Post #171,615
8/30/04 1:11:16 AM
|
LTS and X.
The point of a LTS is that instead of using an expensive X terminal, you boot a cheap PC with a minimal Linux image that has an X server (ideally over DHCP so that you don't even need a local HDD). A conventional X server situation runs software locally on a locally-installed OS. A LTS takes advantage of the X network-aware protocol to run all software on a server; it's just the display, keyboard and mouse that are local.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #171,645
8/30/04 9:33:02 AM
|
Re: LTS and X.
I am buying new X terminals for $223 plus whatever RAM I need to buy. This has a fanless CPU, is about the size of a paperback book, has fast ethernet, PXE network boot (for dhcp), and represents modern-day design & manufacturing processes. Now, how is that expensive, compared to whatever a cheap PC is?
The X server we're running does not run any software locally except the X server and there is no locally installed OS. The software, called the client application, runs remote to the user. In our case, what the user sees on the display and is interacting with is actually a composite of several different client applications, running on several computers which are remote to the user, one of which is running on a multi-node single image supercomputer. The X scenario you describe is not at all like the X scenario that we're running. What you describe sounds a lot more like a Windows Terminal Server scenario.
Since we're talking X here, let's use the conventional X terms. The X server is the software that serves up the remote display to the user(s). The client application is the software that is running remote to all the users. The OS and the hardware the client application(s) are running on is unknown to the remote users.
OK, so from the viewpoint of the scenario I'm using, an absolutely conventional one, unlike whatever it is you're describing, why would anyone run this thing called Linux Terminal Server, which is obviously named after Windows Terminal Server, which is clearly Microsoft's reaction to what Citrix is doing, which is clearly a reaction to OS/2 for WorkGroups, which is clearly a reaction to X?
Seriously. I'd like to get to the bottom of this, but we need to define the terms and blow away the chaff from the wheat if we're going to end up with the something useful here, i.e. the truth.
|
Post #171,669
8/30/04 11:26:59 AM
|
Here is one good reason
Most organizations have a stream of used low-end PCs that are being retired because their users have upgraded. Projects like LTPS allow them to continue using them rather than paying for disposal right now.
So if the number of terminals that you need is modest, the hardware cost of the LTPS is literally negative, as opposed to $223 for your terminal.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #171,687
8/30/04 1:50:52 PM
|
In fact, a place I am currently consulting for...
Is running VMware on a hummdinger of a machine (or maybe 10??). (I think GSX or a new variant coming out havent really seen the version)
A hospital here in GR is running Windows2000 on PPro-200MHz machines which are basically a booting system to X... the X-Server does an XDMCP broadcast request to get the default login server and voila.
The users are able to have both Windows2000(Via VMware) and X-Based Health information system running at the same time on the remote X-Server. Windows becomes a minizable task. They can do all things needed from an OLD machine while still using newest things.
It is kind of wierd to watch the process start, but all the machine either boot from CDROM or PXE or Locally installed CDROM setup (less than 80MB needed)
So, in essence they have gone from having to update client computers every 3-4 years... to: replace on death/demise.
They DID try using VMware on Windows for X... but just too damned expensive. Also same cost for Cygwin/Xfree86 and Hummingbird. Remote Execution with local display seems to have cut the costs by allowing them to extend the usefulness of each machine by many years.
Also, there is near zero support costs for the old stuff. When the HD fails, if not capable of booting from Network... CDROM works, if that fails. Replace the NIC ($15-$20) and do it that way. If that fails... woo put in another oldie that works.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #171,737
8/30/04 4:43:09 PM
|
Re: In fact, a place I am currently consulting for...
That's X, then? or LTS? I'm trying to establish the differences and advantages/disadvantages.
|
Post #171,817
8/30/04 10:56:26 PM
|
It is both.
LTSP works over X. It is the same thing you are doing Gene. Just using OLD machines vs. Xterms. You can run LTSP using X-Terms as well. It is all about making exisitng infrastructure last longer and re-use of "good enough" machines. From the project frontpage: LTSP is an add-on package for Linux that allows you to connect lots of low-powered thin client terminals to a Linux server. Applications typically run on the server, and accept input and display their output on the thin client display. And in the LTSP FAQ: [link|http://204.182.52.180/fom-serve/cache/1.html|LTSP - Linux Terminal Server Project FAQ Page] explains many things. It is fairly straight forward to anyone who has setup remote login capacity for support of X-Terms. Things touched on are things as simple as using boot-proms which ones to use with which cards, or howto get the tftp to work properly, using rarp/bootp/dhcp, fixing config issues (specing boot images for specific machines etc...) -- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #171,842
8/31/04 1:54:13 AM
|
So, to summarize:
LTSP is a bundling up of existing tech in a nice, easy-to-use package.
Sound about right? I didn't think there was any mojo in LTSP that you can't get elsewhere.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #171,843
8/31/04 1:55:49 AM
|
Correct on all counts.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #171,866
8/31/04 9:17:46 AM
|
What he said.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #171,735
8/30/04 4:38:02 PM
|
Re: Here is one good reason
Ben;
What does it cost an organization, in man hours, to move a PC from its role as a Windows PC, into its role as a device in a LTS environment? What applications are then run in the LTS posture? Are the users working collaboratively in any of these apps. We're now in the area of hidden costs, including training, updating and maintenance. I've documented my X terminal cost completely, including setup, and guaranteed that the remote users are all working in a real-time environment of collaboration. Tell me about the apps and if there is any sense of multiuser benefit in them. What happens when a PC fails? Who prepares a PC for LTS and how long does it take? There cannot be a presumption that nobody has to do anything, that nobody's time costs anything and that every PC can be made useful in a LTS context without any analysis of its resources & unique hardware makeup.
|
Post #171,757
8/30/04 5:41:51 PM
|
That would strongly depend on the organization
I do not work for an organization which feels a need for LTS or any equivalent, so I don't have concrete figures to offer.
If I wanted to implement LTS or equivalent, I'd seriously think about having an automated install and test which you can kick off and leave. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, throw that machine out. Either way, very little human time is spent per machine.
Again, I haven't needed to do this, so I cannot offer direct experience about how well it does or doesn't work.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #171,739
8/30/04 4:45:34 PM
|
Re: Here is one good reason
Static originally mentioned that he was using HP thin clients, by the way. Those are a lot more than $223. I don't want the terms of the debate to change every time somebody has something to say.
|
Post #171,790
8/30/04 9:30:20 PM
|
X Terminals have gotten a lot cheaper over the last decade.
The LTSP is most often used to turn a PC that has low or zero-book value into a X terminal just like what you would purchase. In such a situation, as Ben said, these PCs would be candidates for the dumpster in a medium to large-sized corporation. But because the variations are typically small in corporate PCS (even the outdated ones), the number of LTSP images will be few; usually one per network card variant, as the PXE boot must be right. In other words, it's often a hardware re-investment strategy. I used to work for a company that set exactly this up for two of our clients.
What we're doing is a little different (i.e. new thin clients, not reusing old hardware) and I don't know most of the reasons for the choice of technology. There is probably an amount of inertia in the current setup, but it works and it's clearly not too expensive. Some of the obvious values is ease-of-replacement and small physical hardware. If whoever was paying for the new thin clients thought they were perhaps too much to purchase, then we'd probably look at real X terminals. Apart from configuring their XDMCP, they'd probably be a drop-in replacement.
As regards X terminology, yes, I was using the correct names. The thin clients run just enough of a Linux kernel to run an X server and a network stack. That's all. All the X clients run on the store's application server. If we wanted to, we could have them run X clients on machines from head office, but we've chosen not to do that.
So you see it's not all that different to what you're doing. :-)
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
