Hello
Never heard of DRBL (did a quick google but didnt say me much).
I do use LTSP for auth with Samba/LDAP when users login with likewise
Also pam-mount (http://pam-mount.sourceforge.net/
It can mount user specfic shares...
/// Appiah
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Peter Hartmann
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Richard Doyle wrote:
Bootchart ( http://www.bootchart.org/ ) might be very useful. There is a
useful discussion at
http://www.gnome.org/~lcolitti/gnome-startup/analysis/
In case it's of help, there's an article on bootchart with ltsp below.
It's a little out-dated,
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, José Queiroz wrote:
That's a really interesting coincidence: I'm working on a very light
kernel. I'll do the first real test tomorrow, with some P-150
terminals. Any sugestions on how to measure the results are welcome.
I guess the output of free might be a start.
The answer is no. In fact if you have installed DRBL, it is very
difficult to get rid of it and use LTSP without starting from scratch
with a new system. Both use tftp and the dhcpd server, so without some
major tinkering it wouldn't be possible to have these run along side
each other as they do
By the way, if anyone uses these scripts there are few syntactical
issues in them. - Also, be advised that synchronizing via rsync
(especially using checksums and compression) will really kill slower
servers/IO channels when your number of concurrent users gets up
there.
...not that I found that
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Jim McQuillan wrote:
What we ended up with is a pretty complete Linux environment running on
a thin client, net-booted from a Linux server. For the newer hardware
out there, based on the Via and Atom chipsets, it's pretty good. users
get
I think another significant factor is that XOrg is no longer being
developed with our usage in mind. In the beginning, XWindows was developed
as a REMOTE display. In an attempt to capture the Desktop PC market, I
think much of the functionality that made XWindows suited for network based
Angel Martin Alganza a...@ugr.es wrote on 02/26/2009 08:52:34 AM:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Jim McQuillan wrote:
What we ended up with is a pretty complete Linux environment running on
a thin client, net-booted from a Linux server. For the newer hardware
out
I just tested a few PII's at home. None gave a satisfactory experience, but
they did boot. My main problem was video-card related.
On some cards, X would fail to load. On the other cards, I was given a
terrible screen resolution (800x600 or less on my 18 lcd).
One of the PII's had Xubuntu
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:00:43AM -0600, jyo...@oreillyauto.com wrote:
I think another significant factor is that XOrg is no longer being
developed with our usage in mind. In the beginning, XWindows was developed
as a REMOTE display. In an attempt to capture the Desktop PC market, I
Is
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:14:44AM -0600, jyo...@oreillyauto.com wrote:
Angel Martin Alganza a...@ugr.es wrote on 02/26/2009 08:52:34 AM:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:58:45PM -0500, Jim McQuillan wrote:
What we ended up with is a pretty complete Linux environment running on
*clap clap clap clap*
jyo...@oreillyauto.com wrote:
I think another significant factor is that XOrg is no longer being
developed with our usage in mind. In the beginning, XWindows was developed
as a REMOTE display. In an attempt to capture the Desktop PC market, I
think much of the
With Celerons @450 MHz, 64 Mb RAM, S3 video cards with 8 Mb VideoRAM,
and new 19 Samsung TFT monitors I'm able to watch this video:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/dreamworks/kung_fu_panda/kung_fu_panda-tlr1_h640w.mov
full screen at 1440x900 with totem at all my 8 clients simultaneously
with no
2009/2/26 jyo...@oreillyauto.com:
I think another significant factor is that XOrg is no longer being
developed with our usage in mind. In the beginning, XWindows was developed
as a REMOTE display. In an attempt to capture the Desktop PC market, I
think much of the functionality that made
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 12:52 -0800, john wrote:
Hi all,
One of the reasons I originally found LTSP compelling was the modest
specs required of the thin clients. Lately I've been feeling like my
flavor of Linux/LTSP (ubuntu) has entered the same kind of systems
requirement arms-race that I
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
snip
... On the other cards, I was given a terrible screen resolution (800x600 or
less on my 18 lcd).
And this backs up my point, to a certain extent.
When I started using LTSP back in late 1999, 800x600 was the good resolution,
got this working on a amd opteron machine ( 64bit). without kiwi, i
could connect a usbdisk and use it on the server. now with kiwi-ltsp
installed, i can plug the usb-disk in a thinclient, which is of course,
very nice, but i can't plug it in the server anymore. is this a
side-effect of
Hi Scott
Scott Balneaves wrote:
snip
We might be able to come up with a scaled back kernel for each distro, and a
hand crafted set of udev rules, but in the long run, it's a bit of a losing
battle.
And it's not like we haven't seen this before. The old 486 with 16 megs of
ram
didn't
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:45:10PM -0600, Scott Balneaves wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
snip
... On the other cards, I was given a terrible screen resolution (800x600
or less on my 18 lcd).
And this backs up my point, to a certain extent.
When
Rob Owens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:45:10PM -0600, Scott Balneaves wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
snip
... On the other cards, I was given a terrible screen resolution (800x600
or less on my 18 lcd).
And this backs up my point, to a certain
Just out of curiosity, from what I understand, there are a number of window
managers and at least one desktop (xfce) out there that, from what I
understand, don't need X to operate. There's also FreeNX, that I thought
someone said doesn't need X. And I think it was about seven or eight years
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:00:34PM -0500, Jim McQuillan wrote:
Rob Owens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:45:10PM -0600, Scott Balneaves wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
snip
... On the other cards, I was given a terrible screen resolution
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 07:09:03PM -0800, Nicholas Metsovon wrote:
I was surprised that LTSP took the turn towards the LTSP 5 direction. From a
user's perspective, I would have thought that the pre-version 5 approach
would have been easier for the LTSP developers, since they, I would
So what about my idea of utilizing the lightweight distros
for the chroot? If somebody can give me some guidelines
about how it would work, and what
the distro maintainers would need to do, I'll start
joining their mailing lists. I've got no job for the
next 2 weeks -- I'll get right to
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Nicholas Metsovon nmets...@yahoo.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, from what I understand, there are a number of window
managers and at least one desktop (xfce) out there that, from what I
understand, don't need X to operate. There's also FreeNX, that I
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Rob Owens row...@ptd.net wrote:
So what about my idea of utilizing the lightweight distros for the chroot?
If somebody can give me some guidelines about how it would work, and what
the distro maintainers would need to do, I'll start joining their mailing
If you still want DSL I think DRBL has the ability to pxe
boot DSL.
What's DRBL? A link to it would be greatly appreciated!
(I'd like to see what the options are.)
Oh, and just from the website, Slax looks like it might be a real good approach
for older hardware, too. It looks exactly
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Nicholas Metsovon nmets...@yahoo.com wrote:
If you still want DSL I think DRBL has the ability to pxe
boot DSL.
What's DRBL? A link to it would be greatly appreciated!
http://drbl.sourceforge.net/
--
Robert Arkiletian
Eric Hamber Secondary, Vancouver,
28 matches
Mail list logo
