| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:32:49 +0930 |
| 2 |
Iain Buchanan <iaindb@××××××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> because KVM's are OS independent; they can get you into the BIOS or |
| 5 |
> console; you can see boot messages; network doesn't need to be working |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Just to |
| 8 |
> name a few benefits. So yes, I agree if you're only interested in the |
| 9 |
> machine once it's running, then don't waste the money, but if you need |
| 10 |
> the other features they are still very useful. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It _is_ a huge pain to lug monitors around. I find however that desk |
| 13 |
space is also at a premium in my small apartiment, so that's a |
| 14 |
consideration for me. And of course |
| 15 |
> (even though it's called a network, sometimes it doesn't ;) |
| 16 |
that's another huge pain. but all-in-all, I find switching between |
| 17 |
computers vastly less efficient (once they're up) than multiple X |
| 18 |
windows or virtual terminals. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think the big difference between our perspectives is that my other |
| 21 |
computers arent backups, they do other things and therefore are in that |
| 22 |
functioning state much of the time. If they were backups I probably |
| 23 |
wouldn't be nearly as comfortable getting at them with the primary |
| 24 |
desktop as when they're servers making that desktop function. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives