backup & low downtime for home network

[Christopher Browne]

On Dec 7, 2007 6:58 PM, Robert Brockway <robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the link.
>
> No problem.
>
> > None of those have good enough video for me.  The one with the nicest
> > form factor supports at most 1280x1024 (32 bit).  The one with the
> > best video seems to support up to 1600x1200 (16 bit).  Neither lists
> > resolutions suitable for "wide screen" monitors that seem to be taking
> > over the world.
>
> I doubt widescreen would be a problem.  This is X afterall.  I may be
> testing this hypothesis soon.

I do doubt.  If they only offer a maximum of 1600 pixels across, then
that *isn't* suitable for the wide monitors coming out now.

> > My desk has a 1920x1200 LCD and a 2560x1600 LCD.  Most PCs out of the
> > box support 1920x1200 and most recent video cards support 2560x1600
> > ("dual link" DVI).
> >
> > For C$300, with careful shopping, you can get a current PC with things
> > that sound valuable and surely did add to the cost of production:
> > - DVD writer
> > - 320G hard drive
> > - 1G of RAM
> > - MS Windows Vista
> > - 2GHz processor
> > - lots of interfaces, including ethernet and VGA
> > It makes the more expensive diskless workstation look overpriced.
>
> Most of the advantage of thin client comes after you purchase the system.

That's well and good, but I question why the advantages of "thin
client" cannot arrive *as you are buying it.*

If I'm buying a thin client, I'm NOT getting:
 - A DVD drive
 - A hard drive
 - A bunch of RAM
 - Decent graphics support (e.g. - video cards that can fully drive
modern monitors)

Why should I be paying as much or more as I would for a machine that
has all of those things?

> Remember a thin client system
> can afford to have a more reliable server.

No, it can't.  I had to pay the *same* $300-$400 per "desktop"
irrespective of whether it had 1GB of RAM or 256K, irrespective of
whether it had a disk drive, or not.

If thin clients were *cheaper than* "full fledged desktop" machines,
then you could indeed spend the difference on a more reliable server.
That only happens when they are *cheaper than*, which clearly isn't
the case at this time.  Xterms used to be "wildly more expensive
than", which has evidently gone away, but the modern "thin clients"
aren't getting sold heavily enough to actually be "cheaper than."

> 6.  Performance.
>
> You quote a PC with 1GB.  Well you know what, in a home with 4 thin client
> the users can share a system with 4GB for a comparable price and enjoy
> better performance.  Memory is consumed more efficiently on a
> modern multi-user operating system.

Yes, application code and libraries can get shared.  (But note that
much of Firefox/Mozilla runs as JavaScript that *won't* be shared!)

We are not unaware of this.

> The reality is a CPU is idle most of the time a person is using it (even
> between key strokes).  Multiple users on a more powerful system can enjoy
> the full power of that system most of the time.  This is a real win.

Only if it is actually cheaper.  If it is more expensive, which, when
"thin clients" aren't cheaper than desktops, is so, then the "win" may
be a mirage.

> The advantages go on and on.

They *need to* in order to overcome the initial extra investment :-(.
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"...  memory leaks  are  quite acceptable  in  many applications  ..."
(Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists