Slashdot Mirror
Hawaii Puts Old Computers To Work in Linux Labs
johnp pastes "'As pressure mounts to meet state-mandated educational technology standards, some Hawai'i schools with limited budgets are getting updated computer labs at a fraction of the typical costs.'"
At first I thought this was some kind of joke or something (the ALOHA system? in Hawaii?), but it turns out the above poster is actually right. http://www.laynetworks.com/ALOHA%20PROTOCOL.htm
How can the TCO of Linux possibly be higher than Windows? I manage the network of a small company, with som PCs and a Linux file server. The Windows machines are taking 90% of the work time to manage. The Linux system sits there humming along, while the Windows machines get infected, clogged down and what not. So far, for the company (a small one), the Linux server has cost them 0$ since they recycled an old server, whereas the Windows is 900$ in new hardware for XP + 4 manhours last week trying to remove the about:blank spyware shit. And they are even running in non-priveliged accounts! + Countless more man-hours setting it up, trying to locate drivers etc. Windows has not a lower TCO than Linux, in my experince.
> From the article: "...the (Hawaii Dept of Education) is unlikely
> to convert to open-source machines itself, because the
> schools get big discounts on service for proprietary software
This is quite standard microsoft practice with regards to schools. A state or country works out a deal with microsoft whereby they get essentially free access to MS software. It's paid for by the relevant education department, but schools get a package of perhaps 20 CDs of MS software.
They can be installed at will on any machine within the school, and often on staff personal machines, depending on the details of the contracts worked out with MS and their department.
It's a good or bad thing, depending on how you wish to look at it.
LOL. I've been managed a classroom with 16 Windows 95 computers with 0 (zero, none) hours per month to manage it.
The system drive (C:) were read-only and it was allowed to save files only on D: drive or Windows NT4.0 server in users folders.
All writes to drive C: were stored only in memory, after reboot - system drive (with all files, registry, settings, software) were exactly as it was at date of original configuration.
Even more - there were no GHost at thouse times, I've to spend a 45 minutes to wrote a disk duplication via network program on Pascal for DOS !! If worked just fine. To duplicate 16 PCs after reconfiguration it takes only 3-4 hours !
I tend to believe that you are doing something wrong with your OS.
It does not matter that OS you are using, it's matter how !!
Yep. You need to be a Guru to manage Windows network, that's why a lot of admins preffer "user-friendy" *NIX.
The higher TCO is generally put down to having to retrain the admins and users of the systems in question, not to mention the loss of productivity while they become accustomed to the change. Not saying that's the way it happens, just that in my experience that's at least part of the explanation for increased TCO.
Incidentally, if you're really spending that much time fixing your Windows boxes, someone somewhere is donig something very badly wrong. I've run a few XP boxes for the last couple of years, and have spent a total of maybe an hour fixing problems with them. You're also not comparing like with like - the Linux file server is just sat there serving files. The Windows machines have (it seems) all sorts of clueless users abusing them.
That said, you'll have to expend a lot less effort if you switch the desktops to Linux, until enough people follow suit that the crapware writers start to target it; then you'll find your users installing all sorts of crap again.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Check out:
http://k12ltsp.org/contents.html
I was skeptical when I first heard about ltsp. Now I use it.
They are probably using the servers to forward applications to the client display, which is easy to do under X, though I know that there are many guys from Hawaii active on the http://k12ltsp.org/ mailing list, so they could just be thin clients, but the article makes it sound ontherwise.
Either way, the applications run on the server, and is displayed on the client, so that's how the old computers work just as fast as new ones.
Put identity in the browser.
At first I thought this was some kind of joke or something (the ALOHA system? in Hawaii?), but it turns out the above poster is actually right. http://www.laynetworks.com/ALOHA%20PROTOCOL.htm
Well, yeah. They had to develop ALOHA after OUTRIGGER proved to be too unreliable.
Then you would be wrong. There are DOD standards government agencies have to follow regarding disposal of excessed equipment. If the hard drives can't be securely wiped then they will most likely be shredded.
Hi all, I'm the teacher that runs the lab at Liholiho Elementary, so I guess you could call me the horse's mouth. We're not talking about enterprise level business here, we're talking about a school that must fundraise for a tech budget. I know nothing about the TCO studies you're referring to. I just know what has happened here. With the help of our fantastic Hawaii LUG (HOSEF) and the great folks on the K12OSN email list, we have spent zero, that's $0.00 on support for the year that we've been using K12LTSP. I'm not saying we'll never need paid tech support, I'm just reporting what is fact (not marketing fluff). The great part about being a part of the OSS community is the willingness of people across the globe to help you for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, or their passion for the cause. I wonder if the same would be true from the "M$ community?" It seems like the bulk of the M$ support community is motivated by billable hours. P. Nakashima pnakashi -at- k12.hi.us Computer Teacher Liholiho Elementary School
http://ltsp.orgw w.skolelinux.org
http://www.k12ltsp.org
http://w
They use http://www.k12ltsp.org. It's mentioned in the wiki.
While he certainly has an argument with no merit, he does remind me of several studies (which you see mentioned in MS sponsored ads) where Windows Server 2003 out-of-the-box does beat a few Linux distros out-of-the-box. This is not necessarily an issue for Linux users, but it should be for the (commercial) vendors, since unknowing CIOs/CTOs/VPs might take those studies as the final answer.
I have little doubt that Server 2003 could beat the standard Linux server distros (SLES, RHAS) straight out of the box. MS has decided that they should excel in those tasks with the out-of-box configuration, while the Linux vendors have not, instead focusing on more general tweaks. Any experienced Linux SysAdmin could beat any of those benchmarks with about 5-10 minutes of work, but for obvious reasons, the studies MS uses to advertise don't include that disclaimer. Some of the tweaks that make a great webserver don't make a great file server, database server, firewall, etc. Systems on both sides should be customized for the benchmark, then benchmarked. Out-of-box benchmarks are almost completely worthless, unless you just want to buy something and never touch it, just expecting it to run forever, which is not how any decent IT department works.
Back on topic, it's easy to see how they could save money. Where I work, we purchase several workstations for client use, and recently purchased AMD Sempron 2200+ systems with 128MB RAM and 40GB HDDs, no CD or floppy (just like a school would want), for $160 each. Add in another $65 for 17" monitors, $5 for keyboard and mouse, and you've got complete systems for $230, with Linux adding $0 to each one. Considering that Windows XP OEM rates are about $80/copy for the Home version, is it really worth spending half as much on the OS as you spent on the computer to run it? Every 2 copies of Windows is another computer without monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and every 3 copies is another complete system.
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.