[K12OSN] *EARLY* Alpha of K12LTSP 3.2

[Andrew]

Les Mikesell wrote:

>On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 15:37, Andrew wrote:
>  
>
>>I gotta ask though, what is it you think can be done  (in a 
>>production sense, not in a running the latest subversion of something 
>>sense) on fedora that can't be done on whitebox?
>>    
>>
>
>In my case, I've had trouble with less-than-the-latest Evolution
>and I need perl 5.8.3 for RT (request tracker from
>http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/).  I'd like to update
>my old mail server too and dovecot looks attractive,
>but again, only the latest version is likely to be
>usable.
>
>  
>
>> Certainly not much 
>>multimedia.....
>>    
>>
>
>Alsa is in general an improvement over OSS, X.org is
>better than Xfree86.   Some things that used to work
>will break, but more things will work better.
>
>  
>
>> Not much by way of failover clustering... what then? 
>>    
>>
>
>Actually seeing that I was wrong on the server kernel thing, most of my argument is kinda silly. Though I will say that sometimes the same old bugs you know about are far more comforting than rthe new ones that just kinda pop up on you. I plan to do some "server cluster" experiments this year with old donated hardware. None of the donated stuff is robust enough to be an ltsp server by itself, So maybe dividing up some of the chores
>
and kind of icing it over with open mosix might be of use....hence my 
interest.


-AF

>I haven't tried whitebox on one of the boxes with
>the latest adaptec 320Mhz controllers.  RH9 won't
>install on them so I didn't expect whitebox to.
>
>  
>
>>They just aren't that far apart yet.  The biggest improvement made in 
>>Fedora, the inclusion of kernel 2.6, is useless in a k12ltsp environment 
>>so far, as k12 ltsp.org supports up to kernel 2.4.26 as of today.
>>All the recent nifty improvements in the way linux does things really 
>>hang on kernel 2.6.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, but with ltsp you only run the X display locally.  All the
>real work happens on the server and I'd expect the new
>scheduler to improve performance even if you don't need
>new device support.
>
>  
>
>>Sadly openmosix also seems to still like 2.4 kernels.  So 
>>long as our networking  and clustering stuff depends on , as you  say, 
>>an ancient kernel, it seems kinda silly to be calling whitebox ancient 
>>and obsolete.
>>    
>>
>
>I've avoided openmosix so far, mostly because I didn't trust
>it.  Is it possible to tell mosix that things can run on
>the local desktop machine or a set of servers, but not
>other desktop machines where someone might accidentally
>bump the power switch?
>
>I'm actually still running RH 7.3 on some machines so
>I can't complain too much about old stuff but when I do
>update I want to go to something current instead of
>continuing to work around the same old bugs.
>
>---
>  Les Mikesell
>   les at futuresource.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>K12OSN mailing list
>K12OSN at redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
>For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
>
>
>  
>