On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52:39PM -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
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:28:01AM -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:35:28PM -0800, Nicholas Metsovon wrote:
Then I had the idea to ssh -X to the LTSP server, calling NX client. I
used it to log right back into the LTSP server, and wha-la, I had my full
LTSP desktop!
An even easier way is to run DSL in text mode (I
believe you type: DSL 2 at the boot prompt), then run X
like this: X -query myltspserver
That'll give you a full desktop gui from the ltsp
server. I have to give credit to Les Mikesell on the
K12LTSP list for teaching me this trick
Doesnt work on my DSL either. First thing I tried after DSL finished
booting. Been a few months.
-query is not an option
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Metsovon nmets...@yahoo.com wrote:
An even easier way is to run DSL in text mode (I
believe you type: DSL 2 at the boot
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:54:09PM -0800, Nicholas Metsovon wrote:
An even easier way is to run DSL in text mode (I
believe you type: DSL 2 at the boot prompt), then run X
like this: X -query myltspserver
That'll give you a full desktop gui from the ltsp
server. I have to
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:54:09PM -0800, Nicholas Metsovon wrote:
An even easier way is to run DSL in text mode (I
believe you type: DSL 2 at the boot prompt), then run X
like this: X -query myltspserver
That'll give you a full desktop gui from the ltsp
server. I have to
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 19:43:52 Rob Owens, vous avez écrit :
Some lightweight distros are lightweight because of the window manager they
use, and the applications they bundle. That won't help for LTSP. We need
to find one that is lightweight based on its under-the-hood stuff (and I
need
Le samedi 28 février 2009 00:29:03 Nicholas Metsovon, vous avez écrit :
Don't waste your time with DeLi.
Thanks for the advice. What are the problems with it?
-Rob
I just thought it was really lame. I don't mean to sound unappreciative of
their developer community, but I think some
I put some instructions on the wiki that will allow you to run both LTSP 5 and
LTSP 4.2 on the same server. This is not meant as a
long-term solution, but at least it will give users the ability to test/learn
LTSP 5 while still retaining their thin clients which
only run properly on LTSP 4.2.
--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Rob Owens row...@ptd.net wrote:
I put some instructions on the wiki that will allow you to
run both LTSP 5 and LTSP 4.2 on the same server. This is
not meant as a
long-term solution, but at least it will give users the
ability to test/learn LTSP 5 while still retaining
Just a thought, are there any existing projects for any distros for
'minimalist' kernels/friends? For example, would we be able to take
anything from Xubuntu and use it in Ubuntu chroot, without having to
think about using a completely different distro?
It feels to me like we're trying to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jordan Erickson
jerick...@logicalnetworking.net wrote:
Just a thought, are there any existing projects for any distros for
'minimalist' kernels/friends? For example, would we be able to take
anything from Xubuntu and use it in Ubuntu chroot, without having to
Off the top of my head:
Damn Small Linux
Puppy Linux
Vector Linux
I did a search for lightweight distros and found some others I'd never heard
of before:
Feather Linux
DeLi
Some lightweight distros are lightweight because of the window manager they
use, and the applications they bundle. That
Damn Small is the only one that will even boot on my 233 32 meg ram
laptop. It works well 2.4 kernel.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Rob Owens row...@ptd.net wrote:
Off the top of my head:
Damn Small Linux
Puppy Linux
Vector Linux
I did a search for lightweight distros and found some
Rob Owens wrote:
Off the top of my head:
Damn Small Linux
Puppy Linux
Vector Linux
I did a search for lightweight distros and found some others I'd never
heard of before:
Feather Linux
DeLi
Some lightweight distros are lightweight because of the window manager they
use, and
I did a search for lightweight distros and
found some others I'd never heard of before:
Feather Linux
DeLi
Don't waste your time with DeLi.
--
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:51:29AM -0800, Nicholas Metsovon wrote:
I did a search for lightweight distros and
found some others I'd never heard of before:
Feather Linux
DeLi
Don't waste your time with DeLi.
Thanks for the advice. What are the problems with it?
-Rob
Don't waste your time with DeLi.
Thanks for the advice. What are the problems with it?
-Rob
I just thought it was really lame. I don't mean to sound unappreciative of
their developer community, but I think some of the other alternatives have done
a better job.
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.
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
, john lists.j...@gmail.com wrote:
From: john lists.j...@gmail.com
Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] Is it time for LTSP-lite?
To: ltsp-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 1:52 PM
Hi all,
One of the reasons I originally found LTSP compelling was
the modest
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,
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,
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 thought I left behind when we moved away
from
John,
It's a very interesting comment that you are making about LTSP and the
hardware that is required to use it.
In the beginning, LTSP was designed and intended for small machines. 10
years ago, there was tons of 133 and 166Mhz Pentiums with a whopping
32mb of ram. I made sure that it ran
Jim,
I'm interested in what you're saying - would you think that, with all of
the functionality LTSP5 has given us (sound/localdev/etc), it would be
safe to say that a simple update in system requirements is all that
we'll need (until the next flash of feature requests are implemented,
which
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52:39PM -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
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 03:53:19PM -0600, Scott Balneaves wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52:39PM -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
I'm not sure what a solution is. Part of it may be solved by distros
offering,
or users posting instructions how to make, scaled down light versions of the
kernel, and udev rules, which will eliminate some of the bloat.
Hi,
That's a really interesting coincidence: I'm working on a very
48 matches
Mail list logo
