[SGVLUG] SCALE5x Booth - Volunteers and Ideas: LinuxDoc and Dumb Terminals

[Michael Proctor-Smith]

On 12/26/06, Dustin Laurence <dustin at laurences.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 11:32:01PM -0800, David Lawyer wrote:
> > really believe it.  Then I searched the Internet and found that my
> > doubts were partly correct.  The problem is that by design, the USB and
> > monitor cables are for short distances only, like a few feet.  So that
> > rules out connecting a lot of monitors and keyboards to one PC.
>
> I think it's three or five meters, but can be longer with a hub or
> repeater.  The limitation is principally for any one length of dumb
> cable.
>
> That said, I tried a repeater cable with a printer and had no luck, so
> it may be that such things don't work so well.  I only tried the once so
> I don't know.  I'd think a real hub would make the extension successful
> and my problem was I tried a cheap & dirty substitute.
>
> > It's claimed that one can connect 9 additional monitors and keyboards
> > to one PC.  I guess it might look like a table with the the computer
> > in the center.  The commercial name is "userful" and it costs about
> > $100/seat (retail).  So it's not free but they let you try out a
> > 2-user system free.  Is there any free alternative?
>
> I think so, but I don't have a reference.  I'm pretty sure though as I
> believe there was a project aimed at getting the most bang for the buck
> from school computers in third-world countries where price was at an
> absolute premium.  I think even thin clients were deemed too costly if
> it were possible to get by with just additional displays and input
> devices.
>
> > Since both schemes use Xwindow, you likely will not be able to get a
> > text-console screen (virtual terminal) although there's always xterm.
>
> That is no limitation, as xterm and it's cousins are better than the
> original (because you can have many of them, resize them as you need,
> and many other things.  Besides, if it didn't work with X-windows
> frankly no one would care.
>
> But if you do want multiple truly dumb terminals, then I think it's even
> easier.  Unix has *always* done this, so I doubt you have to do more
> than look up what was standard procedure back in the stone age. :-)

It is strange but I have always kind of wanted to do the whole
multi-local user thing, but lacking multiply people and having lots of
hardware I have never done it. So if we think that would be a cool
thing to show off I have the hardware, and willingness to play around
with it.

Other then that the only other thing I can think up is like linux
gaming, just because it has a cool factor and it gives the people in
the booth something todo.