I am taking the "fat" client approach:
Athelon M 2800+
1GB RAM
17" LCD
All apps local
Total client cost is < $300US. Some advantages I have found.
Sound is pitifully easy.
Server is just a client with drive(s) added.
Users have full applications just like they expect.
cheaper than "real" thin clients.
I haven't played with it on LTSP, but what you suggest should be fairly easy
as all WM support "clickable scripts" for launching applications. I haven't
tried this on LTSP but I do this on my Sun to run remote X apps.
$ cat mozilla
#!/usr/bin/ksh
ssh -X icm28 /usr/swf/bin/mozilla
$
I have ssh keys and use the ssh-agent for initial auth so there is no password
prompt when I click the icon. Sound on Sun works this way, but I think that
is a sunism more than a feature of the method.
That out of the way I think your categorization of LTSP is understandable if
not completely accurate. I think a better way to describe LTSP is
"aimed at remote booting Linux supported hardware"
There are folks using LTSP to boot everything from ultra thin to ultra thick
hardware.
Maybe we should request consideration of a name change from LTSP to Linux
Remote Boot Project as that seems to categorize the capabilities of LTSP in a
broader context. No personal preference as I will continue to use LTSP no
matter what it is called.
Jaysen
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 05:49 am, Mats Lundqvist wrote:
> 2007/2/7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 05:09,
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I've been looking into thin client tech, WinTS, Thinstation, NX etc...
> > >
> > > And I've actually used Thinstation and Win TS.
> > >
> > > But I can't say that I've really got a grip on how LTSP 4.2/5 works.
> > >
> > > >From what I can gather, LTSP seems more like something aimed at
> > >
> > > diskless fat clients?
> > >
> > > Booting from PXE and loading X - locally (?) - and running apps like
> > > firefox - locally....
> > >
> > > I mean...sure, you've got centralized control, but it's not really
> > > that thin if you run everything locally?
> > >
> > > Or can you select what apps you want to run locally?
> > >
> > > I've noticed that when running with thinstation, I can max out the
> > > switch and really push the server when many users are running java or
> > > flash, and is for me a real show stopper.
> > >
> > > So if I only want firefox and java/flash/mplayerplug-in to run locally
> > > and everything else on the server, seemlessly, can I do that? (that
> > > would be the selective fat-client approach)
> > >
> > > I know some thin clients come with linux or win embedded with a
> > > browser, but then you'll have to minimize the remote session and then
> > > start the browser, hardly intuitive for non-experienced users.
> > >
> > > Buuuut I've probably just got it all backwards - as usual ;)
> > >
> > > But I would appreciate if someone would set the record straight.
> >
> > LTSP is a thin client with (mostly) only support to run a keyboard
> > display LTSP is enhanced to allow debuging, local devices, audio, local
> > apps etc
> >
> > Running firefox as a local app is expensive!
> > IMHO you need 512M ram (256M for firefox to cache in plus the ram to
> > run the thin client and firefox app, java, flash etc)
> > You need a processor to do the work, so 200MHz (ebox2300) and 500MHz
> > (via EPIA) etc are out.
> > Big processors need fans, make noise, void the beauty of the thin
> > client.
>
> 512mb ram? 256 for cache? I seriously doubt I need that much.
> Cache I can do away with by using squid.
>
> Flash and Java..Well, java I can run on the server since not many
> online games use it (that's the bigger part of the load btw... :P ),
> but flash and firefox I need on the client.
> And I can image that setup beeing stressful considering ram limits and
> cpu power.
>
> But I need to look at the big picture, and how well it scales. When
> using completely dumb terminals (i.e thinstation), flash, java,
> firefox etc..It _will_ create an unproportional amount of load than
> the more legitimate applications over time. Sure, you can put in
> restrictions...Like disallowing flash and java (talking firefox
> plugin), but sometimes, those plugins have legitimate uses.
>
> Seems like, if I can get this to work properly, spending more on
> terminals enables bigger savings in the long run.
>
> > Having said all that the current audio is a mess. So local app to support
> > audio apps is quite nice.
> > Lots of people have made audio work to some extent.
> >
> >
> > Any body scaled LTSP audio to 30+ clients? Comments?
>
> I would love to have some input on this one too...
>
> > James
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> > easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
> > Geronimo
> > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier.
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_____________________________________________________________________
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
