Hi,
Tom Griffing wrote:
Peter;
While I understand your argument and agree that the TCO of an LTSP
implementation is better over the long haul, my client had a need for
only 3 PCs for customers to use to browse the Internet with no server.
He was waving an offer from Dell at me for complete PCs with 17"
Flat Panel Monitors for $399 ea.
My price for thin client + Flat Panel + Keyboard + mouse was higher
and yet didn't have software, hard disk, CD-ROM and required a
server.
This is just about what things look like over here in Sweden too. Thin
clients are rather highly priced. They (still) seem to be regarded as
something very special, thus get "special price"...
My point is that LTSP+Ruby could significantly lower the per-seat
cost to make a much more compelling argument in favor of LTSP.
Indeed.
Whenever older equipment can be used, that might be a cheap solution,
but it sounds like Ruby might enhance it even more, and not everyone is
satisfied with old boxes standing around. And then there are the cases
where heat is an issue. I have one such case, where Ruby might help
reduce heat emission. Perhaps even save some energy?
BR,
Gudmund
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today
Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam
for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit:
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
