lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Ok, figuring out how advanced you are is always a problem with new folks. > > Can't know everything, takes too much time :). However, the question was You know how tech support is.... <g> <snip> >> X is like Windows 3.x, *NOT* 95 or NT. It's a GUI windowing environment >> running on top of the O/S, not part of it. (The #1 thing I hold against >> its design.) If you think of a d/b server, and other machines pointing to >> it for their queries, X is like that. Frequently, you're on the same >> machine; but you can be on any machine. In that case, it's exactly like >> the old mainframe environments with terminals. <snip> > Are you saying that X can have a server and a number of remote clients? If Yup. I think the original X stuff used a then-serious server (like a PDP-something), and dumb terminals. > that's the case, do the clients appear to the user as a personal workstation > or just an instance of X until they are done? Do they get their own storage > areas, settings, things like that? Same as any users. > > Either way, it sounds like virtualization is what I am after if I want to > give them what amounts to a full pc, just that it's centralized. > >> Terminology: as I mentioned, X terminology is absolutely the opposite of >> the way *every* other usage of it is. If it were a d/b, in X terminology, >> the d/b server would be the client, and the machines calling it would be >> the servers. > > Does that mean the other way around then? Each X workstation is actually > what, the server? And they all share a central X client or something? I'm > not clear on this. Yes. Like I said, it's *really* confusing, because they used words meaning the opposite of what normal folks use the words for.... > >> So you can set up the global defaults on one server, so that unless folks >> customize their own environment, they log in on their machines, they >> effectively log into the X-terminology "client", and all come into X with >> exactly the same stuff, running on that server, not on their own. > > So you set up the default settings on a server that you call the master then > the clients which are actually independent X workstations use that as their > central server? Yes. They're actually running stuff on the master. > > It sounds like something that could be very useful but it also sounds like > it would take me away from what I really want to do which is to learn about, > and put to use, new virtualization techniques. While the ideas have been Ahhh... that's another story, all together. > around for a very long time in computing, the new technologies associated > with it and coming are too great to pass up methinks. And the verbiage keeps changing, so they can publish, not perish. mark "a tuple is *nothing* like a record...." -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
