Linux for single-purpose terminals

Question

Here's a little Arch Linux success story that I feel I need to post somewhere:
I work at a place that oversees public internet access sites (government-funded, for disadvantaged people but anyone can use them), and we're often pressured into making the terminals run Windows "because that's what people are used to." I've about had it with trying to get Windows locked down enough so that people can't set porn wallpaper or change the homepage, but can still save PDF's to the desktop and print them. Securing windows is an adventure in clicking through hundreds of little checkboxes -- it starts with everything allowed, and you selectively turn things off one by one, and hope that Microsoft deigned to make checkboxes for everything.
And then, there's the problem of cloning the install once you've got it all set up just right -- even on identical hardware, you can't just copy the files over and expect it to work. Even after you run the repair CD and use that "fix boot sector" command, usually it still won't boot without a little more fighting, and most of the time a "repair install" is needed. When you've got different motherboards, especially if they're of a different generations (686 vs. one higher), almost nothing is portable.
When I'm not making Windows boxes for these sites, I have sysadmin duties that I often don't work enough hours per week to fulfill. And when an order for "make us some public terminals" comes in, they usually mean "right freaking now" and we don't have time to do anything but fulfill the request the only way we know how, so I don't get time to experiment then, either.
Then the other week, one of my contract clients from my other job (my own business, actually) said, "We need four very simple terminals that act as web browsers for this web-based app our volunteers will use. We want them as cheap as possible, so it'd be great if you could use junk hardware."
So, I finally had a legit excuse to do what I'd always wanted to -- build these things with Linux. I chose Arch because that's what I use at home, so I'm already familiar with it. It's also insanely fast to get it installed and running -- if you use the "quickinst" method, you don't even have to bother with package selection until later. I built the first workstation, then spent a few hours Googling for how to make X auto-login as the limit user, then how to make a custom UI out of FVWM so that all the users had were gigantic buttons called "WWW" "My documents" "Notepad" and "Citrix" and "Help". I found an XP-like theme for FVWM, so that users who've memorized "big red button means close window" will be happy, and learned enough FVWM scripting to have it customized within a couple hours. I found that opera-static (web browser) loads fast enough, even on a Celeron 466 and a really old hard drive.
Then came cloning -- I weeded out as many unnecessary files as I could, and made the root partition only use 780 MB uncompressed. I made tarballs of it and /boot , booted the next blank computer from CD (totally different hardware -- my initial machine was a P4, my clone was that Celeron 466; different hard drives, network cards, video, everything), partitioned it, untarred, changed the hostname and 2 or 3 other little settings, installed grub... and the thing booted perfectly on the second try (the first try was spent switching X drivers). I repeated the process to the other two machines, and had them all working by the end of the day. Oh, and the Linux version of the Citrix client is faster than the native Windows one :)
Four machines with vastly different hardware, running identical setups that (I hope) will be damn near impossible for users to screw up, in one working day. It took me and the staff at my day job months to learn all of the tricks for doing the same thing with Windows, with less adequate results. Now I'll be sharing my linux station tarballs with them, and we can make workstations in less than 10 minutes, rather than 3 or 4 hours, and best of all, no more getting into arguments about licensing (it's become more or less standard practice to use pirated Windows even though we have paid keys for every install, just because it saves us so much hassle -- no WGA, no activation, etc.).

Answer 1

thetrivialstuff wrote:no more getting into arguments about licensing (it's become more or less standard practice to use pirated Windows even though we have paid keys for every install, just because it saves us so much hassle -- no WGA, no activation, etc.).
Don't you love it when they shoot themselves in the foot so readily?
Very nice post