Which distribution kit to choose for the terminal client?

Evgeny Elizarov2012-08-02 20:34:31

linux

Evgeny Elizarov, 2012-08-02 20:34:31

Previously, terminal clients were booted from flash drives and some kind of minimal-linux + rdesktop image configured by the pre-pre-previous admin, flash drives are pouring very actively, so, due to the presence of a huge number of HDDs, we decided to install screws, and on them linux and all in the same way. But here there was a question of a choice of a distribution kit. On the one hand, ubuntu is simple, fast, easy, and most importantly, there are no problems with hardware (in particular, with video cards), but somehow it is “large-sized”, despite the fact that we only need an RDP client, while we are trying 11.10 (in 12.04 remmina does not plow) and think about the options. Who uses what? It will not work to assemble a thread of gentoo once - the clients are all different and differ in hardware very much.

Answer the question

In order to leave comments, you need to log in

11 answer(s)

Semyon Dubina, 2012-08-02
@KorP

A matter of religion and experience. You can also make your assembly along the LFS path, you can cut debian and make your own distro, or you can stick Ubuntu. I think that without knowledge (for starters, drawing up) of the project architecture, any choice will be a “finger to the sky”.

Alukardd, 2012-08-02
@Alukardd

thinstation , right?

oldbay, 2012-08-02
@oldbay

flash drives are pouring very actively

This means that the system for the solid body is assembled incorrectly: it often creates all sorts of intermediate files. For a flash drive, you need to cut off all logging, and mount tmp and var in memory ... or mount the entire root on ramdisk

It will not work to assemble a thread of gentoo once - the clients are all different and differ in hardware very much.

How much different? .. some on i386, others on sparc, others on arm? If they all support the i386 (80386 - the latest 32-bit pentiums) architecture (including 64-bit ones in emulation mode), then you can make a universal assembly - for all occasions.

Who uses what?

we use a universal assembly on ArchLinux (i686 architecture - everything works starting from 2 pentiums), booting over the network (tftp), locally mostly diskless stations, where the BIOS does not support the PXE bootloader (old motherboards) - boot from a USB flash drive ( using, in principle, the same image as for diskless boot), since 2009 they have changed only one flash drive ... yesterday.

sdevalex, 2012-08-02
@sdevalex

ArchLinux. They have now cut out a semi-graphical installer and left only scripts for installation. On top you can throw your installer script.

Alexander Borisovich, 2012-08-02
@Alexufo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_Linux

Alex Belov, 2012-08-03
@Roosso

Used FreeNAS, but in recent builds they made a bunch of paid modules. Therefore, it is better to look for an older version on torrents.

rtzra, 2012-08-03
@rtzra

“flash drives are pouring in very actively” - maybe it’s easier to put the image on tftp and boot from it over the network? if there is a working assembly - why bother with a garden ...

Veliant, 2012-08-02
@Veliant

Slitaz and deliver the required packages from the repository

Oleg Novikov, 2012-08-03
@Nova_Logic

what if sabayon? :)

astrobeglec, 2012-08-03
@astrobeglec

It is also possible for Ubuntu, if you build from a minimal CD (image is about 30 MB), download, install the packages that you need (kernel, X server, remina, network), copy the build to disks and work. In my practice, transferring copies of a disk to machines with different hardware did not lead to a system crash (the kernel loaded modules to the hardware individually).

MrCleaner, 2012-08-03
@MrCleaner

As far as I understand, this is an amateur muddle, but a kind of business process.
Then, perhaps, it makes sense to look towards paid solutions?
2X is dedicated exclusively to delivering remote Windows desktops via RDP to a wide variety of client devices. Produces its own Linux-based OS for these devices.