From: rhodesia@wixer.bga.com (Felix S. Gallo) Subject: Re: X terminals: Suggestion for projects like SLS, MCC, etc. Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 14:50:54 GMT
mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>rhodesia@wixer.bga.com (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
>
>>1) "$400 one-time for server". There does not exist a machine capable of
>>running multiple X terminals over a net for $400.
>
>The X server runs on the TERMINAL. You LOAD THIS ONE PROGRAM on the HOST.
>The terminals TFTP it. You pay for it ONCE and will support as MANY XTERMINALS
>as you connect to THAT HOST.
I see that you don't understand simple client-server parlance, so I'll go
ahead and use your terminology.
How much does your 'host' cost -- the thing that's got all the disk and
RAM necessary to support your X terminals? More than $400? More than
$4000?
Let's do simple math involving 10 X terminals and 10 PCs.
10 PCs x $1200 = $ 12,000
(10 X terminals x 875) + (1 host x 10,000) = 20,750
That's a low end host machine, of course, with not quite as much
overall disk and CPU power as the 10 PCs put together. I conveniently
left out the cost of the network, which is much larger in toto under
the X + host scheme. Did I mention that the network is nearly unusable
at the point where X terminals start breaking even with PCs running X386
locally, and that you'd have to buy another host and several more
ethernets?
>>2) "low resolution, flicker, poor performance." Over 130k X stones in
>>color at 15" is not particularly bad. Moreover, non-interlaced monitors
>>do not flicker noticeably at the sort of resolution given by an $875 X
>>terminal.
>
>Right, show me. We are talking about price vs. performance vs. easy of use/
>setup vs. etc... A Cray would have excellent performance, but it would not
>sell in the price range.
Amancio has posted his benchmarks not once but twice. How many times does
it take before you learn to read?
>>3) "ease of use." X is as easy to use on a PC as it is on an X terminal.
>>That's why it's X.
>
>We are talking about MAINTENANCE, SETUP, CONFIGURATION. You shold know
>the difference between remote machine and remote terminal maintenance
>costs.
Loading Unix on the PCs is probably just as easy as loading Unix on the
large, expensive host (rational people call it a "server", btw) which
you never seem to find breath to mention. What's more, once it's done,
it's done forever. The win keeps winning, though.
>>4) "ease of administration." Diskful machines are vastly easier to
>>administrate, as any first year sysadmin can vouch.
>
>You are really wrong. I have admin'ed both, and you are way out
>of the water making that statement. No terminal comes anywhere near close
>to the maintenance of a computer, period.
cough.
>>5) "reliability." Once well-versed in the PC architecture, repairs can
>>cost from $20 to $200 instead of $500-875.
>
>Right, much more repairs at a lower cost. I would much rather have higher
>Reliability.
This box I'm typing in has been up for 380 days. But this is just
anecdote; I assure you that properly configured PCs last for a very
long time, thanks very much.
>>6) what disks are Mr. Davis' phantom users using for their home
>>directories and to run X off of? Are they included in the price of
>>that phantom $400 X server?
>
>They are running off the central host, as I have now said at least three
>times.
And the central host is doubtless able to support 30 X terminals and
30 users running applications software, multiple windows, and emacs
for free, right?
You're living in a dream world, Mark. The X terminals only provide
the interface to the user. The cost of replacing disks and the cost
of CPU horsepower is just as large for the X user as for the PC+X user,
except the PC+X user has a CPU all to his or her self.
>>7) what sort of network does Mr. Davis suggest I run 60 X terminals on?
>
>Multiple Ethernet channels (I would estimate about 4).
>And I am *NOT* suggesting, nor HAVE I, that you should use X terminals
>at all. There is a LOT more to consider; especially regarding the amount
>of use, level of the users, etc. It is ONE solution that works VERY well
>in many (not all) situations.
Only 4 ethernets? I plan to get other stuff done, you know. :)
>>8) what happens when the server crashes?
>
>Again, why would the server crash? It is running on the Xterminal. If it
>"crashes" (which I have not seen), the Xterminal would request the server
>code from the host again and start running it.
Your ignorance is showing again. A "server" is a machine which supplies
information to a "client". Under X, the "server" is the software running
on the desktop, but that's got nothing to do with the context. Either you
don't understand the language of your profession, or you're being coy.
>>>Besides, nothing like taking a terminal out of a box, plug it in, configure
>>>in 70 seconds, and start using it...
>
>>10) if you really give a damn whether it takes 70 seconds or 1 hour to
>>start using a machine that will be in service for 3 years or more, then
>>there's really no point talking further.
>
>You can say THAT AGAIN. I am ******ONE PERSON******** doing ****ALL****
>the computer work in this facility. My time is apparently a ***LOT***
>more important than yours.
I take the time to pursue the optimal. Sue me. :)
> | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
> | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp |
-- ============================================================================ Felix Sebastian Gallo rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org ============================================================================