FedoraThis forum is for the discussion of the Fedora Project.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
My girlfriend just moved in, an brought her virus-infected windows computer with her. Obviously, this would not do.
My solution is to (obviously) put Linux on her machine, and convert all of her .wma music files to MP3 or OGG. That is the easy part.
Now, she wants to keep the data that she has on MY machine, and be able to access the same music. Since both machines will be running the same distro, my thought is that my machine has more storage, and we should just use it (860 GiB to 80 GiB. . . hmmm) for file storage. This gives me two options. I can use NFS to mount my /home on her machine so that we can both lot into it, or I can set up a thinclient and use a remote login via GDM. I would like some feedback, both have some advantages and disadvantages to me.
I'm asking for a gig-e switch and adapter for Christmas, and if I don't get it, I'll buy it. This eliminates a lot of the lag issues I expect either way.
Can the community give me some feedback so I can make a more informed decision?
if the client machine is a generally decent spec, then from my perspective you may as well use it properly. depending on how you use your machines, you'd end up sharing a single cpu for whatever you want to do, which can be nasty if she wants to rip a dvd or something. There are a number of other niggles though that could easily influence your decision, like what about sound? currently mine and my wifes computer connect to a kvm. but we only have one pair of speakers so are continually swapping the jack back an forth...
might be worth floating another option though... what about a network boot? you can share your standard file systems with the other PC, but make their machine actually do the work after the machine is booted. one install to manage software on, but if the boxes are similar enough then there's the ability to run two instances without issue.
you don't need a gig switch for two desktops... can you not ask for a wii or a roboraptor instead?
Network boot. . . this is causing a tickle in my brain, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Can I set my server up to respond to a PXE boot request or something?
The systems are both reasonably modern, but use different hardware. Will this present driver issues? I've never worked with network booting before. . . I will research this myself, but if you could point me in the right direction, that would be great.
The gig-e switch and adapter is on the list of several things, incl a Wii. . . and a new truck :-D
you can configure a pxe server to pass boot details back for a tftp server to deliver a boot kernel and root filesystem details. you can then get the "client" to boot without using a disk at all, instead running off of the single installation on the "server" pro's and con's in both directions, and this would be tricky to work out perfectly, but in essnece you should be able to run one installation of fedora on two machines in the main. you'd want to take a seperate /etc/, and things like swap would be different too, indeed you'd probably do without swap i guess, but it's possible.
not really driver problems, if you have a separate copy of etc, as drivers are generally loaded and recognised dynamically at boot. you can put a linux drive into a totally different box and it's likely to boot without much complaining, maybe other than silly things like mice. i remeber moving win98 drives between boxes and it'd find a new south bridge, ide bus, pci bus etc... rebooting each time. this info isn't stored under linux anywhere, it's just picked up on each boot.
having voiced this approach, i wouldn't necessarily say it's the best... just wanted to put forward a solution that would sit somewhere between a thin client and a full system. if i had this scenario i think i'd go for the full client install.