FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Edubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-11-2008, 04:22 PM
"Robert Arkiletian"
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> the big probelm i have is that the actual problem will never be fixed
> because running the pkill will not expose any hanging apps anymore at
> all, i'd happily add this script to a release *after* i recieved enough
> feedback from testers so even though we dont fix the problem immediately
> we at least identify the apps, i refuse to do so *unless* we have them
> identified for the above reasons ...

In my latest version of fl_teachertool 0.62 I actually changed my code
to identify users who logged out but still have hanging apps. They are
selected/highlighted after refreshing users (so it's easy to kill
them). But you can view the exact processes that remain by clicking on
view. There are various ways processes remain. One is simply powering
off before logging out. Another is ctrl-alt-back. Most of
fl_teachertool should work in edubuntu. I think the only thing that
does not is the control/monitor and snapshots since there is no vnc
server running on the client. Eric Harrison built a vnc module that
plugs into X from Real VNC for k12ltsp. It's not loaded by default
though. You have to enable it in lts.conf. Another method is to use
x11vnc. I got it to work before for Jim Kronebusch.

--
Robert Arkiletian
Eric Hamber Secondary, Vancouver, Canada
Fl_TeacherTool http://www3.telus.net/public/robark/Fl_TeacherTool/
C++ GUI tutorial http://www3.telus.net/public/robark/

--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 
Old 09-11-2008, 06:56 PM
Jordan Erickson
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

Ogra,

Very well put. I second your call to action - the community needs to be
more involved. I am personally putting as much time as I can in
collaborating and understanding these issues, and I hope to be a benefit
to Edubuntu, Ubuntu/LTSP, and everything related.

Once you get the ball rolling, it's easier to collaborate and get things
accomplished.


Sincerely,
Jordan



Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Mi, 2008-09-10 at 09:37 -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
>
>> The reality is that there has
>> only ever been 1 person paid to work on Edubuntu/LTSP, and in fact
>> that person has been moved to another project for his paid time and is
>> now volunteering like the rest of us to work on Edubuntu.
>>
>
> that person would be me ...
>
> i'd like to note beyond the fact that i did the initial edubuntu
> deveolpment i was also the lead developer and upstream of ltsp until the
> 7.10 development cycle where fedora joined ltsp upstream development and
> we turned ltsp upstream over to a kind of consortium made up by
> participants of all the involved distros, which indeed makes ltsp move
> slower as we have to regard the need of all parties, have to accept
> changes that are not necessarily helping our particular distro but
> improve the overall experience at some point if all bugs are shaken
> out ... imagine a dictatorship vs democracy, the first years of ltsp5
> development i could make the decisions for ubuntu ltsp only while since
> 7.10 i try to keep the pieces in shape and working for ubuntu after
> others made the changes ...
>
> one thing coming up often here since 7.10 are apps hanging around ...
> please note *this is usually a faulty app* i made various requests to
> the people complaining to please file bugs about the apps not exiting
> properly if their parent session goes away (the first request for that
> was around the 7.10 development cycle over a year ago) so i can point
> the app developers to fix these bugs (whih they will gratefully do). up
> to today not a single bug for any of the apps was put into launchpad
> only many hackish workarounds came up that kill apps on startup in very
> intrusive ways ...
>
> another thing i asked for as well in the 7.10 cycle (where i still could
> invest worktime into edubuntu) various times was to help testing *during
> the development cycle* at a time where i can fix bugs, my last request
> got me two new testers, mainly David van Asche and Asmo Koskinen ... you
> will notice that these two are the guys who apparently dont have any
> problems at all, both deploying huge setups of edubuntu with ltsp. with
> hardy our policies changed and i will be able to apply fixes even to the
> released version, that will give you the opportunity to help improving
> the LTS release to your requirement, all this needs is that developers
> get clear bugs, i will do what i can to help out here but please note
> that my time is very limted, beyond me there is Jordan Mantha around to
> help with educational apps and Scott Balneaves can help with the ltsp
> side of things, but what we need for that is a set of clear bugs to work
> on, ranting or blaming anyone for anything wont get us anywhere.
>
> if we want edubuntu to stay around, please help, file bugs and lets
> clearly identify whats at fault and just fix it ...
>
> gnome, openoffice and firefox being ignorant to multiuser setups
> upstream is a fact since years we wont easily change (check their ML
> archives if you dont belive me). the latter two simply through the fact
> that their core development happens on windows, often people forget that
> they are ports to linux. gnome started to listen to the complaints a
> while ago and starts to make attenpts towards multi user support (but
> trying to do it the right way takes its time and will still take more,
> consolekit and friends are a first good step). this is simply nothing
> *we* can change but we can help pointing out the problems to upstream.
>
> i know scott and jordan are planning bugdays soon if you want ltsp or
> edubuntu be in good shape, please help them ...
> if you think fedora is better for you, feel free to try it out, but bear
> in mind that the ltsp code we all use in debian, fedora, ubuntu and
> gentoo is identical, we all work on the same code since a year and in
> the end provide the same scripts to our users for running thin
> clients ...
>
> i'm personally a bit disappointed not having as much time anymore as i
> did for edubuntu and was also hoping the upstream changes in ltsp with
> new distros joining the development wouldnt have any effect on the end
> user experience but that apparently was the case. all i can do here is
> beg you guys to help out and help compensating my missing time, i will
> do what i can but have full time duties in other areas and the day only
> has 24h... putting blames on people or ranting wont help, we *can* do
> something for hardy as well as we can for intrepid but it needs proper
> identification of the problems and proper bugs filed.
>
> ciao
> oli
>

--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 
Old 09-11-2008, 07:05 PM
Jordan Erickson
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Do, 2008-09-11 at 13:35 +0200, kjetil knudsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> one thing coming up often here since 7.10 are apps hanging
>> around ...
>> please note *this is usually a faulty app* i made various
>> requests to
>> the people complaining to please file bugs about the apps not
>> exiting
>> properly if their parent session goes away (the first request
>> for that
>> was around the 7.10 development cycle over a year ago) so i
>> can point
>> the app developers to fix these bugs (whih they will
>> gratefully do). up
>> to today not a single bug for any of the apps was put into
>> launchpad
>> only many hackish workarounds came up that kill apps on
>> startup in very
>> intrusive ways ...
>>
>
>
>> dirty? It would really helped us out a lot..." Pkill -u user" does a
>> fine job killing the left-behind apps for the specified user. Why can
>> not this be integrated when a user logs out? Forgive me if I sound
>> ignorant..... I understand that this would not be a real fix, but
>> hey... If it works...
>>
>
> so if you are able to use pkill, you are obviously able to identify the
> apps hanging around, how about filing bugs for them then
>
> Gideon Romm made a small script for running a pkill in a slightly less
> intrusive way at the ltsp hackfest two months ago, we could include it
> for hardy.
>
> the big probelm i have is that the actual problem will never be fixed
> because running the pkill will not expose any hanging apps anymore at
> all, i'd happily add this script to a release *after* i recieved enough
> feedback from testers so even though we dont fix the problem immediately
> we at least identify the apps, i refuse to do so *unless* we have them
> identified for the above reasons ...
> so pretty please, everyone who sees hanging apps, file bugs for them,
> feel free to subscribe me to the bugs (do not assign them to me please)
> so i can assign them to teh right people and poke them about fixes ...
>
> if i see *any* movement i'll happily include the script ... but please
> understand that i wont simply hide breakage and lose the opportinity to
> fix them forever through simply adding a hack.
I see the "gnome-watchdog" package as a great tool for killing stale
processes - I am currently testing it at 3 of my 8 sites. I have it on
my own server for download here:
http://logicalnetworking.net/other/gnome-watchdog_0.9.2_i386.deb

I do agree with Ogra - there needs to be bugs filed against all
offending applications that do not exit cleanly, either when a
thin-client crashes or logs out cleanly. It seems naive, however (and no
offense at all) to think that there will be a point in time that ALL
applications will behave correctly, so this package/script seems to be a
necessity now and for the future.

What I'd like to point out now, is that 'gnome-watchdog_0.9.2' has
syslog features that detail offending applications. I'll show you some
from my own LTSP server to give you an idea, as this is probably what
ogra is talking about for gathering information to file bug reports:

---
jerickson@Fibonacci:~$ grep gnome-watchdog /var/log/user.log.0
Sep 4 09:11:00 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for jerickson
Sep 4 10:26:41 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 4 10:26:44 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 4 10:26:47 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 4 10:26:50 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 4 10:26:53 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 4 10:26:53 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 4 10:26:53 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup jerickson
because there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 4 10:26:53 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 5674,10351,10428,16813
Sep 4 10:26:53 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (10351).
Sep 4 10:26:58 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gvfs-fuse-daemo
(5674) killed
Sep 4 10:26:58 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gvfs-fuse-daemo
(10428) killed
Sep 4 10:26:58 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gconfd-2
(16813) killed
Sep 4 10:27:02 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for jerickson
Sep 4 12:17:23 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for esamuels
Sep 4 14:09:52 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 4 14:09:55 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 4 14:09:58 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 4 14:10:01 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 4 14:10:04 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 4 14:10:04 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 4 14:10:04 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup esamuels
because there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 4 14:10:04 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 9822,26105,26190
Sep 4 14:10:04 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (26105).
Sep 4 14:10:10 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gconfd-2 (9822)
killed
Sep 4 14:10:10 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gvfs-fuse-daemo
(26190) killed
Sep 9 14:20:31 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for guest
Sep 9 14:22:38 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 9 14:22:41 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 9 14:22:44 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 9 14:22:47 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 9 14:22:50 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 9 14:22:50 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 9 14:22:50 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup guest because
there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 9 14:22:50 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 18128,18592
Sep 9 14:22:50 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (18128).
Sep 9 14:22:55 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gconfd-2
(18592) killed
Sep 9 14:26:07 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for guest
Sep 9 16:27:10 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 9 16:27:13 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 9 16:27:16 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 9 16:27:19 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 9 16:27:22 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 9 16:27:22 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 9 16:27:22 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup jerickson
because there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 9 16:27:22 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 3982,16905,16985
Sep 9 16:27:22 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (16905).
Sep 9 16:27:27 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gconfd-2 (3982)
killed
Sep 9 16:27:27 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gvfs-fuse-daemo
(16985) killed
Sep 10 11:40:43 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for jerickson
Sep 10 14:26:30 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 10 14:26:34 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 10 14:26:37 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 10 14:26:40 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 10 14:26:43 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for guest
Sep 10 14:26:43 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 10 14:26:43 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup guest because
there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 10 14:26:43 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 3024,18973,19049
Sep 10 14:26:43 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (18973).
Sep 10 14:26:48 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gconfd-2 (3024)
killed
Sep 10 14:26:48 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process bonobo-activati
(19049) killed
Sep 10 14:27:25 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for esamuels
Sep 10 14:28:17 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 10 14:28:20 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 10 14:28:23 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 10 14:28:26 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 10 14:28:29 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for jerickson
Sep 10 14:28:29 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 10 14:28:29 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup jerickson
because there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 10 14:28:29 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 3519,13659,13743
Sep 10 14:28:29 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (13659).
Sep 10 14:28:35 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:watchdog gnome-panel
for jerickson
Sep 10 17:06:48 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog5) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 10 17:06:51 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog4) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 10 17:06:54 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog3) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 10 17:06:57 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog2) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 10 17:07:01 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog1) Process gnome-panel
isn't existing anymore for esamuels
Sep 10 17:07:01 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:test
Sep 10 17:07:01 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:cleanup esamuels
because there is no gnome-panel for this user existing ...
Sep 10 17:07:01 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Still these processes
are active: 3184,3296,24302
Sep 10 17:07:01 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:wait 5 seconds before
killing them, but don't kill own process (3184).
Sep 10 17:07:06 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gvfs-fuse-daemo
(3296) killed
Sep 10 17:07:06 Fibonacci logger: gnome-watchdog:Process gconfd-2
(24302) killed
jerickson@Fibonacci:~$
---

Cheers,
Jordan

--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:10 AM
"Todd O'Bryan"
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Oliver Grawert <ogra@ubuntu.com> wrote:

hi,

On Mi, 2008-09-10 at 09:37 -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:

> The reality is that there has

> only ever been 1 person paid to work on Edubuntu/LTSP, and in fact

> that person has been moved to another project for his paid time and is

> now volunteering like the rest of us to work on Edubuntu.



another thing i asked for as well in the 7.10 cycle (where i still could

invest worktime into edubuntu) various times was to help testing *during

the development cycle* at a time where i can fix bugs, my last request

got me two new testers, mainly David van Asche and Asmo Koskinen ... you

will notice that these two are the guys who apparently dont have any

problems at all, both deploying huge setups of edubuntu with ltsp. with

hardy our policies changed and i will be able to apply fixes even to the

released version, that will give you the opportunity to help improving

the LTS release to your requirement, all this needs is that developers

get clear bugs, i will do what i can to help out here but please note

that my time is very limted, beyond me there is Jordan Mantha around to

help with educational apps and Scott Balneaves can help with the ltsp

side of things, but what we need for that is a set of clear bugs to work

on, ranting or blaming anyone for anything wont get us anywhere.
That's great news. The big problem with LTSP is that many of us who use it do so precisely because we have no money, no dedicated tech staff, etc. I only have one setup and in addition to acting as a sysadmin for that lab of thirty clients, I'm supposed to be a full-time teacher of 150 students. I still have assignments from the second week of school, two weeks ago, that I haven't been able to return to students. I simply can't run stable releases and try out development versions as well.


One of the things that I've noticed is that Asmo and David seem to have a number of custom fixes they've applied--for example, the environment variable fix that Asmo mentioned for Firefox 3 to avoid the pixmap issue. Clearly, if these are necessary, those changes need to be made available somehow, preferably in some kind of package that updates things that most LTSP users need. Otherwise the rest of us have problems because we don't have those fixes.


I very much appreciate all the work that has gone into LTSP and Edubuntu. It has huge promise, but I have students who've spent the last four weeks using Linux, most for the first time, and they're all asking me why Linux sucks so much. That's not the way to convert students for a lifetime. I just have to hope that I can fix the problems and they'll forget how big a mess things were at the beginning of the year.


Todd

--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:21 AM
"Todd O'Bryan"
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Jordan Erickson <jerickson@logicalnetworking.net> wrote:

I see the "gnome-watchdog" package as a great tool for killing stale

processes - I am currently testing it at 3 of my 8 sites. I have it on

my own server for download here:

http://logicalnetworking.net/other/gnome-watchdog_0.9.2_i386.deb

Where did you find version 0.9.2? I only ever found this link:

http://www.morokeni.ch/edubuntu/gnome-watchdog_0.9_i386.deb

Does this version work with Hardy and do I have to do anything special to get it to work? I tried installing the older version, but it didn't seem to do anything.


Todd

--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2008, 03:37 PM
Luis Montes
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

David Van Assche wrote:
>>> - tcm (thin client manager)
>>>
>>> Indeed this no longer exists, and I believe it has been discussed
>>> about here before on various occasions. Italc has replaced thin client
>>> manager as the software that should be run to control thin clients
>>> from a centralised location. The new documentation reflects this (new
>>> in intrepid ibex), and I agree it was confusing, but a quick jump to a
>>> channel of importance (#ltsp primarily, but also #edubuntu) will give
>>> you the answers you need. Or a search in google. To install it is
>>> apt-get install italc-client
>>>
>>>
>> Is it just the docs that have been fixed for 8.10? As far as I can tell italc was broken on 8.04 and I needed to remove it. This is something that should be backported to the Long Term Support version.
>> Thin Client Manager currently locks up on 8.04 as well.
>>
>>
>
> As far as I have been able to tell, italc works great on 8.04+ (make
> sure you have an up to date version of italc installed, and if it is
> causing problems for you, let us know what they are and we can help.)
> I personally use italc on 8.04 without issues... there are some tricks
> though, like pointing to the clients u want via their server ip (as
> mentioned in an email I sent a while back to the list):
>
> The way to use italc with thin clients is adding 127.0.0.1 or localhost and
> the portnumber 10000+last byte of IP. For example... the client IP I want to
> connect to is:
>
> 192.168.0.15, then connecting to this user from the master Italc interface
> would be:
> localhost:10015
>
> Some users have mentioned it requires the actual IP of the server (ie.
> 192.168.0.254)
>
>
> TCM is no longer supported... don't use it...
>
> I'm sure there are other fixes along with documentation now being up
> to date, but most of the changes are LTSP centric (ie, people from
> different distros work together and then port these ltsp changes to
> all new distros.) In essence LTSP on Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian and Gentoo
> and (though a little different, still based on the same work) Suse all
> work the same because its the same code under the hood.
>
> Whatever changes have been made to other items (gnome, X, open office,
> firefox, etc) are related to the distribution you are using... and
> whatever changes have happened to that distro.
>
>
>>> - port forwarding
>>>
>>> The reason this is not built in is because no one knows how the
>>> network structure looks like at a particular location. There could be
>>> many different setups, but the documentation tells you how to easily
>>> do this in the most common way (this has been in documentation for a
>>> while now):
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. I have a separate IPcop box for content filtering, port forwarding, intrusion detection, etc.
>>
>>
>>> - lts.conf file
>>>
>>> This is where LTSP gets complex, and its the same across ALL
>>> distributions... If you don't know how to create a file, then it is
>>> not recommended you touch a lts.conf file. Increasingly, reliance on
>>> this file has been diminished to the point that in MOST setups the
>>> lts.conf file is not really required. But if it is, a quick read
>>> through the documentation will show you an example file and where it
>>> should go.
>>>
>>>
>> I've got a couple of 3 year old Dell workstations that need their video explicitly set in lts.conf
>> I have to set printer servers in lts.conf. I'm still using lts.conf to do my load balancing.
>> It would be great if I didn't have to edit this file, but I don't see it going away any time soon.
>>
>> And the skeleton file that tells you to read the documentation points to a documentation file that doesn't exist. Instead you get to search through the ubuntu website to find the parameters and examples.
>>
>
> For any fine tuning, lts.conf is indeed the place to do that, and like
> you say, won't be going away any time soon, but has been automated to
> the maximum extent possible. video _should_ work an most thin clients
> out of the box, if it doesn't let us know the video card in question
> so we can take a look.
>
> The documentation now presents all the possible values that can be put
> in lts.conf, if you find there are items required, let us know and
> we'll add them...
> Can u let us know what non existent file its pointing to, so we can fix that?
>
> Kind Regards,
> David Van Assche
>
Here's what's in the default lts.conf file:

# This is the default lts.conf file for ltsp 5.
# For more information about valid options please see:
# /usr/share/doc/ltsp-client/examples/lts-parameters.txt.gz
# in the client environment

That doc doesn't exist.

Luis



--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 
Old 09-19-2008, 04:28 PM
Jordan Erickson
 
Default Is it just me, or is LTSP a mess?

Luis Montes wrote:
> Here's what's in the default lts.conf file:
>
> # This is the default lts.conf file for ltsp 5.
> # For more information about valid options please see:
> # /usr/share/doc/ltsp-client/examples/lts-parameters.txt.gz
> # in the client environment
>
> That doc doesn't exist.
>
> Luis
>
That's because it's here (for i386 clients):
/opt/ltsp/i386/usr/share/doc/ltsp-client-core/examples

--
edubuntu-users mailing list
edubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:42 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org