Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 schrieb Steve Litt: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:50:39 +1100 > Erik Christiansen <dva...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > > On 18.10.18 11:37, Steve Litt wrote: > > > OK. Next question. What is the cost difference between a computer > > > terminal and a low power computer with the muscle to run apps whose > > > data is on the central server? > > > > The price of hardware was entirely different back then, making re-use > > much more compelling cost-wise. But the grunt wasn't there in my > > experience. To go with an HP64000 microprocessor development system, > > back in the 80s, I bought a small server with a (for then) big disk, > > and four green terminals IIRC. The whitepaper extolling its virtues > > claimed it'd be just spiffy for 4 users, with graphs, tables, and > > pages of text to "prove" it. But in practice the 68040 CPU only > > sufficed for editing. Once the team hit it with concurrent compiles, > > it died in the derriere. From then on, I was a convert to distributed > > processing, and sprinkled sparcstations about instead. (OK, LAN was > > over co-ax back then, and an unaware user could bring that down just > > by knocking the 50 ohm termination off the T-connector on the back of > > his machine, if it was the last on the run. Much easier to find if > > you'd run the cable, than if you had to hunt for it.) > > > > > If one uses terminals, how many users can a high power computer > > > handle? 50? 100? On the other hand, if every user contributes > > > enough CPU to run the apps, it could be thousands. > > > > With CPU, RAM, and HD costing only beans now, we can can now give each > > user what was then a supercomputer, for what they paid for a terminal. > > Apart from the increased performance, even with what we had back then, > > the fault tolerance inherent in distributed computing didn't escape my > > notice, given responsibility for meeting project deadlines. > > > > Another team did go for a humungous refrigerator-sized quad-cpu HP > > compute server with 50 hard drives in a second refrigerator-sized > > enclosure, but I stayed distributed. (The quad-cpu mobo was nearly a > > yard square.) > > > > Erik > > Thanks Erik, > > You beautifully said what I was trying to. "Multi-seat" makes little > sense now that when you add a user you can give him or her a $400 > computer with which he can share the server's data. I'm of the opinion > that "multi-seat" isn't a benefit, it isn't a feature, it's just a > marketing gimmick not a whole lot different than a magnesium paddle > shifter in a car. > > And to refresh memories of context earlier in this thread, "multi-seat" > is one of the many systemd features that I opined did not need to be > reproduced by the Debian project, or anyone else. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business > http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >
Multi-seat was a big thing ~ 20-30 years ago. I once built an internet caffee with that stuff from donated hardware, but it was put to a rest a year later. As were the X11-terminals, as which virtually all old computers from physics department ended. Technology from the past, gone with the wind. Same happened to "Thin clients" - which does not hinder some high$$ companies to still sell that stuff (windows terminal server, anyone?) - a RPi3 has more power for almost everything for a fraction of the cost. And then there is the tale of "Africa and the 3rd world", where all donated computers end some day ... well, dream on "multi-seat". Just my 2ยข Nik -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ... _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
