server, workstation services
in [General Linux]
|
From: General Schvantzkoph on 24 Jul 2010 08:07 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:31:20 -0500, Robert Heller wrote: > At 24 Jul 2010 10:34:53 GMT General Schvantzkoph > <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:11:42 -0700, annalissa wrote: >> >> > On Jul 22, 12:02 pm, mjt <myswtestYOURSH...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT >> >> >> >> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:36:36 -0700, annalissa wrote: >> >> > > what is the linux equivalent services of server & workstation >> >> > > services in windows XP ? >> >> >> >> > Could you be more specific? Which services? >> >> >> >> That would be my question too. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you >> >> will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming >> >> it on the computer. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>> >> > >> > >> > In a LAN where majority of the machines are WinXP machines , >> > sometimes there wont be any file sharing/ printer sharing / scanner >> > sharing bw machines just because Server & workstation services aren't >> > started so in that context what will be the linux equivalent of these >> > services ? >> >> SAMBA provides Windows file and printer sharing services. When you said >> server services that's vague in the Linux context because there are so >> many that are bundled into the typical Linux distro. In addition to >> SAMBA which provides Windows sharing services, there is NFS which >> provides Unix file sharing services, CUPS which provides modern printer >> sharing services (the older Unix printer services are also available), >> LDAP (light directory access protocol), ssh which provides remote shell >> and remote command services and remote file copying and syncing, there >> are a couple of DNS servers available, multiple FTP servers available, >> multiple database servers, multiple web servers. That's off of the top >> of my head, there is a lot more. > > The other thing is this: Linux, like UNIX does NOT make the same sort of > distintion between 'server' O/S vs. 'workstation' O/S that MS-Windows > does. There isn't any such thing as a 'Linux Server' O/S as opposed to > a 'Linux Workstation' O/S (eg the 'difference' between MS-Windows Server > 2003 vs MS-Windows XP Home vs MS-Windows XP Pro). ANY Linux box can be a > server, a workstation, or both at the same time, depending on what > packages have been installed, how they have been configured, and what > services have been started. > > >> The free Linuxs contain everything, however Redhat sells separate Workstation and Server editions of RHEL which are meant to go head to head with the similarly named Microsoft products. I don't know what's missing from each of those editions because I've only used the CentOS clone which is the union of RHEL workstation and server. The curious thing in the Linux world is that the more you pay the less you get. The free Redhat distro, Fedora, has vastly more programs available than RHEL which isn't free.
From: Robert Heller on 24 Jul 2010 08:59 At 24 Jul 2010 12:07:29 GMT General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:31:20 -0500, Robert Heller wrote: > > > At 24 Jul 2010 10:34:53 GMT General Schvantzkoph > > <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:11:42 -0700, annalissa wrote: > >> > >> > On Jul 22, 12:02 pm, mjt <myswtestYOURSH...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT > >> >> > >> >> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:36:36 -0700, annalissa wrote: > >> >> > > what is the linux equivalent services of server & workstation > >> >> > > services in windows XP ? > >> >> > >> >> > Could you be more specific? Which services? > >> >> > >> >> That would be my question too. > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you > >> >> will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming > >> >> it on the computer. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > In a LAN where majority of the machines are WinXP machines , > >> > sometimes there wont be any file sharing/ printer sharing / scanner > >> > sharing bw machines just because Server & workstation services aren't > >> > started so in that context what will be the linux equivalent of these > >> > services ? > >> > >> SAMBA provides Windows file and printer sharing services. When you said > >> server services that's vague in the Linux context because there are so > >> many that are bundled into the typical Linux distro. In addition to > >> SAMBA which provides Windows sharing services, there is NFS which > >> provides Unix file sharing services, CUPS which provides modern printer > >> sharing services (the older Unix printer services are also available), > >> LDAP (light directory access protocol), ssh which provides remote shell > >> and remote command services and remote file copying and syncing, there > >> are a couple of DNS servers available, multiple FTP servers available, > >> multiple database servers, multiple web servers. That's off of the top > >> of my head, there is a lot more. > > > > The other thing is this: Linux, like UNIX does NOT make the same sort of > > distintion between 'server' O/S vs. 'workstation' O/S that MS-Windows > > does. There isn't any such thing as a 'Linux Server' O/S as opposed to > > a 'Linux Workstation' O/S (eg the 'difference' between MS-Windows Server > > 2003 vs MS-Windows XP Home vs MS-Windows XP Pro). ANY Linux box can be a > > server, a workstation, or both at the same time, depending on what > > packages have been installed, how they have been configured, and what > > services have been started. > > > > > >> > > The free Linuxs contain everything, however Redhat sells separate > Workstation and Server editions of RHEL which are meant to go head to > head with the similarly named Microsoft products. I don't know what's > missing from each of those editions because I've only used the CentOS I think this is just the CD/DVD collections and is effectively a 'convience' thing. Ubuntu also provides a 'server' CD ISO, separate from their 'regular' (desktop/workstation/notebook) CD ISO. Both Ubuntu CD ISOs are *subsets* of the Ubuntu repo. I believe RHEL's CD/DVDs are actually much the same: I expect that there is one 'unified' RHEL repo (with much the same set of packages as the CentOS repo), even though there are several sets of RHEL CD/DVDs, each 'tailored' for each of the two or three 'classes' of 'products'. > clone which is the union of RHEL workstation and server. The curious > thing in the Linux world is that the more you pay the less you get. The > free Redhat distro, Fedora, has vastly more programs available than RHEL > which isn't free. Fedora is the beta-test distro. I expect that RH would be testing alternitive programs for various services and functions, and then picks one or two of the possible alternitives to 'freeze' into RHEL. It is possible that some of the packages in Fedora are not stable / mature enough for an enterprise distribution. > -- Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar! Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database heller(a)deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
From: David Brown on 24 Jul 2010 10:48 Robert Heller wrote: > At 24 Jul 2010 12:07:29 GMT General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:31:20 -0500, Robert Heller wrote: >> >>> At 24 Jul 2010 10:34:53 GMT General Schvantzkoph >>> <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:11:42 -0700, annalissa wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jul 22, 12:02� pm, mjt <myswtestYOURSH...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT >>>>>> >>>>>> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:36:36 -0700, annalissa wrote: >>>>>>>> what is the linux equivalent services of server & workstation >>>>>>>> services in windows XP ? >>>>>>> Could you be more specific? Which services? >>>>>> That would be my question too. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you >>>>>> will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming >>>>>> it on the computer. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>> >>>>> >>>>> In a LAN where majority of the machines are WinXP machines , >>>>> sometimes there wont be any file sharing/ printer sharing / scanner >>>>> sharing bw machines just because Server & workstation services aren't >>>>> started so in that context what will be the linux equivalent of these >>>>> services ? >>>> SAMBA provides Windows file and printer sharing services. When you said >>>> server services that's vague in the Linux context because there are so >>>> many that are bundled into the typical Linux distro. In addition to >>>> SAMBA which provides Windows sharing services, there is NFS which >>>> provides Unix file sharing services, CUPS which provides modern printer >>>> sharing services (the older Unix printer services are also available), >>>> LDAP (light directory access protocol), ssh which provides remote shell >>>> and remote command services and remote file copying and syncing, there >>>> are a couple of DNS servers available, multiple FTP servers available, >>>> multiple database servers, multiple web servers. That's off of the top >>>> of my head, there is a lot more. >>> The other thing is this: Linux, like UNIX does NOT make the same sort of >>> distintion between 'server' O/S vs. 'workstation' O/S that MS-Windows >>> does. There isn't any such thing as a 'Linux Server' O/S as opposed to >>> a 'Linux Workstation' O/S (eg the 'difference' between MS-Windows Server >>> 2003 vs MS-Windows XP Home vs MS-Windows XP Pro). ANY Linux box can be a >>> server, a workstation, or both at the same time, depending on what >>> packages have been installed, how they have been configured, and what >>> services have been started. >>> >>> >> The free Linuxs contain everything, however Redhat sells separate >> Workstation and Server editions of RHEL which are meant to go head to >> head with the similarly named Microsoft products. I don't know what's >> missing from each of those editions because I've only used the CentOS > > I think this is just the CD/DVD collections and is effectively a > 'convience' thing. Ubuntu also provides a 'server' CD ISO, separate > from their 'regular' (desktop/workstation/notebook) CD ISO. Both > Ubuntu CD ISOs are *subsets* of the Ubuntu repo. I believe RHEL's > CD/DVDs are actually much the same: I expect that there is one > 'unified' RHEL repo (with much the same set of packages as the CentOS > repo), even though there are several sets of RHEL CD/DVDs, each > 'tailored' for each of the two or three 'classes' of 'products'. > I believe in each case, the repositories are the same, and the software available in them is the same. However, there are different defaults for the packages installed or offered during installation - a "server" version will put things like web and database servers as easy options during installation, while a "desktop" version will emphasis desktop programs. In the case of Ubuntu (and probably Redhat, but I don't know for sure) the default kernel is also different, with different configuration tuning for different types of workload. Support contracts and documentation are also likely to be different. But there is nothing to stop you mixing and matching packages for whatever you need. >> clone which is the union of RHEL workstation and server. The curious >> thing in the Linux world is that the more you pay the less you get. The >> free Redhat distro, Fedora, has vastly more programs available than RHEL >> which isn't free. > > Fedora is the beta-test distro. I expect that RH would be testing > alternitive programs for various services and functions, and then picks > one or two of the possible alternitives to 'freeze' into RHEL. It is > possible that some of the packages in Fedora are not stable / mature > enough for an enterprise distribution. > That was the original idea of Fedora, but it's not really true any more. Fedora is a side project rather than a testing ground - it aims to be as close to cutting-edge as possible while still being very stable. Redhat will, of course, take the best from Fedora's experience and use it in RHEL - but Fedora is not a testing ground for RHEL. There is a lot that goes into RHEL that was not in Fedora (at least, not in a standard install - maybe available in extra packages), and vice versa.
From: mjt on 24 Jul 2010 15:16 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:31:20 -0500 Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: > The other thing is this: Linux, like UNIX does NOT make the same sort > of distintion between 'server' O/S vs. 'workstation' O/S that > MS-Windows does. Hahaha. That reminds me way back when Russinovich discovered, by altering some Registry values, a Windows NT Workstation could become an NT Server. -- Noncombatant, n.: A dead Quaker. - Ambrose Bierce <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: Balwinder S Dheeman on 24 Jul 2010 15:19
On 07/24/10 17:37, General Schvantzkoph wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:31:20 -0500, Robert Heller wrote: > >> At 24 Jul 2010 10:34:53 GMT General Schvantzkoph >> <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:11:42 -0700, annalissa wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 22, 12:02� pm, mjt <myswtestYOURSH...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT >>>>> >>>>> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:36:36 -0700, annalissa wrote: >>>>>>> what is the linux equivalent services of server & workstation >>>>>>> services in windows XP ? >>>>> >>>>>> Could you be more specific? Which services? >>>>> >>>>> That would be my question too. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you >>>>> will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming >>>>> it on the computer. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In a LAN where majority of the machines are WinXP machines , >>>> sometimes there wont be any file sharing/ printer sharing / scanner >>>> sharing bw machines just because Server & workstation services aren't >>>> started so in that context what will be the linux equivalent of these >>>> services ? >>> >>> SAMBA provides Windows file and printer sharing services. When you said >>> server services that's vague in the Linux context because there are so >>> many that are bundled into the typical Linux distro. In addition to >>> SAMBA which provides Windows sharing services, there is NFS which >>> provides Unix file sharing services, CUPS which provides modern printer >>> sharing services (the older Unix printer services are also available), >>> LDAP (light directory access protocol), ssh which provides remote shell >>> and remote command services and remote file copying and syncing, there >>> are a couple of DNS servers available, multiple FTP servers available, >>> multiple database servers, multiple web servers. That's off of the top >>> of my head, there is a lot more. >> >> The other thing is this: Linux, like UNIX does NOT make the same sort of >> distintion between 'server' O/S vs. 'workstation' O/S that MS-Windows >> does. There isn't any such thing as a 'Linux Server' O/S as opposed to >> a 'Linux Workstation' O/S (eg the 'difference' between MS-Windows Server >> 2003 vs MS-Windows XP Home vs MS-Windows XP Pro). ANY Linux box can be a >> server, a workstation, or both at the same time, depending on what >> packages have been installed, how they have been configured, and what >> services have been started. >> >> >>> > > The free Linuxs contain everything, however Redhat sells separate > Workstation and Server editions of RHEL which are meant to go head to > head with the similarly named Microsoft products. I don't know what's > missing from each of those editions because I've only used the CentOS > clone which is the union of RHEL workstation and server. The curious > thing in the Linux world is that the more you pay the less you get. The > free Redhat distro, Fedora, has vastly more programs available than RHEL > which isn't free. Same is applicable to Ubuntu -- backed by a commercial company whereas Debian provides all popular and, or useful packages in a single edition and, or distribution. Seems Ubuntu desktop and, or server edition were not enough to confuse the users they have and are adapting many *buntu's as official editions of Ubuntu :( -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux(a)HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/ |