Linux.com

Feature: Migration

Largo loves Linux more than ever

By on December 09, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller -
We're back in Largo, Florida, checking on advances in the Linux-based network they use to run the city's computers that we wrote about last year. True to Largo's "City of Progress" motto, these guys have not been standing still. Now they're talking about Linux-based terminals in all the city's police cars. Microsoft has tried -- and failed -- to bring them into the proprietary fold. And, possibly most important, we have an amazing cost figure that ought to make you ask your local politicians why their IT operations aren't as efficient as Largo's.

Last time we visited, we spoke mostly with hands-on sysadmins Dave Richards and Mike Pearlman. This time we're also chatting with their boss, IT Manager/CIO Harold A. Schomaker, who is more than a little proud of their latest ultra-cool deal: finding a whole bunch of the NCD thin clients they prefer -- which sell new for around $750 -- on eBay for prices ranging from 50 cents to $5. No, they aren't the latest model, but who cares? These things have no moving parts; the super-cheap used ones are more than adequate to run a KDE desktop and all the apps a typical city employee needs; and with a 10 year expected life it doesn't matter if they're a few years old.

I watch Harold close a winning bid session -- for $5 per unit. Does he gloat a little? Sure. I promise not to reveal the URL of the auctions he's in, but even if I do he's not terribly worried; he says eBay is a great sales medium for things like cameras and laptops that everyone uses, but isn't so great (for sellers) when it comes to highly specialized gear like thin clients, especially in lots of 10 to 50 units each.

This is the kind of thinking that pervades Largo's IT department: provide great functionality, but get the best bang for the taxpayers' buck in every possible way -- including shopping eBay regularly for cheap, used equipment.

Sysadmins who can think instead of react

Instead of going into great detail here about the equipment at the heart of the Largo system, let's take a fast look at this detailed ZDNet article, which does an excellent job of describing its basic hardware and software ingredients.

Now let's talk about the most important feature of this entire system from a sysadmin's or IT manager's point of view: A silent beeper.

An absence of emergencies

We noted on our last Largo visit, and note once again, that these are the least harassed, least worried, calmest sysadmins we have ever met. They have one of the smallest and least-worked help desks we have ever seen -- five people who support 450+ client units and over 800 users, and it is all done without any fuss, muss or hurry. The desktop units, remember, have no moving parts or applications software on them. They rarely break, and if they do it is only a moment's work to swap one out. Monitors eventually get old and dim, but they have a stack of $150 Compaq 17" monitors ready to go, plenty of spare keyboards and mice, and lots of CAT-5 cable. Everything in the server room is backed up and redundant (and neat, with all cables marked) so maintenance there is as under control and worry-free as it is on the client side of things.

Harold, Mike, and Dave all note that when they go to technical conferences and other sysadmin get-togethers, they are usually the only ones in the place who are not getting a steady stream of frantic interruptions.

So what do they do with their time? They research, plan, and think of yet more ways to save Largo taxpayers money on IT while making the city's IT services more efficient and useful.

Linux terminals for every police car

Ruggedized laptops for police cars usually cost at least $4000 each, plus software, and Dave Richards says they really don't last any longer than un-ruggedized ones. So he's been messing with tablet PCs, the kind Microsoft has been pushing like mad this year, except Dave and his guys are running them as Linux thin clients instead of trying to make them be full-tilt computers. This is only now becoming practical because of advances in wireless data communications, but applying the thin client model to mobile computing -- and using tablets instead of laptops -- makes all kinds of sense once Dave explains the reasoning behind the system, which is currently at the prototype and vendor-selection stage, and will probably be fully deployed, after extensive hands-on testing., in 2004 or 2005.

Let's start with the advantage of the thin client setup in mobile computing, using Officer Bustem as an example. He is sitting in his car, writing up a report of a burglary arrest he made earlier, when his shift ends. He needs to turn in the car so Officer Cuffem can use it on his shift.

With a traditional laptop installed in the car, Bustem would need to either transfer his report to a floppy and take it with him or send it over the network to another computer somewhere. But with the thin client system he doesn't need to do anything. The terminal in the car is just one of many interchangeable terminals, and his work is stored on the server at police headquarters. He can log on to a terminal in the police station and keep working on his report, no problem. And if tomorrow, when he comes to work, he is assigned a different car, still no problem. His work is on the server, so all his case notes are still accessible to him -- and to his supervisor, Lieutenant Lockemup, who can access them from his car or office and pass word about the burglary suspect's confederate, who is still at large, on to Cuffem and other members of the next shift.

So far, all of this could be done with a low-end laptop, but Dave says the basic durability defect of the laptop form factor is that "it puts the keyboard above the electronics."

So the tablet PC gets mounted permanently in the car, with a keyboard on a cord. Yes, the keyboard is eventually going to wear out or break, but replacing it is a simple plug/unplug operation, much easier than unmounting a laptop or other piece of gear. The keyboards they're looking at are not cheap -- they run around $275 each -- but are super-rugged and have backlit keys for typing in the car at night, which cops often do. Not only that, having the keyboard as a separate unit gives the poor cop a fighting chance of finding a half-comfortable typing position, which is almost impossible to do in the driver's seat of a car no matter what, but is made slightly easier by disconnecting the keyboard from the rest of the unit.

Plus there's handwriting recognition. Dave says it works "fairly well" now on the tablet PCs running Linux, but that the keyboard is likely to be the primary data entry device for a good number of years yet.

So there you are: a computer system for cops in their cars that is better, more flexible, more durable, and a lot less expensive than traditional ones -- all based on a bit of imagination from a couple of sysadmins who are not overwhelmed with reboots and software problems, so they have time to research what the police really need from their in-car data terminals, and figure out how best to give it to them while spending the least possible amount of the taxpayers' money.

These are not brilliant people

We are not knocking Harold, Mike and Dave by saying they are not brilliant. They are smart and they care about their jobs, but none of what they've done is truly original or even new. They know this, and they keep saying it. The real strangeness is not that these guys have managed to build such a wonderful, cost-effective system, but that so few others have done the same thing.

Everything in the Largo IT ecosystem is off-the-shelf standard goods, from hardware to software to the wires that hook everything together. The innovation here comes in making maximum use of everything, and not necessarily in obvious ways -- and in coming up with solutions that are as much social engineering as technical, like the "cybercafe" in the Largo City Hall's employee break room.

A common complaint among employers -- especially government employers -- is that workers spend too much paid time surfing the Net for personal purposes or exchanging personal email. And yet, many people may only have Internet access -- or at least broadband access -- at work. The Largo solution is to put four terminals in the break room, and load them only with Mozilla and Evolution, and encourage workers to surf, chat, and play online all they want during their lunch hours and other breaks.

Many IT shops might hesitate to put in something like this; those that run PCs would need to supply and maintain four complete computers, including (no doubt) Windows, so they'd need to have virus software kept up to date and take care of all the other chores that go along with running a standalone computer. But none of this applies in the Largo IT scheme. The four thin-client units in the break room were purchased for $2 each on eBay and take no maintenance, and besides the client pieces all you have is keyboards, mice, and monitors, and these are not costly items. The biggest thing that makes this sort of niceness possible, though, big enough that it's worth saying over again, is no maintenance!

When you run a servercentric network, you only need to maintain and update one copy of each application you run. As long as your servers are sized correctly for the load you anticipate, plus a substantial margin for error, adding another few terminals is literally no work at all beyond physically plugging things in.

Microsoft tried to bring them into the fold

Dave says, "About a year ago we had two gentlemen from Microsoft come in who spent two or three hours with us." The Microsoft reps asked the Largo people to be frank with them and explain their needs as clearly as possible, which is what happened.

"Mostly it was an issue of scalability," Dave says. This, not money, is what they told the Microsoft people their biggest barrier was. At any given moment, Largo's network may have over 200 people actively logged in and working, often more, and they are all running from a single main server, plus several servers that run specific applications. Even the Microsoft people couldn't refute the fact that Largo's current setup uses far less hardware and is far easier to administer and physically maintain than an equivalent Windows-based system.

"And that," says Harold, "was Microsoft's last sales push with us."

This is not to say there is no Microsoft anywhere in Largo. There are between 90 and 100 standalone computers owned by the city, mostly used as Internet terminals in libraries, that run Windows. Harold says, "We're not anti-Microsoft. We have Microsoft here in places where it does a good job."

There is also a small group of Mac-using artists and layout people.

This is a pragmatic IT shop, not one run by zealots. They don't make decisions quickly, and when they roll out something new it gets a careful beta test before it goes citywide. When these people roll out OpenOffice, with a few StarOffice licenses for workers who need the commercial version's better import filters, it is not a snap judgment, but one that has taken well over a year to make. Ditto their choice to go with SuSE's email server and pay $1100 for a license instead of choosing a free solution (although they have not chosen a groupware package yet; this is a frustrating search, worth a separate article).

Rocking with the BSA

Since Largo still has proprietary software around, the city is still subject to BSA audits. Harold says they have been extra-careful to follow all license terms, to the point of purchasing "probably more licenses than we need."

Other cities in the Tampa Bay area have been fined over missing proprietary software licenses. Largo has not been fined, and Harold wants to keep it that way. "I could lose my job over something like that," he says.

Harold, Mike, and Dave all agree that Largo has not been singled out by either Microsoft or the BSA for any special license enforcement action. "I send in my figures and they seem to accept them without asking any questions," Harold says.

1.3% versus 3%

This is the most important pair of numbers -- and indeed the most important piece of information -- in this entire article: 1.3% and 3%.

Harold A. Schomaker, IT Manager/CIO for the City of Largo, says Largo spends a total of 1.3% of its gross budget on IT. This includes hardware, software, salaries, and incidental expenses. He says the typical small city spends over 3% of its budget on IT, with some approaching 4%. "Between 3% and 4% is about right," he says, "with most closer to 3%."

He is adamant that these are true, quotable figures. We ask several times, since this sort of disparity is far from what we are seeing in recent (Microsoft-sponsored) Linux vs Windows TCO studies.

Don't forget, Harold isn't getting paid by anyone except Largo taxpayers, and his job is to keep their IT expenses as low as he can while providing ever-better IT services to the city employees who use them to do their jobs. In light of this, Harold's comparative cost figures are probably at least as trustworthy as anyone's -- and lots more trustworthy than some.

The "viral" problem

This is a bit of a rant from Dave, with "amens" from his coworkers: He is upset with other local governments that use Visual Basic or ActiveX to make Intranet and Internet applications with which Largo people must interact, in effect making their supposedly "browser-accessible" shared applications and data libraries accessible only for Microsoft Internet Explorer users. And, says Dave, few of the IT people in other governments seem to understand Largo's resistance to Explorer.

"Why don't you just download Explorer? It's free!" is what Dave says many of his counterparts in other governments often tell him. He says most of them don't understand that even though Explorer is "free" it needs Windows licenses to run, and that buying those can add up in a hurry -- and (although he's certainly too polite to say it) -- not having all those Windows licenses is one reason Largo spends less than half as much on IT as many other local governments.

"I see this as being like a virus," Dave grouses.

More formally, it is called the network effect, and Microsoft is one of the world's most effective wielders of it as a marketing weapon.

It takes great strength of will and a huge sense of responsibility to one's employers to stand up to the Microsoft network effect, and these characteristics -- more than raw intelligence -- may be what set the Largo IT people apart from their counterparts elsewhere, and make it possible for them to proudly parade that 1.3% figure not only in front of the City Manager and City Commission to whom they report, but in front of the entire world as an example of how a little skill, a little gumption, a little intelligence, a little imagination, and a lot of resistance to "following the herd" can lead to amazing IT cost savings -- and, at the same time, to better and more reliable IT services.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Largo loves Linux more than ever

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

Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 08:11 PM
1) Write free stuff.
2) ?
3) Profit!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 09:06 PM
Idiot

#

Shame it works for Largo's sysadmins.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 12:22 AM
That is sooo 90s-speak I forgot to laugh.

1) Write free stuff
2) Support your free stuff for money
3) Profit

So there's your blank filled in and you needn't comment anymore? Only people who aren't bright enough to write what is needed in their support role don't make a profit from what they write. Sure, the pay is not billions for you, but collectively all the individual support people all over the world, who use and contribute to your product, have certainly made billions in profit. If you're supporting your own work, so will you be; not billions, but enough to keep the wolf and her cubs from the door.

As the other poster labelled you succinctly, I shall not indulge you further.

#

Re:Shame it works for Largo's sysadmins.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 01:40 AM
I'm not the poster you reply to, but anyway...

Just forget about anything involving working for free while charging for something else. It's a huge loss no matter how you look at it. No person or company can in the long run sustain a business where a substantial part of the work time is done for free, it's amazing that there are still people beleiving that. Haven't you guys noticed the huge losses these companies are doing?

Selling support for free software may work in some rare cases but in that case, make sure you don't write any free software, _only_ support it.

To take an example. CVS is one of the most popular version control software out there. However, the total sum of income for everyone doing support for it cannot pay the salary for one whole single person (!!!). For most software there is no service or support market for it's authors or the company who made it.

Doing products for free, thats dot-bomb era bullshit.

#

Re:Shame it works for Largo's sysadmins.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 04:27 AM
"To take an example. CVS is one of the most popular version control software out there. However, the total sum of income for everyone doing support for it cannot pay the salary for one whole single person (!!!). For most software there is no service or support market for it's authors or the company who made it."


        Yet, you don't take into account the aggregate amount of money that organisations and individuals using CVS and those contributing to it have saved by having a freely available solution. A penny saved is a penny earned, financial wisdom that far predates the net.


        Open source is for the users and frankly, that's the way software should be. How many "features" are found in commercial products that are there just for marketing blurbs? Too many and it's one of the reasons Open Source has whipped ass on commercial offerings in many different arenas, because the software is actually designed for users needs, and not to fulfill the fantasies of marketing ninnies.

 
"Doing products for free, thats dot-bomb era bullshit."


            True, but most succesful Open Source projects aren't about producing products, but about producing tools that actually meet user needs, which is FAR more important to users, but doesn't seem awfully important to many software houses. Letting marketing determine what are important features(as seems to be the case for WAY TOO MANY software companies) is marketing bullshit, and it's a larger reason for the dotbomb, than Free software.


          The Users needs are what is important, and if the commercial software companies put as much effort into meeting users needs as they do in being buzzword compliant and bashing Open Source, maybe Open Source wouldn't be the threat to them it has come to be.


            At least, KOffice may not have a billion different features that a handful of NewsPaper editors might like, but it kicks ass as a personal word processor and didn't cost me a dime. There, now I've saved a hundred plus bucks, which I can use to buy things I really need, like diapers for baby, food for the table, and of course, upgrades for my system. Now I'm the one profiting from Open Source. Should I really care that some corporation who doesn't give a rats ass what I need in software, or how frustratingly unstable their crappy software is to use, makes a million less dollars because of Open Source? If you say "yes" then you live in a fantasy world where people should care about corporations who do not care about them. That's bullshit.


        We, the users profit most from Open Source. Isn't that more important than seeing some souless moneygrubbing corporation profiting off of selling us crappy, poorly tested, insecure software packages, whose fundamental flaws are always promised to be fixed in "the next version", which of course, we'll have to pay a small fee to obtain? I think so.


          Open Source, for people who want to be the ones who profit from software, instead of being bled dry by marketing driven corporations who only see the bottom line as opposed to user needs.

#

Way to miss the point!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 05:35 AM
"Isn't that more important than seeing some souless moneygrubbing corporation profiting..."

See, here's the thing you seem to have missed. Most of the closed software is made not by corporations, but by small independent companies. Almost no free software is made by corporations. It is instead made by groups of people that make no money, or minimal money, ie not enough to live on, by supporting the products. Hey, great for you that you can have money to upgrade your computer. Damn shame that the guys writing the open software that you use don't get to eat except by writing closed software.

#

Actually, you missed the point

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 06:02 AM
The Apache and MySQL, Zope, RedHat, Ximian gangs aren't starving. And you missed the previous posters point about not making "products", but tools to scratch an itch.

#

Re:Way to miss the point!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 07:03 AM
Well, if you're right, just give it time and all these open source developers will starve to death. So far, not one has, so don't hold your breath.

#

Re:Way to miss the point!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 07:23 AM
> Most of the closed software is made not by corporations, but by small independent companies. Almost no free software is made by corporations.

Large corporations are bureaucratic structures designed to make money for shareholders in the short to medium term. As such, they tend not to be a primary source of radical new approaches, and long-term thinking.

And Open Source development is a new approach that requires long-term thinking in order to see the benefits.

Still, it's not true that corporations have not been involved in Open Source development. IBM invested a billion (billion!!!) dollars into Linux development and promotion. A number of corporations are involved in supporting Apache. Sun paid over 70 $million for Star Division, then Open Sourced StarOffice. And AOL has invested over 50 $million to support the development of Mozilla.

I expect more corporations to get involved as the benefits become clearer.

> It is instead made by groups of people that make no money, or minimal money, ie not enough to live on, by supporting the products.

You seem to have the wrong expectations when it comes to Open Source software. The purpose of OSS is not to make oodles of money for its developers, but to save oddles of money (and provide freedom) for its users (who are also the developers).

To understand Open Source software, you should think in terms of CO-OPs and Credit Unions. Farmers don't invest in a CO-OP in order to make the CO-OP rich, but to provide a better deal for it's members, the farmers. And employees don't invest in a Credit Union in order to make the Credit Union rich, but to provide a better deal for its members, the employees. Likewise, the main beneficiaries of OSS are its users, many of whom contribute some a small part to the overall development.

But that's not to say that the only way to make money on OSS is as a user. Just as there are companies that make money by selling services (accounting, armoured transport, etc.) for Credit Unions, there are many companies, like IBM and Red Hat, who make money selling hardware or services for Open Source software.

#

Re:Way to miss the point!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 08:02 AM
Perhaps you guys are not quite old enough to remember it, but there was "Open Software" a long time before it became an acronym....
It was called "Buttonware" and though it was "freeware", the author made a very good living for himself charging for telephone support (this was before Bill G and Al Gore "discovered" the internet...) - while staying home, keeping his employee ratio (no marketing or "licensing police") to a minimum and doing what he loved best - hacking code.
Well, eventually the author decided that the user base was growing a little to large for his preferred lifestyle (not because of profit problems), so he retired - leaving the biz to other little startups such as Micro$oft...
Sorry, but I cant see how you can possibly lose with OSS unless you really dont have a product to begin with or your job is to take potential clients to dinner or to audit licensing.....

#

There's the other alternative..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 04, 2003 07:59 PM
If you're like half the people i know, you take the middle road- you want the uber functionality of MS Word or Photoshop, but cant foot the bill, so you get on Kazaa and wait for a few hours.

I dont have sympathy for the large corporations "losing money" or whatever, seeing as they make overpriced software in the first place.

I also can't live without my windows box.. I really would like to get out and use RedHat, but I can't lose my Photoshop, Office, Winamp and games. Even knowing about alternatives like GIMP and so on. Simply put, GIMP is good for some things but Photoshop is good for almost everything.

If it were clear-cut, there wouldnt be any discussion.

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 01:46 AM
You wrote for the nth time:

> 1) Write free stuff.
> 2) ?
> 3) Profit!

Now allow me to fill in that gap for you...

BUSINESS MODELS FOR LINUX USERS:

1) Use Free Software.
2) Avoid spending money on licenses, license management, forced upgrades, dealing with proprietary incompatibilities, etc.
3) Profit!

1) Customize Free Software for your business.
2) Save money by not having to start from scratch.
3) Profit!

1) Return your changes to be incorporated into the Free Software.
2) Save money by not having to maintain your own custom version.
3) Profit!

1) Build a product based on Free Software.
2) Save money on runtime licenses (e.g. Tivo).
3) Profit!

1) Your competitors are using Free Software.
2) You use it too, to keep your costs as low as theirs.
3) Save your business = Profit!

BUSINESS MODELS FOR LINUX DEVELOPERS:

1) Write Free Software.
2) Gain a reputation that gets you higher paying jobs or contracts.
3) Profit!

1) Write Free Software.
2) Use the increased compatibility and trust to sell more hardware (e.g. IBM).
3) Profit!

1) Write Free Software.
2) Sell add-ons, education, and support (e.g. Red Hat, Ximian).
3) Profit!

1) Write Free Software.
2) Give yourself a viable means for avoiding Microsoft sabotage (e.g. AOL, Mozilla).
3) Save your business = Profit!

1) Team up with others in your industry to write Free Software.
2) Save on development and maintenance costs.
3) Profit!

And now the other side...

BUSINESS MODELS FOR WINDOWS USERS:

1) Use Microsoft Software.
2) License fees keep going up, lock-in increases.
3) Bankruptcy!

1) Use Microsoft Software.
2) Microsoft enters your industry (e.g. banking, ticket sales, music sales), and modifies their software to sabotage you.
3) Bankruptcy!

BUSINESS MODELS FOR WINDOWS DEVELOPERS:

1) Write software for Windows.
2) Microsoft sabotages your product (e.g. WordPerfect, Java, Netscape), copies it, and "integrates" it into the OS.
3) Bankruptcy!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:38 AM
Where do you get the initial capital to 1) Write Free Software?

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:57 AM
Sell your TV and you'll gain an extra 30 hours per week in which to write free software.

What's your problem, anyway?

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 03:01 AM
> Where do you get the initial capital to 1) Write Free Software?

Where did GCC, Linux, XFree86, Apache, Mozilla, and so on, come from?

Where does a manufacturing company find the funds to build its own plant control software? Why wouldn't that company consider spending only a fifth as much and share the development costs with other companies? Those sorts of shared development agreements were happening before Open Source came along. Open Source just makes them easier by providing a standardized legal framework.

For that matter, where do companies find the funds for developing Windows software? For years now, there has been talk about how investment funds had dried up for any company that might come into competition with Microsoft, and that basically means any company whose software runs on Windows.

Microsoft has succeeded in putting almost all the major developers of packaged Windows software out of business. Now, in order to continue to expand, I figure Microsoft will be going after custom developers like Peoplesoft.

#

I was right!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 08:42 AM
Earlier today, I made this prediction:

> Now, in order to continue to expand, I figure Microsoft will be going after custom developers like Peoplesoft.

It seemed logical, on the basis that Microsoft's greed will sooner or later bring it into conflict with any profitable developer of Windows software.

Then, just a minute ago, I went to CNET and saw the following:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-976552.html

> PeopleSoft and Microsoft on Monday each introduced new applications designed to help businesses sell to and service customers, the companies said in separate announcements.

> Microsoft, which is seeking a greater share of the business applications market long dominated by SAP, PeopleSoft and Oracle, unveiled its plans to introduce PSA software in September.

He-heh. The scorpion remains a scorpion.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:51 AM
I agree with your comments. I used to like Microsoft software and even defend them sometimes, but now I understand why they are a problem.

I write software for an open source project in my free time in hopes that it will help to lessen Microsoft's grip on computer users.

But, I work for a commercial software company that makes closed source software in order to pay my bills. I'd like to make a living just by writing open source software, (working on the same project I am working on now) but that just doesn't seem possible. There doesn't seem to be any means to compensate my open source work, even if I were paid just enough to cover reasonable living expenses.

#

I need some Mod points

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 07:10 AM
+5 Insightful!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:57 AM
I think what you mean
is Don't forget the Business model to become
the next Microsoft.

1. write free software
2.???
3 become the next Microsoft.

Yeah, I guess _that_ won't happen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,and thank
god for that.

Not to get too chicken and eggy on you here but, I think it works like this:

). History unfolds as it has:
1. Get free software.
2. save money
3. jump on Desk and sing.

        Free at last. free at last . Thank god

        almighty I am free at last.
4. so stoked from being freed from msft's razorwire straight jacket that some of the
staff start contributing back .
5. Tell freinds
6. get even more free softwqare.

re: point 2. Guess what out of all the thousands of peole who work at Ford, there are more than a few who have a comp sci degrees. if
just a few code back,....

Sorry, Dude, I know you thought you had
a real effective balloon burster with your
one man, 3 line Fud and pony show, but it
couldn't shoot down a 5 cent ballon
let alone the high flying zeplin that is Tux and Co.

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 05:04 AM
>let alone the high flying zeplin that is Tux and Co.

z lots!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 05:37 AM
And in a world where man existed only on software that would be great. However, last time I checked, you couldn't eat code.

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 07:06 AM
Can't eat sex either, but it doesn't stop me!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:33 PM
Plus, like Free Software, sex is better when it's shared.

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: llanitedave on December 11, 2002 04:59 AM
LOL! Proprietary sex does seem to be less than fulfilling...

#

Wrong way round

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 04:24 AM
1) *USE* free stuff
2) Don't pay the MS tax
3) Profit!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Rocky on December 10, 2002 12:07 PM
I realize you're extremely limited due to MS mentality - MS is very limited in imagination too. But surely you can somehow think of something new by now... even MS can come up with an original thought once a month or two.

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2002 08:24 AM
Yeah, and most of those are either security patches or something that creates 5 more holes. If they don't have enough they can always compile for added buffer overruns.

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 08:59 PM
Business Model?
A business should dictate their own business model, not have the software dictate how to do business.

Look here you moron.
The MS tax is the biggest reason for the dot-bomb in my eyes.
I am a sysadmin, I was a windows consultant, I have comverted over to Linux.
The biggest reason?

Especially with the state of the economy, companies using MS software cant afford extra services (me) because there is nothing left of their IT budget after paying taxes, the Microsoft tax that is. This eliminates any new innovative technologies from being implemented (by me).

The clients I convert over to Linux have enough money left over in the budget to actually be able to add features to their systems, make improvements, and add new technologies to improve their business. Thats innovation!
Microsofts only innovation is new ways to make Microsoft money, and NOT the companies that use their software.

With reference to the article, the difference of 1.3 to 3 is what puts food on my plate. If there is nothing left after the Microsoft tax, my family doesnt eat.

At least I have job security now, knowing that most windows admins are not computer savvy enough to figure out Linux. Hey maybe my family will eat steak tonight! Just like my customers!

#

Re:Don't forget the business-model!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 01, 2003 07:59 AM
I came to realize that it is very difficult to
justify the existence and maintenance of software
according to the open source model.
It requires first a totally new kind of mindset.
There is an analogy that might explain this
phenomenon.
There was a time when the airplane design model
could not justify how certain voluminous and
heavy insects could sustain their weight in
the air.
The insects themselves did not care about
engineering and continued to fly as they
always did.
Such is the case with open source software.
The open source developers do not care that
the market theorists cannot explain how it is

  possible to survive. So they are surviving and
the community of users is growing, against
the expectations of people who only believe
in the traditional business models.
One day someone will find a reasonable
explanation for the phenomenon, but it will
not affect the history.
Maybe the explanation after many case
histories will convince
more people that it is true, so open source
will grow even more.
People who did not
understand at first will see the reality and
will feel that they could have joined open
source earlier. There is no need to fight verbal
battles; we know the truth, and the truth will
eventually prevail. Some people will only
change their ways when they realize that are
no longer competitive, and that day will come.

#

PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 09:39 PM
It isn't nice to tease us geeks with thin-client goodness, and not provide links/howtos on duplicating this in our homes. (not the cop laptop thing..)

I would love to have a NOISE-LESS thinclient that would work with my 19" lcd. just have a nice server in the closet.

Will Wyse "Win-Terms" work? Is LTSP the way to go for thin clients ? or do the thinclients mentioned in the article not need a special server to bootstrap, they only need to connect via some protocol.

Is it just X? Should we look for certain types of technologies?

Advice from the sys-admins on what not to do?

Thanks!
Jesse

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 10:03 PM
Your first stop will be www.ltsp.org (Linux Terminal Server Project). For basic office capabilities (GUI, sound, printing) you can install their server rpms and make a boot disk for your client and have it up and running in less than an hour.

For a total desktop replacement, however, this is more challenging and on the fringe. Sharing your USB digicam, cd burner, etc, is not as easy (but it's possible!). I'm undergoing this challenge right now; I moved my noisy main box down into the closet under the stairs and now all my client machines (including my print server) have no hard drives. I'm keeping a log so that when I'm done I'll post my results (probably at ltsp.org) for others to follow.

Keep in mind that while OpenGL apps should run fine, many games (particularly page-flipping games such as SDL games) will run poorly when shared over a network, since they blast a whole screen of graphics 30+ times a second, regardless of whether any pixels changed or not. If they use standard X graphics, not a problem. Business apps, compilers, etc, may actually appear to run faster than locally, since the server doesn't have to worry about pushing pixels around.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Aaron Traas on December 10, 2002 12:00 AM
That's why I'm personally adopting a not-so-thin client model in my LAN. $300 PC's with NFORCE motherboards and AMD Duron chips, and 256MB of RAM. Rather than have stuff run on the server, and simply display to the client, I have a NIS/NFS type setup, where the client grabs the kernel image from the server, boots it, mounts an NFS partition, and treats it like a local hard drive. This means having beefier clients, and higher disk and network throughput on the server, but it means all programs are run locally. Everything but cutting-edge games run very well on this box, including UT2003.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client hardare ???

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 12:18 AM
What about the hardware? NCD/Wyse/... It would be nice to have a fanless unit, instead of just a stripped down pc.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client hardare ???

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:07 AM
Here are a couple of links.


The Linux Terminal Server Project
http://www.ltsp.org/
www.disklessworkstations.com
http://www.disklessworkstations.com/


check out the jammin 125. We use them. they're fanless and very cool.


dresserd@gouldacademy.org
http://network.gouldacademy.org/

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 05:00 AM
is it possible to share sound? I am looking at a terminal solution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but I need sound.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:27 PM
is it possible to share sound? I am looking for a terminal solution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but I need sound.

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." Back in the early 90s, NCD pioneered the first such system I know of, called NAS (that's audio system, not attached storage), so if you have NCD X terminals like the ones Largo keeps buying off Ebay, they come with built-in NAS. There are NAS plugins for some sound apps (such as xmms) but not all. If your thin client is running Unix/Linux, you can run either an ESD or an aRts server - two more entries into this game. I hear (no pun intended) that ESD is a hacky protocol nobody really likes, and that aRts is the wave (sorry!) of the future. Most sound apps (including anything based on libao, or KDE, or GNOME) have the ability use one or both.


If you have an NCD X terminal and have to use NAS, I think either the ESD or aRts server has a mode to bridge to NAS. (You'd run this on your server, naturally, since the NCDs run an embedded OS, not a general-purpose Unix.) But I'm not sure about that. There is also a Linux OSS emulator that bridges to NAS, called audiooss.


There's another protocol called rplay out there, but I don't know anything about it. For completeness I should also mention Asound, the DCE-based solution used on HP-UX and nowhere else.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 09:46 PM
As my adjacent poster replied, there several solutions out there. I'm using esd, simply because that's the more popular option offered by www.ltsp.org; I'm sure aRts will be offered soon.

They both seem to work well, and if for some reason sound doesn't work for an app I've always fixed it by wrapping the command with esddsp or artdsp, like this:

>esddsp netscape

(Of course, this can be the command inside an icon or launcher button)

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 10:44 PM
The easiest if you do not have any experience with thin clients is www.k12ltsp.org this is based on the work of www.ltsp.org but it has been pre-packaged and is basically reduced to a "place coaster in drink holder and push the button operation"


Enjoy!


(I've been doing this for nearly 3 years now and have recently redone our whole office from NT to k12ltsp it really works.)

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Yog Soggoth on December 10, 2002 02:42 AM

I have written an ncd thin client howto which is currently in its beta stage. I would welcome any feedback that people might have on it:

www.willamette.edu/~speralta/tldp/xterm

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 03:54 AM
Robin & other readers... it would be nice if your writeup listed some of the models of NCD thin clients that Largo has had good luck with. More importantly, perhaps, would be why they use whatever models they do, vs. others.... Example, if they use model XYZ because it has a local boot image (or not) and runs Netscape locally so that it doesn't bog down the server with browser instances running, or if they don't use model ABC because that model is mainly designed to run Windows Terminal Server client session(s) (MS RDP or Citrix ICA).

I think what I'd want to know, is what (older?) models have X-server, Telnet, and Browser firm/soft ware that runs on that device itself, especially if they can boot from an image that's stored locally. Something to play with at home... for $5 - $50 or so, what is there to lose?

Thanks... hope I was clear

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 04:45 AM
Pick up an old Pentium 100 from a surplus store, $25. Put a nice new 17" monitor on it, $150. If the box doesn't already have a 100MB card, add one, $25. Grand Total $200.

Configure a linux distribution to boot into XDM that is pointing at your main Linux box... The login screen is from the main Linux box. Log in, run apps... It all works...

I have never made the sound work, but I hear that there are sound mapping tools to map the sound from your apps to the local sound card.

If a house had a dozen workstations scattered about then it might be worthwhile to run mosix or beowulf and run jobs down to the workstations so that you can render frames for an animation at a low priority. If you are doing a lot of this then it might be worth spending a few extra dollars on the processor and upgrade to a pentium II 266 for the workstations, which would be at least 6 times faster than the pentium 100.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

NO...set up x clients!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 04:45 AM
in my classroom, i have 8 old P100/3mb systems that were "obsolete", until i turned them into xclients. here's how.

first, depending on how many boxes you want to run, will determine the x server. i have a P3 933/512 mb and it screams with 8 clients. could probably do 10-12. ram is key. so here's the steps:

1. install fav distro on a modestly fast computer. get lots of ram. any p3 should work, though p4's are cheap too. make it start into x.
2. you need to change a few files. if you use gdm, change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/X11/gdm/gdm.comf or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/X11/xdm/xdm-config. you need to allow for remote x logins. two small changes.
3. install older distro on old computers. like rh6. have text login.
4. after you boot clients. log in. then type:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/X11R6/bin/X -query xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx

that's it. if interested feel free to email me at rmandel AT hartdistrict.org.

btw, i use mandrake. i am in th eprocess of selling this solution to the principal and district tech people. we have over 50 OLD boxen, and they are unused. pity.

#

No movies or Direct Rendering games

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 06:09 AM
Bear in mind that this model won't work for movies or (AFIAK) games that use Direct Rendering (i.e. OpenGL stuff). These have to access the video memory directly in order to get the speed. Doing it on a thin client would mean transmitting the uncompressed bitmaps over the network. No way.


But if you just want conventional X clients then it works fine.


Paul.

#

Re:No movies or Direct Rendering games

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2002 01:27 AM
Bear in mind that this model won't work for movies or (AFIAK) games that use Direct Rendering (i.e. OpenGL stuff).

Almost correct: if your graphics driver on the client has a hardware glx driver, then GL graphics are much more akin to X traffic and bitmaps are not slung across the network frame-by-frame. I have the Nvidia drivers for my GeForce 256 on an Athlon, and I logged in to a PII-266 on my Lan and get hundreds of frames per second with glxgears and the GL screensavers. The earth GL screensaver is super-smooth and only used about 50K/sec network traffic.

Remember that SGI created GL way back when and they needed a graphics system that would allow one to log in remotely to a big graphics system and work.

You're correct about movies and page-flipping games, however: you'll only get about 7MB/second of throughput on a 100mb network, and that just can't keep up with 1024x768 * 30fps.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 10:20 AM
I don't know about the other posts here, but...

I'm a newbie with a small network. On one of my servers that being used as a web server, I started a remote X session on several ocassions over a several day period, and logged out each time. most or all of the sessions were as a regular user. I also logged in with a bash shell on numerous instances over the same period. I am the only user logging into that server. I was away for about ten days, then tried to log in at the server itself. Monitor wouldn't respond. I thought it might have been a blown video card. I then tried to login remotely, and that worked, with a bash shell, not X . I also couldn't get a remote X session. After trying several things with my limited experience, I checked top, and it showed the cpu maxed out for X. I did the only thing I knew to do, rebooted, and everything was fine.

Short of rebooting the server after a remote X session, is there anything else I can do? How can one server run consistently and with long uptimes if X uses up all the resources of the machine? I know this happens with windows when online for many hours, or when simply running for many hours, but why did/does this happen with X under Gnu/Linux? How can I avoid this?

Also, how can I kill X (look up the pid and kill it with command line), and get back the cpu utilization without rebooting? If I just kill the process, do I get the cpu/memory back, or is a reboot necessary?

I'd like to run some terminals off this server, but if this is what I can expect, it won't work for me.

I'm getting the remote X by ssh'ing into the server with the -X flag.

Thanks.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 12:14 PM
First, I don't know what caused the problem. The root cause should be fixed. But to answer your questions:

Type "ps auxw | grep X" and look for a process like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/X11/X. If the process ID is 1774, kill it with "kill 1774". If it doesn't go away, try "kill -9 1774". Yes, you will get back the RAM and CPU it was using.

I'm not sure I understand the big picture. If desktop D is connected to server S, and you run Netscape on S and display it on D, S does not need to run an X server, and usually wouldn't. D must run an X server.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 11:40 PM
I may have gotten it backwards then. I am running X on desktop D (my workstation). But I would like to log into my server and use KDE on my server, as I am still weak on the command line. So I am opening a shell window on desktop D, then ssh'ing into server, with the -X flag. At this point, I am able to use KDE on my server (remotely from my desktop) to do maintenance, work on files, etc.

I realize what I'm doing is different than what is stated in article, but the problem of X taking all the resources is not solved. In logging into my server with the -X flag, I believe I am correct in stating that my server's X resources are being used to remotely project the KDE session to my desktop. The fact that I am also running X on my desktop doesn't solve the concern I have. I could just as easily have been running a shell login at my desktop, and still get my server to project the X session across the lan, right? So I still have an X session (on the server) that was started when I first logged into the server through ssh flag -X. So now I log in, do what I have to do with KDE (transfer files from place to place with konqueror, edit some files with gvim, backup some files, check logs, etc. Now I log out. Without rebooting. Ten days later, I come back, and cpu utilization is near 100%, memory is maxed out, etc. Whatever the underlying problem is, my solution was to reboot. Now that I read the response, I have a method of killing X. But if I have other users that log in, killing X may not be an option. And with Gnu/Linux, I don't want to reboot nightly. I have Apache running, I have other processes running that I don't want to interrupt.

So If I have a reasonably fast system with a lot of memory, are you saying that ignoring a possible error I may be experiencing, I can run X on the server, and have ten users logging in remotely to the server, with the server supplying X to each terminal, and be able to have the users log in for daily work, and not have to reboot for months at a time? X won't eat more and more memory/cpu cycles the longer it runs without rebooting or killing the process?

Thanks again.

ps, now that I read again the last line of your response, I am more confused. In my situation, I need to use KDE on my server, which is in my basement. I am using my desktop to log into the server. So should I open a shell (window) on my desktop inside of kde, then ssh into my server with the -X flag, as I have been doing? Or should I hit ctrl alt F2/F3 whatever to get a command prompt and ssh into server from there? Will X work from the Fkeys? What should I be doing to access Konqueror and other gui apps on my server from my desktop?

One more time, THANKS.
(lack of sleep may have something to do with this).

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2002 01:17 AM
I have seen problems with running X local AND remote as the same user. I've tried this once or twice by starting a vncserver through ssh remotely while i was also logged in localy on the server. Bad things happened, didn't crash the server or anything, but it sure didn't work either. For a server you're better off not starting X on boot. If you need X local login to the console and run `startx`, and then logout of X when you're done. This will save 50meg or more of RAM and a few CPU cycles too.

I have 2 dedicated servers on the 'net that I use this way, and run X forwarding over ssh on occation and have never had any troubles with it...other than being kinda slow on my little 256kbps link.

#

Re:PLEASE!! -- thin client howtos --

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2002 04:07 AM
(Newsforge: Sorry this has strayed off-topic but this person seems to need the help)

There is no reason for your basement server to be running X at all. X is the "drawing device" that programs use to display their output. Since the programs are on the server and the drawing device is upstairs on your workstation, there is no need to have a drawing device (X) sitting idle on the server, and it should not be the problem you're having here.

First, duplicate your problem. Then open "top" and see what process is running at 100%. If you see "X" running at 100%, then you need to reconfigure your server to not run X (remember X on your server has nothing to do with the X you're running on the workstation). Unless, of course, you regularly go down there to admin it... otherwise just log into a text console and run "startx".

I'm betting that you'll see some other non-X-related process eating the CPU time, though.

Also, ssh -X is going to give slower performance and sluggish redraws vs. non-encrypted X traffic, so you may want to disable it if your home LAN is secure. If you run "xhost servername" and then run ssh -x servername (note the lowercase x) to turn off encrypted X traffic, you can then run "DISPLAY=workstationname:0.0". Test with "xlogo".

I've automated this on the server side with this code in my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bash_profile:
# remote operation
if [ "$SSH_CLIENT" != "" ]; then

    IP_NUM=`echo $SSH_CLIENT | gawk -F"\ " '{ print $1 }'`

    export DISPLAY=$IP_NUM:0.0;

    echo "Starting Window Manager in 3 seconds."

    echo " Press CTRL-C to cancel"

    sleep 3;

    startkde;

    exit;
fi;

This assumes that you're wanting to run KDE from the server. If you just want to launch an app and not the whole desktop environment and window manager, just use something like:
ssh -x<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin/netscape -display workstation:0

This type of setup is solid and should not be causing the problems you're having. Also, you might want to consult the X-Server HOWTO at www.tldp.org to get up to speed on the concepts of remote X operation.

#

why aren't se seeing more X terminals?

Posted by: Tom Buskey on December 11, 2002 11:36 AM
*sigh* X terminals rule!

I haven't seen one in use at my jobs since '95. I had an HP with an FTPable floppy drive. And sound. If you weren't doing heavy graphics (CAD), they work very well.

As an admin, I'd rather have one box with lots of RAM, n cpus, fast network connections, and lots of disk running RAID, a local tape drive and 100 xterminals then 100 workstations each with a bit of disk, a bit of ram, 1 cpu and slower network connections.

I had a site with users needing 256MB (sun ultra 1s had just come out). Sometimes a user had a big job that needed more. Corporate was upping desktops to 512MB. We got an E3000 with 4 CPUs and 1GB of ram and had people run the big jobs there. When one user had a job that needed more then 1GB, we upped it to 3GB and everyone ran faster.

We could also use node locked licenses instead of floating ones.

Lots of advantages to X terminals.

#

Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 10:24 PM
For those times they have to use IE, perhaps they should look at Codeweavers Office Server Edition. A 100 seat license is $5000, but that should be more than enough to meet their needs.

#

Re:Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 11:40 PM
You don't get it do you. The whole point is that proprietary software costs more. It may only be $5k now, but what about later when active X becomes Active Y and you have to get a new IE that doesn't work with Codeweavers which decides to charge another $5k.

#

Re:Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:39 AM
I certainly am suprised that no one here has mentioned that the other city governments should try and use PHP for their "shared apps". Certainly, there'd be the cost of them learning PHP and becoming proficient, but isn't it better to have a web app that would work cross platform rather than just in IE (which they do make available for various Unix variations, and last time I checked, they didn't make it available for any Linux distros)? Just a thought I had while reading that part of the article.

Josh (daftness101@hotmail.com)

#

Re:Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 05:02 AM
What has PHP to do with their apps being or not usable only on IE?

PHP is a *server* "thingie", being it products browseable or not from anything apart from IE is a *client* issue.

I know lot of people that work on PHP (even on Linux) whose pages are only browseable on IE and I know people (not too many, I should admit) that produce perfectly browser-neutral code on IIS and ASP.

#

Re:Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:32 PM
Heh, PHP code that only works in IE. That's funny. It's true that you can run browser neutral ASP..I did it when I actually had IIS running, but took it off because I thought PHP would be easier to work with. Thanks for the insight on my previous post. Maybe I should've said that they shouldn't use ActiveX with their apps, instead. I still personally don't like IE or ASP, but that's just personal feelings towards Microsoft products and generally Windows-centric languages (generally since there's ports of ASP for Linux). What am I talking about, I'm still playing with XP while downloading ISOs of Debian.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p Maybe I should be quiet now?

#

Re:Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 20, 2002 10:59 AM
Heh, PHP code that only works in IE.

I think he means PHP that outputs HTML that can only be read in IE.

#

Re:Internet Explorer Options

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 03:54 AM
I would say even a 1 seat license would be good enough. Only one admin needs to use IE to download any information they need. Then it can be stored on the server in a more compatibility-minded format.

#

Fix

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 09, 2002 11:08 PM
"mot effective wielders of it as a marketing weapon.

"

Mot....

#

Typos, LTSP, Wine, etc.

Posted by: roblimo on December 09, 2002 11:53 PM
1) "mot/most" typo finxed. Thanks for noticing.

2) Look for a piece on using LTSP here in a day or two. Plus do a Google search. Setting up an "X" network with Linux is not hard, and you can do it without the specialized stuff.

3) We talked about Codeweavers' Office. Dave said they'd tried it and had some problems, but that was before the serever edition came out, and he'll probably take another look at it before long.

- Robin

#

Re:Typos, LTSP, Wine, etc.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:17 AM
Just use WINE for IE...

I do for my thin clients and although it isn't perfect it suits us...

#

I guess Dave Barry was wrong...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:10 AM
.. Florida ISN'T the stupidest state.

At least not entirely...

#

Re:I guess Dave Barry was wrong...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:34 AM
He said Kansas is the stupidest state. And as a person
from Kansas who drives through the state a lot, he is
absolutely right.

#

Re:I guess Dave Barry was wrong...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 03:15 AM
At least Kansas can run an election.

#

Re:I guess Dave Barry was wrong...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 03:41 AM
Even Sodom & Gomorah had 1 good person.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:I guess Dave Barry was wrong...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 04:27 AM
You mean that guy who offered up his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a horny mob?

#

Please write about groupware

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 02:28 AM
I would be very happy to read an extensive article about Groupware solutions...

#

Re:Please write about groupware

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 03:39 AM
I too am interested in a groupware article... The only thing holding us back is a solid groupware solution...

I feel Linux is very deficient in this area. I can't find anything to replace Exchange server that still has the functionality of Outlook on the client.

#

Re:Please write about groupware

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 04:45 AM
How many of you have used Lotus Domino/Lotus Notes? The Domino groupware/mail server runs on Red Hat 7.x and up (and can be made to work with other distros), and the Lotus Notes client works under Linux under Winde. We personally are using Evolution for mail on our thin clients, and iNotes, the web client, for our traveling and/or PC users.

#

Bynari Insight

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 05:01 AM
I've heard of solutions using Bynari Insight as an OSS Exchange replacement and Ximian's Evolution as an Outlook replacement. I haven't used Bynari personally but have heard good things about it.

#

Re:Please write about groupware - JiCal

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2002 06:21 AM
Why don't you check out