Slashdot Mirror
Rack Mount Solution for Desktop PCs
kilroy666 writes "ComputerWorld has an executive technology brief on a company called ClearCUBE. This company created a system to rack mount the guts of a PC and allow the monitor/keyboard to be up to 200m away. With add-ons and network storage, the PC's are swappable in case of a failure." Having spent several years as a tech fixing PCs, I have to say that this concept seems like it could be really awesome. Of course, I say awesome for every except me. I want my PC on my desk dammit.
I wonder how they keep the video signal from degrading over that distance... 200m is quite a ways. I guess if Ethernet can do it, they might be able to pull it off, but in my experience even adding 6 feet to a monitor cable adds blur...
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
I think this could only work well in a call-center or other repetitive task environment. If all you are doing is running Filemaker, or some proprietary tracking software, it would be pretty cool, but for any kind of real user it sounds like a pain in the ass. Where's my CD-ROM, etc. Plus the part about making workspaces smaller irks me. Soon we will all be working in phone booths, standing up, because it saves space.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Very cool to be able to have a rack full of PCs that you can switch from one user to another just by movin' a cable.
--
After you take licensing costs into account a full terminal server solution (with citrix/load-balanced servers) probably costs as much as buying lots of desktops, but you have a system that can be managed from a central data center.
Now, I could definitely use a rack system like this for my home experiments...
Plus I hate getting off my ass. Hey, I get paid for fixin', not for walkin'.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
This is probably most useful for call centers, sales offices, and other locations where desks are small and users are non-tech savvy ... I can think of lots of people who'd just as soon not see any hardware at all, 'cause it scares them!
sulli
RTFJ.
Is there a reason neither of the URLs in the story resolve or work?
The cost of computers isn't very high. It's the cost of people to fix and maintain the computers and software to run on the computers that's expensive. This doesn't save on the first, and doesn't address the second. It's a convenience, sure, but not really money-saving.
Plus, corporations depreciate their equipment on their balance sheets, so the hardware is (to a greater or lesser extent) at no cost. However, Windows and MS Office and such is VERY expensive, and you can't depreciate software (that I'm aware of).
Seems to me that ClearCube and, say, RedHat oughta be talking to each other...
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
This grabbed my attention as I am a compulsive number-cruncher and I need CPUs by the bucketload, but only need one 'KVM'.
There is certainly more of a market for this kind of system nowadays. These guys aren't alone. After being bombarded with adverts proclaiming the glory of the rack-mount, I was persuaded to look at Penguin Computing only yesterday. To my dismay it is cheaper to buy a whole 1.2GHz Athlon system (including everything) than a 1GHz rack mount from Penguin.
The problem is perceived 'quality'. These rack mount systems are for professional commercial deployment. They aren't crash-a-day big-red-button machines. So in principle you end up in the 'IBM/Compaq' league of prices.
Billy number-cruncher doesn't buy IBM/Compaq PCs due to the price, so he sure ain't going to buy rack units at the same premium.
But not much of the world is Billy number-cruncher, so it probably don't matter too much to them.
THL.
--
Keeping
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Boss: Hey, Dave just called, his PC is dead. Can you pop in a replacement?
Me: Sure, no problem. What's his machine?
Boss: uh, rack 2, #5. I think.
(walk over, yank out that Blade card)
Someone: AAGGHH!
Me: what you say?
Boss: OOps, rack 5, number 2. That was the President's machine.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
argh. that should have been "seems very _similar_ to.."
Sure it will help save spave to get the boxes off the desktop/out of the cubicles, but that is also the reason for replacing CRTs with LCD monitors. But LCD monitors don't use analog video signals. I predict some PHBs are about to enjoy one of those expensive learning experiences that get them the big raises :-)
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
One of the added benefits is that the noise level of an office/cube is reduced substantially. I know I have started to find that the several machines in my office and the related noise from fans are starting to get fairly bothersome. Oddly, it is my laptop fan that is the noisiest.
I know that IBM is working on an ultra-quiet drive for laptops, so I am not the only person who is starting to find that noise is an issue. Do any of you have noise issues?
is that every time a Win2k machine hangs up, the admin will have to walk into the server room and do a hard reboot on the machine. Now, if you have 96 of these in a rack you will need a full time intern whose sole job is to reboot machines for users.
-----------------
Perfect for the lazy IT folks, except none of them will use it. And why should they? They need their boxes to do anything they need them too, and they shouldn't have to jump through the same hoops as the rest of us shmoes who just want to install Napster and Warez at work...
Bullshit. Nobody needs this. The reason you have a desktop rather than a thin client is that you need the ability to improvise in the course of your day. We have finance folks that use SQL scripts to generate usage reports, developers who use MS Word and Excel quite a bit, and management folks who use a wide array of tools, each in their own distinct manner. Corporate IT was shocked to discover that people had not only installed software on their machines that they (IT) hadn't anticipated them needing, but that they had done so flawlessly and used the software in the course of their day -- software like multiple browsers, spam silencers, adbusters and scripts. These are NORMAL people, mind you, not technuts -- secretaries and production folks who wouldn't know a hard disk from a hard disk-shaped rock -- who had tricked out both their hardware and their software to make their days run smoother and their user interface more intuitive.
Of course, occasionally one of them screws up -- we're all human -- and something goes wrong. Next comes the IT lecture, as they shlep themselves the three hundred feet from their technology arena to the floor of the poor saps forced to live under their auspice. With screwdriver in hand they poke about trying to fix the problem, blaming the user the whole time, and justifying solutions like thin clients and so forth by saying these interface enhancements only "create more work." More bullshit -- it's obvious they save a lot of work by using the PC's ability to multitask to make up for a lack of human space. We don't have the manpower we need, so we're all a little bit tech support, a little bit developer, a little bit graphic designer. A thin client in most offices where people actively USE computers is like cutting hands off at the wrist, and making people rely more heavily on the most unreliable element of any company -- other employees. All for the sake of making the job of the IT folks a bit easier. Call me jaded, but I've worked for IT departments and seen firsthand the type of laziness the industry enjoys. We had a director at my last job who knew he had a bank of machines that were prone to overheating and bluescreens, and yet he did nothing to fix it because he wanted Dell to admit they sold us lemons and give us better boxes. A quick jab at the OS showed the simply running CPUIdle on these boxes stopped the problems, but that solution died in its infancy. IT folks, who didn't want to increase the size of the GHOST image by even 300k to save the heartache of machines that were known to die in the middle of peoples' work, axed it. Screw the rackmount idea...screw networked computing. Give everybody their own box, let them do what they will, and when they break it, do your job and fix the fricking thing. My plumber doesn't bitch when I clog pipes, and my V-dub mechanic doesn't complain about my rusty muffler.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"Cool, I'll just pop in the CD."
CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop click whirrrr clack whirrrr kachunk clop clop clop clop clop clop clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop Clop CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP
"OK, let's go."
"Wait a minute... aw crap."
"What is it?"
"The right CD's in my drive, but your drive has the SimCity 3000 disk in it."
"Aw crap. Well hang on."
CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP CLOP Clop Clop Clop Clop (...the rest of this message is deleted to preserve your sanity)
I would *love* to move to a rackmount system, but the cost of the rack itself has held me back.
Ideally, I'd like a half-high enclosed cabinet that's got some cooling and some space for UPSes. A house with kids is not a cleanroom, so fan filters would be nice but enclosures are a must. Clear door to monitor the blinky lights on the cablemodem and switch once in a while.
If I lived in Oakland or San Jose, I would just drop by one of the dot.bomb firesales and grab me something for pennies on the dollar, but everything I've seen is over US$800. Ouch.
[
Why should my wife and I have 2 PC's at home when 1 has all the processing power we need?
You mean you don't want to play games at all? Oh wait, you're on Mac... forget I said anything.
Seriously, if you're going to use your OSX system for networking and development, there probably isn't any reason you should not divvy up your system as stated. The technical challenge here is that I dont think Mac Finder will do it. You'll have to figure out how to get X to run separate window managers on different monitors and have each instance talk to different keyboards and mice on the USB bus. Hard, but probably not impossible.
If you're planning on *ever* using *any* of MacOS's multimedia features, forget about it. Save yourself the headache and go buy two computers. You'll never get the multimedia performance you should if your computer is busy running two desktops.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Back in the good old days I'd attach a wire from my parallel port to an input on the back of my radio. That way I could hear crosstalk from traffic on the main bus. Although I couldn't tell exactly what the noise meant, I could tell what the computer was up to.
I dread the day when hard drives are solid state and don't make any noise. This proposal effectively does that by moving the hard drive out of ear shot. The hard drive is the last component left that gives off useful acoustic status info.
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Call be a cynical old fossil if you like but I seem to remember this is how WE used to do things before some 'technology executive' decided to put them on the desk instead and give use all tinitus, from the noise all those fans make.
Indeed I rather enjoyed sharing a single VDU in the only air conditioned room in the building; all trying to be the first to spot the problem;
What's that from the back ?
What People are doing that again too ? you don't say! And calling it extreme programming you say ?
Well I would never have guessed it. It seems there is nothing new, even in high technology. Well I've got an New[s] idea to share with you all. Have you noticed how you can never fit the full width of a program listing on standard paper, well imagine if we made it twice as wide, we could also include feignt rulings to make it easier to scan the page.
Yeh ? What's that paperless office, let me tell you about.....
Just because something is New[s] does not make it better or actually new!
sigh...
I've always considered our family Linux machine as being our "information furnace" - the same way the house furnace provides heating services, the computer is the "information furnace"
The problem is the terminals. What I want is:
- a decent sized screen (1024X768 in 17") that doesn't take up much space (so prolly LCD)
- a built-in USB hub, with jacks for keyboard, trackball, and joystick, plus one more for local devices (camera, scanner, printer, or whatever)
- a built-in CDRW drive
- built-in speakers, with audio in and out jacks
- ONE, count 'em, ONE power cord
- ONE, count 'em, ONE wire that routes to the main server
- CHEAP - like about $300 for the whole shebang.
The terminal would be a X real terminal, with no computing power to speak of locally, aside from whatever hardware is needed to make X work. No local hard drive. Just plug it in, and I have access to my main server (I suppose the CDRW would be NFS mounted)
Build this puppy, and the world will beat a path to your door.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Of course you are missing the point...
The point of this is that it is easier to maintain the hardware because it's all in one location - that location could have UPSes, the proper aircon, etc, etc.
With terminal server still need a PC on people's desk (processor - maybe a cheaper one, RAM - maybe less, video card, ethernet adaptor, all the peripherals, etc). The only thing you've saved is on is the harddrive (possibly) - and quite frankly, harddrives are pretty cheap these days. Compaq (and others) sell these "terminals" - they are not that much cheaper than a low end machine - if at all.
Terminal server is designed to address software maintenance issue. These KVM type things are there to address hardware issues.
That's my take on the issue anyway.
What I'd really would like is to have their special commbox for my otherwise ordinary PC. Something along the lines of one box by the computer where all the video, keyboard, mouse, sound and the like is plugged in, a cable, and another box at my desk where all connectors are available locally.
Check out the Cybex "Longview" - it carries KVM, audio, and a serial port up to 500 feet on standard Cat5/RJ45 cable (but it's analog, not ethernet). Combine it with some of their rack-mounted KVM switches, and you can run a whole server room remotely.
Oh, how I wish this would work for colo. However, a check of their website seems to show that they don't provide a way to rackmount your own machine....it's just that they've got these funky cards (they call them CPU Blades) that contain most of a computer's guts, so they're rackmountable. Then you can stuff a bunch of them together and not have to worry about the users installing tons of software on your nice clean ghost, or trying to ram a floppy disk into a Zip drive.
Since colo customers have their own boxes (that's sort of the definition of colo), they're not going to be able to take advantage of this setup.
ALTHOUGH, this could mean the beginning of a new colo-model. Instead of paying money to have their own box sit on top of the uplink, colo customers could pay money to RENT one of these rackmounted boxes that sits on top of the uplink. If someone could figure out a way to make each machine in this rack secure from other colo customers, it would be a very portable colo, indeed! Instead of requiring a largish room for 30 boxes, you'd only need 1 rack. And instead of the dreaded monitor/keyboard cart, you could use a KVM!
---
4-star general in a one-man army.
I'd rather have the money spent on a better video card and a bigger monitor...
Someone you trust is one of us.
Finally, somebody has figured out a way to get enough PCs together to run an NT web site!
--The basis of all love is respect
That solution isn't really cheaper, because now you've got 2 PC's to build/maintain, and your traffic is now going over the LAN, which is shared by all users. A switched LAN would certianly help, but may not alleviate the problem entirely.
-This sig intentionally left blank
I think this falls very close to the line of terminals and thin clients that we've seen as office components up to this point. To tell the truth, I think that terminal-like devices are the best way to go when in a large organization. It's far easier when you're basically dealing with installing software on a few servers, rather than tens or hundreds of desktops. Also, when user data is stored on a server rather than a desktop system, it's much easier to keep it all safely backed up.
The problem with the terminal/thin-client idea is that it can put a very heavy load on the server, though there are ways around these problems. Thin clients were created in order to lessen the burden of processing power and disk usage on the server. (Actually, most thin clients I've seen mostly only reduce the processing requirements on the server, not disk requirements). Advanced network filesystems that heavily cache data (probably by writing it to a local disk) also help, but I haven't seen them implemented in many places.
Of course, Windows is not a good operating system for this sort of environment.. Multi-user features have been tacked on, from what I've seen.
--
What? I think you should be sitting at the monitor and keyboard, the PC goes in a rack in another room. The monitor and keyboard are connected by cabling. All files and such are saved on a network server. If you're computer has a problem, the tech in the computer room unplugs your PC and plugs in a new one. All set to go.
Price considerations aside, you still have to put *something* on the user's desktop (keyboard, monitor, mouse) and throwing a thin client with no hard drive or other maintenance issues is not that far of a leap. In addition you get all the benefits of software distribution and remote control of user's desktops (with the citrix software anyways). And you don't have to have a data center class closet within 200 feet of the user. The same terminal servers can be used by people across wan or dialin links, which can be a lifesaver for those bandwidth heavy apps.
I have yet to see a corporate environment that would be better served by lots of powerhungry, administrator-labor-intensive rackmount PCs than by a terminal server setup.
I definitely see these rackmounts as better than "desktops on desks", but still not as good as effective as other solutions.
So you're a loser for not knowing how to print. Great. Sorry the whole world doesn't have a degree in computer science, but sometimes it isn't as easy as you may think it is. Take a windows environment. You're a new user who's never touched a PC and you need to print a document to a network with no printer set up on the machine and no "icon" based printing in the app. Are you going to know to browse network neighbourhood, right click the printer and select install printer, and then select "print" off the file menu (printing, i might add, doesn't seem to have anything to do with "files").
Remember, tech support is education, and whether you like it or not you're going to deal with "know nothings" just trying to get their fucking job done. And if you can't explain it to them so that they understand and don't do it again, it's entirely your fault, and you have no right to complain. If a monkey can be trained to hit buttons in the right order, so can ANY person.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
True: that is a different environment and i'm sure you have a pretty high user turnaround time. But consider this: if even one user realises that they can speed up their day by running "Autodial.exe" off the start->run bar rather than hunting for it on the harddrive, you've sped up the day's productivity. And if they speed up theirs, chances are they'll educate their fellows on the same process. It's stepwise procedural efficiency increases that are far more valuable to a company than weeks of tech training that are soon forgotten, because they are free and do not require any R&D hours. Of course, flashy scripts and access reports are nice, but if your workers are willing to do the same thing with a SQL script (even if they don't know exactly what the script does), the company is better off.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
At my work we use thinner clients than most people do. All of the developers are running Linux, RH6.2 right now. Logins are centralized using NIS, and our home dirs and several of our key applications are hosted on the NFS server. The entire network is switched 100MBit ethernet. The idea is this:
/tmp on your local machine.
1.) Anyone can use any workstation like it is their own.
2.) All your data is hosted on the server and is thus backed up. You only have access to
3.) If a machine dies, it doesn't matter. Chances are there is an extra one laying around, and if their isn't setup can be completed in 2hrs.
4.) Applications can be installed on the server and used by everyone.
Everyone in the department loves this setup, including those who have would have the authority to have a "standalone" machine if they wanted. This is really not relevant to most offices, as Windows is fairly incapable of being setup in this fashion in its current iteration. (And, yes, all you MS folks can bash away at how you can solve this problem using unbelievably skilled NT admins with unlimited budgets, but I'm talking about the real world here)
--
Citrix, with its new web interfaces, is also a solution for remote workers. Overall, a Citrix server is a great investment for smaller companies with these kind of issues. But I was under the impression the server kind of caps out at a rather low number of users, meaning running several servers in tandem (with balancing issues) for larger companies.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Rackmount PC hardware is still expensive, but rackmount fullsize cases aren't all that pricey- the real money goes for systems optimized to use as few rack-inches as possible.
If all else fails, you can buy threaded rack rails and build your own cabinet around them.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I agree with some of your points, but i feel that not everyone can qualify as being "normal". There are some people at the hospital that i work at that are so incompetent about computers that we don't even want to go to their desks. We use registry hacks to lock down all workstations, and we are really happy about having win2k so that we can restrict even further. (it would be cool to have our users use linux, but the bootup kernel messages would make them call the helpdesk).
Our users don't even need to know how to use alot of computer features. On win95 boxen we don't have complete control over whether they can install, but we make sure that they know who is boss, and what they can't do. I suppose that whether you let users mess with their own computers depends on the environment. In a healthcare situation, there are a lot of healthcare specific applications. None of them work too well on their own, and if we let the users install stuff on/tweak their computers, they would be doomed.
----------------------
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
First off, this isn't a thin client. It's simply a smallish PC that sits 200 yards away. Nothing, except for the lack of a floppy or CD-ROM drive, and group polices, will prevent you from installing your software.
Secondly, "multiple browsers, spam silencers, adbusters, and scripts" don't exactly seem that prodctive to me. Unless you're a web developer, I don't see why you'd need multiple browsers. You shouldn't be getting that much spam on your corporate email address, and Outlook has filtering rules to help with the ones you do get. If you're really making good use of an adbuster, then you're spending too much time on the Internet. Get to work. Scripts? Well, that depends what kind of scripts we're talking about here, but, in general, scripts are a potential security threat.
Not to mention the headaches involved with spyware in a corporate environment, possible viruses and trojans, licensing issues, incompatibilities, etc. And, then, to top it off, you people expect IT to support this crap!?! I don't think so...if you really want to load that stuff on your computer, then support it yourself. If somethign goes wrong, the first thing I'm doing is removing all that crap from your computer. And RealPlayer is not a productivity tool...don't try to argue with me.
QOTD: "No, I'm not happy to see you. That's a Ghost image in my pocket."
I work in the IT department for a very large company. We have some smart guys who work very hard to make sure that PCs work. By this I mean that all of the devices in the box work properly, that users can take their off-the-shelf commodity PCs and actually use them to communicate with our business IT systems.
We create "enterprise clients" from "PCs."
What we're finding is that the cost to maintain the PCs is incredibly high. Of course, the cost of software licensing, auditing licensed software, etc is not tiny.
We're looking to find a cheap solution that allows users to have access to the software tools they need and at the same time is inexpensive to maintain. Users today install software on their PCs which cause those devices to no longer work in our environment. (AOL 6.0 anyone?)
We've looked at MetaFrame/Terminal server, which simplifies the device at the user's desk, but adds cost on the back end. Additionally, we get to pay full software license costs for all users, including CALs. It's not cheap, but it is cheaper than distributed systems.
BTW - license compliance isn't something we can ignore if we use Open Source. I've recently witnessed/participated in a great debate in the Ximian-Evolution channel about whether the OpenLDAP license is compatible with the GPL. This sort of thing is a BIG deal to Fortune 1000 companies. Open Source is great in a large number of ways, but IS NOT a panacea!
I've inquired with SCO about Tarantella, and am waiting for information from them.
I'm not looking to get everything for free, just hoping for a paradigm shift that lowers overall costs!
It doesn't really matter what the OS is that's running on all of those distributed PCs. Whether it's Linux, Windows, Mac OS, or anything else, the complexity lies at the user end. Reducing that complexity reduces cost of management.
It's a business thing. Does the device help us make money, or does it cause us to lose money? Is the distributed, unlocked PC a good investment, or is it a money-loser?
Sorry to be rambling here, but I've been scratching my head for quite a while about this one. If we had a cheap XTerm type device which also spoke ICA, that would be nice.
Does anyone have any brilliant ideas about this?
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Having hte PC under your desk just made a good footstool - Trust me - I was an IT manager for Desktops & Servers at an R&D lab - the PCs got so dirty and banged up but hardly anyone touched them (except with their feet :( ) The only ones who actually used them (for Cds and stuff) were the IT guys.
However I do have to say the lack of a CD-ROM could be a problem (hmm maybe we go back to the shared tape drive days and have a shared CD-ROM tower near each closet LOL)
But imagine the savings on net wiring, maintenance, etc. I hope this idea gets some traction!
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Translation: as soon as we get our customer base guess what? Up goes the price, hah hah, we're the only supplier, you can't affort\d to back out of this now. Imagine for a moment what life would be like if Microsoft had patents on the PC.
A far superior solution is to run a nice fast fanless PC, a laptop say, with an ethernet cable. All standard, all open. That's what I'm doing right now and I'm perfectly happy.
What this company's promo says to me is: hey, we don't have a clue how to provide the best solution at the lowest price, so we're going to rely on our patents and hype.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The point is there are two issues: hardware maintenance and software maintenance. KVM-lookalikes and Terminal Server. Apples and oranges.
Now quite frankly, as far as software maintenance is concerned, since you're the one bringing all this up, I'll tell you that you can do just as well if not better in a windows environment mapping network drives and using tools such as NetWizard (or equivalent). And as a bonus you don't have that gigantic bottleneck/single point of failure that Terminal Server is.
Well, i agree with that. But think about this: user friendly doesn't mean not having to learn anything, but not having to learn anything TWICE. Which is one of the reasons UN*X has completely missed the boat from a UI perspective. Like the button placement of one application? Well, short of rewriting the others, you'll never see it again. As stupidly named as the FILE and EDIT menus are, they institute a layer of elelementary conformity which makes the utilization of a new application that much easier.
But you've GOT to learn it that first time...make that first step. You can't get mad (as I have for years) at your mother for being confused as to where the START bar went because you use Autohide on your desktop, because she looks for the bar, not cues as to where it went.
I love my mother, but she's a complete idiot when it comes to computation. I think that if we can get her to understand anything about the internet, PCs or even printing from Create-a-Card, UI will finally be in the golden age.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Lockdowns breed stupidity. C'mon, how are you supposed to tell if you screwed something up or if you're just not supposed to do it. And a registry hacker like yourself knows as well as anybody that there are always loopholes, always tricks to tunnel through. We had an old mac print station that didn't get rid of the desktop hook to a disk if you ejected using the Special menu, the vulcan mac meld (Open Apple - SHIFT - 1), or a "paperclip" to eject, as many of the PC paradigm people who consider tactile ejecting the only solution to removing data from a machine are wont to do. Which meant when you'd insert a new disc, the mac thought "great, i'll use the hook I already have and associate the data with the disc again." If you ejected "Charles," and the new disc was called "Martinez," you couldn't access it until you properly Option-dot'd through the error messages and dragged the disc to the trash (the real way to get anything out of a mac, if only i could drag this shitty ATI video card to it). All in all, it was an involved, confusing process...all because the mac admin didn't want users to be able to fully interact with the desktop and, hence, the main volume of the machine.
We switched to a much more simple "print from anywhere, then authenticate from a single station" interface which has become so popular, we've got a paper problem: we're using fifteen times as much. Mac users who needed to print weren't doing so because it was too confusing.
Moral: if you restrict a user from doing something once, they begin to fear the boundary. Users who fear machines are not going to learn anything -- they gain a mystique, which is the last thing you want from a supportability standpoint. Though I love walking up to a mac with a stuck disc, and whispering "My mind to your mind; my thoughts to your thoughts...COME OUT!" as I, unseen to the hapless user, press SHIFT-Open Aapl-1...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
In addition, it is by no means clear. I suppose you could do one of those nifty case mods where you cuts the side panels out and put in plexiglass. But until that happens...
...I suggest we call this an "opaqueRACK," as it is both opaque and in a standard rack-server enclosure. Perhaps we can follow in the footsteps of Cue:Cat and many other companies, and introduce random characters, too... "opaque*RAQ" sounds much better, doesn't it? ;)
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Let me first describe my computing area:
Currently, I have two PCs (one running Linux, always on, with a UPS, and the other Windows, hardly ever on nowadays) sitting under a folding table, which sits in the middle of the room. A 19 inch monitor sits on top of the table, with a keyboard in front of it, a printer and scanner on one side, and a hub (which is hooked to a cable modem/router combo in a back room, with another PC on it - but it isn't the problem) on the other. I have a ton of cables everywhere running along the floor on the back - a real rat's nest. There are other cables running to/along the ceiling for power, telephone, networking, and sound, as well. The two machines are connected to the monitor via a cheesy 4 port rotary switch, which drives the monitor and keyboard - I have two different mice, one for each machine.
This is turning out to not be an optimal solution for me.
It is better than what I had, because now it is easy for me to work on the boxes when I need to - go to the front of the desk, pop the cables off, pull the case out, and play - before I had my desk against a wall, and it was hell to reach under, pull the machine out a bit, undo the connections, then to redo the connections, I had to use a flashlight, because there wasn't enought light.
Anyhow, I am looking for something better - and cheap - to handle the switching (I could add two more machines to my setup, but the hell in cabling and such that would mean - shudder), plus, I would like my machines to be farther "away" from the table.
I have thought about a custom rackmount solution (building my own rack, etc), maybe mounting the motherboards in the rack on pull-out shelves, and provide a custom cooling solution, but the switching issue is still there - if I could make the shelves pull-out style, the ease of working on everything would be easier, but I still wouldn't have any way to switch the monitor/keyboard/mouse.
I wonder whether I should go with using USB for the keyboard and mouse (will this work under Linux? I am using SuSE 6.3 right now - with a patched 2.2.14 kernel - and the other machine is Win 98) - or stick with PS/2 keyboard/mouse - and switch all of that - gah!
I am needing a custom switching solution - cheap to boot. There are commercial systems, but the price rises ultra-rapidly once you get past 2-3 pc's...
Has anybody had and tackled this problem before?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Any time you talk about hotswappable machines, you're restricted to a thin client. Can't install a lot of software if you get a new machine every time you bluescreen.
Fuck security -- internally, security causes more messes for file sharing and application sharing than it will ever catch. Firewall, VPN, and then call it quits. As for multiple browsers: everybody in the house needs them, because when we put out a fire we need every step of the process from tech support to affiliate support to QA to be on the same plane. If they aren't, we're not going to solve a thing.
Spyware is much less an issue, but it's once again IT's job. They monitor our machines for licensing issues, viruses and illicit connections across the network, and it's all done autonomously...they don't do squat unless something breaks. And realplayer, alas, isn't an option...we all need it because we server realmedia content! Even if it wasn't, it's easy for IT to say "we dont' support it," but that's not their fucking JOB. Their job is to find out where the incompatibility is and to make sure they have a solution or a workaround. Simply locking it down or ignoring it won't make the problem go away...and there's not an It manager on earth with the balls to tell the CEO he can't listen to the baseball game over Real Networks while he goes over the employee records to see who's expendable and who isn't because the software isn't supported.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
What a bizarre argument. "Windows doesn't run on mind-control yet, therefore the training costs between all systems are identical".
Doesn't work that way bubb. Anyone in who has been in the business for more than a few years can tell you that 10x more users know how to push the Printer icon on Word than press Shift-Alt-F7 in ye olde DOS WordPerfect.
If you want to blame someone, blame the penny-wise pound-foolish managers that cut virtually all corporate computer training, and be suprised that users muddle along using computers at all with no education.
Or blame the upper-level techs that insist on running a headless-chicken circus where they run around fixing people's printer mappings, instead of instituting a locked-down, centrally-managed environment. It's not as if that's a big secret.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
When a customer or client needs a machine NOW, and the only one that is available is guaranteed to shut down because we haven't taken a simple step to fix it, I do not feel justified in telling that user "I'm sorry, this computer is available, but will crash because Dell will not admit it is broken and we will not fix it because we are trying to prove a point."
They didn't, by the way, fix it without a word...they bitched constantly about it and eventually the machines all died while in use and added up to one of the worst decisions we ever made. There are those in this department who will not buy celeron machines ever, despite their superior P/P ratio, because of this batch of lemons. So what did they cost us? $1400 per machine for 40 machines, plus an additional $200-$400 for every new box we buy since mg'mt won't okay celerons. Not to mention the intangible loss and increase in frustrations when our clients got bluescreens (which, on these machines, happened multiple times, daily. don't deal me this "all MS machines crash" shit, because this machine has NEVER BSOD'd and neither have any of our other dev boxes, some of which are repurposed celerons). All of this could have been fixed by a simple piece of software...but we wanted to prove a point. I guarantee you that the customer's didn't care about our quixotian pursuit of justice...they cared about their lost data.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
My rant wasn't about the centralized pc idea, it was the offshoot concept of hotswappable workstations. With non-distributed windows PCs (which is what I work with, please don't hand me a "go UN*X line" because I will write you off as a troll who doesn't understand my work environment), this means no installing programs on your machine, no customizing settings, no nothing -- because if you get even so much as a dead harddrive, out goes your machine, in comes a new one. Of course, this could be offset with common backups, but backups of a lot of user machines is kind of a useless process...
This might be a good idea if combined with a type of REVRDIST, to backup anything that isn't on a centralized application mirror to a user folder for movement back to a new local machine. Theoretically, with this combination, IT could take out the busted-ass machine, stick in a new one, re-dist the custom info and have you back up with a clone of your previous machine, all in the time it takes to wander down the hall and get a packet of cheez-its.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I think you could do about the same thing, much more cheaply. Sure, it wouldn't be supported, but that's your problem, right? You're a geek, and not afraid of little issues like that.
All that said: What's stopping the rest of us from building a simple rackmount case, slapping a power supply in it, and putting a bunch of SBCs in it, along with an 8-port 100mbps switch (10/100 not necessary if everything is the same) and just plugging it all together? You can add disk if you want, but personally I'm in favor of diskless workstations in a scenario like that. If you use a real OS (cough cough) then you don't have to worry about rebooting all the time. A system like that, unfortunately, is only really well-suited to batch processing, but people who are currently spending beaucoup dollars on farms of machines to run their verilog jobs might want to look into it.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"