Steve Lamb wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:11:57 -0600, Kent West wrote: > > >1) Up-front cash outlay for the second computer (important to poor folks > >like myself) > > "Low" end pentiums are dirt cheap right now and run Linux exceptionally > well.
I own a case (given to me) and a motherboard and a CPU and a CPU fan. I've borrowed the keyboard, mouse, video card, hard drive, monitor, and modem. Hmmm, I reckon I can afford to purchase a new computer since they're now dirt cheap. :) But more realistically, I'm sure I could scrape together enough $ to purchase a second computer and to fill my current one with my own stuff instead of borrowing everything, provided I was willing to sacrifice other things, such as other hobbies and eating out and etc, but the point remains that not everyone has a spare $300-$600 to spend on a hobby. It'd be different if it was my livelihood. So the answer to the original question of what's wrong with running two PCs still stands; it costs money. > >2) Physical desk space. > > Stuff the Linux box under the desk. Telnet in for console, use an X > server (there is a free one and several commerical) or VNC for X apps. > > My Linux box is a P5-100, 64Mb RAM, 2Gb HD space (old SCSI drives). It > is in a full tower stuffed under an extension of my desk. I use Exceed for > my X server on my W95 box to run X apps and Tera Term Pro to telnet/ssh in. > Until I could afford Exceed I used VNC. Both TTP and VNC are free products. > :) > I have to admit that my years in Windows-world had blinded me to this possibility. It seems like this might be a good solution to the space issue. Actually I DO have two PCs (3 if you count the Mac) on my desk (4 in my office, if you include the old 486 Win3.x box I never fire up anymore) at work (of course my job paid for them). So what you're saying is that I could get rid of the monitor, keyboard, and mouse on my Linux box and free up that much desk space by using the NT box as a remote terminal? That's an interesting idea. Are there any performance penalties, etc that would offset the value of free-ing up desk space? I played with VNC (I think) briefly the other day on a Linux X-to-Linux X setup; are you saying I could run an NT version of VNC to give me the X window capability? Which is better; that or MI/X? (Maybe you're not familiar with MI/X.) I guess in a nutshell what I'm really asking is: "Am I better off to keep my separate monitor/mouse/keyboard at the expense of desk space (I've been doing okay so far), or does the remote idea work so well that I'd never miss them?" Thanks for the idea at any rate.
