.

Are you sure about this? LTSP has nothing to do with Citrix ICA, but uses the X-Windows protocol.

#

Go one step further

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:37 AM
Install OpenMosix (http://www.openmosix.org). Whatever machines you happen to have on your network can share their processor resources. Automatically, without user intervention, Mosix moves processes to the machine that has the least amount of load.

Combine this with LTSP, and if you happen to have a thin client that's got a few extra cycles, it can take some load off your server, while not sacrificing this centralized management, if done properly!

#

Yeah, right

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 03:57 AM
"When my wife asked me to remove Windows and install Linux on her computer, I was happy to oblige."

Yeah, right. And when >>my>I was happy to oblige. What planet do you live on? My wife can't stand it if I even think about linux when I'm near her computer.

#

What

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 05:34 AM
.....Some people have understanding wives....... Plus windows can only crash so many times, before people say enough of that....

#

Re:Yeah, right

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 05:43 AM
What planet do you live on? My wife can't stand it if I even think about linux when I'm near her computer.

Hmmm... mine is the opposite... After she heard the clamor I created with a troublesome install of a Win9x box, she told me she was glad I went to Linux before we got married. (She's used Linux + KDE for the past three years now for surfing, typing, and IM. Problems? Sure, but we had those in Windows, too, and it sure is cheaper over on this side. Plus I can ssh over to fix things if need be without leaving my chair)

#

Re:Yeah, right

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 09:29 AM
My wife cant stand me near her period

#

Re:Yeah, right - Try this it worked for me

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 10:39 AM
I simply told my wife that I wasn't going to repair her windows crashes anymore. I told her if she wanted it so bad she would have to learn how to correct the registry corruptions, the virus updates and also learn how to re-install it when it puked. She was having none of that!!!
In the end she found it easier to learn KDE than the nuts and bolts required to keep Windows operating. She has had Linux for almost two years now, has learned Star Office, Mozilla and the KDE multimedia apps.
Does she wish she had Windows? Sure. But her desire for Windows isn't strong enough to overcome her distaste of learining how to install and maintain software. As long as she stays in Linux I've agreed to take care of that, and that requires little or none of my time.

Jeff Roberts

#

Re:Yeah, right

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 04:30 PM
You must be doing something wrong then.
Mine even works with my SGI Octane running Irix 6.5...

#

My wife (*grin*)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 05:02 AM
... just wishes I would stop referring to the ports on my computer in a sexual manner... no to mention that a floppy drive is called floppy for a reason.. have to be damn floppy to sqeeze it in there!

#

get rid of winblows

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 06:55 AM
go to www.vmware.com get VMware.... get rid of winblows.

windows should get no love, winblows gets no love on my network, shit I reduced windows to a window

linux 4 life

#

Re:get rid of winblows

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 10:55 AM
I use VMWare myself and it's good if you need to run Windows apps. I like the sense of putting Windows in its place by reducing it to a window on my KDE desktop. But, don't fool yourself about this option either. You still haven't gotten rid of Windows because you are still paying for it.

#

Easier way to start - go to www.K12LTSP.org

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 09:38 AM
LTSP site is basicly a geek place to hang out.
So - instead for some an easier LTSP distro is available that is pre-built with RedHat distro as the foundation. This is the K12LTSP distro!

K12LTSP has it all in one place (ya still need to go to the "links" on LTSP site for boot roms, NICs, etc)... BUT, a 3 CD download is on K12LTSP site and it has the easiest HOW-TO-DO information to be found (for all kinds of LINUX stuff)!

This project has it's beginnings in the Portland Or Public School system and the organization of the web site is typical of a well constructed course or study that you would find in any class!

If a Newbie then ya must go to K12LTSP and Check it all out! Less pain here (at least till Mandrake and the others puts LTSP on their "out of the box" distros !

Good article! Long live Linux!

#

If site down=wait, as children are working here :)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 04:00 AM
Version 3.0 is due soon (was in beta last I checked yesterday) and since this site is part of a school evloved project... Do not be surprised if the school kids are helping to maintain the site! So - visit site again if not up now!

#

Interesting classroom case study...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 04:05 AM
Wow - these kids are talented.
Other schools should be doing this too!

#

Linux Planet article about this found a this url..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 04:08 AM

Linux Planet url fix as follows:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 04:28 AM
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/42<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> 6/1/

deleted space between<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/421 6/1/

#

XDMCP

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 09:40 AM
For a taste of Linux Terminal server Red Hat 8 makes it very easy to configure XDMCP. I wrote a tiny howto for setting up XDMCP on Red Hat 8:

http://voidmain.kicks-ass.net/redhat/redhat_8_ter<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> inal_server.html

#

Re:XDMCP

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 09:44 AM
That link screwed up, there shouldn't be a space in it.

#

Re:XDMCP

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 10:12 PM
Some sites, possibly this one included, break the link unless you code it in html using the a href tag when you type your comment. Sticking a space inside the address is a VERY common tactic.

So if you include the link <A HREF="http://voidmain.kicks-ass.net/redhat/redhat_8_terminal_server.html">like this</a kicks-ass.net>, then it won't have spaces in it.

It probably wasn't a typo on your part.

#

machine instructions...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 01:55 PM
hi, i have an lfs system compiled with flags for the athlon-xp. i was wondering if i set up this system do i need to recompile all my apps so they run on the 486's i plan on using with them? i.e. does ltsp use the servers processer or the local processor to run apps? thanks.

p.s. btw i say c-sharp, used to do music when i was younger and it just seems more natural-sounding...

#

Re:machine instructions...

Posted by: dstidolph on December 13, 2002 11:42 PM
The whole point of X windows is that all processing is done on the server. The only code that runs on the remote client machine is the display code. The server runs the app and sends down instructions on what to draw on the screen - that's all.

The code can be optimized on the server and you only need a display with a fast enough video card and enough memory to drive it.

#

Re:machine instructions...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 11:51 PM
does that mean the x-server has to be compiled with less optimized flags to run on the client machines?

#

Re:machine instructions...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 02:42 AM
If you use the stock ltsp rpms, they include standard i386 XFree86 binaries. If you know you'll only have Pentium or higher clients (quite likely), then yes, you could recompile with optimizations for i586. In fact, you could just build a new XFree86 executable for each chip type, and call it XFree86-i586, XFree86-i686, etc, and set each client to execute their particular XFree86 exe in lts.conf. (the option is X_SERVER=, I believe).

#

What about Wireless

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 05:29 PM
Hi guys, I'm trying to make a LTSP network using DWL-520 (prism2.5) wireless PCI card but I can't...
Nothing workings... i can boot the client with the AP and download the kernel but at this point nothing to do.. my client dies.

Can U help me?????
Thanxs a lot!

#

Re:What about Wireless

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 02:46 AM
Well, with the sketchy details you've given, I don't think anyone can. Make sure to read the full installation guide on ltsp.org (troubleshooting section). Also, giving your email address would help, since I don't think a long debugging discussion would be very proper on a forum such as this.

#

Speed of application

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2002 06:17 PM
One thing I couldn't find in any of the comments, is one of the nicest things about running a central server. If anyone has started OpenOffice on the server, and someone else wants to run OOo as well, OOo will come up nearly instantly, as the majority of code is loaded already, and only a tiny fraction of additional code needs to be loaded.

Same is true for other bloated application.

Running a central Windows Terminal Server does not have the same impact. Even if someone has loaded an application, the next person requesting the same application will see nearly the same load time as the first (minus cached resources).

HTH

#

Re:Speed of application

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 18, 2002 09:39 AM
We have a couple of windows 2000 terminal servers at uni, and we found that word would corrupt its documents all the time. I think its because windows caches run time data from dlls, and if the dlls stuff themselves up, they remain forever stuffed until reboot. I think there's an option to turn that off in windows XP tho...

#

hehe

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 01:14 AM
ltsp article on the left, microsoft skyscraper banner on the right.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Gaming???

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 05:19 AM
Is it possible to game over this setup? When I say game, I mean like the 3d kind (quake3/ut2k3 that sort of thing). Does it work? And does it work well??

Derek

#

Re:Gaming???

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 08:58 AM
3d gaming is not a typical terminal server type of application. Office type applications (documents, spread sheets, mail, etc) are the types of applications that work well over a terminal server. 3d games are highly dependent on the local graphics hardware and hight bandwidth between the processor and the graphics device (a network in between the processor and the graphics card, which is what you have in a terminal server environment, is not a good example of high bandwidth between the processor and graphics device).

#

Saving Money

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 09:34 AM
Im the pc administrator of a lab at my university. I manage about 30 win2k pcs. I must say, windows is what everyone knows and loves. People just want what they know, which is, and will always be windows. About configuring the computers (making an image) Almost ALL the problems i have are with Microsoft programs that you would expect to work in windows. (Visual Studio<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework, Visual Studio 6.0, Office<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, etc) Not only this, but a big problem of Win2k in my opinion is the way users share data. It is so great the way that if you install software as one user, it usually remains totally unconfigured for the rest of the users. Im speaking of installing a program as the administrator and hoping it works in the default restricted user. Its a nightmare for me, even MS apps refuse to work without going through the registry, or nastilly hacking it. But i dont care, once i set it up and test it, it works. I often tell myself i could do it SOOOOOoo much faster in linux, but i have never actually done tried it. Anyway, i know i sound like a retard, but ill continue with my randomness. Both linux and win2k are highly unoptimized right off the bat. Thank god windows update exists. I find editing configuration files a much more efficient way of disabling processes and ports than using the GUI. In linux you always know what something is, it says httpd, ftpd, telnetd...but in win2k you still have remoteregistry hiding SOMEWHERE on your system waiting for you to disable it, also mentioning netbios, the terminal server, and all the MS services that seriously dont need to be running. BLAHHHHHHH..

In relation to the article, you must realize that setting up a terminal server in your home is pretty much retarded, but in an environment like my lab, we could save a fortune by setting up "lame workstations" or even thin clients like Largo is doing
http://linux.com/article.pl?sid=02/12/04/2346215

this will use less power, cost less than adding 20 new COMPLETE pcs (which most people will just use to check e-mail, edit a document, code), take less work to manage once its setup.....
Can you do that with windows?

Both have advantages.

windows is for everyone
windows is not for cheap people
linux is for cheap people
linux is not for lazy people or idiots

go ahead and flame me, id like to know how retarded i am.

#

Re:Saving Money

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 10:24 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say Linux is for cheap people. It works better for me for what I do than Microsoft. In fact if Microsoft would pay me to use their software, I would refuse and still use Linux. At any rate, I do use a terminal server like environment at my home and it comes in very handy.

<A HREF="http://voidmain.kicks-ass.net/redhat/redhat_8_terminal_server.html">Here is an example of how I use it at home</a kicks-ass.net>.

#

Freedom is -

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2002 11:32 PM
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Example
- Freedom is NOT being forced into licensing pratices that force a feeling of servitude on you!
- Freedom is NOT being forced by a monopoly into bying for thousands of dollars a version of NT4 Small Bus Server that was so BROKEN out of the box
that it took months of expensive labor costs to try to get it to work... then, Microsoft gave out a FREE upgrade cause it was so broken (upgrade was unstable too)... and never paid for the lost labot costs involved on the original version... and when letter to Bill Gates about this was returned with a phone call that promised "help" on the problems we were having... after this call the MS assigned person did not ever after that call again or return phone calls or e-mails (cause the product was so broken I think this person wanted to avoid the personal stress of trying to help something that could not be helped.
After all this, becuause of user license agreement, NOT a dime back from Microsoft.
- Freedom is being able to choose, test and try LINUX and know that folks building it have their hearts into what they are doing! They have a sense of pride... vs Microsoft's marketing dept ruling product release dates at the Empire's headquarters in Redmond.
Freedom is Linux Terminal Server Project and being able to use old PCs again to save money (not possible with Microsoft products).
Freedom is OpenMosix and Mosix (again without having to ask permission from Microsoft).
Freedom is the various distros of Linux to choose from...
Freedom is not having MS licensing police bang down your door and force expensive audits on a company.
Freedom is being able to innovate (without Microsoft's permission first)!
Freedom is worth everything else we have to live with...
Freedom is more than just another word, with nothing left to lose.
Freedom is... NOT "having" to use Microsoft stuff cause it's the only thing out there!
Freedom is...

#

Re:Freedom is -

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2002 08:48 AM
Bravo!!

#

The word "spastic" is offensive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 10:19 AM
The word "spastic" is offensive.

Cerebral Palsy.

#

The word "offensive" is spastic

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2002 12:32 PM
The word "offensive" is spastic.

Replublican Guard

#

Plume vs. LTSP

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2002 05:00 PM
There is a better alternative to LTSP: Plume. It's the same as LTSP but exclusively (at the moment) for Debian. Simply install the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.debs packages (about one Mb)... Easy as one two three ! It uses NFS, DHCP,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It has been released (v0.7.0) few weeks ago.

Give it a try !

http://plume.sourceforge.net

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya