On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:49:42 -0400 Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 070709 Dan Farrell wrote: > > 070710 Iain Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> KVM's are OS independent; they can get you into the BIOS or > >> console; you can see boot messages; network doesn't need to be > >> working even though it's called a network, sometimes it doesn't ;) > > that's another huge pain. > > but all-in-all, I find switching between computers vastly less > > efficient (once they're up) than multiple X windows or virtual > > terminals. the big difference between our perspectives is > > that my other computers arent backups, they do other things > > & therefore are in that functioning state much of the time. > > If they were backups I probably wouldn't be nearly as comfortable > > getting at them with the primary desktop > > as when they're servers making that desktop function. > > My set-up is very simple: a front-line machine I use all the time > & an older machine which is intended as an alternative in an > emergency, if the regular machine runs into a problem (hardware or > software). For this to work, I need to have a fairly upto-date > version of files in the back-up machine (without going off-site to > get a back-up CD/DVD). Therefore, I need to wake up the 2nd machine > every few months or more often & changing the connections in the > backs of the boxes is a pain, so being able to flip a switch to use > the controls with the other box is very attractive. A network > requires other connections (which cost CAD), besides learning how to > set it up & secure it from possible malware when either machine is > connected to the Internet. The KVM switch mentioned costs CAD 32 = > USD 30 . > The celeron 466 gets pushed into the closet? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
