server, workstation services
in [General Linux]
|
From: Aragorn on 28 Jul 2010 06:45 On Wednesday 28 July 2010 06:38 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as someone(a)online.c0m wrote... > In article <20100722110233.02ef68cf(a)stimpy.site> > mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT >> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(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. > > I suggest that you and the others who responded take a look at the > services in Windows. While this may come as a shock to you, not all people who use GNU/Linux also use Windows. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: Grant on 28 Jul 2010 07:52 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:45:51 +0200, Aragorn <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: >On Wednesday 28 July 2010 06:38 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >identifying as someone(a)online.c0m wrote... > >> In article <20100722110233.02ef68cf(a)stimpy.site> >> mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT >>> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(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. >> >> I suggest that you and the others who responded take a look at the >> services in Windows. > >While this may come as a shock to you, not all people who use GNU/Linux >also use Windows. ;-) And those that do don't give a rat's ring for OP's stream of silly, pointless queries ;) Grant.
From: mjt on 28 Jul 2010 08:12 On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:38:46 -0700 someone(a)online.c0m wrote: > >> Could you be more specific? Which services? > > > >That would be my question too. > > I suggest that you and the others who responded take a look at the > services in Windows. I don't own a copy of Windows and it is not installed on any of my computers, and hasn't been, for years. -- Give your child mental blocks for Christmas. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: Robert Heller on 28 Jul 2010 08:57 At Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:45:51 +0200 Aragorn <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: > > On Wednesday 28 July 2010 06:38 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody > identifying as someone(a)online.c0m wrote... > > > In article <20100722110233.02ef68cf(a)stimpy.site> > > mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT > >> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(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. > > > > I suggest that you and the others who responded take a look at the > > services in Windows. > > While this may come as a shock to you, not all people who use GNU/Linux > also use Windows. ;-) Including some of use who *never* have used MS-Windows -- that *we* in fact migrated from VMS => UNIX (Ultrix/SunOS/Irix/OSF) => Linux, and so have no real, personal experience with MS-Windows at all and in fact don't understand the MS-Windows 'mindset'. > -- 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: Aragorn on 28 Jul 2010 11:37
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 14:57 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as Robert Heller wrote... > At Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:45:51 +0200 Aragorn > <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wednesday 28 July 2010 06:38 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >> identifying as someone(a)online.c0m wrote... >> >> > I suggest that you and the others who responded take a look at the >> > services in Windows. >> >> While this may come as a shock to you, not all people who use >> GNU/Linux also use Windows. ;-) > > Including some of use who *never* have used MS-Windows -- that *we* in > fact migrated from VMS => UNIX (Ultrix/SunOS/Irix/OSF) => Linux, and > so have no real, personal experience with MS-Windows at all and in > fact don't understand the MS-Windows 'mindset'. My "path" was slightly different... I already had read several books and other publications about various operating systems before I ever bought my first computer, but at that stage, the computers I was interacting with (and which were not mine) ran PC-DOS 3.30, and later MS-DOS 4.01. I also had some minor non-root experience with a couple of proprietary UNIX systems, with real "dumb terminals" attached to them. When I bought my first computer of my own - an i386 - it came with MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0, and I used that for about six months, pending the release of OS/2 2.0, which was what I had intended to use. I used OS/2 for over five years, and then I wanted to migrate to UNIX - and more particularly, NeXtSTeP - for my new computer, but that was incredibly expensive, and OS/2 itself was also being faded out. We're talking 1997, and there was only very little support for OS/2 from software vendors other than IBM. That's why I decided to compromise. I didn't have an internet connection at home, and GNU/Linux was still in its infancy somehwat - and I didn't know too much about it either - so I opted to install Windows NT 4.0 on my own machine back then, a Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM. Everyone else was using Windows 95/98, but I considered that a major step back from OS/2, since Windows 95/98/ME were based upon DOS, and DOS on a Pentium II seemed like... well, a Ferrari with the engine of a moped. I wasn't using my computer - at that stage, I still only had one of them - in any professional manner at the time yet, so the NT compromise seemed acceptable for what I needed a computer for. I didn't even use it for longer than say five hours max per day, and not even every day, and mainly as a glorified typewriter, as I was working on a novel. One thing that the Windroids don't seem to realize whenever they complain about the lack of hardware support for some "Designed for Windoze" gadget in GNU/Linux, is that NT actually had an even larger lack of support from anyone other than Microsoft itself. And it was a compromise for me, because I really wanted a UNIX(-like) system. Then, late 1999, I picked up a shrinkwrapped Mandrake 6.0 PowerPack distro at a software shop - remember, I didn't even have internet at home yet - even though I was actually wondering "Why do I need two operating systems on a single computer?", but I took the box home with me anyway and installed it some two weeks later, and I was hooked from the start. It was everything I had always been looking for. It was a UNIX-like system, and the concept of Free & Open Source Software simply blew my mind. I rarely even booted up in NT anymore - I had installed it in dualboot - and after about two weeks, NT _wouldn't _even boot anymore due to some Y2K bug, despite that I had bought all the Service Packs and Y2K updates from Microsoft directly. And I didn't care, because I was far more interested in GNU/Linux, and there was nothing that I could previously do in Windows and not do in GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux was all that I had been looking for, and more. I haven't used Windows (on any of my own computers) since, and all together I think I have only had Windows on my own computers for little over two years, the few months of using the "DOS 5.0 with Win 3.0/3.1" combo and the two years of using NT 4.0 together. So that's three years less than my experience with OS/2, and I've been exclusively using GNU/Linux for way over ten years now. I had no problems whatsoever at installing it, because I had read the printed manuals and looked at the /man/ pages and the HowTos. (Many Windows-addicts would cringe at the relatively interactive installation method as used by Mandrake 6.0 at the time, compared to the "point & click" installation methods of modern distributions.) And then, a few months later, cable internet became available here in town and I was one of the first subscribers. Having permanent access to the internet and a UNIX-like operating system on my computer - which I had already longed for since the mid-1990s - has taught me a great deal about information technology and have actively changed my life, because it got me involved in the technical aspects of the internet, e.g. I've basically founded an IRC network - which is currently kept in a state of suspended animation for reasons too far beyond the scope of this already quite off-topic thread - and that in itself opened up the path to more knowledge about and involvement in yet other internet-related services. So I have at one stage used Windows, yes, but in overall not that long, and only as a compromise, and then even still I took the "difficult" road by using NT instead of the regular DOS-based "consumer" versions. And I already had prior experience with other operating systems - and given that DOS and proprietary UNIX were among them, I have certainly never looked adversely at the use of a commandline; on the contrary, I even like the "direct feel" of it. So I had a different mindset from "the average Windows user", and I had always kept in mind that there is no such thing as "a default operating system", except perhaps for a MacIntosh, because Apple supplies both the proprietary computer hardware and the proprietary operating system as a single package - and pre-OS X operating systems on the Mac were not UNIX-family systems, with the only thing that actually resembled Mac OS somewhat being BeOS, which in turn was also originally developed for proprietary (MacIntosh-like) hardware. For x86 however, given that it was an open architecture, I have always considered the prerogative of choosing an operating system to belong to the computer owner, not to the computer vendor. I also consider UNIX-/POSIX-family operating systems to be the best operating system design in existence. It's perhaps a little less hand-holding than the mouse-addicted newbies would like - and especially so if said newbies were exposed to Windows for long enough to incite an addiction to "the Microsoft way of thinking" - but at least in UNIX, everything is logically organized, everything makes sense, and it allows you to do whatever you want to do. It brings out the computer's full potential, and it's a time-proven platform that has always been more powerful and logical than anything else that has ever been available, especially to the x86 architecture. I wouldn't want anything else anymore. ;-) One thing I also find very interesting is Xen. Given that it's FOSS, it brings mainframe power to (among others) the x86 platform. And I would also like to see the OpenVZ or vServer technology merged with the upstream Linux kernel, but I'm not so sure that Linus would be willing to implement it, given that Linux already supports Xen natively now (via the "paravirt-ops" framework, which also supports running as a guest on top of "kvm", "lguest" and certain versions of VMWare) and that the "kvm" and "lguest" technologies themselves are developed in-tree already. It's a pity though, because most other UNIX systems do offer operating system level virtualization - i.e. FreeBSD Jails, AIX Containers, Solaris Zones, et al. (I'm not sure on IRIX or the other *BSDs beside FreeBSD, but I believe that HP/UX also already has a similar technology available "out of the box" these days.) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157) |