Quoting Steve Litt ([email protected]): > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:08:01 -0700 > Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It fits logically into the 'effective use of autonomous host w/console > > stations having the independent local processing ability that mere > > consoles lack' category, of course. Was that actually a question? > > Yes. What would be the advantage of LTSP over kmscon or systemd? What > would be the disadvantage? How would one choose between LTSP and kmscon > (I'm assuming nobody on this list would choose systemd)?
Well, LTSP (and variations thereon) is a very attractive option if your consoles have motherboards, adequate CPUs, adequate RAM, and the ability to run Linux. Technically, they don't need local mass storage, because they can netboot. LTSP (and variations thereon) is _outside_ the realm of possibility if your consoles are just consoles and don't each include a Linux-capable computer. People looking fond of multiseat capability wish to bring about a renaissance of non-autonomous console computing. I'm not among them, but consoles did make economic sense decades ago when I was in high school and when minicomputers were in their heyday, and maybe they will again. Or not. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
