My general rule is that servers get dumb terminals and clients get graphics
X-Windows stuff. To pay the extra expense for a graphics card and monitor
for something that is never used is silly. I do 99% of my work from my
client in my office and when I need to use the terminal, the dumb tube works
just fine.
I don't think performance is an issue.
Jim Edwards
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 4:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FW1] To X or not to X? - that is the question.
I am setting up some new systems to act as firewalls (Ultra 10's - Solaris
7).
One of the first questions we thought about is - if we should install a
graphics
screen and run X-Windows or just put a dumb vt100 and not run X-Windows.
Its basically a question of how much overload does running X-Windows use.
I personally don't mind, the systems are accessed remotely about 99% of the
time
and they don't have the management part on so I'll throw the question out to
the
people 'in the know'.
Does running X-Windows significantly slow up a Sun box?
Paul
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
C. Paul Simons
Corporate Network Services
IHS Energy Group, Englewood, CO.
Main: +1 303 736 3000
Direct: +1 303 736 3451
Fax: +1 303 736 3860
Mobile: +1 303 748 5242
============================================================================
====
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
============================================================================
====
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
