Re: K12LTSP Name (was Re: [K12OSN] test packages/isos for K12LTSP 3.1.0, plusK12LTSP's future)

[AGordon evans-solutions com]

I thought this was on the list.

-Tony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antony Gordon
Evans Solutions/Blanche Kelso Bruce Academy
Technical Support
(313) 625-7230 x1406
----- Forwarded by Antony Gordon/ESI on 04/21/2003 09:53 AM -----


"Terrell Prude', Jr." <microman cmosnetworks com>
04/16/2003 01:06 AM

 
        To:     AGordon evans-solutions com
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: K12LTSP Name (was Re: [K12OSN] test packages/isos for K12LTSP 3.1.0, 
plus K12LTSP's future)


Hello Tony,

AGordon evans-solutions com wrote:

>I don't think the name has to communicate that it is Free Software. We 
are 
>using, by default, an operating system under the GNU License along with a 

>lot of
>GNU/FSF tools and components. However, if it needs to be prominent then 
>how about
>
>                K12 Server 2003
>                built on * Linux 
> 
>
I tend to disagree.  One major point of the K12LTSP project is to let 
folks know that Free Software is indeed not just a viable alternative, 
but a rock-solid business case.  Recalling why the school districts in 
Oregon adopted the use of GNU/Linux in the first place, if you use Free 
Software, then you needn't be concerned about an audit.  There are a 
bunch of folks out there, who have been through a Microsoft and/or BSA 
audit, who would appreciate just that issue alone.  As silly as the SCO 
lawsuit against IBM over UNIX intellectual property is, it's just 
another illustration of the legal benefits of Free Software.  It's for 
that reason that I'm phasing my mother's medical practice from Windows 
NT Server over to RHL.  The results of an audit would likely put them 
out of business.

However, I do like your basic idea for a name, above, the more I think 
about it.  It would allow those who wish to port it to, say, OpenBSD to 
package it as, "K12 Server 2003, built on OpenBSD".  Microsoft used this 
basic strategy rather successfully with Windows 2000, with a decal 
saying "Built on NT Technology" after they decided to ditch the name 
Windows NT 5.0.

>The 2003 is just a play on the marketing that Microsoft and other 
>companies are using. For the *, the Linux distro can be any of the 
popular 
>ones, like Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, etc, etc. Perhaps we should try to 
>get LTSP to work on a commercial version of Unix such as Solaris (which 
>would probably help Sun out, especially since they are partnering with 
>ThinkNIC - guess that makes it STSP okay, bad joke), which would make the 

>overall terminal server project more 'industry legit'. 
> 
>
Sadly, Solaris and other commercial UNIXes aren't Free Software.  I wish 
they were; Solaris in particular scales like nobody's business. 
Customizing it and redistributing a "turnkey" solution like K12LTSP on 
such a UNIX would be near to impossible for that reason; Sun, IBM, HP, 
etc. don't let you do that.  On the other hand, getting LTSP to work on, 
say, FreeBSD would be very appropriate, IMHO.  Fortunately, the likes of 
IBM, Oracle, etc. entering the corporate fray are "legitimizing" 
GNU/Linux in the boardroom, so that's not as much the issue as it once 
was, especially after Licensing 6.0.

>Even though Linux is making its name in the server industry, an similar 
>packaging built on Solaris, would only help increase interest in what is 
>being done. A lot of the technology involved in LTSP has more uses than 
in 
>an educational environment. I would use a LTSP setup along with a POS 
>setup in a small retail shop where money is tight. Of course that means 
>all my VB development work goes out the window, but I think MySQL, PHP, 
>Java, and C++, even Kylix, can make up for what I think may be missing. 
> 
>
Agreed.  The City of Largo, FL (just do a Google search on that and 
Linux) proves this quite handily.  They're using straight LTSP to 
support over 800 employees throughout the city.  However, the cost 
savings is due in no small part to the fact that they're using a Free 
platform as well as Terminal Services (they were using SCO UNIX before 
switching to LTSP).  If they need to do something to any part of the 
system, they can, without having to bring in expensive consultants. 
They can adapt GNU/Linux to work with tablets (last I read, they were 
piloting this with the police dept.).  Finally, the K12LTSP project, 
being scholastically based, is about education and collaboration, and 
Free platforms, by their very nature, support voluntary collaboration, 
just because people want to, not just because they take a salary or 
something.

>Assuming you actually use the name GNU/Linux, K-12 Terminal Edition, it 
>still is limiting the overall scope and value of what this product 
offers. 
>Although it did initially start out as a simple terminal project, the 
>firewall, LDAP, mySQL, and Samba allows this product to be used as a cost 

>effective alternative to the combination of Windows 2000 Server + Citrix 
>MetaFrame+SQL Server+Internet Security Server (?) (or Proxy Server). 
>Unlike Microsoft, Linux doesn't have a comprehensive development studio 
>(yet) for the OS, but I'm sure it's hiding out somewhere on the Internet.
> 
>
You don't really need one, in my experience.  I've done C and Pascal 
coding on UNIX-ish OS's before, a while back, and all I ever really 
needed was a decent text editor (kate and gnotepad+ come to mind) and 
gcc.  In practice, I actually used vi, but I admit that it stands for 
Viper Incarnate.  :-)

However, since you bring up VB and Kylix above, I do recall seeing an 
integrated development studio for Python at the Yorktown HS Linux Users' 
Group, in Arlington, VA.  It reminded me a lot of...well, the Visual 
BASIC development environment.  I don't remember what it's called, but I 
actually sat down a did a little basic Python coding in it.  It was 
pretty cool.  Apparently they use it regularly at Yorktown HS.

>I'm not saying that K12 Server 2003, K12 Advanced Server 2003, and K12 
>Enterprise Server 2003 are the best names, but the signify a departure 
>from the instant classification of this project to terminal services when 

>it actually does more. 
> 
>
True, it does do more, but this is, I believe, the "killer app" aspect 
of it.  Any "full-blown" GNU/Linux can do proxy serving, Web serving, 
DB, etc. out of the box.  This is the only distro of which I am aware 
that also can, and was specifically built for, turnkey terminal services 
as well (Paul and/or Eric, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong).  This 
is the most versatile "turnkey" distro I've ever seen.

--TP