LINUX/UNIX server, WIN XP x64 workstations

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

DarkCrystal

Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
62
A question regarding future operations:

I am looking into the following possibility:

A LINUX or UNIX based server* on a network to Windows XP PRO 64-bit workstations.

First, is the possible?
Second, which ould be better for the server, LINUX-RedHat or UNIX?

Thanks in advance

DarkCrystal
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
460
I would go with Linux, but STAY AWAY FROM REDHAT. Redhat is very taxing on human resources to keep it running. It is laden with bugs and security issues and if you don't know how to correct them, your nice shiny linux system will be compromised in no time.

For servers, I recommend Slackware, it is the most unix-like of all the linux' , and is easy to setup and maintain. For Desktop Linux, I recommend Ubuntu. Ubuntu supports the most devices out of the box, is easy to install / upgrade packages, and has a large free support base if you run into problems.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
432
It is possible. You can work with Samba to make the Linux server your primary domain controller. If you use Redhat, Fedora, or CentOS you can integrate Samba and the Fedora Directory Server so that your Windows and Linux workstations all work together in harmony on your network.

Regardless of which distribution you choose you can accomplish what you are looking for. The key elements will be Samba and some implementation of OpenLDAP (if you want to get fancy.)

The Samba project has great documentation and sample configurations to help get you started.
 

Squashman

Retired Trusted Advisor
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
19,786
tdi_veedub said:
I would go with Linux, but STAY AWAY FROM REDHAT. Redhat is very taxing on human resources to keep it running. It is laden with bugs and security issues and if you don't know how to correct them, your nice shiny linux system will be compromised in no time.
Could your provide some information as to why you feel that way. Maybe you just aren't securing your servers properly.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
894
1] Security; I've been running redhat for years. I have servers that get 200-300,000 SSH attempts per day (like the one below)
Dec 31 02:28:14 threeve sshd(pam_unix)[15893]: authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=NODEVssh ruser= rhost=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx user=root

2] If you're planning on running your business on this, I would suggest Redhat ES or AS. Good product, good support. Very stable. I have systems with uptimes of > 2 years. (Oracle)

3] Samba is great for file and print. It will act as a domain controller of sorts.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
312
i have been running debian stable (now sarge) for a few years with out a problem....easy to upgrade and very stable....i use samba for file sharing and IPP (cups) for printer ...btw...i now have only one XP workstation ...all the others i use nfs support....(y)
 

DarkCrystal

Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
62
Thank you very much for all the input. If possible, please keep the input coming while I research the info I now have. Again, thank you very much!
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
460
Sqaushman,

Redhat is good if you are willing to pay for support from redhat, or you have time or staff available to maintain it. I have always found it far too cumbersome to maintain a Redhat server myself when compared to a slackware, or SuSE, Debian server. My slackware server has been up for 2 years running ssh2, apache, mysql, samba, cups. Whenever I have tried to patch a Redhat system (eg apache) it either fails miserably, or it breaks dependancies and I endup having to upgrade practically the entire system to fix the dependancies. I am a 1 man army. I don't have time to spend hours on a server just to install something like a security patch for apache. With slackware, I just recompile, restart the deamon, and forget about it.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
460
Security; I've been running redhat for years. I have servers that get 200-300,000 SSH attempts per day (like the one below)
Dec 31 02:28:14 threeve sshd(pam_unix)[15893]: authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=NODEVssh ruser= rhost=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx user=root
Why not block these attempts with a script to add them to your iptables rules? 200-300,000 attempts must be creating alot of unnecessary load on the servers....
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
432
I've been using Redhat for quite a while and I have yet to pay for support. I also haven't had a patch break dependencies for years. While dependency hell might have been true 4-5 years ago the same was occurring with other distributions as well.

We use Redhat here at TSG. I use Redhat at my office job as a VPN server, a CVS server, and a J2EE application server, all without any problems. With any operating system you need to be dilligent with patches. If a patch comes out that directly relates/affects what your machine does you need to investigate and understand the patch before applying it so that it does not bring your business down.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top