Re: [RULE] LTSP

[M. Fioretti]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 09:41:34 AM -0500, Jason Bechtel (address@hidden) wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts on this, Eugene.  I'd
> like to continue the thread and make some comments.
> 
> You and Ingo are both right to doubt the utility of RULE as an LTSP
>client.
>...
> RULE-LTSP hybrid needs to be created for this to happen.
...
> machine on the network. So, RULE really only fits into this scheme
> if it's used as the server.

I was going to reply saying the same things. Thanks to Jason for
sparing some typing to me. I have left only the main points, but I
agree with basically everything he wrote. To sum it up in another way,
we might say that RULE and LTSP do both help people without enough
money for the latest HW toy, but in quite different spaces/scenarios.

RULE is for when you don't have a more powerful server, it's a stand
alone desktop, and such. LTSP is much better when you have the money
for the server and would have to network a lot of machines anyway. If
anything else, ten thin client, possibly diskless, networked boxes are
certainly far, far easier to administer than the same boxes with ten
forcefully different RULE setups.

Said this, the more cooperation between the two projects the
better. We can all certainly both benefit from each other and exchange
tips and tricks. An example: one of my pet projects if I won the
lottery would be a mini-KDE: panel, browser, mail client, KOffice and
*nothing* else. now that would also make an LTSP server able to stand
more clients, wouldn't it?

Ciao,
        Marco Fioretti

-- 
Marco Fioretti                 m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it
Red Hat for low memory         http://www.rule-project.org/en/

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the former.  -Albert Einstein