On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 23:40 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 21:45, Craig White wrote: > > 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 It's a question of how out-of-date you want your applications to be.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. ---- Then for sure I haven't a clue on where they are going with k12ltsp then. the ltsp project long ago freed their system from RH bindings and permit the usage of a much wider variety of distributions. My understanding of k12ltsp was a sort of turnkey install of a ltsp server/client for the k-12 users. Freeing k12ltsp from the Fedora (or RHEL) distribution would in essence duplicate the ltsp project, be confusing and lose the turnkey singularity. In fact, when you previously mentioned the efforts of 'some' to standardize ldap on k12ltsp - I knew that you were speaking of David Trask - an educator on the east coast who was struggling to provide a turnkey set of scripts to implement a singular visioned openldap implementation based upon samba and IDEALX scripts and I suggested that though his idea had merits for his purposes, it was limiting rather than enabling and if implemented by unknowledgable administrators, would create a class of users utterly incapable of solving problems, incapable of implementing wider usage and rather tunnel visioned and the worst thought of all, creating a network where no one could log in and no one could figure out why. I think that you will find the thread on the samba list as I recall having a somewhat heated debate with John Terpstra (author of Samba HowTo and By Example - 2 excellent books - the best open source documentation - by a long shot). In summary, I find the IDEALX scripts rather arcane, worthless for my purposes and don't use them except in the situations where I need to 'vampire' an NT server over to a Linux based system with openldap backend. My point in covering this ground again is if k12ltsp loses it's singularity then what would the project goals be? But bringing this full circle - I don't know what k12ltsp values most...if it were stability, longevity and continuity, then the CentOS/RHEL base totally makes more sense to me than Fedora Core 3 as it would appear that based upon history, Fedora Core 3 will EOL somewhere between September and October - relying upon fedora-legacy for updates - which may be OK since it would seem that FC-3 would be a very good choice for longevity by fedora-legacy - provided you can get 're-spins' of the iso's ;-) As for your notion about CentOS4 not being 'as good' as Fedora 4 - It's never a black and white issue is it? Seems as though there are pluses and minuses for each direction. ---- > > > 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. ---- There are of course, other options than Fedora - as you know. Craig
