Re: Which Linux should I install?
I'd like to know if Linux can do what NT can do in a client X server
configuration. Let me explain. I don't want every workstation user an
network/system administrator. With NT I can configure from server wich
volumes will be maped for each user, wich workstation each user will be
granted access, wich printer each user will be granted use. As well I
can use the login script to set the general preferences and others....
Can I do that with Linux (UNIX)? Can I, from the server, attach or
intall resources to workstations?
Can the user login only into the server (not the localhost login)?
George Bonser escreveu:
> Your main choices would be Debian, Slackware, Red Hat and S.u.S.E though
> there are a few others out there. Of the four, I find Debian to be best
> suited for servers. The packages have well configured default
> installations, are usually changed easilly by editing configuration files
> in intuitive locations, and integrate well with other packages that they
> might interact with.
> Red Hat is probably best suited to a single user desktops installations.
> They have an extensive GUI control panel that works very well if resources
> are being managed from the local console but leave much to be desired in
> the server is being administered remotely. They also have invented some
> interesting locations for configuration options that take considerable
> sleuthing to locate if the GUI control options are not available.
> Slackware is basicly a bare-bones linux platform with a minimal number of
> pre-packaged applications. Slackware takes considerable administation as
> new software must be configured and built on the system. The local admin
> is responsible for integration with other software.
> If you are familliar with Sun Solaris, you will find Debian very familliar
> in layout. If you are experianced in Berkeley Unix, Slackware and Red Hat
> will not seem too alien to you.
> S.u.S.E. uses the Red Hat packaging system with their own system
> sonfiguration and management software. In addition, they are major
> contributors to the XFree86 X windows project.
> Oh! I almost forgot about Caldera. They are a completely commercial Linux
> distribution and offer support to include references to local providers of
> on-site technical support. Netscape commercial servers are also available
> for Caldera Linux.
> I use Debian for servers. It is easiest to keep up to date using remote
> administration and has been extremely stable. One thing to look for is a
> local consultant that has experiance in performance tuning. The default
> distribution kernels can require some minor patching to raise the number
> of allowable open files and processes that might be required for a very
> busy server. This is just one example but the point is that a local
> consultant can smooth the transition and save you considerable time and
> money in the long run.
> On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Leonardo Ruoso wrote:
> > I want to install Linux in my company as the main server, file server
> > and database server. Which one should I install? what the diference
> > between then?
> > Leonardo Ruoso
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
> George Bonser
> Just be thankful that Microsoft does not manufacture pharmaceuticals.
> Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com