Craig White wrote:

> <snip>
> To debate the viability of Macintosh though...is way off topic here.

I'm not interested in that, either.  Look, some idiot "consultant" recently sold an office manager nearby a "bill of goods" where he told them
they had to dump their Mac's in order to use a LAN that's connecting a bunch of Windows PCs attached to a DSL router.  Why?  I dunno.  Last
time I checked, there's no problem having Mac's talk to TCP/IP on 10Base-T lines that also connect to PCs.  I figure he's just got one of
those Microsoft "certifications" and he can't think outside the brown paper bag they stuck over his head when he got certified.

> I'm just getting ahead of the issue - they are still invested in
> Macintosh and will remain so at least for the next year. I am doing long
> range thinking. I am looking at the viability of using fat server / thin
> client for linux desktop use and wondering how well it will scale for 10
> users. I see the dividend in . . .

joining the Borg? :-)

> Windows 2000 terminal services - low
> maintenance requirements on client workstations. I have a number of
> non-profit clients and I see this as a terrific alternative. I am
> fishing for actual installation - rather than anecdotal information.