VMware

[NoOp]

On 02/21/2007 05:24 PM, Patton Echols wrote:
> This is not really a Ubuntu specific question, but a pointer in the 
> right direction would be great.  I've looked around the web about VMware 
> but I think my questions are so basic that the answers are assumed . . . 
> or I could be looking in the wrong places.
> 
> I read an article recently about maintaining a network of windows 
> desktops by running linux on each desktop and then using Vmware to load 
> windows on each one from a single windows XP image maintained on a server. 
> 
> I volunteer with an educational non profit that maintains a computer 
> lab.  The lab computers are quite old (and have been "ridden hard") and 
> need replacement.  Because of the need to reimage the drives when 
> students break the windows install, our computer guy says it is 
> important to keep a number of identical boxes, rather than replace them 
> as needed the way non profit organizations are likely to do.
> 
> So here is the two questions:
> 
> I assume that using Linux to autoload vmware and then a windows image at 
> boot time would result in much lower maintinance.  If the windows 
> "install" were broken, a reboot fixes it.  Since the students would 
> presumably have no access to the OS, the linux installs would require 
> less maintenance too.  Is that right?
> 
> Since the windows image would load on top of vmware, the windows image 
> would not be hardware specific, if we ended up with several different 
> system configurations, they would all work with the master XP image.  Is 
> that right too?
> 
> Thanks again. 
> 

Couple of questions/suggestions:

1. How much memory does each computer have? If they have 256Mb then
Ubuntu Desktop will most likely run comfortably on each *and* breath new
life into them. For example, my oldest test machine is a
300Mhz/256Mb/6GHD and runs very well using Dapper 6.061 LTS. It is set
up for dual boot w/Win2KP on a second 4G hard drive, and I can say for a
fact that performance under 6.06 is considerably better than Win2KP.

2. If they already have Win2K on them, set them as dual boot and use
WINE in linux to run the applications that they simply cannot run under
linux. There should only be a few, and as long as the machines are not
used for games there shouldn't be a problem. Install the program using
WINE, creates a desktop icon, they click it, and in many cases it will
run just fine.

3. To manage the systems just use Gnome-RDP and/or UltraVNC under WINE
(see: http://www.uvnc.com/). If they all must run Win$, then use
UltraVNC so that you can do file transfers.
  I do this to maintain multiple client machines that are both linux and
Win2KP & WinServer. Set up properly, you can do this remotely via a
secure VPN connection. Go and buy a couple of Linksys BEFVP41 V.2
routers for about $120 each. They have built in VPN encryption; assuming
both sites have DSL, set one up at the nonprofit location & the other up
at your home, build permanent VPN circuits between the locations & VNC
into each machine to update/upgrade. The VNC only goes over the
encrypted VPN circuit, so no need to worry about outside internet
access/interference. You can run multiple vnc windows and work on
multiple machines at once. I often have 10 or more windowed sessions
going at once updating Windows machines on Update Tuesday (or whatever
it is each month). If you're good at scripts, then you can even write a
script to do this as a cron job.
  The other advantage to UltraVNC if the machines *must* be kept as
Windows, is that you can set the client machine vnc server to vnc at
reboot, so you can reboot remotely, vnc to the user login, login as
admin, make your changes, reboot back to restricted user mode, all
remotely. Gnome-RDP can be used with minimal problems, but you won't be
able to do file transfer via the VNC client, and UltraVNC has a built in
chat client. Don't know about you, but I'm lazy & hate having to go
onsite just to clean up a clients (or relatives) computer :-)

I guess that VMware is ok... I've been experimenting with it lately, but
so far I've found it considerably easer just to use a secure hardware
VPN w/VNC. Easier than an ssh web client as well, as I don't have to
mess with an added layer of web browser in the process.