Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real From: kelly.murray@lill.frmug.fr.mugnet.org (Kelly Murray) Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 19:58:00 +0001
ÿ@SUBJECT:Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <1u5qt9INNrqg@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
Newsgroup: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Organization: University of Florida Parallel Reasearch Lab.
In article <1993May28.135549.15721@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk
(Geoff Lane) writes:
|> Paul Nash (paul@frcs.Alt.ZA) wrote:
|> : I know of at least on large organisation that has been playing with
|> : Linux on 386/SVGA machines, and is planning to use it _right_ _now_
|> : instead of X-terminals for those who want X. Obviously, there are
|> : still users who need Sparcs or whatever for higher performance and
|> : better graphics.
|>
|> : It seems stable (as stable as X-vision, at any rate), fast (enough),
|> : and cheap (free). What more could they want?
|> :
|> : Paul Nash network grunt and bit-pusher extraordinaire
|> : paul@frcs.alt.za PO Box 12475, Onderstepoort, 0110 South Africa
|>
|>
|> Same here, already we've had a queue of people come into the office to see
|> our Linux systems running. They are looking for cheap, low end workstations
|> for use mainly as X terminals and/or to run small network applications -
|> previously they would have just sent a cheque off to Sun. It looks like the
|> sales in academic sites of low end Sun (and others) workstation products are
|> going to be hammered by Linux systems running purely as X terminals.
|>
|> The dedicated X terminal market will almost certainly be static or reducing
|> - the current UnixWorld mag contains an article saying as much (though their
|> argument is based on cost v. functionality without reference to Linux.)
More non-stop debate about PCUnix vs Workstation and Xterminal vs Workstation.
(I remember the great debate over diskless or diskfull workstations)
Its a "great debate" because everybody is right.
Xterminals are great for many environments.
Workstations are great for many environments.
PCUnixs are great for many environments.
It all depends on how much performance you need, what kind of users you have,
how many users you have, how much system support you have, and how much
all these factors will change over time, as well as the cost of the options.
Is it any surprise that different people think different configurations are
better?
Can we agree that the "best" solution is the most flexible?
And furthermore, you are willing to trade that flexibility for lower cost?
Step back from the debate, and you see something everyone agrees on: X Windows.
Essentially, everyone needs an X display on their desk.
This leads me to believe that X terminals provide the
lowest-common-denominator,
such that you can't go wrong with them, except in adjusting their cost:
1) Spend too much money on them, not leaving enough for the real compute
boxes
2) Not spend enough on them to get adequate performance.
Thus, I think the most flexible approach is to get low-cost,
but upgradable at reasonable cost, Xterminals for everyone's desk.
You then purchase no-display compute boxes for running applications, handling
disks, etc. Buy fast ones if you need them, and/or incrementally add more
lower-cost computing boxes with larger disks, etc.
In my analysis, the best low-cost, upgradeable X-terminals are based on
PC technology, and in fact, I believe this strongly enough to be in the process
of starting a company that will shortly be selling Xterminals based on
PC technology.
The major components are commodity items that are interchangeable.
Need more ram? Plug in more SIMMs. Need more processor power? replace
the motherboard. Need a larger display? Swap in a bigger one.
Need more resolution or faster video? Replace the video card.
Note that these Xterminals /do not/ run Linux. Running Linux to support
an X server just adds cost to the terminal. These Xterminals
will be cheaper than putting together a PC running Linux, since they
don't need disks, and require much less memory, and the server program
is highly tuned to the hardware configuration of the terminal, which
is also highly tuned to get the best price/performance from the hardware.
If I am right, NCD is going to start getting some serious competition.
-Kelly Murray