Which OS for my server?

-
bobb stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 18:06:03 +0100, "Shaun McCann"
wrote:

I never even thought of Linux would you believe. I might be stating
the obvious here but when I have everything up and running I want to
be able to use my server to connect to the internet with all the
client computers connecting through it and for the server to be able
to route mail to each client's mail account. Is that the sort of
thing that I could be doing if I have a Linux server with client
computers running Windows? (For what it's worth the current client
computers I have are 2 running Windows XP and 1 running ME).

Yes, it would just be acting as a gateway. The OS would be irrelevant.
All file system translations are irrelevant, over a LAN/WAN. Except, of
course, for MAC which would have to use an alternate protocol Unless
there's a TCP/IP equivelent out, now for MACs? (it's been a while) But, I
think MACs can do NETBUI...



Using a server box just for routing Internet traffic is certainly more
work that it needs be. A hardware router works much better and best of
all, maintenance-free. Now if you want to run a local mail server,
that's another thing.

True. The only real reason I think a person would want to run a server
would be for file and/or mail server functionality (and, obviously,
firewall functionality). If those needs are not there (file/mail server),
a Linksys or Netgear or Sonicwall would be ideal.





-bobb

--
Strontium

"I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really
ever there at all. And, I want to get free..."

Shaun McCann wrote:
I'm just about to build a small server for my network (the only hardware
that I now need is a case) and I was wondering which would OS I should
install.

The network will be 4-6 computers - including the server - and will be
sharing an ADSL connection.

Any suggestions as to what to go for? I'd like to keep the costs down - if
possible - and the cost of some of the software I've seen is enough to turn
your hair grey!!

Linux: low (no) cost. Can run in non-GUI mode so you're not wasting
loads of resources on windows you're not using. Has *loads* of services
available free like sendmail, disk sharing, newsgroup software, CVS, etc.


Cheers,

Shaun.

Shaun McCann wrote:
Yes linux is freat for this. Just installed sendmail and a pop client this
very day so I can send and receive mail without my ISP. There is a load

of

free software around like apache/mysql/php so the only limit is not your
imagination (but your upload speed ;-( )

I like ms-windows xp (which I run on a 'client' pc) however the design is
more aimed to being user friendly than being a server, therefore I think

you

are better of using MS Windows PC's as clients and linux PC's as server.


I never even thought of Linux would you believe. I might be stating the
obvious here but when I have everything up and running I want to be able to
use my server to connect to the internet with all the client computers
connecting through it and for the server to be able to route mail to each
client's mail account. Is that the sort of thing that I could be doing if I
have a Linux server with client computers running Windows? (For what it's
worth the current client computers I have are 2 running Windows XP and 1
running ME).

What abour running a Linux server with an ADSL connection? Are there
modems/routers that I should be wary of if I go the Linux route?

Anyway, cheers for the suggestions so far one and all. It's certainly given
me something to consider when setting my server up.............

Yes, Linux can do all this. There's no contest really for servers -
Linux beats Windows hands down. The only problem is learning Linux.
However, if you can find a Linux User Group in your area you can
probably get a local geek to come round and help in exchange for coffee.

Using a server box just for routing Internet traffic is certainly more
work that it needs be. A hardware router works much better and best of
all, maintenance-free. Now if you want to run a local mail server,
that's another thing.

I don't need to run a server but I want to just, for want of a better way to
put it, for the hell of it. I've just signed up for my broadband account and
part of the sign-up deal is to get a broadband router so I don't need a
server but I'd like to build one as it's something I've not done before.

Shaun.

Linux: low (no) cost. Can run in non-GUI mode so you're not wasting
loads of resources on windows you're not using. Has *loads* of services
available free like sendmail, disk sharing, newsgroup software, CVS, etc.

Cheers,

Looks like it might be a bit of a challenge to get a Linux server up and
running but that's one of the reasons I want to build a server.......

Shaun.

Shaun McCann wrote:

I'm just about to build a small server for my network (the only hardware
that I now need is a case) and I was wondering which would OS I should
install.

The network will be 4-6 computers - including the server - and will be
sharing an ADSL connection.

Any suggestions as to what to go for? I'd like to keep the costs down - if
possible - and the cost of some of the software I've seen is enough to
turn your hair grey!!



Simple, linux. Mandrake is probably the easiest for newbies, I like 8.2
unless you have bleeding edge hardware.

--

Stacey

nope wrote:


"Rotary Phone" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
Right, Windows is more user friendly. Linux, is a whole 'nother thing.
Fire
up that text editor and configure and 'secure' your system line by line
by line. 'Hope he really knows what he's doing!

Rotary Phone


I must agree. I am nowhere near the level of skill it takes to tweak
linux,
free or not. Line by line is fun and educational but I need that damn
GUI.... and none of my progs will work with linux. So yes it depends on
how much time you have, and where your aggravation threshold is.



???? When was the last time (if ever) that you used linux? Most of this
stuff can be done with a GUI now. If it can't, the system comes with all
the docs and howto's instead of buying $$$$ books to figure out how to try
to get MS to work.

As far as agggravation level, have you ever tried to keep a MS server
secure and up?

--

Stacey

Shaun McCann wrote:

Using a server box just for routing Internet traffic is certainly more
work that it needs be. A hardware router works much better and best of
all, maintenance-free. Now if you want to run a local mail server,
that's another thing.

I don't need to run a server but I want to just, for want of a better way
to put it, for the hell of it. I've just signed up for my broadband
account and part of the sign-up deal is to get a broadband router so I
don't need a server but I'd like to build one as it's something I've not
done before.



Download Mandrake 8.2, intall in on a pentium+ class machine and the GUI in
mandrake control center will walk you though setting up the networking. (I
found 9.1 was "broken" as far as the GUI and ADSL and 8.0 has issues with
IP masq). Then install any package related to bastille and run
InteractiveBastille in X and answer the questions to get a solid firewall
running.

I'm using this with an alcatel speed touch home and it's "stealth" :-)
--

Stacey

Shaun McCann wrote:

Linux: low (no) cost. Can run in non-GUI mode so you're not wasting
loads of resources on windows you're not using. Has *loads* of services
available free like sendmail, disk sharing, newsgroup software, CVS, etc.

Cheers,

Looks like it might be a bit of a challenge to get a Linux server up and
running but that's one of the reasons I want to build a server.......



Honestly it's not if you try mandrake 8.2 it's as easy/easier than any
windows "point and click" you'd find and actually secure.
--

Stacey