On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 21:45, Craig White wrote:
> > In other words, everyone
> > using k12ltsp *is* a fedora user. Even if you pick 'everything' you can
> > generally ignore the extra stuff if you don't need/like it.
> ----
> OK - would be difficult for this list to help someone troubleshoot since
> their installer cd's wouldn't match.
I watch their mailing list and I can't think of a case offhand where the
installer failed in a way that the base version wouldn't have. After
the install it is the same as an updated fedora with a few extra things.
> I can't speak to the philosophy of k12ltsp but it seems that choosing
> Fedora Core as their base is rather curious since it has a short
> lifespan so perhaps rapid spinning of updates is part and parcel of
> their project. It would seem to me to be much more logical for them to
> use CentOS 4 - but hey, that's just my opinion.
It's a question of how out-of-date you want your applications to be.
Or more philosophically, whether you think all the recent work the
developers have done improves things. But it is an issue that is
discussed often on the mail list. K12ltsp is an odd beast in that
you need stability on the server, but since all the thin client
applications run there, you also need very current apps. Centos 4
might be a good choice right now since it was released recently but
the k12ltsp project has been around for years and had to work with
what was available. In another year, Centos 4 probably won't be as
good as the then-current fedora, given the intentional lack of
version-level application updates. The next k12ltsp version will
probably work on Ubuntu, Fedora, and Centos.
> It's curious that those who wish to hitch their wagon to an 'as is'
> distribution should offer surprise when they don't get the service that
> they would get from the officially supported product.
The wagon was hitched to RH9. There have been surprises for everyone.
--
Les Mikesell
les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
