On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 09:28, Navjot Singh wrote: > > For people who are questioning why this should be done - the answer is > > not the price issue, but the ease of management. Upgrade/patch the > > server and presto! - no more desktops to manage. > > if maintenance/upgradation costs are important, one can use citrix > like solution for those apps and users can still leverage the full > power of their desktops for usual stuff. > > I understand that there are certain apps that someone wants to run on > server for reasons > + new installation. > + upgrades > + control > > but users usually have such requirements that can be better done on > workstations. I mean why one user should be just dumb and every power > is with server. We can have (and already have) solutions where both > servers and clients are intelligent in their own capacity. Please correct me if I am wrong, 1. Citrix is terminal services implementation on Win platforms... 2. An average desktop user is not able to utilise the power of a P4 CPU to less than 3%~5%. Terminal server model allows you harness that unused power on cumulative (aggregation) basis. 3. Servers can be built from most robust components and on cost per user basis still give you substantial savings. That said each model fulfils a role and TCO studies need to validate this. HTH -- Sudev Barar Learning Linux
_______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
