Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 schrieb Steve Litt:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>

Multi-seat was a big thing ~ 20-30 years ago. I once built an internet caffee with that stuff from donated hardware, but it was put to a rest a year later. As were the X11-terminals, as which virtually all old computers from physics department ended. Technology from the past, gone with the wind. Same happened to "Thin clients" - which does not hinder some high$$ companies to still sell that stuff (windows terminal server, anyone?) - a RPi3 has more power for almost everything for a fraction of the cost. And then there is the tale of "Africa and the 3rd world", where all donated computers end some day ... well, dream on "multi-seat".

Just my 2¢

Nik

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ...