Slashdot Mirror
How To Create a Linux Network for Peanuts
securitas writes: LinuxWorld has the first installment of a series on how to go from being a Windows based shop to a Linux one." One of the article's points, one that I strongly agree with, is how overpowered the machines are that most people buy.
I thought that I might never have to hear or read that word again. The bad memories of downed networks because some user unplugged his machine or knocked off the connector or removed the terminator are still way too fresh.
Why can't we all just get along without it? Splurge the eleven dollars for a 10/100 NIC and put in CAT 5.
This article is way off-base on several points. If my employer suggested that I maintain a garage sale network as described, I'd find another job. Yes, X-windows terminals are a perfectly valid way to go, but put a halfway decent machine on the job. You and your users will be much happier.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Gotta love the /. effect. I had a chance to mirror it quickly here.
Make sure you try the original link first, please - it seems to come and go
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
Here is why this doesn't work.
1)If you only have a few workstations for a lot of people, you are going to end up paying people to twiddle their thumbs while someone else types a memo. This negates any savings on having cheap/fewer workstations in the first couple of months.
2)Slower workstations are, well, slower. those small groups of 30 second waits add up. If you want an efficient office, you dont pay people to wait for their machines to load data/get email, etc. New hardware is dirt cheap right now. You can get a good 1ghz system for 700 dollars or so, so why not get one.
3)Older equipment breaks more and is harder to find parts for. Try to find 72 pin simms that are guaranteed to work for a decent price. didnt think so. How about bios issues with those old 2 dollar motherboards when you try to slap a newer hard drive on them. Digging up AT power supplies? Yes, they do still exist, but they are getting a little more difficult to find. and the pain of working with older machines when they break is hellacious. swapping the power supply in an ATX machine takes about 2 minutes. In an AT machine, it takes about half an hour since I have to pull the entire machine apart. And yes, I do do this regularly. I changed 2 AT power supplies last week. (I work at a Uni, not everyone has new machines).
4) Old networking sucks. One of the major points of having a network is having the ability to share files. This means you want switched 100mb everywhere. Again, it is cheap enough, why do you pay people to wait. Our main fileserver is on gigabit fiber, and we use it constantly. Copper gigabit network cards are coming way down in price right now, the switches are coming down soon, so you might as well be prepared to go gigabit when you need to.
5) No office is in a vacuum. Abiword and StarOffice may be great, but none of them read all Office file formats perfectly yet. You still need to use microsoft products to communicate with other offices, for better or worse. Not a troll, just the truth.
6) Outlook. omygod Outlook is neat. I never saw the utility of outlook and exchange until I worked in an office that used it efficiently. It is at the point where it is indespensible. The ability to share calendars, email, move files around, schedule meetings, etc is wonderful. Yes, this does mean you have to run NT and exchange on a sever, bt we have made this concession. With the exception of our exchange server and our pdc, we are all FreeBSD.
In an office of 20 people, a 1000-1200 bucks per every 2 years (our average upgrade cycle) for each person isn't a huge cost compared to the salary, electricity, water bills, etc. Why not spend that kind of cash to make sure that work can actually get done and you dont have a sysadmin running around saying "it almost works!" or here's a workaround.
I'm a unix admin, I hate administering NT, but I have no doubt as to its current utility in most work environments. The benefits it provides outweighs the costs of maintaining it, at least until the unix variants get up to speed on the capabilities.
Here's the specs:
- VIA Cyrix MII PR266 processor
- 64MB RAM (single DIMM and upgradable)
- 4MB Flash Memory Disk
- 24X CD-ROM Drive
- 56K Modem
- 10/100 bT Ethernet
- 2 USB Ports
- Keyboard & Mouse
- Speakers
- Linux and X boot CD with Realplayer G2, Netscape, Citrix and an IRC client.
BTW, Dyolf is right, except for the thinknic, thin clients [that I've seen] are $500+. Too rich for my blood.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Quibble: a 486 is probably too slow to run StarOffice. That thing is a beast.
I used to buy the very top of the line hardware and could never get enough power. A 386/33 was non-negotiable -- the 386/25 was just too weak. But now bottom of the line is more than enough.
More serious point: WHY WHY WHY are fonts so fscking hard on Linux? I've installed RH 5.2, 6.0 and just recently 7.1, and setting up fonts was different on each one, and always a black art.
StarOffice's cooperation with font servers actually seemed to take a step backwards at one point, and I simply stopped using it. Why don't modern Linux distributions just include the damned font server, at least in the "desktop" configurations? I understand they can't include the fonts themselves, but at least including the font server would be a great start. That is THE single biggest barricade to Linux on the desktop, given the existence of suites like StarOffice.
This guy was talking about X terminals -- basically dumb computers that do nothing other than display stuff. Only one important program is running locally -- the X server. Everything else is running on a Big Box (tm) back in the server room.
Doing it that way can be more efficient, as the operating system makes more use of shared libraries. If you start up one session of Gnome, for instance, that may take up a big (64-192) chunk of RAM. However, the next person to log in will not double the amount of memory required, as the libraries and other static data can be shared between multiple processes.
Personally, I still prefer to have my own computer on my desktop. Then again, I've never been in a true X terminal shop.
One big thing that this guy forgot to mention was that the network should be at least behind a good firewall, and maybe not even routed to the outside Internet at all..
My understanding is that an X terminal basically has to do one job... display an image. The actual processing takes place on a central server.
If my assumptions are true, it wouldn't really matter what application you where using. Sure, if everyone where doing some high end stuff all at once you might put a pretty heavy load on the server...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not as well versed in this as I could be, I know.
load "linux",8,1
I'm all for making Linux the enterprise standard, and I truly believe that there are a number of cases in which excessive computing power is used where not needed, but this article is a bit extreme. The auther leaves out a number of items which would be necessary to make this system work.
- Monitors. How are we supposed to look at pretty X widgets? Dot matrix printout?
- Network Equipment. A NIC card does not a network make. You are at least going to need some cable and hubs.
- Cost of installing the network. In most places where this solution is viable (small service businesses, order entry, churches), a network infrastructure is not in place. Files are passed on the floppy-net. Running cables on open floor is not an option, as it is an OSHA and fire safety hazard. So you either need to purchase and install raised floors, or resituate your offices.
- Scalability. The author never mentions the target number of users in this model. I can see this system comfortably supporting five users, possibly ten if all the employees need are simple text entry forms, but just try to run three instances of StarOffice and five of Netscape on the network, and watch your 300 MHz server grind to a halt.
- Progress. This system is great... if you believe your companies needs will NEVER change. There is absolutely no room for improvement here. What happens when each clerk must scan a barcode along with an entry? Do we ask the clerks to enter the barcode by hand?
- Customer/Employee satisfaction. No one likes to work on equipment that is known to be out dated and obsolete, even if it works well. That's why high school students bring graphing calculators to algebra courses. It would be very difficult to appeal to potential customers, no matter what business you are in, when you are using a system such as this. The same goes for employees.
The $30 system not only lacks many components, but even when flushed out would be hard pressed to find a viable business for implementation. The wiser systems administrator will allow for future growth, and be sure to catalogue ALL components of the system before making a proposal to management.