> From: Dan Kegel > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:15 > > I can see that not having to install anything on the Windows box is > an advantage for the bootable CD approach. However, that removes > the Windows box from normal operation. My approach leaves the box > usable as a Windows box while making it available as a node in > the distcc network. I haven't verified performance yet -- > it's likely > that the cygwin approach isn't quite as fast as the native > linux approach -- > but the slightly lower performance might be worth it in return for > not having to deprive the Windows box owners of the use of > their machines > sometimes.
You haven't had to deal with the average Windows IT department much have you? :-) It's pretty easy to get permission to do something non-disruptive, and a bootable cd counts. There are a lot of systems that would otherwise be powered down or not used outside of "office hours". Not to mention that I think that a bootable cd is easier to create than a "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" style screensaver. I think there's more than enough room for both approaches? REgards James Dean __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc