[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debian Wiki] Update of "DebianEdu/HowTo/LtspLowFatWorkstation" by KnutYrvin


On Thursday 19 July 2007 10:33, Knut Yrvin wrote:
> My change was actually a response to your e-mail where you suggested to
> follow this through, after doing a minor change in the press release
> conserning the 3.0 release. You sugested to update the documentation.

Uh? I suggest to update the documentation, as in document what is not 
documented but not to invent new terms and get rid of old ones.

> So to be fear, I'm a bit confused since my respons of changing file name
> was after you recomended me to update the LtspDiskless-page.

Where did I recommend that?

> I don't think it's productive to scale
> things out of proportions.

Agreed :)

> Since im not renaming the tjener to bluserver, or making changes to package
> names, I can't see why your argument apply. 

"Diskless workstation" is a concept. "Lowfat Client" is, sorry, glibberish. Is 
it lowfat, because it has little CPU power, little packages installed, has an 
application to remind you to do exercise installed?

> Here are two arguments for using the term
> LowFat, but I don't know if a renaming of a filename in a wiki-page is
> needed:

As said, its not about renaming the wikipage. Its about changing a 

> My experience when talking to hundreds of managers running "centralised"
> computer installation with hundreds and thousends of installation, is that
> using good names on solutions. Good naming helps when motivating this
> manager or head of schools to choose Skolelinux ahead of other solutions.

For the reasons about (what does lowfat mean here?) I dont consider "lowfat" a 
good name. "diskless" is clear and easily understandable.

> It's also a case where Intel says that they most likely got no interest in
> selling thin client hardware, but that LowFat is a really nice thing, since
> you run every end user application locally.

So Lowfat is what used to be Halfthick? (as oppossed to Thinclient?)

> Maybe they or other HW 
> manifacturor will use some marketing or salses resources promoting LowFat
> clients. 

Do I understand correctly, that you propose "lowfat" because the __might__ 
use "lowfat" to promote it? What if they choose a different name?

> And to be blunt, diskless is a really good technical term. 
> Promoting that something is less, is not so positiv when reading it.

WithoutMovablePartsWhichCanFail-Client? :-D

I'm going to revert your changes now, because 1.) what Petter wrote 2.) it's 
2:1 (Petter, me : you) against those changes, 3.) you have not changed every 
reference (I know) to that howto-wikipage and there might very well be more, 
4.) "Diskless workstation" is an established term and concept and 5.) I start 
to think that lowfat Clients probably are not diskless after all?!

I'm happy to revert my reverts when you convinced me that a.) diskless clients 
are identical to lowfat clients and b.) that the term is really what we want.

I'm very fine with having this term (related to other terms) and the 
difference to traditional Thinclients explained in the documentation...


Attachment: pgpPeadSIw02C.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: