I haven't looked at the Terminal Server package, but what is getting loaded on the terminal? The reason I ask is you only want to be running the minimum to support X on the terminal if its running XDMCP, at the moment I assume its loading all the daemons you'd expect on a 'desktop' mandrake box.
All that would need changing though is the initscripts, the X settings (this is probably already handled in the current package), and /etc/inittab to tell it to start X with different parameters. Since ClusterNFS can serve different versions of files to clients, this should only need a second RPM adding replacement /etc/rc.d dirs and replacement /etc/inittab. Jeremy Buchan Milne wrote: > Stew Benedict wrote: > >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Buchan Milne wrote: >> >> >>>> The server is providing nfs services only. The other side of the >>>> coin is >>>> running the apps on the server side generates quite a bit of network >>>> traffic. >>> >>> >>> New 24-port 100mb switch is much cheaper than replacing the 22 >>> desktops that could run on such a network ... >>> >>> And I think starting up OpenOffice over NFS would be much more >>> traffic than via X. >>> >>> Surely it can't take too much to change this. The ?dm client >>> configurations just need to be changed to use query, and the server >>> just needs to allow XDMCP requests? >>> >> >> >> Sure, anything is possible. The problem is you're beta testing it now, >> post 9.0 release, when the package has been available since July. This >> whole discussion doesn't even really belong on cooker now. > > > Assuming Mandrakesoft wants to leave it as is, rather than make a few > changes now, leaving a bit longer to test the setup, so that both setups > work in 9.1. > > Things like this aren't the easiest to test, since you need more than > one machine, and you need to make changes to an existing network (if you > don't have spare network hardware or virtualising software) to test it. > When I did try and test it, I didn't have much time, and that was all > taken up by broken init scripts. I don't know if anyone else had the > chance. > > But, I was under the impression that it was a Terminal Server (a la > LTSP), not a diskless machine boot server. Nothing in any of emails > regarding this led me to believe that it was not aimed at terminals on > low-end boxes with the majority of the software running on the terminal > server itself, which is exactly what LTSP does. > > So, I will have to hack this, or use LTSP, but I can only do that once I > have played with winbind (which I couldn't do recently since my laptop > is in for repairs). > > Buchan >
