On Thursday 30 May 2002 17:48, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 05:31:09PM -0400, Anthony Dean wrote:
> > >Do you mean more comfortable and familiar? I think you do because there
> > > is no reason that someone couldn't be just as productive on a linux box
> > > as they
> > >could be
> From: John_Cuzzola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 6:04 PM
>
>> Any idea how well it works over a WAN connection?
> *** Well it works OK with an ADSL type connection which
> although it isn't all that great it is infinitely faster
> than getting a technician to physic
>
> Any idea how well it works over a WAN connection?
*** Well it works OK with an ADSL type connection which although it isn't
all that great it is infinitely faster than getting a technician to
physically drive to a site.
> Charles
>
> ___
> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:01:15 -0700
> From: John Holbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I just attended a presentation in Kamloops BC with their K12LTSP
> Project and I can confirm for a fact that the RFB product at
> forum.hexonet.com works beautifully with the LTSP for shadowing
> users. It even a
Not sure. You could always check on their forum -
http://7of9.sd73.bc.ca/forum/ or their tux homepage -
http://picard.sd73.bc.ca/tux/
>From the little bit I saw on the hexonet site it doesn't look
that difficult to set up...but if you try it and have any
pointers I'm sure everybody would apprecia
> I just attended a presentation in Kamloops BC with their K12LTSP
> Project and I can confirm for a fact that the RFB product at
> forum.hexonet.com works beautifully with the LTSP for shadowing
> users. It even allows you to 'push' out your desktop to multiple
> users for teaching purposes, etc.
gt; Charles Marcus Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
>
> Even better, would be some kind of Admin app that would give a
> list of LTSP workstations currently logged in, then allow the
> Admin to initiate a s
Charles,
Me, too... :-) I've taken the college-level courses and
gotten my degree. I can bang out some C++, Java, and
whatnot. I can pick up new languages with a little time
and a reference manual. Still, I need a lot more practice
at "real" coding and until I get that experience I prefer
s
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 11:21, John_Cuzzola wrote:
>
>
>
> *** Oh yes,come to think of it , it was running as a local app
>
>
Hi John,
I am messing around with this at the moment. It works perfectly on stand
alone computers but fails when used from the thin client.
I am using x-class-0.6.2 a
> From: "Jason Bechtel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:58:20 +0200
>
> I don't see any need to throw money at the problem... yet.
> I will take a look at it this afternoon (GMT+1) and see
> how it looks. It could be as easy as dropping a few
> binaries in
Frank-
I accept your challenge!:-)
Jason
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:37:14 -0300
Francisco Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm too busy now with the Netstation project
> (netstation.sourceforge.net
> ;) now, and not very familiarized with the internals of
> LTSP, may be
> some of the current
ility to a
simple X session without altogether changing the way LTSP
currently works, that would be the ideal solution.
Jason
> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:11:30 -0400
> From: Venkat Manakkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
>
> Hi,
>
> I
400 (EDT)
> From: R P Herrold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> > Is anyone else willing to put their money where their
> mouth is?
> >
> > I am w
We can host the mailing list on our server. We have couple of servers on
the Internet and we currently providing email hosting to more than a 100
companies.
We can do this for Free with no strings (ads) attached :)
Regards
Prakash
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 08:12, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> On Tue
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:20:35 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That cruft you are seeing is SourceForge's way of paying for the
> equipment and bandwidth that they give to us for free.
>
> But, I hate it as much as anybody.
Come July, I'll have a server to dedicate to this purpose. An
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:13 AM
> > To: Charles Marcus
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Francisco Castro'
> > Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *** I've tried
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT), "R P Herrold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, R P Herrold wrote:
>
> > -- Russ Herrold
>
> Hey -- I did not add all that cruft at the bottom. Is it
> really necessary to add the following lines of advert to every
> message?
>
> >
> >
miles of travel per day since some of our clients
>>are in other buildings... The employees love it too...
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Jason Bechtel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:09 PM
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECT
ldings... The employees love it too...
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Jason Bechtel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:09 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
>
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Is anyone else willing to put their money where their mouth is?
>
> I am willing to pledge $100 U.S. towards this goal. Imho, this is the only
> thing LTSP lacks to, as Jason, said, make LTSP the Citrix/WinTSE killer...
>
> What do you say, Frank?
D
Just to add some support, I too am interested in this..
Joey
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Marcus
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
Even better, would be
nTSE killer...
>>
>> What do you say, Frank?
>>> From: Tommy Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
>>> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 08:16:07 -0400
>>>
>>> I agree! While ou
On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:08:56 +0200
"Jason Bechtel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank-
>
> If you can add what is being referred to as "shadowing" to
> LTSP, then PLEASE DO IT! Do you realize that this is
> probably the #1 feature currently lacking in LTSP?? This
> is *the* Citrix/WinTSE kille
orted to almost
any OS you can think of.
TIA
Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: John_Cuzzola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:13 AM
> To: Charles Marcus
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Francisco Castro'
> Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix
t; What do you say, Frank?
>
> > From: Tommy Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
> > Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 08:16:07 -0400
> >
> > I agree! While our organization is still in the LTSP R&D
; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 08:16:07 -0400
>
> I agree! While our organization is still in the LTSP R&D
> stages, a migration
> from Citrix to LTSP would be MUCH smoother with this option.
> This "shadow"
es love it too...
>-Original Message-
>From: Jason Bechtel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:09 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
>
>Frank-
>
>If you can add what is being referred to as &quo
Subject: Re:
[Ltsp-discuss] Citrix Server
Frank-
If you can add what is being referred to as "shadowing" to
LTSP, then PLEASE DO IT! Do you realize that this is
probably the #1 feature currently lacking in LTSP?? This
is *the* Citrix/WinTSE killer feature!!!
I've heard of products/projects (e.g. x2x) that attempt
this sort of thing an
> > 2) The ability to use current ICA thin clients without having to
> > create custom boot proms, etc like we'll have to do with the
> > ltsp? This will also allow people more choice in what kind of
> > thin client they use.
>
> I'm not sure about using the same clients. A very low bandwidth pro
I'm another person who is currently using Citrix, but in the process of
changing over to LTSP.
It seems to me that in general terms Citrix is to Windows as LTSP is to
Linux/X windows. They both do the same job. What you are asking for is for
specific features to be added to LTSP and/or linux gen
On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:04:03 -0700
John Holbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? Here's a few reasons:
>
> 1) The ability to remotely 'shadow' a users session?
This can be done with x0rfbserver, a VNC derivative that works like the
windows vnc server shadowing a current session. There are two
Take a look at Tarantella at www.tarantella.com They have a 30 day
free demo of their software. I don't use it, but have run the demo
twice doing an evaluation. Basically the picture is:
NT Server (or Farm) hosts your Windows apps <- Tarantella <-> Thin
clients
I don't think you can eliminat
On Thu, 30 May 2002 23:48:47 +0200, "Hans Ekbrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll partially agree with that, but there still isn't a desktop app where
> > the Linux version is better than the Windows version.
>
> There are many reasonable definitions on "better" that make that
> statement
On Thu, 30 May 2002 17:31:09 -0400
Anthony Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Egan, Matt B. (Artco) wrote:
>
> >>>No flaming intended here but I am confused by your query.
> >>>Are you suggesting that a Linux Citrix Server boot clients
> >>>
> >>into MS windows or X?
> >>
> >>>If booting i
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 05:31:09PM -0400, Anthony Dean wrote:
> >Do you mean more comfortable and familiar? I think you do because there is
> >no reason that someone couldn't be just as productive on a linux box as
> >they
> >could be on a windows machine. There are lots of variables to figure in
Egan, Matt B. (Artco) wrote:
>>>No flaming intended here but I am confused by your query.
>>>Are you suggesting that a Linux Citrix Server boot clients
>>>
>>into MS windows or X?
>>
>>>If booting into MS windows..heh I won't even validate
>>>
>>that with a response.
>>
>>
>>Well, in the
> > No flaming intended here but I am confused by your query.
> > Are you suggesting that a Linux Citrix Server boot clients
> into MS windows or X?
> >
> > If booting into MS windows..heh I won't even validate
> that with a response.
>
>
> Well, in the corporate world for every Linux app
rob wrote:
>>I noticed on the Citrix website that there is a Citrix Server
>>product for Solaris. Wouldn't a port to Linux be a fairly simple
>>thing to do?
>>
>>It seems to me that some of the challenges people face with ltsp
>>could be overcome with a proper Citrix server for Linux.
>>
> Which
On Thu, 30 May 2002 15:47:36 -0400
rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I noticed on the Citrix website that there is a Citrix Server
> > product for Solaris. Wouldn't a port to Linux be a fairly
> > simple thing to do?
> >
> > It seems to me that some of the challenges people face with
> > ltsp c
> I noticed on the Citrix website that there is a Citrix Server
> product for Solaris. Wouldn't a port to Linux be a fairly simple
> thing to do?
>
> It seems to me that some of the challenges people face with ltsp
> could be overcome with a proper Citrix server for Linux.
Which challenges do you
Why? Here's a few reasons:
1) The ability to remotely 'shadow' a users session?
2) The ability to use current ICA thin clients without having to
create custom boot proms, etc like we'll have to do with the
ltsp? This will also allow people more choice in what kind of
thin client they use.
3) be
The ONLY benefit I see to Citrix is the fact that is
is really good in low-bandwidth situations.
Other than that, what's the point ?
Jim McQuillan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 30 May 2002, John Holbrook wrote:
> I noticed on the Citrix website that there is a Citrix Server
> product for Solaris
43 matches
Mail list logo
