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
Often times you simply cannot find cheap hardware to purchase, unless you want to build it yourself or go with refurbished units.
Build it yourself is a poor option because it is very hard to find the quantities of parts you need, especially since business environments value similarity in desktop platforms. So you end up with groups of five or ten machines with whatever was on sale that week at Fry's Electronics.
If you are like most Windows-based companies you turn to vendors like Dell/Compaq/IBM and then the problem is that the cheaper machine you can buy is still a 900MHz Celeron with 256MB of RAM and a 20GB hard drive (granted it's only $600 but still what if you just need it to run training applications through a web browser?). Plus since you are riding the tail end of the cost range, you again enter the problem of having a month go by and suddenly you have completly different hardware.
So it's a choice between
* one vendor to resolve problems
* one platform to support/rollout
* one price that's not so great
or
* many vendors fingerpointing each other
* need a different image for every 5th system
* a price hovering around the lowest possible
For home/small business users I think the second choice is a valid one, but for large business and corporations I just don't think they'll ever see the value in it.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
One of the article's points, one that I strongly agree with, is how overpowered the machines are that most people buy.
Maybe if LinuxWorld got some decent powered machines, they wouldn't be Slashdotted already.
too many people wanting the latest and greatest. there are several people that i work with that use 300-400MHtz machines with no problem. how do they do it? they haven't fallen in the the MS/Corel/Intuit/'fill in the blank' propaganda trap of having the newest version.
i use quickbooks 1999!
it all comes down to understanding what you *need* to do.
there are people out there that need/deserve powerful machines and there are people that could be just fine with second or third tier equipment.
e.
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.
Too much ANTI-MS BS, if this article was an editorial, fine, that I couldn't criticize, but if it was targetted for System administrators or people about to deploy a network in a small company, it litteraly missed the target.
:) ) But unfortunately, probably didn't archieve it's own objective.
1. Who cares how much ressource MS apps sucks and costs, if we are reading that article, chances are we already KNOW all that crap and are looking for an alternative.
2. About no one uses 386/486 anymore, writting a paragraph on how the pentium III are useless horsepower to run all these apps and a 386 would do fine is pointless, unless you plan to deploy a network in a 3rd world country.
3. It gives you pointers, nothing good for someone comming from a windows env. You want a step by step guide, sounding easy a-la-windows install, to make it look simple and straightfoward. That's the big problem with some linux article, the authors knows their systems so well, that they can't put themselves in the shoes of someone that install linux and doesn't know how to access his floppy from the shell because he's used to a:.
This is *NOT* a rant, but a constructive criticism about an article that attracted a lot of people (server was half dead
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.