Slashdot Mirror
How To Create a Linux Network for Peanuts
securitas writes: LinuxWorld has the first installment of a series on how to go from being a Windows based shop to a Linux one." One of the article's points, one that I strongly agree with, is how overpowered the machines are that most people buy.
I thought that I might never have to hear or read that word again. The bad memories of downed networks because some user unplugged his machine or knocked off the connector or removed the terminator are still way too fresh.
Why can't we all just get along without it? Splurge the eleven dollars for a 10/100 NIC and put in CAT 5.
This article is way off-base on several points. If my employer suggested that I maintain a garage sale network as described, I'd find another job. Yes, X-windows terminals are a perfectly valid way to go, but put a halfway decent machine on the job. You and your users will be much happier.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Often times you simply cannot find cheap hardware to purchase, unless you want to build it yourself or go with refurbished units.
Build it yourself is a poor option because it is very hard to find the quantities of parts you need, especially since business environments value similarity in desktop platforms. So you end up with groups of five or ten machines with whatever was on sale that week at Fry's Electronics.
If you are like most Windows-based companies you turn to vendors like Dell/Compaq/IBM and then the problem is that the cheaper machine you can buy is still a 900MHz Celeron with 256MB of RAM and a 20GB hard drive (granted it's only $600 but still what if you just need it to run training applications through a web browser?). Plus since you are riding the tail end of the cost range, you again enter the problem of having a month go by and suddenly you have completly different hardware.
So it's a choice between
* one vendor to resolve problems
* one platform to support/rollout
* one price that's not so great
or
* many vendors fingerpointing each other
* need a different image for every 5th system
* a price hovering around the lowest possible
For home/small business users I think the second choice is a valid one, but for large business and corporations I just don't think they'll ever see the value in it.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
One of the article's points, one that I strongly agree with, is how overpowered the machines are that most people buy.
Maybe if LinuxWorld got some decent powered machines, they wouldn't be Slashdotted already.
too many people wanting the latest and greatest. there are several people that i work with that use 300-400MHtz machines with no problem. how do they do it? they haven't fallen in the the MS/Corel/Intuit/'fill in the blank' propaganda trap of having the newest version.
i use quickbooks 1999!
it all comes down to understanding what you *need* to do.
there are people out there that need/deserve powerful machines and there are people that could be just fine with second or third tier equipment.
e.
Gotta love the /. effect. I had a chance to mirror it quickly here.
Make sure you try the original link first, please - it seems to come and go
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
Quibble: a 486 is probably too slow to run StarOffice. That thing is a beast.
I used to buy the very top of the line hardware and could never get enough power. A 386/33 was non-negotiable -- the 386/25 was just too weak. But now bottom of the line is more than enough.
More serious point: WHY WHY WHY are fonts so fscking hard on Linux? I've installed RH 5.2, 6.0 and just recently 7.1, and setting up fonts was different on each one, and always a black art.
StarOffice's cooperation with font servers actually seemed to take a step backwards at one point, and I simply stopped using it. Why don't modern Linux distributions just include the damned font server, at least in the "desktop" configurations? I understand they can't include the fonts themselves, but at least including the font server would be a great start. That is THE single biggest barricade to Linux on the desktop, given the existence of suites like StarOffice.
The reason is maintanence. These machines don't require any software maintanence, because they don't have copies of any important software on them. All they've got is an X server, which doesn't change, and an OS, which doesn't change.
Applications are on a central server, with a SINGLE COPY, which is also easy to administer.
If you're having problems with bad hardware, then go ahead & buy out a large set of bottom-end dells for $600 a piece, just for the support if it makes you feel better. But then explain to your boss how you just spent $500 per unit for support for COMMODITY HARDWARE.
As for users, they have a job and it isn't to play around with their computers. The machine is a tool, and if it does what they need (word processing, spreadsheets, etc), then that's all there is to it. Besides, now you have centralized backups for all users. Imagine how much they'll appreciate that. AND it doesn't crash on them.
And on the ease of use side, how much user training does it take for the user to hit the 'k' button instead of the 'start' button? Hell one of the biggest criticisms of KDE is that it's too windows-like. Structure the menu any way you like (hell change the 'k' icon to say 'start' if you like -- open source lets you do that).
If it _REALLY_ bugs you to buy old hardware, then pick up some sun network computers. They're supported, easy to maintain (hardware wise), and have a really big name behind them. The machines will be so different that the users won't compare them to their PCs the same way.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Too much ANTI-MS BS, if this article was an editorial, fine, that I couldn't criticize, but if it was targetted for System administrators or people about to deploy a network in a small company, it litteraly missed the target.
:) ) But unfortunately, probably didn't archieve it's own objective.
1. Who cares how much ressource MS apps sucks and costs, if we are reading that article, chances are we already KNOW all that crap and are looking for an alternative.
2. About no one uses 386/486 anymore, writting a paragraph on how the pentium III are useless horsepower to run all these apps and a 386 would do fine is pointless, unless you plan to deploy a network in a 3rd world country.
3. It gives you pointers, nothing good for someone comming from a windows env. You want a step by step guide, sounding easy a-la-windows install, to make it look simple and straightfoward. That's the big problem with some linux article, the authors knows their systems so well, that they can't put themselves in the shoes of someone that install linux and doesn't know how to access his floppy from the shell because he's used to a:.
This is *NOT* a rant, but a constructive criticism about an article that attracted a lot of people (server was half dead
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
While I don't disagree with your points, the main idea of this article is to use old PC hardware *as X terminals*, and having a half-decent modern machine act as the application server for these terminals.
I think this scheme could work, given two amendments:
-Use high quality, modern video cards.
-Use highest quality keyboard and mouse (you know, the latest and greatest logitech optical stuff)
-By the best monitors (at least 17", flat screen triniton sort of monitors)
-HIDE the ugly beige P100 from 1995 from the user.
I agree that I would be bummed out if a dusty old 486 or early pentium was sitting at my desk. I probably wouldn't work as hard. But, this way, they never see this ugly machine, and to top it off the components that the user is actually exposed to are top notch.
Pretty simple, actually. Open up your Sunday paper, pull out a pencil and start drawing. Soon Charlie Brown, Lucy, Snoopy and all the others will have PCs with our favorite Penguin on them.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
My understanding is that an X terminal basically has to do one job... display an image. The actual processing takes place on a central server.
If my assumptions are true, it wouldn't really matter what application you where using. Sure, if everyone where doing some high end stuff all at once you might put a pretty heavy load on the server...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not as well versed in this as I could be, I know.
load "linux",8,1
SparcStation 4s and 5s and the like make wonderful X terminals.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I'm all for making Linux the enterprise standard, and I truly believe that there are a number of cases in which excessive computing power is used where not needed, but this article is a bit extreme. The auther leaves out a number of items which would be necessary to make this system work.
- Monitors. How are we supposed to look at pretty X widgets? Dot matrix printout?
- Network Equipment. A NIC card does not a network make. You are at least going to need some cable and hubs.
- Cost of installing the network. In most places where this solution is viable (small service businesses, order entry, churches), a network infrastructure is not in place. Files are passed on the floppy-net. Running cables on open floor is not an option, as it is an OSHA and fire safety hazard. So you either need to purchase and install raised floors, or resituate your offices.
- Scalability. The author never mentions the target number of users in this model. I can see this system comfortably supporting five users, possibly ten if all the employees need are simple text entry forms, but just try to run three instances of StarOffice and five of Netscape on the network, and watch your 300 MHz server grind to a halt.
- Progress. This system is great... if you believe your companies needs will NEVER change. There is absolutely no room for improvement here. What happens when each clerk must scan a barcode along with an entry? Do we ask the clerks to enter the barcode by hand?
- Customer/Employee satisfaction. No one likes to work on equipment that is known to be out dated and obsolete, even if it works well. That's why high school students bring graphing calculators to algebra courses. It would be very difficult to appeal to potential customers, no matter what business you are in, when you are using a system such as this. The same goes for employees.
The $30 system not only lacks many components, but even when flushed out would be hard pressed to find a viable business for implementation. The wiser systems administrator will allow for future growth, and be sure to catalogue ALL components of the system before making a proposal to management.