RE: [vox] Servers vs Workstations /VNC (was Re: Good LUG HOW-TO by Rick
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [vox] Servers vs Workstations /VNC (was Re: Good LUG HOW-TO by Rick Moen)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Moen
> The point of VNC and kin, as opposed to KVMs and such, is to
> be able to
> not have to switch back and forth between different
> envvironments on different switch positions, but rather be
> able to stay in your single desktop environment of choice,
> and be able to have _within_ it sessions that are running on
> other machines talking to their native programming interface
> on the machines where they're running.
I'm betting that you have a big monitor. :) At work, I actually do a
substanstial amount of remote management. I view it as a problem if I
have to walk to the server room, unless I am pulling backup tapes or
> Dual-booting has the same problem as KVMs, only much worse:
> You don't
> get a chance to leverage the primate advantages of an *ix
> environment of being able to support long-lived processes
> (becuase of reboots) and the presence of pervasive network
> capability (because of using only a single host).
Dual booting is a serious interuption in that if you are learning, the
boot process gets in the way and as such, you tend to slowly drift into
one environment (generally Windows).
> And I've found that a lot of people never would have thought
> of running more than one computer: They think LANs are
> exotic, that every additional machine means more desk space
> taken up by an extra monitor/keyboard/mouse set, and that
> extra computers are too expensive. And, in the MS-Windows
> world, all of these things are right. But I'm always at some
> pains to tell them that _all_ of them becoome obsolete
> assumptions when one enters the *ix world. And that they'll
> get a lot more mileage out of *ix after adjusting their assumptions.
As a result of being a Systems Engineer/Server Admin in the Windows
world, my personal systems upgrade path has been rather steady (PC Games
:). As a result, I pass down systems to family members, etc but I
generally get back their old systems, so I end up with a few 486-P266's
with misc other parts. Now, the 486's are for routers generally
(www.leaf-project.org Dachenstein version) that get distributed back out
to other family members and friends and the others will be divided
between test systems for learning (Windows/*nix) and 'production'
systems that I 'don't break because other people rely on them'. I also
need to setup a system (thinking E-Smith) for a Conservancy that I
support so they can have a dedicated file server, Internet gateway,
central backup point. But I need to be more familiar with it as it is a
4 hour drive for support calls. :(
> > The problem is monitors. So, a KVM switch solves some problems and
> > remote management of servers the other.
> Indeed, except that, with VNC and similar, you also get a
> greater continuity of computing experience.
Hrmmm.... Well, remote is remote, though I see your point in that you
are in one initial envirnment.
> (The notion of machines being neatly dedicated to being
> "servers" is one of the other troublesome assumptions one
> loses over time. In my house, if it has a CPU in it, it's
> probably a server for some things and a client for others.)
I prefer my data be centrally stored on systems that get backed up
periodically and NOT messed with, as a result I tend to dedicate that
system as a server. File serving does NOT need a lot of proccessing
power on a small LAN. When I get the DSL setup right again, I will have
a system or two on a DMZ that will also be 'servers' Dedicated to
Internally, I'm looking at a system to build out the 'Linux Terminal
Server' project stuff on. I have a hope to get that visitor's system
setup and for general stuff, it would be cool just to do it. Time,
time, all I need is a little time........ :)
> Cheers, "Azathoth need not be
> present to win."
> Rick Moen -- Charles O.
> Baucum, Jr.
vox mailing list