Will Novell Adopt The LTSP Project?

SafeTinspector writes "Yesterday I attended a Novell/HP Linux seminer "Delivering & Deploying Linux Across the Enterprise" Among the boring and expected stuff, the Novell representative had several slides in his presentation claiming that Novell is going to get heavily involved with LTSP (Linux Terminal Server Project) to bring policy based security and administration to the LTSP similar to those found in Microsoft and Citrix terminal servers--probably through their venerable Zenworks product line. Also heavily hinted at would be an install wizard provided by Novell that would greatly simplify the installation and configuration of LTSP, which is currently quite complex. I can find no hard information about this on LTSP or Novell websites, nor any information within Google newsgroup search. Does anyone know more about this? On a side note, the laptops of both the HP rep and Novell rep were running SuSE Linux Desktop with Ximian XD2 installed and the presentation was made using OpenOffice Presentation."

Reinventing X?

[ObviousGuy (578567)]

We all like to decry all the networking cruft that X has designed into it, but this kind of participation of a first tier vendor like Novell in redeveloping the X remote terminal service really shows how necessary all that cruft really is.

It doesn't really explain why they feel the need to reinvent the wheel, but it just goes to show how far Linux has come when it can attract the likes of Novell into its growing ranks of corporate sponsors.

Re:Reinventing X?

[afidel (530433)]

Sorry but X SUCKS compared to RDP/ICA. I can be quite productive using RDP on a 28.8 dialup line if I turn on bitmap caching and turn down the resolution/bpp. X on the otherhand is almost unusable across a slow DSL line. Multiply this times hundreds or thousands of employees and the bandwidth savings are HUGE. X was great for when it was invented but it doesn't hold a candle to RDP/ICA.

Re:Reinventing X?

[b17bmbr (608864)]

no, X doesn't suck. it's based on a client/server model when all computing was networked. the computer on every desk mentality eminated in redmond. X works great across networks. in fact, instead of LTSP, i just used a singe X server and had several X clients running in my classroom last year. (i am at a new school this year.) i had a P3/933 w/512MB running 7 X clients, OO.org, moz, etc., without a hiccup. in fact, i had a knoppix boot cd that i could pop into any old box on campus and get X from anywhere. freaked some people out. X works great across networks. it doesn't suck. most of X's problems are driver related. hardly its fault. just learn how to make it work well.

Re:Reinventing X?

[afidel (530433)]

Seven clients, whoopee. We run between 30 and 50 clients per server. These are typically Dual Xeon's with 2GB of ram, decent but not terribly expensive servers. The problem with X is that it sends the entire bitmap across every time there is an update, whereas RDP/ICA caches the bitmap and will reuse it, even across sessions. This makes for some heavy network traffic. Add to RDP the advantage of not losing the session because of network or client problems and it's a clear winner. I loved X when I first used

Re:Reinventing X?

[phoenix_rizzen (256998)]

Have a look at NX from NoMachine. Haven't had a chance to use it yet, but reading through the available docs, it works better than VNC/RDP/ICA, using the standard X protocol. It just compresses things, combines commands, and caches a lot of regularly-used info/commands on the client computer. It can also be used with VNC/RDP to make them run even faster.

Their goal, and supposedly they've achieved it, it to be able to use standard X apps across a 9600 bps modem.

They've also got a tesdrive server you can

Re:Reinventing X?

[afidel (530433)]

Yes, and I was talking about bandwidth, not the particular technology. An RDP session with bitmap caching running at 800*600*16bpp or 1024*768*8bpp is completely usable with the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem, whereas X is often unresponsive over a 604/128 DSL line.

"X" versus "Frame Buffer" is a tradeoff

[Kunta Kinte (323399)]

Yes, and I was talking about bandwidth, not the particular technology. An RDP session with bitmap caching running at 800*600*16bpp or 1024*768*8bpp is completely usable with the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem, whereas X is often unresponsive over a 604/128 DSL line.

This argument always comes up.

X uses and alternative approach to network transparency which comes with the trade off of higher bandwidth. The advantage though, is much less load on the servers.

Framebuffer based solutions eg. RDP are a joke when considered as a means of deploying applications to large groups of users.

You might end up with configs like 10s of users per server for even simple applications simply because all the rendering has to be on on the servers.

In the long run RDP is very expensive because of the equipment cost.

While with X, with the rendering offloaded to the client, happily chugging along.

Personally I think the X approach is a lot saner. Why render the entire application on the server when you have a client that probably can easily do this rendering as well? ...If you have the bandwidth, that is.

Re:"X" versus "Frame Buffer" is a tradeoff

[natmsincome.com (528791)]

You can map:
*Drives - http://nbd.sourceforge.net/
*Audio - http://www.ltsp.org/ltsp_sound_docs.txt and http://www.ltsp.org/contrib/ica/ica-howto.html
* P rinters - http://ltsp.org/documentation/ltsp-3.0-4-en.html (Section 5. and 8.2.6.)

As you can see none of this is through X. X only does the screen. This is the classic windows product that does everything VS unix where you have 5 different products that combine to do the same thing.

The difference is that with Linux you can change to a different product for

Codenamed:Project Sundance

[Krondor (306666)]

I attended this same conference, and I was asking a question about LTSP and EDirectory authentication. The presenter took my information and said this is called Project Sundance and he would email me with additional information the closed beta is supposed to start in the next 6 months.

Re:Codenamed:Project Sundance

[Krondor (306666)]

http://www.ltsp.org/license.txt

It is GPL'd the beta is closed for internal novell testing, I'd hope that any updates to LTSP are open, but i could see some calls to zenworks and such being closed.

Oh and where were you sitting in the room, I have a feeling I know who you are :)

Re:Codenamed:Project Sundance

[Sc00ter (99550)]

During the closed beta they wouldn't have to release any changes to LTSP code. Once they release it they will however.

But, the code for their super easy to use configurator, that they could keep closed, and basically that's what you would be paying for.

Kind of like YAST before that was opened up.

Project Project?

[jwitch (731255)]

LTSP stands for "Linux Terminal Server Project"

So why does the title read "...LTSP Project"?

That reads Linux Terminal Server Project Project

Re:Project Project?

[JesseL (107722)]

I'm always forgetting my personal PIN number for the ATM machine.

Has thin-client computing come of age?

[genericacct (692294)]

It's been hyped since the mid-90's, but thin clients have never really caught on in the corporate environment. Why is that? Perhaps the low cost and ubiquity of [GNU/]Linux can give the adoption of thin clients a much needed boost.

Re:Has thin-client computing come of age?

[DAldredge (2353)]

Please research the term 3270 before you post on this topic again.

Thank you

Re:Has thin-client computing come of age?

[kabocox (199019)]

It's been hyped since the mid-90's, but thin clients have never really caught on in the corporate environment. Why is that?

No, it is because tons of managers that just need IE, Outlook, and Wordpad, opps Word, and Access won't stand it. Managers have to have a scanner, digital camera, video capture cards, and dual monitors. It doesn't matter what they are managing they approve the budget. If it wasn't the manager, it would be the IT guy or the desktop publishing/web guru that needed it. The managers would generally argree that they need to lock down and micromanage all their employees. They want all that on the same platform as all their toys.

Thin clients should be on almost every business desktop. Other than call centers, I'd doubt that will ever happen. Remember if it was good enough for the manager it is good enough for his sec. or assistant.

Re:Has thin-client computing come of age?

[swebster (530246)]

I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say here, but LTSP supports some of that stuff: dual monitors, scanners on clients is coming along I think... certainly printers on clients are totally fine, we do this all the time where I work.

Re:Has thin-client computing come of age?

[mt_nixnut (626002)]

The great strength of Windows thin clients, be it ICA (Citrix) or RDP (Windows 2000 and 2003 Terminal Services) is database applications that use ODBC connections.

I'm lost now. LTSP runs all of its apps on the server by default. Only display and input go through the network. It is also not really meant to be used over a modem, cable, wan. It was designed as a diskless workstation solution to be run on a LAN. I am blown away by how many people are offering opinions on this technology when they have obvious

Re:Has thin-client computing come of age?

[Lumpy (12016)]

It's been hyped since the mid-90's, but thin clients have never really caught on in the corporate environment.

HUH?? please explain all the NCD exploras and other thin clients flooding the used market and ebay.

They all came from somewhere... these NCD explora 701's that I got by the pallet full were certianly in use at some corperation.

Maybe not at the companies you work at (windows based) but there are GOBS of companies that use SUN and silicon graphics hardware as well as other UNIX systems that use thin clients every day and have been for a long time now.

thin clients under windows is overpriced because of the bullcrap that microsoft plays with licensing.. solaris doesn't extort a full OS license per thin cleint used like microsoft does.

LTSP & SuSE = GOOD!

[MeBadMagic (619592)]

I am a developer that make extensive use of ltsp. I also use SuSE for the server that LTSP runs on.

I can say from fist hand experience that installing and configuring ltsp is not as difficult as suggested.

The install scripts worked as expected on my SuSE 9 install.

Tech support for ltsp is wonderfull! Any questions can be answered in on on line chat room on freenode.net #ltsp

I just asked the main developer for ltsp about novell and he said it was news to him. I would invite him to comment directly to this thread.

Also, on a side note, disklessworkstations.com has very inexpensive boxes that just work when plugged into a network that has an ltsp server installed on it.

There is a sister project k12ltsp that is to quote Jim McQuillen, "k12ltsp is a distro built around Fedora, that includes ltsp".

websites for these projects are
ltsp.org
disklessworkstations.com
k12ltsp.o rg

B-)

MMMM....LTSP goodness

[thgreatoz (623808)]

If you're talking about the one in Southfield, then I was there as well. The implications of a Novell LTSP adoption almost had me drooling.
One of my colleagues and I had an opportunity to talk to a Novell engineer about it, and he said that Novell was indeed working very closely with the developers of LTSP, and that closed betas of the result of that collaberation would be starting in a few months.
An interesting side note -- the main presenter made a comment in that same conversation that he was "positively humbled" by the volume of people that were involved in the development of open source projects, and not only that, but the degree of intellect that these developers display regularly in the various IRC channels and usenet groups.

Re:MMMM....LTSP goodness

[chupacabrito (776931)]

How come Jim McQuillen doen't know about this? He is the lead developer. I have been with the project for years and know nothing about this either.

Re:MMMM....LTSP goodness

[Citizen of Earth (569446)]

The implications of a Novell LTSP adoption almost had me drooling.

It'd be neat if they can line up a manufacturer of tiny, stripped-down, solid-state PCs that boot off the network and run a Linux-based X server. If they could get the price under $100 per box, it'd be funny to watch Microsoft and Novell bid on a big installation contract. The Microsoft bid would include a full Windows PC on every desktop and various servers, and the Novell bit would be for these mini-boxes and a few servers and open-sour

Terminal services replacement

[Adriax (746043)]

If they make a live-cd client (maybe live floppy), I'll be mucho happy.
I'd love to be able to offer customers a cheaper alternative to the overprices winterm dummy terminals out there.

Mini-itx board, small case, single drive, live-cd client, run this on the server with OO.org, mozilla, etc...
Heck of a lot cheaper than Win2k advanced server + terminal serviced + licenses + office and licenses...

Re:Terminal services replacement

[BiggerIsBetter (682164)]

You don't even need the drive, or floppy, or CD for that matter (although some users will want it for music). If the system supports network booting (which Mini-ITX does, I think) you can literally plug it in with net-booting enabled, and be ready to go. The minimal OS and everything loads over the network.

You can even go a bit further and run them as OpenMosix nodes to share processing. The keen admin may also consider adding a box or twenty on very fast links to the LTSP server, so allowing 600 MHzfanle

LTSP sounds great but . . .

[IDidn'tPostThis (749439)]

Does it put the cover on the TPS reports ?

Project Sundance Internal LTSP Novell Project

[david_eliasson (133185)]

http://www.novell.com/documentation/lg/ex10lnx/pdf doc/21ex3_rn/21ex3_rn.pdf

This pdf shows a sundance.o linux kernel module under ethernet-drivers so that guess is probably correct.

LTSP vs. SSH + X Forwarding

[Eagle5596 (575899)]

Can someone please explain to me how this is different/better than using SSH with X Forwarding? I run a server at home which I use in a manner similar to what I understand of thin clients, connecting to it remotely via SSH, and then forwarding the displays to my terminal. How is this different? Am I missing something?

Re:LTSP vs. SSH + X Forwarding

[altair87 (442241)]

The advantage of LTSP is you don't need the full operating system on the client. The client can be booted off floppy or boot rom and still connect by X.

If you are using ssh+x forwarding the client still has to have an operating system.

Re:LTSP vs. SSH + X Forwarding

[dbIII (701233)]

The advantage of LTSP is you don't need the full operating system on the client.

Unfortunately that is not correct.

While Microsoft may have conned some into thinking that the browser is part of the operating system, the reality is the operating system is the layer that works between the hardware and the software.

In this case the client still needs an operating system, but only needs enough in the way of applications to communicate with the terminal server and relay the users input to it. There are fairly

Re:LTSP vs. SSH + X Forwarding

[teeker (623861)]

Congratulations! You've just reinvented the core of LTSP!

Seriously, there is no voodoo in LTSP..it works much like you've described...boot via ROM or floppy, download minimal OS into ram via network, connect to remote X server. The thing that makes LTSP worthwhile as a project is putting together the pieces to make this happen (think multiple client configs...even with a thin client you've got differing hardware setups), along with some other things like remoting sound and parallel ports and such.

Novell s

Another 10 year old idea from Novell

[IntlHarvester (11985)]

First they bring back "SuperNOS" (NetWare running on a *nix kernel), and now this:

Novell Brewing a New 32-Bit GUI Environment (PC Week)

>From PC Week for April 25, 1994 by PC Week Staff

Novell Inc. is developing a low-cost, 32-bit multitasking operating
environment based on a "freeware" version of Unix that sources said will
run Windows, DOS, NetWare, and Unix applications.

Novell is expected to demonstrate the software -- which it is developing
under tight security at an off-site warehouse -- to a few select users
at next week's NetWorld+Interop trade show, said sources close to the
Provo, Utah, company.

The new system, code-named Expose', is not a derivative of Novell's own
UnixWare; it is based on Linux, a full-featured Unix clone for PCs that
is distributed under a free GNU Public License, sources said. Linux 1.0,
which shipped in March, runs on 386- and 486-based ISA and EISA
computers.

Expose' will be based on a graphical X Window System environment called
Looking Glass, which Novell licensed from Visix Software Inc., of
Reston, Va. It is expected to use an advanced 3-D desktop metaphor to
allow users to easily navigate through it, sources said.

Expose' "is not as much an applications environment as it is a front end
to many environments, [including] NetWare, Unix, and Windows
applications," said a source who has been briefed on the project. Users
also will be able to run Expose' as a front end to the Internet, possibly
through the Mosaic GUI, sources said.

rest here [google.com]

Basically, this was a X11 terminal server sort of thing that could also redirect Windows apps. The project was eventually killed, and Ray Noorda picked up the Linux pieces and formed Caldera (later SCO).

Quite complex not actually

[Donny Smith (567043)]

>greatly simplify the installation and configuration of LTSP, which is currently quite complex.

What? You mean "quite simple"?

"Greatly simplify", I presume, stands for "tie up with Novell's proprietary stuff".
How much easier can it get?

Downloads at:
http://www.k12ltsp.org/download.html

K121LTSP is easy way to go

[AYeomans (322504)]

K12LTSP [k12ltsp.org] is a very simple way of installing LTSP. Current version 4 is based on Fedora Core 1 with a few updates. As easy to install as FC1.

Although thin clients have been around for a few years now, in those days 300 MHz server CPUs and 10 Mbit/sec Ethernet were top-of-affordable-range. And the performance was a bit clunky.

Now we have 3000 MHz servers and 100 Mbit/sec networks, thin clients can really fly. So long as you forget the clunky days and try them!

JDS Laptops

[CdBee (742846)]

Is there any significance in HP sending a rep with a laptop running Java Desktop System?
My understanding is that HP will offer Linux as an option on their systems but hasn't previously - to my memory - been associated with Sun's distribution.

That said, any Linux installation on laptops is a good thing.. lets hope it catches on. (personal note - A Sasser-infected Win2000 laptop knocked my network out yesterday)

LTSP + Ximian Desktop == killer!

[IGnatius T Foobar (4328)]

I'm running Ximian Desktop at home, and I've got a remote X display in a comfortable, sunny room (servers are in the basement). I can definitely attest that full support of LTSP would be a wonderful thing.

There's lots of talk about Linux desktops replacing Windows desktops, but too many people want to use Linux as a drop-in Windows replacement. That's unfortunate, because to really get the most out of Linux, you have to treat it like Linux -- play up its strengths. The remotability of X11 on a window by window basis (as opposed to the whole desktop, which is how it's done in Windows) is central to this.

This is, in fact, how the folks in Largo, FL made their system work so well [zdnet.com]. Everything runs from big servers. The nice thing about this model is that you can roll out dedicated servers for various applications. You could have a big box dedicated to OpenOffice, for example. It would run lots of instances of that application (and you get the associated memory footprint savings) being displayed on everyone's desktops. Easy to deploy, too: you just publish the icon or menu item to fire it up, and it executes remotely and transparently. The user doesn't even know that the app is running on a different server -- not even when he/she goes to load and save files, because you're using NIS and NFS to unify the authentication and the document directories across all servers.

It's a beautiful, beautiful thing. Elegant and seamless. And it's only possible in a Unix/Linux environment -- Microsoft doesn't have anything even close to this. They can't, because it screws up their pricing model. And we all know that money is more important than technology in their world.

running 150 desktops here

[codepunk (167897)]

I am currently running 150 desktops off of two servers using thin client deployment. Instead of going with ltsp we use a slackware live cd that gets it's final config from a web server using wget and a php script that passes out configurations based on the sent mac address.

Finally it just lanches x against the servers using the -query option. This is one hell of a lot simpler than ltsp and we do not have to worry about nfs mounted root or none of that junk.

The servers are actually redhat AS 3.0 running in clustered mode. Now if redhat would just hurry the up and release GFS I could run a shared /home which would be really cool.

The gnome guys could also help out greatly by adding the ability to deploy desktop icons to multiple users from say root's desktop. I have scripts to do this but it would be nice to have it
as a option to creating a link to a application.

Quick Start with Knoppix

[dilute (74234)]

Want to play with this? Pop a Knoppix CD into any X86 machine on your network and try 'knopixterminalserver' (from the command line or the KDE menus).

Eating your own dogfood

[Marcus Erroneous (11660)]

I'm always happy to see them eating their own dogfood. Especially after reading an article where the presenter talked Linux but used a Mac with M$ Powerpoint for his presentation. Running Linux and using OpenOffice for their presentation shows that they at least use and know something about the Linux environment. It's kind of hard for me to take you seriously about your commitment to a Linux product line when you're using M$ products. If your company has so few people that are Linux literate that they have to send M$ drones to represent them, how do you expect to produce a native Linux product? I wish them success and hope for the best. But, their failure won't stop me from using my Linux boxen. ;)

Installing LTSP is Easy with K12LTSP Isos

[Doug Dante (22218)]

I had a hard time installing LTSP for a demo until a friend suggested using the K12LTSP [k12ltsp.org] Iso images. Installation was completely painless using them.

Interesting... very interesting

[tulare (244053)]

Sometimes it's hard not to kick oneself for being an early adopter. I've been successfully deploying LTSP labs at work [k12.or.us] this year using SuSE 9.0 as a base system, and the project has been a success, but it's been a heck of a lot of work. As we're deploying these as student lab computers in a K12 environment, lockdown is key, so I've had to learn (and make good use of) the KDE Kiosk API [kde.org], and of course this is before the Kiosk admin tool [kde.org] became available. Additionally, we have an Active directory with accounts for all secondary students, so I got to learn how to compile, install, and configure Samba 3 to get winbind to do some of the tricks I needed it to do besides just auth. Also, our primary students don't have an account of their own but rather use a shared school account, and Mozilla has that very annoying profile problem when a user tries to run multiple instances of it, so I had to write a wrapper [k12.or.us] so that it could run sandboxed (which also provides the benefit of keeping the kids from setting bizarre configurations which are then replicated to all the other users as they are wont to do in our other labs).

All in all, I'm kind of glad I did all this work by hand - I learned a lot, and most of it is now very easy for me to do. On the other hand, had the rumoured deployment tools been available when I started the project, I would have jumped on that and quick. I'm frankly not sure which is better in the long term, but I know it would have been faster to just click'n'run =]

One last thing - before someone flames me for being stupid and not just using K12LTSP, I have to say I tried it, and didn't like it - for one thing I needed more flexibility than was provided by K12LTSP, especially where AD auth comes in, and besides that, as a matter of preference I like what the KDE Kiosk api provides, and we all know just how much Redhat-based distros Don't Support KDE =] In the end, I got to know the system a lot better, and can do a lot more with it than I would have been able to do under a K12LTSP system. This isn't to disparage the effort and amazing work produced by the K12LTSP team - they really do have an excellent product and I recommend it wholeheartedly for K12 staff needing to get a fast deployment out - it just wasn't the fit I needed for this project.

I doubt they will find it as easy as they think...

[jdclucidly (520630)]

Our company [lumensoftware.com] has been been doing LTSP server installs in local area school for a year, now. In that time we've learned a lot about what LTSP needs and doesn't have and have developed tools to deal with those issues. Novell has a long road ahead of them to deal with that list of challenges. Off the top of my head, here are some common ones:

1. Devices connected to thin clients are extremely difficult to bind back to the server for enumeration and individual user access. Think users in different rooms want to print to their printer on their desk. Our tools handle that but took months to develop.
2. Managing the KDE Kiosk API to lock down user desktop is not currently possible in anything but config files; again, our tools manage those things but took months to develop.
3. Managing the rolling out of user profile changes requires scripts and GUI interfaces to those scripts.
4. Changes in hardware configurations require close relationships with customers where an advanced Linux technician can respond timely. This is a huge cost to our company but it make the stuff work and makes our customers happy.
5. People that purchase LTSP servers have no interest in learning or administering Linux. They want it to just work; they're tired of adminstering variances in Windows labs and networks. You have to have a Linux tech to closely support the server.
6. Upgrades between releases of SuSE cannot be done, AFAIK. Presently, the only distros that can continually upgrade without breaking are Gentoo, Debian, LFS, and Slackware. This is Novells biggest challenge. This means that users of Novell's implementation would have to reinstall to receive any new software.
7. With currently available SuSE tools, it's not possible to boot from CD remotely and do a complete server rebuild or forensics in case of absolute disaster. We can do this by using Gentoo boot CD's.
8. Clients invariably have one Windows app that they just have to run in Wine. It requires time, patience, and working with the Wine folks and good debugging skills to get some of these things to work. I don't think Novell has the time or interest due to costs of such things.

Novell has their work cut out for them but I think that, ultimately, a company this large will find that the cost of supporting these servers running in places with noone with any Linux knowledge is too high -- they'll get out of the business or their customers will not get sufficient support and leave.

... IMHO, of course.

Re:I doubt they will find it as easy as they think

[RustyTaco (301580)]

# Devices connected to thin clients are extremely difficult to bind back to the server for enumeration and individual user access. Think users in different rooms want to print to their printer on their desk. Our tools handle that but took months to develop.

Really? I just did a quick lookup in the login script to set the PRINTER environment variable to the right printer depending on the hostname/display (depending on if it was an LTSP terminal or full Linux system). It's a little ugly but dead simple. If

Mandrake is already there...

[LibrePensador (668335)]

Mandrake already offers what Novell is now getting around to implement. Look at Mandrake's terminal server, which also does audio and local terminal to floppy file saving through some pretty nifty tricks.

Re:Why all linux

[doublem (118724)]

All of the articles I see here today are about linux. Is today a linux day or something ?

On Slashdot, every day is Linux day!

Of course, I like that about /. so this is not a complaint

Re:Why all linux

[ItMustBeEsoteric (732632)]

This is SLASHDOT and you're asking why a lot of the articles are about Linux?

*blinks*

That's like asking why so many of the "articles" on boobdex are porn.

Re:Why all linux

[kelzer (83087)]

At the risk of getting modded down myself:

Hey moderators - please read the moderator guidelines, which state "Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting" and "Average Comments might be slightly offtopic, but still might be worth reading. They might be redundant. They might be a 'Me Too' article. They might say something painfully obvious. They don't detract from the discussion, but they don't necessarily significantly add to it." The parent post fits into this category, and as such probably already had an appropriate score of 1.

If your gut reaction is to mod something down, maybe take a look at the poster's history. This guy is new to Slashdot, he's already posted some worthwhile things. His only other negatively modded post was flagged redundant (another overused moderation). I don't think he meant anything by this post. Yes, it's off-topic, but did it really deserve to get slammed down to -1, the same score as this post? [slashdot.org]

Please use your mod points more constructively. There are some good posts out there that deserved to be modded up more than the parent post deserved to be modded down.

Thanks.

Re:quit calling it LTSP Project

[Kegster (685608)]

Up with this errant pedantry I will not put

Re:LTSP Compression

[moonwind (777204)]

And tell me what exactly are the bandwidth requirements of X?

Actually, the remote X problems aren't so much the bandwidth (which *is* important) but much more the "roundtrips". Depending on link latency each X protocol "request" by the X application client, that solicits a "reply" from the X server, introduces additional wait cycles. There comes a point where increasinb bandwidth doesn increase speed: you sit there with an empty pipe and waith for roundtrips to finish....

I hate to say it, but Citrix

Are you a shill?

[ripcrd (31538)]

I've seen these posts about NX over the last few days and I'm not sure if you are just impressed by the product as a user or a shill for the company to sell more licenses.

IIRC, Novell just bought a company that made a Live Linux CD (Knoppix derivative) with all the free Novell client tools and some sort of Citrix (or NX) like software for terminal serving. It was something like Novix or something. I found a link to them on the Knoppix Cousins page.
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/Knopp ixCusto mizations

What's wrong if Novell want to contribute to an Open Source project of their choice? It may be that Novell chose LTSP because it will fit more of the situations they are looking at than NX.