Very Computer

>>We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
>>and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to an
>>IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network for
>>File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux but I
>>have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client version
>>of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server version.

>Nonsense. There is no 'client version' or 'server version' of most of these
>operating systems (barring RedHat) because, in Linux, there is no distinction
>between 'client' and 'server'. The OS does both, and all distros support both,
>simultaneously, out of the box.

>>I
>>understand that there are so many distributions but can you guys
>>recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.

>Any one of the distributions you mentioned above would be sufficient for your
>needs. My personal preference is Slackware, but the others are just as good.

>- --
>Lew Pitcher

>Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
>Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
>Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

>iD8DBQFBtRbeagVFX4UWr64RAuFWAJ9dCXCc9hdf6PIZXM+QXYlX8pNkIQCg7qNe
>LzAtk8zqGc1ijpu41qSPEoQ=
>=Zp2N
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>Hi Lew. Thanks for the reply.
>>I personally didn't know about the client server versions.This is good
>>to know.

>Yah. In the Microsoft OS world, there is an artifically enforced
>distinction between 'client' and 'server' operating systems that just
>isn't the case in the Linux world. Even the Microsoft distinction is
>more based on marketting than OS design and implementation; IIRC, the
>only difference between Win2K Personal or Workstation edition (for
>instance) and Win2K Server was a couple of registry tweaks.

>Red Hat has marketted their recent distributions in the same way as
>Microsoft markets Windows; the distinction between RedHat Workstation
>and RedHat Server is one of marketting and (to a lesser degree)
>packaging. The Server has all the features and facilities of
>Workstation, and Workstation has all the features and facilities of Server.

>>Does slackware allows for easy update/upgrade installation of software
>>like suse and redhat?

>In some ways, easier. The Slackware package management tools are simple
>commandline tools that can be scripted or executed through GUI or CUI
>front-ends.  This makes automated installation and upgrade easier than
>with GUI-only tools like the other distros provide for "user
>installations".  OTOH, Slackware requires that the system administrator
>be a little more aware of setup of the system than RedHat or Suse do;
>Slackware is intended to be mostly a classic Unix server setup.

>In any case, any of the distros you've looked at can easily provide file
>and print services to a bunch of MSWindows systems. Slackware is my
>preference, but may not suit your personal tastes.

>>I really like these features on suse and redhat.
>>Is slackware easy to configure for file and print services so that all
>>the windows clients will be able to access it?

>Slackware is no different than Suse or RedHat in this regard. All three
>use the same tools to configure MSWindows file and print sharing. The
>tool can be accessed through a web interface, making it
>platform-independant.

>>Keep in mind that we don't have any servers in the office so we are
>>basically looking to start from scratch here. There are no experts in
>>the office when it comes to servers.

>We all were beginners once. Don't worry, there's plenty of guidance and
>help available.

>An anecdote might help here: A couple of years ago, a friend called me
>up. He had just got a copy of SuSE in to his work (he owns a small
>software firm, specializing in HR software), and he wanted to get it set
>up for his network. One of his employees had installed the basic system
>(a simple, automated install right off the DVD), but they needed some
>help in getting it configured. I had /never/ seen SuSE before, but I
>told him that I'd give it a try.

>I spent about two hours playing with their system. I had the networking
>enabled and Samba (the Microsoft File and Print Sharing environment) set
>up within the first half hour, the web services set up 10 minutes later,
>and by the end of the first hour, had every service they needed set up
>and enabled.

>The remaining hour was taken up with trying to get their development
>platform installed on the SuSe box. We got most of it configured but we
>needed to install some Java packages that they didn't have available.

>OK, so I've worked on these systems before, so I knew where to look.
>You might not know where to look, but these systems are no more
>difficult to set up than MSWindows, just different.

>>Thanks for your info....

>[snip]

>- --

>Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Data Systems
>Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

>(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

>iD8DBQFBtfNMagVFX4UWr64RAoXWAJ4wm066yn3Avc1Aij6E0F7QIda3SgCdFL7u
>VM98S60ES/ncExHACnKCUoI=
>=af/D
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>> We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
>> and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to
>> an IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network
>> for File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux
>> but I have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client
>> version of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server
>> version. I understand that there are so many distributions but can
>> you guys recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.

>  Hi,

> You can find reviews on http://distrowatch.com. From my personal
> experience I can tell you a few things about some distros:
> - Redhat: is not free anymore, but commercial. The free version
> (maintained by the Linux community) is now called Fedora. I have  
> Redhat/Fedora at work since 2000 and I am quite happy. However, Fedora
> wants to be a cutting-edge distro, and comes with the newest version
> of all programs. That's why each Fedora release so far had a long list
> of problems/bugs/"features". Our administrator complains quite often :)
> - Mandrake: I tested it a long time ago. Looked very nice. Seems to be
> the most popular choice at the moment
> - Suse: They paid a lot of attention to the user interface. I think
> their biggest advantage is the configuration tool (yast), which is
> very easy to use by a newcomer. That's also the thing that finally
> made me drop it - everything must be configured with yast, because it
> generates/overwrites the configuration files, so I couldn't modify
> them by hand when I wanted to. Also, I had problems with the updates
> from their mirrors - they were quite slow.
> - Slackware: I don't know anything about it.
> - Debian: my personal favourite. I run it at home. Comes with a huge
> amounts of packets (probably the most complete distro). Their package
> maintenance/update system (apt-get) is excellent. They have 3 versions
> at any moment: stable, testing and unstable. The "stable" is good for
> servers - it is really stable since they only bring security/bug fixes
> to it, but the packets are usually old (one-two years behind). The
> "testing" is newer, and supposedly less stable. The "unstable" is ...
> unstable. For about a year I stick to the Debian testing version and I
> have no trouble at all with it.

> Mihai

>>That is some good information that you have provided.
>>I guess what I like suse and redhat more than slackware because they
>>provide a more graphical environment than slackware.
>>Have you try any other distros? How about Ebian, Mandrake? etc...

>My advice is to stick with the more popular distros.

>Depending upon where you are located there may be a local
>Linux Users Group which meets or at least has a website.

>If there is a Junior College near by you can likely find
>some local computer wizard who would be willing to assist
>on an adhoc basis for a reasonable fee.

>If I were in your position, I pick the version for which you
>can get local support.

>HTH & YMMV

>>> We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows
>>> XP and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect
>>> to an IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small
>>> network for File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to
>>> linux but I have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the
>>> client version of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the
>>> server version. I understand that there are so many distributions
>>> but can you guys recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.

>>  Hi,

>> You can find reviews on http://distrowatch.com. From my personal
>> experience I can tell you a few things about some distros:
>> - Redhat: is not free anymore, but commercial. The free version
>> (maintained by the Linux community) is now called Fedora. I have  
>> Redhat/Fedora at work since 2000 and I am quite happy. However,
>> Fedora wants to be a cutting-edge distro, and comes with the newest
>> version of all programs. That's why each Fedora release so far had a
>> long list of problems/bugs/"features". Our administrator complains
>> quite often :)
>> - Mandrake: I tested it a long time ago. Looked very nice. Seems to
>> be the most popular choice at the moment
>> - Suse: They paid a lot of attention to the user interface. I think
>> their biggest advantage is the configuration tool (yast), which is
>> very easy to use by a newcomer. That's also the thing that finally
>> made me drop it - everything must be configured with yast, because it
>> generates/overwrites the configuration files, so I couldn't modify
>> them by hand when I wanted to. Also, I had problems with the updates
>> from their mirrors - they were quite slow.
>> - Slackware: I don't know anything about it.
>> - Debian: my personal favourite. I run it at home. Comes with a huge
>> amounts of packets (probably the most complete distro). Their package
>> maintenance/update system (apt-get) is excellent. They have 3
>> versions at any moment: stable, testing and unstable. The "stable" is
>> good for servers - it is really stable since they only bring
>> security/bug fixes to it, but the packets are usually old (one-two
>> years behind). The "testing" is newer, and supposedly less stable.
>> The "unstable" is ... unstable. For about a year I stick to the
>> Debian testing version and I have no trouble at all with it.

>> Mihai