What is Digg?52 Comments
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20I would love to see how the users react when all 6 terminals kernel panic at the same time.
- syuusuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10that is a wicked setup. internet cafe owners could use this idea to save some cash on internet browsing machines? that is only if you use Linux though and not Windows :)
- dfsiii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The site mentioned use for libraries - what a great idea. My public library already is using Linux and OpenOffice to save money - there really aren't any resource-intensive applications being run on library computers aside from a word processor or a flash website (and those... well, let them suffer through those :D ).
The only problem is setting all that up for libraries. Maybe some group should be formed to help set these things up for less technically gifted organizations that offer free computing? - coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I did this with my dual-head nvidia card. One person plays a game on the TV, and another browses the web on the regular monitor. 2 keyboards and 2 mice driving one box to do two completely different things is truly beautiful and sexy, but be prepared to edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf. But six heads would require one awesome peice of video hardware(s) that i'd love to get my hands on.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wait, haven't Unix systems been accommodating loads of users independently of each other for decades? I could have sworn that's what it was originally intended for...
- krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7In a school environment, lack of audio would be a blessing (for the teacher, anyhoo :) ). I used to have a lab with ~25 PCs...that many speakers going will drive you insane.
- doctabu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Boy, the people there look like they're having tons of fun! That picture alone makes me want to set one of these things up.
But, seriously, in all honesty, I do. Not because of the picture, but because that's just a great idea. Interesting article, nice read! - gometro33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The article says (and shows) that they use an AGP video card and five PCI video cards.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4why isn't it cost effective? with terminals you have to buy the terminal box, this way is much cheaper all you need is a cheap ass video card.
- gookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is really coooool! A family friend who are really not so tech savvy wants to buy desktop PCs for EACH of his children but I always thought that would be overkill since they'll be just mainly using it for MS Word (OpenOffice), a couple of surfing for school homework, chatting, and myspacing. This tutorial is definitely a money saver!!!!! Thanks
digg +++++++ - Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've always wanted to do this, very cool.
They don't seem to have audio for the 6 people though. There was another article with a 4 user system and everyone got USB speakers with headphone jacks on them and could independantly listen to music. - timbott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's a "Free for personal use" commercial product that achieves the same end goal with a stable end result with dramatically less effort (albeit at slightly higher cost).
Though the software is commercial http://userful.com (though an opensource project http://openuserful.sourceforge.net/ is in the works). it saves you money on hardware, allowing you to use $20/head video cards, and $5 USB keyboards and setup and configure it in 5 minutes.
How is Userful's product different from or better than other multi-seat approaches?
Userful's approach virtualizes a single instance of X to support multiple users. Other multi-seat approaches start separate instances of X (one for each user). The separate instance approach has the following limitations:
1. They don't support using both heads on consumer dual head cards.
2. They are very finicky about the graphics cards and chipsets supported.
3. They are less resource efficient (each instance of X imposes a RAM and CPU overhead).
Userful has been deploying multi-station Linux since early 2002 and has developed some GPL'd kernel and X patches back in 2002 to help make multi-station work. Eventually we switched to this new approach because of the difficulties listed above.
Userful's Desktop Multiplier package also includes some graphical install and configuration tools, cross distro testing and quality assurance, and builds RPM/DEB packages to make installation and removal on supported distros comparatively effortless.
the free version is available here:
http://userful.com/products/free-2-user - LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks like that library solution is awesome, and by using non-brand specific names (Word Processor, Spreadsheet Program, etc.), simple computer users wouldn't be confused by the general layout. Gnome really is a good choice for this. Thinking about it now, I don't know why more libraries aren't using Linux, since it's free and all.
- timbott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Perfect multi-seat linux solution for Libraries:
http://userful.com/products/library-ds - oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4A USB hub and six pairs of USB speakers?
- sandrj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Really cool setup. ++digg
I wonder what is the difference between this setup and a thin client ? Other than seperate mother boards for the thin clients, is there any other ?
Could be a cost saver for cybercafes which need around 4 to 6 nodes. - Woknblues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2$67 per user is better than 400-500 for a barebones system that will be obsolete in 3 years. what a great thing for business and internet cafes / school libraries, etc.
- t0ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What? Single boxes would be better. More cpu power to share.
- timbott, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There's an easier (and stable) way to do this:
http://userful.com/products/free-2-user - Vogateer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think it has been, but through terminals, not with video cards coming out of the same machine. Someone was right to mention LTSP, it's probably a better solution. This may be more cost effective, but that much hardware seems to be a strain with their setup, since they had panics during logout, and described the system as very unstable.
- vernsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have always seen this as an alternative for basic internet cafe's, but there I have seen a windows implementation of this being done before and it seems as though it worked smoothly.
- Brennan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Something else to consider is using one main computer like this and then just running a bunch of almost "dumb" clients through the network. X can do this as well and is a little easier to manage as you just have to hook the client up to the network and you can have a desktop running off the host machine.
- oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"But businesses require much more than just email, such as the need to compile programs, use remote desktop connections, and other process-heavy stuff."
I think he's talking about me and about 5 other people I work with, where the most we need is a text editor, Microsoft Office, a web browser and a set of basic connection tools (sftp, ssh, IM/VoIP). Instead of a box on every desk, we could just share a single one. - Edogz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wow! Very interesting article. I'll have to try this some time, nice ideas!
- 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You know what would be REALLY cool? A linux kernel module that lets you use Sun's Sunray terminals with linux instead. bonus points if you enable the smartcard feature.
I was always intrigued by how the sunray setup worked, however, at the time, solaris was just not a workable option anywhere I had the opportunity to deploy it. - davidswelt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"While the system worked very well, it was extremely unstable."
...
"A multi-head, multi-user Linux system is now possible using commodity PC hardware and standard Linux distributions."
i don't follow. - LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My friend just used his mac to make a cluster and all the other processors in his apartment were clients to the main machine. Right now they're up to ~22 GHz.
- firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've tried that with KLTSP, but it didn't work out so smoothly. It would be great for public use, but I would never use a system like that at my house...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seems promising. Just a little unstable at the moment
- shit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Do URLs only automatically hyperlink when http:// is in front of it? Let's see:
http://www.groovix.com
Edit: Yes, they do -- and even the blank http:// links. Quality programming! - traldan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's called Groovix.
www.groovix.com - Dave1234, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.sun.com/software/sunray/
# Sun Ray Server Software 3.1 is also designed to run on the following operating systems with x64 servers:
* Solaris 10 3/05 or greater
* Java Desktop System, Release 2 on x86
* Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server 3 on x86 (32-bit)
* SuSe Linux Enterprise Server 8 Service Pack 3 on x86 (32-bit) - sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whoa. flash back to some ancient Unix and my 3B2. i had a few terminals on that beast. it could do like 16 different terminals. it was truly a beast in its day. but it broke so i took apart the 20MB hard drive and i still have one of the platters, because its rare to find a glass one.
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very cool. Another way that might be easier(but probably not cheaper) for up to 10 workstations on one PC is to use the PC Expanion from nComputing. ( http://www.ncomputing.com/idx_products.htm -- available for less than $190 per terminal ) At the bottom of the page Unix drivers are mentioned, though it looks like primary support is for Windows.. login stations (LCD, Keyboard and Mouse for each), all from one PC CPU and video card.... no need for 10 video cards in the CPU box :-)
- shit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah right! Who doesn't want that guy in the Hawaiian shirt over at their house? It's common knowledge that "Hawaiian shirt" is synonymous with PARTY ANIMAL.
I think I'm detecting a slight ponytail too... - moofree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Indeed :D
We all have a few 486es in the closet.
Myself, i have a few p3s in the closet i could do something with... behind the skeleton. - ditoa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My thoughts exactly. It worked, kinda. From what the article says it was too unstable to actually use for anything more than trying it out to see if it can be done. The answer is yes, but it crashed everytime someone logs out. How great. I fail to see the point in this article. No Digg.
- mppardee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To everyone who doesn't understand the benefits to the multi-user approach over thin clients (LTSP, etc.) here are the main differences:
1. Cost: Thin Clients cost at least $300 for something new that is not dog slow. Then you have to add a server, maybe costing $1000. So for a 2 user setup, that will cost you $1600. 6-users will cost $2800. With the multi-user approach, just add the cost of a video card and sound card to whatever computer you are using. If a single user system costs $600, two users costs $700, 6-users cost $1200. For giant installations, thin clients may be cost effective, but anywhere you have 2-6 computers in proximity, multi-user setups are much cheaper.
2. Performance: Thin Clients are extremely slow for anything but basic web browsing and office work. All information has to travel over the network. Yes, some things can be run locally, but if you rely on that you need more expensive thin clients. On the other hand, a 6 user system can effectively share ram, hard drive space, and cpu time, especially for dual-core cpus. For most applications you wouldn't even know there are 5 other users. When other users aren't on the system, you have a very powerful computer that can play all the latest games and use other high-performance apps.
If you like the single point of control that thin clients give, you can still get that with multi-user setups. Each multi-user system can boot a read-only image that comes from DVD or the network, and is updated automatically over the network.
I should disclose that I work for Open Sense Solutions, which sells http://Groovix.com computers, a completely Open Source alternative to Userful. We use one video card per user, which allows full 3D performance, including head to head gaming. You cannot do 3D with userful. Yes, we only support nVidia video cards at the moment, but that gives much better performance and stability. - zleetd00d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Multiple users at once. Durr.
- moofree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
Or how about an openmosix cluster. - mppardee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I work for Open Sense Solutions LLC, the makers of Groovix ( http://groovix.com ) computers which are multi-user capable, and we have just recently started testing advanced two-user gaming. Our GT model with dual PCI-E 6600LE video cards can run doom3 or quake4 head to head on the same machine no problem (Athlon 3200+, 1GB ram, low quality, 640x480) . Some cpu-hogging games like Unreal Tournament require a dual-core processor, but work fine as well. Windows based games under Cedega pose several problems. Cedega isn't really set up for simultaneous users -- you have to install a game twice under a different name just to get it going. Also, restrictive licensing and copy protection schemes cause problems as you try to run two instances of a game. We were unable to get FarCry to run two instances at once. Call of Duty worked but was problematic. We will be working more on this and hope to offer some pre-installed cedega setups in the future. So far running two separate games under Cedega at the same time seems to be OK.
Also, when you don't need two users, you can run in SLI mode and get ~ 60% more video performance! - pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I don't currently use linux as my desktop o/s, but that's really cool! I'll bet businesses could save loads of money using machines like this for groups of people. In general, I think a lot of businesses with individual top-of-the-line desktop computers are wasting their money because the units aren't used to even half their potential.
- sstidman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think it would be really awkward to surf for porn on that thing ;-)
- spinner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I doubt that businesses would benifit from something like this. They said that the system works well for email and web browsing and that. But businesses require much more than just email, such as the need to compile programs, use remote desktop connections, and other process-heavy stuff.
Not to mention, if the system has a hardwear failure or something like that, than you would have six people not able to preform their jobs instead of just one. That would cause delays and could cost alot of money. - arcticblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How well would something like this work in a home environment? It would be pretty nice to have it so that me and my wife could be on the computer at the same time without having to shell out cash for another computer. Would it be possible to have a game running (such as WoW under Cedega) on both monitors with 1G of RAM and a GeForce 6600?
- Burgundavia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I work for Userful, who exactly this. While our system is more stable (due to controlling what hardware we use), we also have a few stablity issues, mostly related to crappy drivers. www.userful.com for more information.
- wyngnut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Hello, remember the $100 laptop? This would have been cool in 1988.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"I'm left, your right, she's gone"
- Arainach, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6When you need as many as 6 setups, stuff like this isn't cost-efficient. It's time to look unti a Terminal Server. Something like LTSP.
- dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3oh I can setup a Internet cafe!
but how do I get the coffee to flow thur the usb ports?
how much do they they charge at Internet cafes anyway?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is