From bfristen at shaw.ca Tue Aug 5 23:08:27 2014 From: bfristen at shaw.ca (Brian Fristensky) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:08:27 -0500 Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients In-Reply-To: <20130820003636.05d394f8f702b6ef793b0ec8fcf7c622.4c7d1f3b5e.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net> References: <20130820003636.05d394f8f702b6ef793b0ec8fcf7c622.4c7d1f3b5e.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <53E163EB.2010101@shaw.ca> I need to replace my Diskless Workstations T1420 thin client because the Eden processor is no longer supported ie. will not boot with RHEL 6.5. 1. I am considering going with a Diskless Workstations 1600 or 1700, which uses an N270 Atom processor, which I would assume is still supported, if they're advertising it. I am a little hesitant to go with this processor, since it was released in 2008. It seems likely that support for such an old processor will be dropped in the near future. Are there other thin client options to consider? This is a single seat thin client at home, so price is not really an object. What I am more interested in is ease of management and performance. 2. Should I assume that any thin client hardware that supports PXE boot will work with LTSP (obsolescence aside?) 3. My server is a 64-bit machine running RHEL6.5 (Essentially Centos6.5). Would I be correct in assuming that it would be better to have a 64-bit thin client? As far as I can tell from the Diskless Workstations web sites, their Atom processors are 32-bit. I would expect that if I did want to run some applications as local applications, having a 64-bit TC would be simpler. As well, 32-bit processors are, let's face it, so 1990's. I would expect a 64-bit processor to be less subject to the fate of obsolescence that my current TC succumbed to. Suggestions for thin clients that are known to work with LTSP, and use recent processors, would be greatly appreciated. Brian From radek at bursztynowski.waw.pl Wed Aug 6 08:27:49 2014 From: radek at bursztynowski.waw.pl (Radek Bursztynowski) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:27:49 +0200 Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients Message-ID: <12167283.901407313669263.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> Brian, Let me share my experience. Perhaps I don't fit exactly your question, but there is my experience: Regarding 1. It depends on what you use thin client. If you execute any application on yout thin client locally (like a fat client) thin client performance is essential. If not, older machines used as a thin client are fine. I use d510 NetTop (with 1 GB of memory) http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nettop-d510.html, and I can say that it is optimal machine for K12Linux. I bought theses NetTops with no internal HDD. From my poing of view D510 NetTop with K12Linux on CentOS 6.5 x86_64 servrer is optimal solution. NetTop 510 price was $178 including VAT. I prefere NetTops because owing to the NetTop with no HDD I can avoid any operating system license payment. Buying thin client machine you pay for OS placed in flash memory. Regarding terminal memory my tests showed that d510 machine with activated 5 consoles and 5 users logged in and opened Fireox, Libre/Microsoft Office (Ctrl+Alt+F1 ... Ctrl+Alt+F5 - 2xLDM, 1xXDMCP 1xxfreerdp and 1xrdesktop) used no more than 500 MB of memory. So, for standard office user terminal equipped with 1 GB of memory is OK. Regarding 2. My experience says that no. K12Linux thin client images don't support all video cards with full resolution (CentOS and Fedora). You can try to add to the thin client image proper driver/module and to solve this problem (I made it for SIS chipset, but I failed with GeForce). Very important is NIC too. You shoul check is CentOS/Fedora/LTSP support terminal NIC. Regarding 3. I use x86_64 servers (CentOS 6.5) and all my LTSP thin clients runs using x86 images and I don't see real reasons to change it (I don't use as a LTSP terminals Intel i3/i5/i7/Xeon machines). LTSP server servs thin image to the terminal and thin client binaries runs on the terminal. So, if thin client image offers the protocols we are at home. Let me add that I tested debian 7 LTSP thin client image with K12Linux server and I can say that terminal works. I admit that I dont't tested all functionality (for example multimedia) with debian 7 thin client image, but in general - it works. Best regards, Radek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Fristensky" Sent: Wed, 8/6/2014 1:08am To: "Support list for open source software in schools." Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients I need to replace my Diskless Workstations T1420 thin client because the Eden processor is no longer supported ie. will not boot with RHEL 6.5. 1. I am considering going with a Diskless Workstations 1600 or 1700, which uses an N270 Atom processor, which I would assume is still supported, if they're advertising it. I am a little hesitant to go with this processor, since it was released in 2008. It seems likely that support for such an old processor will be dropped in the near future. Are there other thin client options to consider? This is a single seat thin client at home, so price is not really an object. What I am more interested in is ease of management and performance. 2. Should I assume that any thin client hardware that supports PXE boot will work with LTSP (obsolescence aside?) 3. My server is a 64-bit machine running RHEL6.5 (Essentially Centos6.5). Would I be correct in assuming that it would be better to have a 64-bit thin client? As far as I can tell from the Diskless Workstations web sites, their Atom processors are 32-bit. I would expect that if I did want to run some applications as local applications, having a 64-bit TC would be simpler. As well, 32-bit processors are, let's face it, so 1990's. I would expect a 64-bit processor to be less subject to the fate of obsolescence that my current TC succumbed to. Suggestions for thin clients that are known to work with LTSP, and use recent processors, would be greatly appreciated. Brian _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see ; From mcsteann at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 13:35:16 2014 From: mcsteann at gmail.com (Marc Stephan Nkouly) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:35:16 +0100 Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients In-Reply-To: <12167283.901407313669263.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> References: <12167283.901407313669263.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> Message-ID: Please i wish to know if the nettop can work as a stand alone computer ??? On Aug 6, 2014 10:19 AM, "Radek Bursztynowski" wrote: > Brian, > > Let me share my experience. Perhaps I don't fit exactly your question, but > there is my experience: > > Regarding 1. > It depends on what you use thin client. If you execute any application on > yout thin client locally (like a fat client) thin client performance is > essential. If not, older machines used as a thin client are fine. I use > d510 NetTop (with 1 GB of memory) > http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nettop-d510.html, and I can say that it > is optimal machine for K12Linux. I bought theses NetTops with no internal > HDD. From my poing of view D510 NetTop with K12Linux on CentOS 6.5 x86_64 > servrer is optimal solution. NetTop 510 price was $178 including VAT. I > prefere NetTops because owing to the NetTop with no HDD I can avoid any > operating system license payment. Buying thin client machine you pay for OS > placed in flash memory. > Regarding terminal memory my tests showed that d510 machine with activated > 5 consoles and 5 users logged in and opened Fireox, Libre/Microsoft Office > (Ctrl+Alt+F1 ... Ctrl+Alt+F5 - 2xLDM, 1xXDMCP 1xxfreerdp and 1xrdesktop) > used no more than 500 MB of memory. So, for standard office user terminal > equipped with 1 GB of memory is OK. > > Regarding 2. > My experience says that no. K12Linux thin client images don't support all > video cards with full resolution (CentOS and Fedora). You can try to add to > the thin client image proper driver/module and to solve this problem (I > made it for SIS chipset, but I failed with GeForce). Very important is NIC > too. You shoul check is CentOS/Fedora/LTSP support terminal NIC. > > Regarding 3. > I use x86_64 servers (CentOS 6.5) and all my LTSP thin clients runs using > x86 images and I don't see real reasons to change it (I don't use as a LTSP > terminals Intel i3/i5/i7/Xeon machines). LTSP server servs thin image to > the terminal and thin client binaries runs on the terminal. So, if thin > client image offers the protocols we are at home. Let me add that I tested > debian 7 LTSP thin client image with K12Linux server and I can say that > terminal works. I admit that I dont't tested all functionality (for example > multimedia) with debian 7 thin client image, but in general - it works. > > Best regards, > Radek > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Fristensky" > Sent: Wed, 8/6/2014 1:08am > To: "Support list for open source software in schools." > > Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients > > I need to replace my Diskless Workstations T1420 thin client because the > Eden > processor is no longer supported ie. will not boot with RHEL 6.5. > > 1. I am considering going with a Diskless Workstations 1600 or 1700, which > uses > an N270 Atom processor, which I would assume is still supported, if they're > advertising it. I am a little hesitant to go with this processor, since it > was > released in 2008. It seems likely that support for such an old processor > will be > dropped in the near future. > > Are there other thin client options to consider? This is a single seat thin > client at home, so price is not really an object. What I am more > interested in > is ease of management and performance. > > 2. Should I assume that any thin client hardware that supports PXE boot > will > work with LTSP (obsolescence aside?) > > 3. My server is a 64-bit machine running RHEL6.5 (Essentially Centos6.5). > Would > I be correct in assuming that it would be better to have a 64-bit thin > client? > As far as I can tell from the Diskless Workstations web sites, their Atom > processors are 32-bit. I would expect that if I did want to run some > applications as local applications, having a 64-bit TC would be simpler. As > well, 32-bit processors are, let's face it, so 1990's. I would expect a > 64-bit > processor to be less subject to the fate of obsolescence that my current TC > succumbed to. > > Suggestions for thin clients that are known to work with LTSP, and use > recent > processors, would be greatly appreciated. > > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > K12OSN mailing list > K12OSN at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > For more info see ; > > _______________________________________________ > K12OSN mailing list > K12OSN at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > For more info see > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From radek at bursztynowski.waw.pl Wed Aug 6 14:35:46 2014 From: radek at bursztynowski.waw.pl (Radek Bursztynowski) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:35:46 +0200 Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <24357334.941407335746103.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> If NetTop will be equipped with internal HDD with OS - yes, NetTop can work as stand alone computer. Please i wish to know if the nettop can work as a stand alone computer ??? On Aug 6, 2014 10:19 AM, "Radek Bursztynowski" wrote: Brian, Let me share my experience. Perhaps I don't fit exactly your question, but there is my experience: Regarding 1. It depends on what you use thin client. If you execute any application on yout thin client locally (like a fat client) thin client performance is essential. If not, older machines used as a thin client are fine. I use d510 NetTop (with 1 GB of memory) http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nettop-d510.html, and I can say that it is optimal machine for K12Linux. I bought theses NetTops with no internal HDD. From my poing of view D510 NetTop with K12Linux on CentOS 6.5 x86_64 servrer is optimal solution. NetTop 510 price was $178 including VAT. I prefere NetTops because owing to the NetTop with no HDD I can avoid any operating system license payment. Buying thin client machine you pay for OS placed in flash memory. Regarding terminal memory my tests showed that d510 machine with activated 5 consoles and 5 users logged in and opened Fireox, Libre/Microsoft Office (Ctrl+Alt+F1 ... Ctrl+Alt+F5 - 2xLDM, 1xXDMCP 1xxfreerdp and 1xrdesktop) used no more than 500 MB of memory. So, for standard office user terminal equipped with 1 GB of memory is OK. Regarding 2. My experience says that no. K12Linux thin client images don't support all video cards with full resolution (CentOS and Fedora). You can try to add to the thin client image proper driver/module and to solve this problem (I made it for SIS chipset, but I failed with GeForce). Very important is NIC too. You shoul check is CentOS/Fedora/LTSP support terminal NIC. Regarding 3. I use x86_64 servers (CentOS 6.5) and all my LTSP thin clients runs using x86 images and I don't see real reasons to change it (I don't use as a LTSP terminals Intel i3/i5/i7/Xeon machines). LTSP server servs thin image to the terminal and thin client binaries runs on the terminal. So, if thin client image offers the protocols we are at home. Let me add that I tested debian 7 LTSP thin client image with K12Linux server and I can say that terminal works. I admit that I dont't tested all functionality (for example multimedia) with debian 7 thin client image, but in general - it works. Best regards, Radek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Fristensky" Sent: Wed, 8/6/2014 1:08am To: "Support list for open source software in schools." Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients I need to replace my Diskless Workstations T1420 thin client because the Eden processor is no longer supported ie. will not boot with RHEL 6.5. 1. I am considering going with a Diskless Workstations 1600 or 1700, which uses an N270 Atom processor, which I would assume is still supported, if they're advertising it. I am a little hesitant to go with this processor, since it was released in 2008. It seems likely that support for such an old processor will be dropped in the near future. Are there other thin client options to consider? This is a single seat thin client at home, so price is not really an object. What I am more interested in is ease of management and performance. 2. Should I assume that any thin client hardware that supports PXE boot will work with LTSP (obsolescence aside?) 3. My server is a 64-bit machine running RHEL6.5 (Essentially Centos6.5). Would I be correct in assuming that it would be better to have a 64-bit thin client? As far as I can tell from the Diskless Workstations web sites, their Atom processors are 32-bit. I would expect that if I did want to run some applications as local applications, having a 64-bit TC would be simpler. As well, 32-bit processors are, let's face it, so 1990's. I would expect a 64-bit processor to be less subject to the fate of obsolescence that my current TC succumbed to. Suggestions for thin clients that are known to work with LTSP, and use recent processors, would be greatly appreciated. Brian _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see ; _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see ; From mcsteann at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 18:24:31 2014 From: mcsteann at gmail.com (Marc Stephan Nkouly) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 19:24:31 +0100 Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients In-Reply-To: <24357334.941407335746103.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> References: <24357334.941407335746103.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> Message-ID: Am in Cameroon and i will really appreciate if you advise me on models i can purchase for a Computer learning center. Thanks On Aug 6, 2014 3:38 PM, "Radek Bursztynowski" wrote: > If NetTop will be equipped with internal HDD with OS - yes, NetTop can > work as stand alone computer. > > > > Please i wish to know if the nettop can work as a stand alone computer ??? > > On Aug 6, 2014 10:19 AM, "Radek Bursztynowski" > wrote: > Brian, > > > > Let me share my experience. Perhaps I don't fit exactly your question, but > there is my experience: > > > > Regarding 1. > > It depends on what you use thin client. If you execute any application on > yout thin client locally (like a fat client) thin client performance is > essential. If not, older machines used as a thin client are fine. I use > d510 NetTop (with 1 GB of memory) > http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nettop-d510.html, and I can say that it > is optimal machine for K12Linux. I bought theses NetTops with no internal > HDD. From my poing of view D510 NetTop with K12Linux on CentOS 6.5 x86_64 > servrer is optimal solution. NetTop 510 price was $178 including VAT. I > prefere NetTops because owing to the NetTop with no HDD I can avoid any > operating system license payment. Buying thin client machine you pay for OS > placed in flash memory. > > > Regarding terminal memory my tests showed that d510 machine with activated > 5 consoles and 5 users logged in and opened Fireox, Libre/Microsoft Office > (Ctrl+Alt+F1 ... Ctrl+Alt+F5 - 2xLDM, 1xXDMCP 1xxfreerdp and 1xrdesktop) > used no more than 500 MB of memory. So, for standard office user terminal > equipped with 1 GB of memory is OK. > > > > > Regarding 2. > > My experience says that no. K12Linux thin client images don't support all > video cards with full resolution (CentOS and Fedora). You can try to add to > the thin client image proper driver/module and to solve this problem (I > made it for SIS chipset, but I failed with GeForce). Very important is NIC > too. You shoul check is CentOS/Fedora/LTSP support terminal NIC. > > > > > Regarding 3. > > I use x86_64 servers (CentOS 6.5) and all my LTSP thin clients runs using > x86 images and I don't see real reasons to change it (I don't use as a LTSP > terminals Intel i3/i5/i7/Xeon machines). LTSP server servs thin image to > the terminal and thin client binaries runs on the terminal. So, if thin > client image offers the protocols we are at home. Let me add that I tested > debian 7 LTSP thin client image with K12Linux server and I can say that > terminal works. I admit that I dont't tested all functionality (for example > multimedia) with debian 7 thin client image, but in general - it works. > > > > > Best regards, > > Radek > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brian Fristensky" > > Sent: Wed, 8/6/2014 1:08am > > To: "Support list for open source software in schools." > > > Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients > > > > I need to replace my Diskless Workstations T1420 thin client because the > Eden > > processor is no longer supported ie. will not boot with RHEL 6.5. > > > > 1. I am considering going with a Diskless Workstations 1600 or 1700, which > uses > > an N270 Atom processor, which I would assume is still supported, if they're > > advertising it. I am a little hesitant to go with this processor, since it > was > > released in 2008. It seems likely that support for such an old processor > will be > > dropped in the near future. > > > > Are there other thin client options to consider? This is a single seat thin > > client at home, so price is not really an object. What I am more > interested in > > is ease of management and performance. > > > > 2. Should I assume that any thin client hardware that supports PXE boot > will > > work with LTSP (obsolescence aside?) > > > > 3. My server is a 64-bit machine running RHEL6.5 (Essentially Centos6.5). > Would > > I be correct in assuming that it would be better to have a 64-bit thin > client? > > As far as I can tell from the Diskless Workstations web sites, their Atom > > processors are 32-bit. I would expect that if I did want to run some > > applications as local applications, having a 64-bit TC would be simpler. As > > well, 32-bit processors are, let's face it, so 1990's. I would expect a > 64-bit > > processor to be less subject to the fate of obsolescence that my current TC > > succumbed to. > > > > Suggestions for thin clients that are known to work with LTSP, and use > recent > > processors, would be greatly appreciated. > > > > > > Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > > K12OSN mailing list > > K12OSN at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > > For more info see ; > > > > _______________________________________________ > > K12OSN mailing list > > K12OSN at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > > For more info see > > > _______________________________________________ > K12OSN mailing list > K12OSN at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > For more info see ; > > _______________________________________________ > K12OSN mailing list > K12OSN at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > For more info see > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From radek at bursztynowski.waw.pl Thu Aug 7 07:23:52 2014 From: radek at bursztynowski.waw.pl (Radek Bursztynowski) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:23:52 +0200 Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients Message-ID: <22924207.1031407396232452.JavaMail.root@poczta.bursztynowski.waw.pl> Marc, I have presented my experience and my favorite LTSP terminal model (http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nettop-d510.html). I can add two suggestions: 1) If you have old PC (K6 III CPU, Pentium III CPU, Pentium 4) - use them. Owing to thins you can reach computer learning center for free. For AMD K6 III CPU and Intel Pentium III use i586 binaries for LTSP client (nevertheless for Pentium III 1 GHz and newer Pentium III you can use i686 binaries). For old machines (Pentium II, AMD K6 III please remember that theses michines haven't sound card as a standard equipment. 2) Before purchase test with LTSP selected model. Best regards, Radek Am in Cameroon and i will really appreciate if you advise me on models i can purchase for a Computer learning center. Thanks On Aug 6, 2014 3:38 PM, "Radek Bursztynowski" wrote: If NetTop will be equipped with internal HDD with OS - yes, NetTop can work as stand alone computer. Please i wish to know if the nettop can work as a stand alone computer ??? On Aug 6, 2014 10:19 AM, "Radek Bursztynowski" wrote: Brian, Let me share my experience. Perhaps I don't fit exactly your question, but there is my experience: Regarding 1. It depends on what you use thin client. If you execute any application on yout thin client locally (like a fat client) thin client performance is essential. If not, older machines used as a thin client are fine. I use d510 NetTop (with 1 GB of memory) http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nettop-d510.html, and I can say that it is optimal machine for K12Linux. I bought theses NetTops with no internal HDD. From my poing of view D510 NetTop with K12Linux on CentOS 6.5 x86_64 servrer is optimal solution. NetTop 510 price was $178 including VAT. I prefere NetTops because owing to the NetTop with no HDD I can avoid any operating system license payment. Buying thin client machine you pay for OS placed in flash memory. Regarding terminal memory my tests showed that d510 machine with activated 5 consoles and 5 users logged in and opened Fireox, Libre/Microsoft Office (Ctrl+Alt+F1 ... Ctrl+Alt+F5 - 2xLDM, 1xXDMCP 1xxfreerdp and 1xrdesktop) used no more than 500 MB of memory. So, for standard office user terminal equipped with 1 GB of memory is OK. Regarding 2. My experience says that no. K12Linux thin client images don't support all video cards with full resolution (CentOS and Fedora). You can try to add to the thin client image proper driver/module and to solve this problem (I made it for SIS chipset, but I failed with GeForce). Very important is NIC too. You shoul check is CentOS/Fedora/LTSP support terminal NIC. Regarding 3. I use x86_64 servers (CentOS 6.5) and all my LTSP thin clients runs using x86 images and I don't see real reasons to change it (I don't use as a LTSP terminals Intel i3/i5/i7/Xeon machines). LTSP server servs thin image to the terminal and thin client binaries runs on the terminal. So, if thin client image offers the protocols we are at home. Let me add that I tested debian 7 LTSP thin client image with K12Linux server and I can say that terminal works. I admit that I dont't tested all functionality (for example multimedia) with debian 7 thin client image, but in general - it works. Best regards, Radek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Fristensky" Sent: Wed, 8/6/2014 1:08am To: "Support list for open source software in schools." Subject: [K12OSN] Recomendation for LTSP thin clients I need to replace my Diskless Workstations T1420 thin client because the Eden processor is no longer supported ie. will not boot with RHEL 6.5. 1. I am considering going with a Diskless Workstations 1600 or 1700, which uses an N270 Atom processor, which I would assume is still supported, if they're advertising it. I am a little hesitant to go with this processor, since it was released in 2008. It seems likely that support for such an old processor will be dropped in the near future. Are there other thin client options to consider? This is a single seat thin client at home, so price is not really an object. What I am more interested in is ease of management and performance. 2. Should I assume that any thin client hardware that supports PXE boot will work with LTSP (obsolescence aside?) 3. My server is a 64-bit machine running RHEL6.5 (Essentially Centos6.5). Would I be correct in assuming that it would be better to have a 64-bit thin client? As far as I can tell from the Diskless Workstations web sites, their Atom processors are 32-bit. I would expect that if I did want to run some applications as local applications, having a 64-bit TC would be simpler. As well, 32-bit processors are, let's face it, so 1990's. I would expect a 64-bit processor to be less subject to the fate of obsolescence that my current TC succumbed to. Suggestions for thin clients that are known to work with LTSP, and use recent processors, would be greatly appreciated. Brian _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see ; _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see ; _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list K12OSN at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn For more info see ; From william at fragakis.com Sat Aug 23 17:46:54 2014 From: william at fragakis.com (William Fragakis) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:46:54 -0400 Subject: [K12OSN] usb flash drive hot plug issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1408816014.5234.128.camel@server.ltsp> Facing an odd problem with using usb flash drives on our TCs. Situation: If the user is not logged in, and the drive is inserted, it appears just fine on the desktop once the user logs in. If user is logged in, drive does not appear on the desktop. Root does not have this issue. (I know, NEVER log into a graphic session as root. I also run with scissors around wet swimming pools during electrical storms.) Running on 32 bit EL6.5 (Scientific) but clients running Debian 32 bit image. (HP Thin Client that doesn't play well with EL because of NIC driver issues) User is in fuse group. LOCALDEV=True. Went all through the steps on Ubuntu localdev debug page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebugLocalDev I know that either a) I'm doing something silly or b) something, somewhere in my duck-taped set up isn't playing nice. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks, William