On 08/18/2011 02:40 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > the short answer is it is what we got to work at the time...
Fair enough. > we only have a user and home directory on the thin client if localapps or > fatclients are enabled. and it's a pretty ugly hack that enables them. Ah. I always enable localapps so I just assumed there was always a user on the client. Ugly hack or not it may make pa happy! If you enable localapps but never actually run any localapps is there a tangible difference between a "genuine" thin client and a localapps thin client from the client perspective (ex: system load etc.)? >> Further, since PA is really designed to be run as a user, could some >> headaches be removed by not having it run in system mode (ie: not have >> to fixup permissions etc.)? > > if someone has patches to improve the situation, they'd surely be considered- > but they need to take into account genuine thin clients vs. localapps vs. > fatclients. Haha, yeah, unfortunately I know next to nothing about how this all works but I guess some hacking is in my future! I will see if I can get pa running on the client as the logged in user and post my progress. One option I am thinking about is to leave "genuine" thin clients like they are now (ie: pa in system mode) but start pa as the logged in user if running with localapps/fat clients. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 _____________________________________________________________________ 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
