Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!dawn!stpeters From: stpeters@dawn.steinmetz Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: A Thought on X Terminals Message-ID: <13249@steinmetz.ge.com> Date: 24 Feb 89 18:31:30 GMT References: <19613@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <611@gt-eedsp.UUCP> <4921@xenna.Encore.COM> <13216@steinmetz.ge.com> <4965@xenna.Encore.COM> Sender: news@steinmetz.ge.com Reply-To: dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP () Distribution: comp Organization: GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 27 In article <4965@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: >*WHAT* fallacy? Well, broadly the fallacy that each new diskless node *inherently* requires additional space on a server. That was the central point of your posting, I believe. More specifically, the fallacy that each new diskless *currently* requires additional space on a server for its root. As I noted, under SunOS 4.0, all diskless clients can share a common root. The only space an additional client need use is that needed for more hard links on the server. >The point still stands. Postulating hypothetical non-swapping OS's >isn't much of a refutation either, when one shows up, and is actually >useful, perhaps it's worth talking about. Even today, the non-swapping OS isn't entirely hypothetical. One of the steps in installing SunOS 4.0 is loading MUNIX. From the manual: "MUNIX is a version of SunOS that ... and resides entirely in memory. It does not require a disk from which to load or swap ..." However, it probably can't run X (yet). -- Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@ge-crd.arpa uunet!steinmetz!stpeters