[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [K12OSN] A New direction for LTSP: Diskless Remote Boot



On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Warren Togami <wtogami redhat com> wrote:


Any idea what exactly LTSP5 Edubuntu is doing wrong?  We're using almost all the same upstream sources, although more aggressively newer versions on a more frequent basis.

I am not so sure that I would reduce it to anything wrong.  It may have felt that way to some users(1), myself included, but from a developer's perspective the implementation of MueKow, aka LTSP 5, into Edubuntu 7.10, was quite a spectacular feat.  One CD and no network and you still had a functiong thin-client, or terminal server, lab.

There seemed to be a discrepancy between user expectations, minimum required hardware specs, documentation, project goals, and the feedback loop between users and developers.(2)  Many have become spoiled by Eric and Jim and you, Warren, because you seek solutions from the users at their level on their mailing lists.  As many are learning - this is rare and should be treasured.

If I had my way, I would put a few of you on a plane, bring you to Hawaii, and work it out.  This is Vagrant's comment about rolling out LTSP 5 with debian-edu(3).  The two of you may want to compare notes, Warren.  Not unlike the impressive, Red Hat sponsored K12OSN list, debian-edu has a user mailing list with an awe-inspiring feedback loop between users and developers.

We are doing X detection stuff in a completely different (and less broken) manner.  But otherwise our stuff really isn't that different.

X detection could help.  Using Edubuntu 7.10 with older clients that worked with 7.04 and the K12LTSP required lts.conf tweaking.  This was Lesson 1 in appreciating how many headaches Eric and Jim silently saved us.  Our migration of Peter's lab last year from the k12ltsp to edubuntu 7.04, and then to 7.10, was quite a Live lesson in upstream integration.

In general, it seems that accommodating older hardware is the challenge with LTSP 5.  I realize the impressive benefits of sharing one set of maintained applications, ssh rather than nfs, and what amounts to a virtualized OS that can be shared amongst many clients.  Seems like Sun is taking Virtualbox there.

The temptation is to rationalize the newer and faster hardware required because, as Robert observed(4), we are close to using solid state network appliances.  The power savings alone may justify this path.  This is the rub.

As I will witness next month when Apple pays to haul many containers of hardware away from Hawaii, there is always someone, I think, who can use a donated computer or a functioning computer lab with donated, diskless workstations.(5)  All of us on this list know this.  Perhaps the path is for LTSP 5 to evolve with faster hardware in mind while projects like DRBL, that let me Etherboot Puppy Linux, address those of us using 'legacy' hardware.

--scott

(1) https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/edubuntu-users/2007-December/002964.html

(2) https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/edubuntu-users/2008-September/004435.html
 
(3) http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2008/09/msg00065.html

(4) https://www.redhat.com/archives/k12osn/2008-September/msg00156.html

(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjBCKRcHAA4




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]