[ale] Request for information - how linux saves $$$

[John Wells]

FWIW, I've been running win4lin desktop for around 8 months now. 
Windows *is* more stable on win4lin than on my dual-boot, and, as you
mention, reboots take approx. 15 seconds.  I really like their product
very much, kernel mods and all. 

As far as vmware goes...I've tried it on the same machine as win4lin and
the performance difference is staggering.  Win4lin is *much* faster. 
And vmware costs much, much more.

John


On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 15:42, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > From: James Taylor [mailto:JTAYLOR at fantasylane.net]
> > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:33 AM
> >
> > Very few businesses have bought into the concept of a
> > thin-client or terminal server arrangement.  They like
> > the flexibility of a fat desktop.  Converting to Linux
> > *and* thin-client all at once is probably too big a jump.
> 
> Maybe... maybe not.  My boss was *very* skeptical - until he saw LTSP in
> action - and its much better now (with Mozilla 1.x, and some decent mail
> clients - MozillaMail, Evolution, and Sylpheed).
> 
> One other thing to remember, a standalone Linux workstation is *much* more
> of a headache to administer than a LTSP network.  Granted, Linux is much
> more stable, but I guarantee you the 'flexibility' you mentioned still won't
> be there for 99.9% of the users - because they'd have to be a Linux geek to
> be able to take advantage of it - *if* the System Admin would give them root
> access.  :)
> 
> If I were in this business (of converting fm M$ to Linux), I would demo LTSP
> first, and maintain a Win4Lin WTS (Win4Lin Terminal Server) box in my office
> that they could connetc to remotely to demo running Windows over LTSP.
> 
> > I'm not a real fan of Win4Lin because it requires kernel
> > modification and is limited to 9.x  as a client OS.
> 
> Thats the one thing I don't like about myself.
> 
> > That would be a big hit in terms of reliability for
> > users currently running W2K.
> 
> I don't think so.  Everything I've read suggests that Win4Lin (Win9x) on
> Linux is considerably *more* stable than pure Win9x.  And as an added bonus,
> if Windows crashes, it only crashes the Windows session - and you can get
> back up and running in 20-30 seconds.
> 
> But, I have no first-hand knowledge of this in a real-world environment of
> the type we are discussing, so I could be wrong.
> 
> > More flexibility in hardware requirements (in spite
> > of what I said earlier)
> 
> This is one of the biggest advantages of LTSP - a 486DX 33Mhz with 8MB of
> RAM will work fairly well as a terminal.
> 
> > The ability to leverage current office licenses to
> > run MSOffice using Crossover for the indefinite future.
> 
> Yep - Win4Lin provides for this...
> 
> > The availability of real alternatives to MSOffice to migrate to.
> 
> And LTSP provides for this...
> 
> > For apps that absolutely require a real windows OS, Use
> > vmware and leverage your current W2K licenses.  vmware
> > is expensive, but in most cases, requirement for *real*
> > windows is limited to a small subset of users.
> 
> This is definitely an option, but as you said, an expensive one.  Win4Lin is
> much cheaper, and the ability to use it over a LAN/WAN is a huge advantage.
> the only time I would recommend VMWare is if, for some strange reason, the
> app in question did not work properly under Win4Lin.
> 
> > Did I mention the ability to determine your software and OS
> > requirements based on *your* business needs rather than M$'s?
> 
> Ditto...
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.