[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Multiple PC's for one user?



I guess this is all up to you...

The debian systems I use all more or less depend on each other. I've got
one DB instance, One SMTP mail instance, One IMAP mail instance,
gameservers, One central system that runs Cron over the network. These
services are all shared/used by other machines over the network.

Distributed shared services is a major strength of linux (and debian).

The other way around is also possible, have a single machine that services
the needs of many... For instance a multiuser system that has six screens,
six keyboards, six mice: http://linuxgazette.net/124/smith.html

So tell us what you expect from the two systems and we might be able to
tell you how the services can be split up.

Gr,

Bart

> Instead of buying a commercian "muscle box" I think it would be more  
fun to instead link two pc's to serve one user, namely, myself.  
Thinking about this, I wanted to contact the group.  
>  
> Has anybody else done this?  I would like to know so I could just  
follow in the footsteps of somebody who has experience.  
>  
> I would really like to have the repetitive and daemon like jobs run   on
the computer without the keyboard/screen/mouse.  I wonder though  
because in debian exim and cron are in the "base system."  Can a  
Debian system be run without these?  Email in particular, is there a  
setting where I can tell the "lighter" system to use the SMTP server  
of the "heavier" system as a default, or do I need to run a lighter  
SMTP daemon or do I need to program exim for this somehow?  
>  
> Can simpler and less secure things like telnet be configured to work  
only within the LAN?  I know how to invoke SSH but is seems overkill  
for logging into a box next to the "lighter" box.  any thoughts?    
> Thanks,  
> ---  
> Scotty  
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>






Reply to: