Virtualizing KDE's

[mark]

lists at grounded.net wrote:
>> Ok, figuring out how advanced you are is always a problem with new folks.
> 
> Can't know everything, takes too much time :). However, the question was

You know how tech support is.... <g>
<snip>
>> X is like Windows 3.x, *NOT* 95 or NT. It's a GUI windowing environment 
>> running on top of the O/S, not part of it. (The #1 thing I hold against
>> its design.) If you think of a d/b server, and other machines pointing to
>> it for their queries, X is like that. Frequently, you're on the same
>> machine; but you can be on any  machine. In that case, it's exactly like
>> the old mainframe environments with terminals.
<snip>
> Are you saying that X can have a server and a number of remote clients? If

Yup. I think the original X stuff used a then-serious server (like a
PDP-something), and dumb terminals.

> that's the case, do the clients appear to the user as a personal workstation
> or just an instance of X until they are done? Do they get their own storage
> areas, settings, things like that?

Same as any users.
> 
> Either way, it sounds like virtualization is what I am after if I want to
> give them what amounts to a full pc, just that it's centralized.
> 
>> Terminology: as I mentioned, X terminology is absolutely the opposite of
>> the way *every* other usage of it is. If it were a d/b, in X terminology,
>> the d/b server would be the client, and the machines calling it would be
>> the servers.
> 
> Does that mean the other way around then? Each X workstation is actually
> what, the server? And they all share a central X client or something? I'm
> not clear on this.

Yes. Like I said, it's *really* confusing, because they used words meaning the
opposite of what normal folks use the words for....
> 
>> So you can set up the global defaults on one server, so that unless folks 
>> customize their own environment, they log in on their machines, they 
>> effectively log into the X-terminology "client", and all come into X with 
>> exactly the same stuff, running on that server, not on their own.
> 
> So you set up the default settings on a server that you call the master then
> the clients which are actually independent X workstations use that as their
> central server?

Yes. They're actually running stuff on the master.
> 
> It sounds like something that could be very useful but it also sounds like
> it would take me away from what I really want to do which is to learn about,
> and put to use, new virtualization techniques. While the ideas have been

Ahhh... that's another story, all together.

> around for a very long time in computing, the new technologies associated
> with it and coming are too great to pass up methinks.

And the verbiage keeps changing, so they can publish, not perish.

	mark "a tuple is *nothing* like a record...."