Subject: Re: [K12OSN] Future LTSP direction: Local Apps
From: pogson <robert pogson gmail com>
To: k12osn redhat com
Subject: Subject: Re: [K12OSN] Future LTSP direction: Local Apps
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:53:18 -0600
"The only down side is power consumption as compared to real thin
I think there are other downsides:
capital cost per seat is almost $100 more than a fanless thin client like NTAVO 6040
there will be power supply and cpu fans wearing out and making noise
power consumption will likely be double or triple that of compact thin client
the network has to load 100 megabytes or so into each client at the start of classes as compared to a thin client loading only a few. Caching may help from a warm login but that means you have to leave the things running, increasing the energy consumption again.
Still it is a neat solution if you are going to do lots of multimedia or heavy CPU load. I would only use it in a multimedia development lab. All of my classroom and lab experiences with the curriculums I have do not need it. I think most of the downsides would be mitigated with a slightly more powerful processor and Multi-seat X. Then, the power is averaged over 5-10 users.
One upside not listed is that the server becomes a straight file server so it might be able to service more clients this way.
I still think straight LTSP is the best solution in most cases. I could see one such client per classroom and possibly a bunch in a multimedia lab.