| 1 |
>>>> Can you rely on Xorg devs to ensure that they are not going to break your |
| 2 |
>>>> multiseat system in the future? |
| 3 |
>>> |
| 4 |
>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know why there would be (much) more |
| 5 |
>>> likelihood of regression with Xorg multiseat than with anything else, |
| 6 |
>>> including LTSP and all of its dependencies. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Because fewer people are testing it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's fair but Gentoo makes it easy to roll back if necessary. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> You can get low-powered Linux systems for $100 or $150 - either a little MIPs ShivaPlug or (I guess) a secondhand atom nettop (Acer Revo). |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> If you save 2 hours per machine by using a standard and common thinclient configuration, then the hardware has paid for itself. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You're saying use built-in thin-client firmware (on the SheevaPlug for |
| 17 |
> example) along with something like VNC or NX on the server to save |
| 18 |
> time over an LTSP setup? That would mean giving up some software |
| 19 |
> control. Assuming multiseat works, is there an advantage to this over |
| 20 |
> multiseat? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> If you have to employ a Linux sys admin to help you fix a complicated problem with Xorg multiseat, then it will run you at least $100 or $150 for those 2 hours. That's how you should be valuing your own time, too. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> LTSP and its host of dependencies seem much more complicated to me |
| 25 |
> than multiseat. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> - Grant |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Nevermind on this. I'm back in now. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- Grant |
Archives