On Tuesday 09 May 2006 10:33 am, Alexey Eremenko wrote:

Don't you think guys that it is time to moving Terminal Server from "X11" to "NX" ?

no, why would you want to? You have to boot to an X-server to run NX anyway, right? Why not just use the native X server to display what is running on the ltsp server. Also, you can mix local running apps with server running apps in this way. If a person wanted to run NX or VNC on ltsp, they can. Why would you take away options instead of enabling them? B-)

On Tuesday 09 May 2006 11:36 am, Alexey Eremenko wrote:

But NX is much faster on performance side. + it's much easier to setup & work with.

How can it be any faster when it is an *additional* overhead already on top of X? The point of ltsp is to enable diskless workstations and older (read cheap) that can boot via network, and has all the power needed to only run the X server. So your ltsp server app is already running as fast as possible, without the additional overhead on the server of also serving NX.

With NX, as with X11 you *can* mix local & remote apps even for different platforms ! (eg Windows & Linux).

And with ltsp, you can run whatever app you want, including NX if you want to use ltsp to serve up OS for boot as well as NX for access to non ltsp server desktops, (including other OS's).

NX is simply better in every aspect - be it security, performance, ease of use, whatever you choose....

This is like the ol' apples to oranges analogy, you can't boot a diskless workstation with NX. Also, this has nothing to do with OP's question. B-)

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 12:57 -0600, Brad Bourn wrote:

Jim McQuillan is one of the founders of ltsp. He had this to say about NX.

<quote> NX is fine for low-bandwidth connections, but it isn't so great over a high-spead lan.

Also, NX imposes huge resource usage on the server, when you run lots of users.

I like NX, but it has it's place, and the LAN isn't it.

Jim McQuillan jam@Ltsp.org

</quote>

Well done Brad. That was exactly the quote I was going to search for when I had the time. I've been using LTSP in large and small installations for years, it just works. -- Dave Cotton

On 5/9/06, Brad Bourn wrote:

On Tuesday 09 May 2006 9:57 am, Jon Jahren wrote:

...

Heya I'm trying to get a SUSE 10.0 box here running as a LTSP-server, and it seems to be going quite well. Although, I have a couple of questions: It's prompting me for dhcpd.conf, do I need to run a dhcp-server on that machine for getting the ltsp-server and network boot on the client machine to work? And if I have to run a dhcp-server on that machine, can

Yes, or at least have one on the network. A card HAS to have an address, and if it is in a machine that gets it's OS from PXE or bootROM, it will need to get it's address from dhcp. There are also parameters that are specific to LTSP that get set from the dhcp server.

...

I use the ndiswrapper-card already working, or do I have to start the tedious process of install the bcm43xx-driver on that machine?(If that even works).

The best place to get answers for LTSP (also K12-LSTP) is from #ltsp on irc.freenode.net.

Jammcq is the head of the project and is there ALL the time. There are a bunch of very knowledgeable people in that channel, and it is one of the most friendliest I've seen toward noobs, or at least folks without network/PXE/ltsp experience.

LTSP is a WONDERFULL project that has not seen it full potential. I used it extensively for one of my projects, and can tell you from first hand experience, it KICKS ASS!

I recently updated my ltsp server to SuSE 10, and need to re-setup myself. So I don't have 10 experience with ltsp, but don't think it will be any problem at all.

B-)

Also, think about signing up for the LTSP list. The traffic isn't real heavy, and users repsond pretty quickly along with the LTSP guys. LTSP is great. I replaced my Sun Rays with this on Suse 10. I still runing the 4.1 version, but will move to 4.2 in next couple of weeks. Wasn't real difficult to set up.