Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game. |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
|
07-29-2004, 11:05 PM
|
#1
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland
Distribution: ArchLinux
Posts: 261
Rep:
|
Is Linux right for small office network?
I have very little networking experience, have run a home network under Windows 98 though. I am interested in converting my office of 4 computers to a Linux network with all Linux machines.
My questions:
1) Currently we have no dedicated SERVER, peer to peer I think they call it. We use a database regularly. Should our new network have a server? (and what exactly is the purpose of a server machine vs peer to peer?)
2) On a site that I visited this was the suggestion made on OS to use in network. Is this true or simply the view of a "Windows Person?" This is from http://www.pcmech.com/byos/step/3/
Quote:
Linux
Although I am just as much of a Linux “freedom fighter” as any other guy, I would have to discourage the average guy from trying to run a Linux server. Although Linux is secure, Linux is also near impossible to configure for server usage. The sheer number of programs that have independent management interfaces and configuration text files that oftentimes conflict each other will confuse the budding server administrator and will most likely eat up quite a bit of his time. Second, Linux has many design quirks and flaws that are cumbersome at worse, but certainly will make a newbie intimidated. And, of course, why fix something that isn't broken, right? If Windows 2000 fits your needs, then by all means, use Windows 2000.
|
|
|
|
07-29-2004, 11:59 PM
|
#2
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Fargo, ND
Distribution: SuSE AMD64
Posts: 15,733
|
Does Mr. Shin discuss the royalty payments you would be making also. Perhaps a better question is if linux has the programs you need to run your business. The Open Office or Star Office suites are excellent. If you are accustomed to using outlook, you may be comfortable with Novell's Evolution which is free as is Open Office.
I don't believe setting up an email server or database is any easier in windows than linux. The distributions have wizards to help you install them. If you purchase an Enterprise Edition distribution from Red Had, SuSE or Mandrake, they have extra tools to help you. You could purchase a service contract at a much more reasonable rate also. Compare making changes to a text setup file in Linux, with using the registry editor in windows to find an item which isn't accessible from a Wizard. Also, with time the registry tends to get bloated which hurts the performance of other programs. If a single program setup file mucks up the registry, then you could be in big trouble. The individual sections of a registry can be as dispersed as the setup files in linux that the author refers to.
One use of a server would be a central location for each users home files. This would make backups more convenient. Also, if you install a server with SCSI raid-5 drives, failure would be less likely. You could also operate an office e-mail server. If you need a database, it needs to be located in a central location.
Another use for a server is for security. Protecting the computers and network from unauthorized access. Just hit escape when a windows 98 log-in screen comes up. The computer resources are not protected at all.
If you could share the /bin, /sbin, /usr and /lib directory hierarchies, you can install or upgrade software in the server once instead of doing this at each computer. There is a Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard publication on the web which explains this.
You would have less of a problem with viruses and spy ware. I installed an anti-spyware program on my bosses Windows 2000 computer. There were around 60 programs and almost 6000 traces that it got rid of. Some of these spyware programs not only track iexplorer, but also email and private messages.
There are also books you could resort to to help you set up a linux network. Samba could also be used in a Linux only network. The team that wrote Samba put out an official book that is excellent. You may find that a certain windows accounting program is indispensable for you. In that case you could have a mixed network with Linux, windows and mac computers using samba.
This message turned out to be a lot longer than I was expecting it to be. Authors tend to be opinionated. Even Linux authors.
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|