On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:30:13 +1200, Steven wrote:
> Once again: what's wrong with using Arachne on the clients?
Nothing wrong with Linux-Arachne scheme, except that it only
provide single-tasked internet access, while Linux-Xterm can
provide both *multitasked* internet and access to Linux
itself and it's applications.
Unless someone come out with better flavor of DOS ("the never
be" concurrent DOS - for example) or at least an user-friendly
multitasking DOS browser, IMHO, Linux is still the best
candidate for "the next generation platform" and worth to
learn for.
> (although Michael is apparently working on an optimised CGA
> version and a herc version).
Arachne CE might work better on such machine. Since it should
be highly optimized. BTW, IIRC we already have "Light Arachne"
version back then?
> The problem with your X-terminal approach is that it requires
> a powerful Pentium-class server to do the processing.
Is Linux has support for distributed (paralel) processing?
If so, then you should be able to substitute that single
powerful P-class server with several networked 486s.
> It downgrades the survPCs to dumb terminals. The true survPC
> solution is to use survPCs for the clients AND for the server.
> This is easily done by putting DOS Arachne on the clients and
> CLI Linux on the server.
It's not _my_ original approach <g> The basic idea already
floating around in Linux communities for quite a long time.
Also, It's just another alternative. If the goal is only
providing single-tasked internet access, then by all means
use Arachne for the clients.
However, even might a lot more cheaper, this approach still
less effective. Since DOS Arachne by nature is single-tasking,
"overbooking" situation still happened when you wait for page
download. In other hand, you could request multiple pages at
once, with X-terminal approach; while doing something else on
the same time (reading previous page, writing mail, chatting,
etc.)
BTW, seems you have real-world experience on Linux-Arachne
setup? ;) How about posting a "complete idiot's guide" on
that subject? Even though sounds like advocating Linux,
I have to admit that I'm still a newbie on that field :(
--Eko
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
