On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:50:39 +1100
Erik Christiansen <dvalin@???> wrote:

> On 18.10.18 11:37, Steve Litt wrote:
> > OK. Next question. What is the cost difference between a computer
> > terminal and a low power computer with the muscle to run apps whose
> > data is on the central server?
>
> The price of hardware was entirely different back then, making re-use
> much more compelling cost-wise. But the grunt wasn't there in my
> experience. To go with an HP64000 microprocessor development system,
> back in the 80s, I bought a small server with a (for then) big disk,
> and four green terminals IIRC. The whitepaper extolling its virtues
> claimed it'd be just spiffy for 4 users, with graphs, tables, and
> pages of text to "prove" it. But in practice the 68040 CPU only
> sufficed for editing. Once the team hit it with concurrent compiles,
> it died in the derriere. From then on, I was a convert to distributed
> processing, and sprinkled sparcstations about instead. (OK, LAN was
> over co-ax back then, and an unaware user could bring that down just
> by knocking the 50 ohm termination off the T-connector on the back of
> his machine, if it was the last on the run. Much easier to find if
> you'd run the cable, than if you had to hunt for it.)
>
> > If one uses terminals, how many users can a high power computer
> > handle? 50? 100? On the other hand, if every user contributes
> > enough CPU to run the apps, it could be thousands.
>
> With CPU, RAM, and HD costing only beans now, we can can now give each
> user what was then a supercomputer, for what they paid for a terminal.
> Apart from the increased performance, even with what we had back then,
> the fault tolerance inherent in distributed computing didn't escape my
> notice, given responsibility for meeting project deadlines.
>
> Another team did go for a humungous refrigerator-sized quad-cpu HP
> compute server with 50 hard drives in a second refrigerator-sized
> enclosure, but I stayed distributed. (The quad-cpu mobo was nearly a
> yard square.)
>
> Erik

Thanks Erik,

You beautifully said what I was trying to. "Multi-seat" makes little
sense now that when you add a user you can give him or her a $400
computer with which he can share the server's data. I'm of the opinion
that "multi-seat" isn't a benefit, it isn't a feature, it's just a
marketing gimmick not a whole lot different than a magnesium paddle
shifter in a car.

And to refresh memories of context earlier in this thread, "multi-seat"
is one of the many systemd features that I opined did not need to be
reproduced by the Debian project, or anyone else.

SteveT

Steve Litt
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz