idea: a managed linux distribution, for weak users
instead of trying to make sysadmin tasks easier, why not offsource the administration of the subscribers to a sort of headquarters? The company (KC Linux, with the kclug tux with hot brand logo as the logo) would provide install media which would take over the users computer and run their windows in a qemu window, as well as providing linux alternatives for basic production software. The site owners would not have root access on their machines, and firewall, security updates, feature upgrades, would be handled by central control much as the IT department in a large organization handles upgrading all the workstations. The business model: subscriptions, for updated content filtering (child safe!) for the firewalls Added bonus: the network of machines all around could serve as SMTP receivers for a filtered e-mail forwarding service, in exchange for a discount on the subscription. who's in?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
instead of trying to make sysadmin tasks easier, why not offsource the administration of the subscribers to a sort of headquarters? The company (KC Linux, with the kclug tux with hot brand logo as the logo) would provide install media which would take over the users computer and run their windows in a qemu window, as well as providing linux alternatives for basic production software. The site owners would not have root access on their machines, and firewall, security updates, feature upgrades, would be handled by central control much as the IT department in a large organization handles upgrading all the workstations.
The business model: subscriptions, for updated content filtering (child safe!) for the firewalls
Added bonus: the network of machines all around could serve as SMTP receivers for a filtered e-mail forwarding service, in exchange for a discount on the subscription.
This is the worst idea I've ever heard. "Hi, we're going to take over your computer and you're going to pay us to do it." This is stupid. -- Chris
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Christofer C. Bell <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
instead of trying to make sysadmin tasks easier, why not offsource the administration of the subscribers to a sort of headquarters? The company (KC Linux, with the kclug tux with hot brand logo as the logo) would provide install media which would take over the users computer and run their windows in a qemu window, as well as providing linux alternatives for basic production software. The site owners would not have root access on their machines, and firewall, security updates, feature upgrades, would be handled by central control much as the IT department in a large organization handles upgrading all the workstations.
The business model: subscriptions, for updated content filtering (child safe!) for the firewalls
Added bonus: the network of machines all around could serve as SMTP receivers for a filtered e-mail forwarding service, in exchange for a discount on the subscription.
This is the worst idea I've ever heard. "Hi, we're going to take over your computer and you're going to pay us to do it." This is stupid.
-- Chris _______________________________________________ Hmn. There is a market for "Appliance Computing". And some of that market inherently desires or even requires a transparent storage and no privacy model. Like schools or certain kiosks.
-- Oren Beck 816.729.3645
Actually, there's companies that do similar today. You're just calling it stupid because you are smart enough to control your own computer. And that's one thing I hate about this group...there are so many people who immediately call everyone else stupid because they see things a little differently. You would have to price it appropriately, but I think there's a market for remote administration. We do it for other companies - you're just talking about expanding it into the private sector. You would have to figure out how to handle hardware problems and SLAs though...as well as internet access requirements. And making it simple enough for the average lay user to understand. On 8/19/08, Christofer C. Bell <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
instead of trying to make sysadmin tasks easier, why not offsource the administration of the subscribers to a sort of headquarters? The company (KC Linux, with the kclug tux with hot brand logo as the logo) would
provide
install media which would take over the users computer and run their windows in a qemu window, as well as providing linux alternatives for basic production software. The site owners would not have root access on their machines, and firewall, security updates, feature upgrades, would be handled by central control much as the IT department in a large organization handles upgrading all the workstations.
The business model: subscriptions, for updated content filtering (child safe!) for the firewalls
Added bonus: the network of machines all around could serve as SMTP receivers for a filtered e-mail forwarding service, in exchange for a discount on the subscription.
This is the worst idea I've ever heard. "Hi, we're going to take over your computer and you're going to pay us to do it." This is stupid.
-- Chris _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- Nathan Cerny ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One bright day, in the middle of the night, two dead boys stood up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other. Drew their swords, and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the sound, and put those boys back in the ground. If you don't believe this lie is true, ask Harry the blind man, he saw it, too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Nathan Cerny <ncerny@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, there's companies that do similar today. You're just calling it stupid because you are smart enough to control your own computer.
I'm calling it stupid because it is stupid.
You would have to price it appropriately, but I think there's a market for remote administration. We do it for other companies - you're just talking about expanding it into the private sector. You would have to figure out how to handle hardware problems and SLAs though...as well as internet access requirements. And making it simple enough for the average lay user to understand.
There is no "making it simple enough for the average lay user to understand." You are saying, "give me money to take control of your computer away from you." RIAA and Microsoft are already feeling backlash for something *far less sinister* (DRM music) than handing over your entire computer to someone else -- and *paying* for the privilege. This idea is unworkable, this idea is not well thought out, this idea does not take this cool thing called "real people" into account. It's a bad idea. -- Chris
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Christofer C. Bell <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
this idea does not take this cool thing called "real people" into account. It's a bad idea.
-- Chris
Chris is clearly not within the target demographic of the proposed product. My mother needs this service. If I am going to set it up for Mom, why not set it up for everyone else's mom too? There are lots of real people who can no more sysadmin their own PC than they can [insert example of commonplace task often delegated to professionals here, from plumbing or automotive repair]
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris is clearly not within the target demographic of the proposed product.
My mother needs this service. If I am going to set it up for Mom, why not set it up for everyone else's mom too? There are lots of real people who can no more sysadmin their own PC than they can [insert example of commonplace task often delegated to professionals here, from plumbing or automotive repair]
David, no one is in the target demographic of this service. People do not want their personal computers, their property, in their homes, managed by someone else. Your mother does not need this service. She does not need to pay money to someone to take over her computer, install Linux on it, and run her "comfy Windows" in a VM. What your mother needs is *you* helping her. -- Chris
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Christofer C. Bell < christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
David, no one is in the target demographic of this service. People do not want their personal computers, their property, in their homes, managed by someone else. Your mother does not need this service. She does not need to pay money to someone to take over her computer, install Linux on it, and run her "comfy Windows" in a VM. What your mother needs is *you* helping her.
Hate to undermine your argument, but your own mom would love it if you would remotely administer her machine in this way, so I think that there is a market, the question is "how big" and "how hard" (hrm, that sounds wrong). David, the number one issue I see is dealing with the huge variety in hardware configurations. The second issue being how to deal with hardware failures and network failures. The bad news is that in both circumstances you would have no control and no special access to deal with them. In my opinion that's a deal killer. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Sorry, I meant that your mom would love it if _someone_ would administer her computer for her at a reasonable rate. Since you're not doing it for her... :-D Jeffrey. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com>wrote:
Hate to undermine your argument, but your own mom would love it if you would remotely administer her machine in this way, so I think that there is a market, the question is "how big" and "how hard" (hrm, that sounds wrong).
David, the number one issue I see is dealing with the huge variety in hardware configurations. The second issue being how to deal with hardware failures and network failures. The bad news is that in both circumstances you would have no control and no special access to deal with them. In my opinion that's a deal killer.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote
I think that there is a market, the question is "how big" and "how hard" (hrm, that sounds wrong).
Yes, those are the questions, and they can be answered by defining the scope of the service (how deep) including how many staff will be required (how wet.)
A) Computer provided in the package, providing standardized hardware. B) Sub-contracted ISP services should be included, so that the management group is authorized to contact the ISP and make changes or request support, and all participants have a minimum amount of connectivity. I actually know a considerable number of people that would love a setup like this, but I don't see it being feasible within an acceptable cost range. Altogether a novel idea, but most likely impractical. ~Bradley
I've long thought it would be neat for broadband ISPs to provide a netbooted connectivity/hardware testing OS. It won't corrupt itself since you won't be able to change the master image on the server, and it could easily be used for web browsing. Then again, would you trust your ISP to execute code on your machines? I wouldn't. And I seriously doubt ISPs want to do anything more than they're doing now, or support it. If you really thought it was something people could buy, and wanted to do it, you could re-sell time warner's infrastructure like earthlink, aol, roadrunner, and planetKC do. You'd be running the dhcp servers, so you could do it if you were so inclined. Call Time warner to draft up the paperwork. There are a number of lightweight, cheap computers that fit on the back of a monitor and netboot for this sort of thing. Cheap enough to rent out to people at a $5 a month, upcharge from the regular connection package. Your biggest cost will be support. On 2008-08-20, Bradley Hook <bhook@kssb.net> wrote:
A) Computer provided in the package, providing standardized hardware. B) Sub-contracted ISP services should be included, so that the management group is authorized to contact the ISP and make changes or request support, and all participants have a minimum amount of connectivity.
I actually know a considerable number of people that would love a setup like this, but I don't see it being feasible within an acceptable cost range.
Altogether a novel idea, but most likely impractical.
~Bradley
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of lightweight, cheap computers that fit on the back of a monitor and netboot for this sort of thing. Cheap enough to rent out to people at a $5 a month, upcharge from the regular connection package.
Actually, it wouldn't have to be an "upcharge". If you can get TW to sell the Internet access at "wholesale" rates, in exchange for the volume and offloading of support and billing, you could offer a "free computer"; pricing the combined package at the same as standard RR rates. The question is whether the centralized management would make the support economical enough to be profitable. In which case, TW would do it themselves.
That idea is so 2003... PeoplePC, AOL, others tried it and failed. You'd really have to fine tune your business plan to get the cost outs. Plus, make it extremely hard (or impossible) for people to call in for service/questions - call centers are expensive. Thanks, Ron Geoffrion 913.488.7664 ________________________________ From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Monty J. Harder Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:27 PM To: billycrook@gmail.com Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: idea: a managed linux distribution, for weak users On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <billycrook@gmail.com<mailto:billycrook@gmail.com>> wrote: There are a number of lightweight, cheap computers that fit on the back of a monitor and netboot for this sort of thing. Cheap enough to rent out to people at a $5 a month, upcharge from the regular connection package. Actually, it wouldn't have to be an "upcharge". If you can get TW to sell the Internet access at "wholesale" rates, in exchange for the volume and offloading of support and billing, you could offer a "free computer"; pricing the combined package at the same as standard RR rates. The question is whether the centralized management would make the support economical enough to be profitable. In which case, TW would do it themselves.
There is an untapped market of people that feel they are too stupid to even own a PC. Microsoft was too early with the WebTV idea and too expensive. Other problem was that the WebTV stuff blocked the TV watching. It would be cool to have a separate PC that could send stupid videos from Gootube to the TV so everyone could watch some punk hurt himself. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: Monty J. Harder Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:27 PM On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote: There are a number of lightweight, cheap computers that fit on the back of a monitor and netboot for this sort of thing. Cheap enough to rent out to people at a $5 a month, upcharge from the regular connection package. Actually, it wouldn't have to be an "upcharge". If you can get TW to sell the Internet access at "wholesale" rates, in exchange for the volume and offloading of support and billing, you could offer a "free computer"; pricing the combined package at the same as standard RR rates. The question is whether the centralized management would make the support economical enough to be profitable. In which case, TW would do it themselves.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 08:09, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO <brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov> wrote:
There is an untapped market of people that feel they are too stupid to even own a PC.
Oh, but they sure do enjoy the funny commercials, Mac users.... The rich ones already have macs, and enjoy having overpaid. The poor ones, if you could distract them from wearing black clothing for a few minutes would be the target audience.
Microsoft was too early with the WebTV idea and too expensive. Other problem was that the WebTV stuff blocked the TV watching. It would be cool to have a separate PC that could send stupid videos from Gootube to the TV so everyone could watch some punk hurt himself.
Heh, Maybe the DVR is/will become this platform. All you need to do is add a browser, and ability to 'timeshift' flash animations, and you'd have a NeTivo.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, but they sure do enjoy the funny commercials, Mac users.... The rich ones already have macs, and enjoy having overpaid. The poor ones, if you could distract them from wearing black clothing for a few minutes would be the target audience.
Well, for fear of turning this into a Mac/PC flame^H^H^H^H^Hfunfest, I ought to point out that there's more to a Mac than just style and cost. I've had the opportunity to have worked professionally on PCs running Windows, Macintoshes, PCs running Linux, and various commercial Unix offerings on their hardware. Oddly enough the time I felt most productive and enjoyed the experience the most was when I was on a Mac. And that was MacOS 7.x, when they were slow and had cooperative multitasking. I think the reason that this issue (Mac vs PC) has such a wide variety of opinions has more to do with what people value in their computing experience. Some don't care about the decor and want a inexpensive, utilitarian environment. Others are the opposite. Others have even more different opinions. Anyhow, I've always enjoyed Macintoshes (and I don't even own one right now). I also enjoy spending a bit more money for Sony televisions. Yes, I could have gotten a Toshiba TALEN for much less, but the fit and finish and the overall quality of the experience on my Sony is better, and for _me_ it was worth it to spend more money to get it. I'm sure others are different. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Some don't care about the decor and want a inexpensive, utilitarian environment.
And this is exactly the target market for this idea, imho. For the poor and for grandma. And some grandmas will pay a premium for it (to subsidize the poor? see LawrenceFreenet.org). Give me a browser (with flash, adobe), email, media viewing (pics/video), and maybe a gnucash (quicken), and a backup that just works. No OS wars, just an internet appliance that allows me to experience the internet - see, hear, contribute, communicate. I thought seriously about an enterprise similar to this. My lazy self over-ruled my business self in the end. (I was in my own business for seven years in a previous life). Steady paychecks are not readily dismissed anymore - kids are going to college now... Signed, Wage Slave. Why don't they call layoffs 'emancipation'? ________________________________ From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Watts [jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 2:15 PM To: Billy Crook Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: idea: a managed linux distribution, for weak users On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com<mailto:billycrook@gmail.com>> wrote: Oh, but they sure do enjoy the funny commercials, Mac users.... The rich ones already have macs, and enjoy having overpaid. The poor ones, if you could distract them from wearing black clothing for a few minutes would be the target audience. Well, for fear of turning this into a Mac/PC flame^H^H^H^H^Hfunfest, I ought to point out that there's more to a Mac than just style and cost. I've had the opportunity to have worked professionally on PCs running Windows, Macintoshes, PCs running Linux, and various commercial Unix offerings on their hardware. Oddly enough the time I felt most productive and enjoyed the experience the most was when I was on a Mac. And that was MacOS 7.x, when they were slow and had cooperative multitasking. I think the reason that this issue (Mac vs PC) has such a wide variety of opinions has more to do with what people value in their computing experience. Some don't care about the decor and want a inexpensive, utilitarian environment. Others are the opposite. Others have even more different opinions. Anyhow, I've always enjoyed Macintoshes (and I don't even own one right now). I also enjoy spending a bit more money for Sony televisions. Yes, I could have gotten a Toshiba TALEN for much less, but the fit and finish and the overall quality of the experience on my Sony is better, and for _me_ it was worth it to spend more money to get it. I'm sure others are different. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
I've long thought it would be neat for broadband ISPs to provide a netbooted connectivity/hardware testing OS. It won't corrupt itself since you won't be able to change the master image on the server, and it could easily be used for web browsing. Then again, would you trust your ISP to execute code on your machines? I wouldn't.
You could run code on _their_ machines. There are people who have recently proven methods of running encrypted computing, to where the math all works but the host can't decrypt what is being calculated. They of course will know the algorithm, even if they don't know the data. Justin Dugger
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Justin Dugger <jldugger@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
I've long thought it would be neat for broadband ISPs to provide a netbooted connectivity/hardware testing OS. It won't corrupt itself since you won't be able to change the master image on the server, and it could easily be used for web browsing. Then again, would you trust your ISP to execute code on your machines? I wouldn't.
You could run code on _their_ machines. There are people who have recently proven methods of running encrypted computing, to where the math all works but the host can't decrypt what is being calculated. They of course will know the algorithm, even if they don't know the data.
Justin Dugger
Do you have any links for this encrypted computing research? That sounds fascinating.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Brendan G <moldybeats@gmail.com> wrote:
You could run code on _their_ machines. There are people who have recently proven methods of running encrypted computing, to where the math all works but the host can't decrypt what is being calculated. They of course will know the algorithm, even if they don't know the data.
Do you have any links for this encrypted computing research? That sounds fascinating.
I saw a google tech talk video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1726263855362959424 I don't have his papers but I imagine if you have his name and organization you can find them. Justin Dugger
participants (13)
-
Billy Crook -
billycrook＠gmail.com
-
Bradley Hook -
Brendan G -
Christofer C. Bell -
David Nicol -
Geoffrion, Ron P [IT] -
Jeffrey Watts -
Justin Dugger -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Monty J. Harder -
Nathan Cerny -
Oren Beck