need some info on a small network...

We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to an
IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network for
File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux but I
have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client version
of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server version. I
understand that there are so many distributions but can you guys
recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

warpman wrote:
> We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
> and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to an
> IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network for
> File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux but I
> have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client version
> of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server version.

Nonsense. There is no 'client version' or 'server version' of most of these
operating systems (barring RedHat) because, in Linux, there is no distinction
between 'client' and 'server'. The OS does both, and all distros support both,
simultaneously, out of the box.

> I
> understand that there are so many distributions but can you guys
> recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.

Any one of the distributions you mentioned above would be sufficient for your
needs. My personal preference is Slackware, but the others are just as good.

- --
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBtRbeagVFX4UWr64RAuFWAJ9dCXCc9hdf6PIZXM+QXY lX8pNkIQCg7qNe
LzAtk8zqGc1ijpu41qSPEoQ=
=Zp2N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi Lew. Thanks for the reply.
I personally didn't know about the client server versions.This is good
to know.
Does slackware allows for easy update/upgrade installation of software
like suse and redhat? I really like these features on suse and redhat.
Is slackware easy to configure for file and print services so that all
the windows clients will be able to access it?
Keep in mind that we don't have any servers in the office so we are
basically looking to start from scratch here. There are no experts in
the office when it comes to servers.
Thanks for your info....

Lew Pitcher wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>warpman wrote:
>
>
>>We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
>>and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to an
>>IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network for
>>File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux but I
>>have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client version
>>of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server version.
>>
>>
>
>Nonsense. There is no 'client version' or 'server version' of most of these
>operating systems (barring RedHat) because, in Linux, there is no distinction
>between 'client' and 'server'. The OS does both, and all distros support both,
>simultaneously, out of the box.
>
>
>
>>I
>>understand that there are so many distributions but can you guys
>>recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>
>Any one of the distributions you mentioned above would be sufficient for your
>needs. My personal preference is Slackware, but the others are just as good.
>
>- --
>Lew Pitcher
>
>Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
>Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
>Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFBtRbeagVFX4UWr64RAuFWAJ9dCXCc9hdf6PIZXM+QX YlX8pNkIQCg7qNe
>LzAtk8zqGc1ijpu41qSPEoQ=
>=Zp2N
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

warpman wrote:
> Hi Lew. Thanks for the reply.
> I personally didn't know about the client server versions.This is good
> to know.

Yah. In the Microsoft OS world, there is an artifically enforced
distinction between 'client' and 'server' operating systems that just
isn't the case in the Linux world. Even the Microsoft distinction is
more based on marketting than OS design and implementation; IIRC, the
only difference between Win2K Personal or Workstation edition (for
instance) and Win2K Server was a couple of registry tweaks.

Red Hat has marketted their recent distributions in the same way as
Microsoft markets Windows; the distinction between RedHat Workstation
and RedHat Server is one of marketting and (to a lesser degree)
packaging. The Server has all the features and facilities of
Workstation, and Workstation has all the features and facilities of Server.

> Does slackware allows for easy update/upgrade installation of software
> like suse and redhat?

In some ways, easier. The Slackware package management tools are simple
commandline tools that can be scripted or executed through GUI or CUI
front-ends. This makes automated installation and upgrade easier than
with GUI-only tools like the other distros provide for "user
installations". OTOH, Slackware requires that the system administrator
be a little more aware of setup of the system than RedHat or Suse do;
Slackware is intended to be mostly a classic Unix server setup.

In any case, any of the distros you've looked at can easily provide file
and print services to a bunch of MSWindows systems. Slackware is my
preference, but may not suit your personal tastes.

> I really like these features on suse and redhat.
> Is slackware easy to configure for file and print services so that all
> the windows clients will be able to access it?

Slackware is no different than Suse or RedHat in this regard. All three
use the same tools to configure MSWindows file and print sharing. The
tool can be accessed through a web interface, making it
platform-independant.

> Keep in mind that we don't have any servers in the office so we are
> basically looking to start from scratch here. There are no experts in
> the office when it comes to servers.

We all were beginners once. Don't worry, there's plenty of guidance and
help available.

An anecdote might help here: A couple of years ago, a friend called me
up. He had just got a copy of SuSE in to his work (he owns a small
software firm, specializing in HR software), and he wanted to get it set
up for his network. One of his employees had installed the basic system
(a simple, automated install right off the DVD), but they needed some
help in getting it configured. I had /never/ seen SuSE before, but I
told him that I'd give it a try.

I spent about two hours playing with their system. I had the networking
enabled and Samba (the Microsoft File and Print Sharing environment) set
up within the first half hour, the web services set up 10 minutes later,
and by the end of the first hour, had every service they needed set up
and enabled.

The remaining hour was taken up with trying to get their development
platform installed on the SuSe box. We got most of it configured but we
needed to install some Java packages that they didn't have available.

OK, so I've worked on these systems before, so I knew where to look.
You might not know where to look, but these systems are no more
difficult to set up than MSWindows, just different.



> Thanks for your info....
[snip]



- --

Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Data Systems
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFBtfNMagVFX4UWr64RAoXWAJ4wm066yn3Avc1Aij6E0F 7QIda3SgCdFL7u
VM98S60ES/ncExHACnKCUoI=
=af/D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

That is some good information that you have provided.
I guess what I like suse and redhat more than slackware because they
provide a more graphical environment than slackware.
Have you try any other distros? How about Ebian, Mandrake? etc...


Lew Pitcher wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>warpman wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Lew. Thanks for the reply.
>>I personally didn't know about the client server versions.This is good
>>to know.
>>
>>
>
>Yah. In the Microsoft OS world, there is an artifically enforced
>distinction between 'client' and 'server' operating systems that just
>isn't the case in the Linux world. Even the Microsoft distinction is
>more based on marketting than OS design and implementation; IIRC, the
>only difference between Win2K Personal or Workstation edition (for
>instance) and Win2K Server was a couple of registry tweaks.
>
>Red Hat has marketted their recent distributions in the same way as
>Microsoft markets Windows; the distinction between RedHat Workstation
>and RedHat Server is one of marketting and (to a lesser degree)
>packaging. The Server has all the features and facilities of
>Workstation, and Workstation has all the features and facilities of Server.
>
>
>
>>Does slackware allows for easy update/upgrade installation of software
>>like suse and redhat?
>>
>>
>
>In some ways, easier. The Slackware package management tools are simple
>commandline tools that can be scripted or executed through GUI or CUI
>front-ends. This makes automated installation and upgrade easier than
>with GUI-only tools like the other distros provide for "user
>installations". OTOH, Slackware requires that the system administrator
>be a little more aware of setup of the system than RedHat or Suse do;
>Slackware is intended to be mostly a classic Unix server setup.
>
>In any case, any of the distros you've looked at can easily provide file
>and print services to a bunch of MSWindows systems. Slackware is my
>preference, but may not suit your personal tastes.
>
>
>
>>I really like these features on suse and redhat.
>>Is slackware easy to configure for file and print services so that all
>>the windows clients will be able to access it?
>>
>>
>
>Slackware is no different than Suse or RedHat in this regard. All three
>use the same tools to configure MSWindows file and print sharing. The
>tool can be accessed through a web interface, making it
>platform-independant.
>
>
>
>>Keep in mind that we don't have any servers in the office so we are
>>basically looking to start from scratch here. There are no experts in
>>the office when it comes to servers.
>>
>>
>
>We all were beginners once. Don't worry, there's plenty of guidance and
>help available.
>
>An anecdote might help here: A couple of years ago, a friend called me
>up. He had just got a copy of SuSE in to his work (he owns a small
>software firm, specializing in HR software), and he wanted to get it set
>up for his network. One of his employees had installed the basic system
>(a simple, automated install right off the DVD), but they needed some
>help in getting it configured. I had /never/ seen SuSE before, but I
>told him that I'd give it a try.
>
>I spent about two hours playing with their system. I had the networking
>enabled and Samba (the Microsoft File and Print Sharing environment) set
>up within the first half hour, the web services set up 10 minutes later,
>and by the end of the first hour, had every service they needed set up
>and enabled.
>
>The remaining hour was taken up with trying to get their development
>platform installed on the SuSe box. We got most of it configured but we
>needed to install some Java packages that they didn't have available.
>
>OK, so I've worked on these systems before, so I knew where to look.
>You might not know where to look, but these systems are no more
>difficult to set up than MSWindows, just different.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Thanks for your info....
>>
>>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>- --
>
>Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Enterprise Data Systems
>Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group
>
>(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>
>iD8DBQFBtfNMagVFX4UWr64RAoXWAJ4wm066yn3Avc1Aij6E0 F7QIda3SgCdFL7u
>VM98S60ES/ncExHACnKCUoI=
>=af/D
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

warpman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:wkotd.55779$(E-Mail Removed). com:

> That is some good information that you have provided.
> I guess what I like suse and redhat more than slackware because they
> provide a more graphical environment than slackware.
> Have you try any other distros? How about Ebian, Mandrake? etc...

My advice is to stick with the more popular distros.

Depending upon where you are located there may be a local
Linux Users Group which meets or at least has a website.

If there is a Junior College near by you can likely find
some local computer wizard who would be willing to assist
on an adhoc basis for a reasonable fee.

If I were in your position, I pick the version for which you
can get local support.

HTH & YMMV

warpman wrote:

> We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
> and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to
> an IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network
> for File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux but
> I have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client
> version of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server
> version. I understand that there are so many distributions but can you
> guys recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.

Hi,

You can find reviews on http://distrowatch.com. From my personal
experience I can tell you a few things about some distros:
- Redhat: is not free anymore, but commercial. The free version
(maintained by the Linux community) is now called Fedora. I have
Redhat/Fedora at work since 2000 and I am quite happy. However, Fedora
wants to be a cutting-edge distro, and comes with the newest version of
all programs. That's why each Fedora release so far had a long list of
problems/bugs/"features". Our administrator complains quite often
- Mandrake: I tested it a long time ago. Looked very nice. Seems to be
the most popular choice at the moment
- Suse: They paid a lot of attention to the user interface. I think
their biggest advantage is the configuration tool (yast), which is very
easy to use by a newcomer. That's also the thing that finally made me
drop it - everything must be configured with yast, because it
generates/overwrites the configuration files, so I couldn't modify them
by hand when I wanted to. Also, I had problems with the updates from
their mirrors - they were quite slow.
- Slackware: I don't know anything about it.
- Debian: my personal favourite. I run it at home. Comes with a huge
amounts of packets (probably the most complete distro). Their package
maintenance/update system (apt-get) is excellent. They have 3 versions
at any moment: stable, testing and unstable. The "stable" is good for
servers - it is really stable since they only bring security/bug fixes
to it, but the packets are usually old (one-two years behind). The
"testing" is newer, and supposedly less stable. The "unstable" is ...
unstable. For about a year I stick to the Debian testing version and I
have no trouble at all with it.

Mihai

Thanks for the info I will keep it in mind.


IANAL_VISTA wrote:

>warpman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:wkotd.55779$(E-Mail Removed) .com:
>
>
>
>>That is some good information that you have provided.
>>I guess what I like suse and redhat more than slackware because they
>>provide a more graphical environment than slackware.
>>Have you try any other distros? How about Ebian, Mandrake? etc...
>>
>>
>
>My advice is to stick with the more popular distros.
>
>Depending upon where you are located there may be a local
>Linux Users Group which meets or at least has a website.
>
>If there is a Junior College near by you can likely find
>some local computer wizard who would be willing to assist
>on an adhoc basis for a reasonable fee.
>
>If I were in your position, I pick the version for which you
>can get local support.
>
>HTH & YMMV
>
>

Mihai, great info. Thanks so much. I think I'm going to give debian a
try. Thanks again.


Mihai Osian wrote:

> warpman wrote:
>
>> We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows XP
>> and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect to
>> an IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small network
>> for File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to linux
>> but I have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the client
>> version of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the server
>> version. I understand that there are so many distributions but can
>> you guys recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> You can find reviews on http://distrowatch.com. From my personal
> experience I can tell you a few things about some distros:
> - Redhat: is not free anymore, but commercial. The free version
> (maintained by the Linux community) is now called Fedora. I have
> Redhat/Fedora at work since 2000 and I am quite happy. However, Fedora
> wants to be a cutting-edge distro, and comes with the newest version
> of all programs. That's why each Fedora release so far had a long list
> of problems/bugs/"features". Our administrator complains quite often
> - Mandrake: I tested it a long time ago. Looked very nice. Seems to be
> the most popular choice at the moment
> - Suse: They paid a lot of attention to the user interface. I think
> their biggest advantage is the configuration tool (yast), which is
> very easy to use by a newcomer. That's also the thing that finally
> made me drop it - everything must be configured with yast, because it
> generates/overwrites the configuration files, so I couldn't modify
> them by hand when I wanted to. Also, I had problems with the updates
> from their mirrors - they were quite slow.
> - Slackware: I don't know anything about it.
> - Debian: my personal favourite. I run it at home. Comes with a huge
> amounts of packets (probably the most complete distro). Their package
> maintenance/update system (apt-get) is excellent. They have 3 versions
> at any moment: stable, testing and unstable. The "stable" is good for
> servers - it is really stable since they only bring security/bug fixes
> to it, but the packets are usually old (one-two years behind). The
> "testing" is newer, and supposedly less stable. The "unstable" is ...
> unstable. For about a year I stick to the Debian testing version and I
> have no trouble at all with it.
>
> Mihai
>
>

warpman wrote:

> Mihai, great info. Thanks so much. I think I'm going to give debian a
> try. Thanks again.
>
If you wish to test Debian, I have one more suggestion. Usually people
complain about the poor Debian installer. What I did was to install not
Debian itself, but a smaller Debian-based distribution, for example
Mepis (also Knoppix is not bad at all). These are "live" CDs - you just
put the CD in and boot a stand-alone Linux system (doesn't even touch
your hdd). Then somewhere on the screen you will find a program that
lets you copy it to the hdd. It takes 15 minutes to have a completely
working system. Once you have it, you can update it to the latest version:

edit /etc/apt/sources.list and add the closest Debian mirror
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

I found this method to be much more convenient.

Hope this helps,
Mihai

>
> Mihai Osian wrote:
>
>> warpman wrote:
>>
>>> We have a very small network with 20 users. We are running windows
>>> XP and windows 98 clients on a peer-to-peer network. We also connect
>>> to an IBM AS400 midrange system. We would like to setup a small
>>> network for File and print server capabilities. I'm some what new to
>>> linux but I have some general knowledge about it. I have tested the
>>> client version of Redhat, SuSe, Slackware and vector but not the
>>> server version. I understand that there are so many distributions
>>> but can you guys recommend one? Any info would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You can find reviews on http://distrowatch.com. From my personal
>> experience I can tell you a few things about some distros:
>> - Redhat: is not free anymore, but commercial. The free version
>> (maintained by the Linux community) is now called Fedora. I have
>> Redhat/Fedora at work since 2000 and I am quite happy. However,
>> Fedora wants to be a cutting-edge distro, and comes with the newest
>> version of all programs. That's why each Fedora release so far had a
>> long list of problems/bugs/"features". Our administrator complains
>> quite often
>> - Mandrake: I tested it a long time ago. Looked very nice. Seems to
>> be the most popular choice at the moment
>> - Suse: They paid a lot of attention to the user interface. I think
>> their biggest advantage is the configuration tool (yast), which is
>> very easy to use by a newcomer. That's also the thing that finally
>> made me drop it - everything must be configured with yast, because it
>> generates/overwrites the configuration files, so I couldn't modify
>> them by hand when I wanted to. Also, I had problems with the updates
>> from their mirrors - they were quite slow.
>> - Slackware: I don't know anything about it.
>> - Debian: my personal favourite. I run it at home. Comes with a huge
>> amounts of packets (probably the most complete distro). Their package
>> maintenance/update system (apt-get) is excellent. They have 3
>> versions at any moment: stable, testing and unstable. The "stable" is
>> good for servers - it is really stable since they only bring
>> security/bug fixes to it, but the packets are usually old (one-two
>> years behind). The "testing" is newer, and supposedly less stable.
>> The "unstable" is ... unstable. For about a year I stick to the
>> Debian testing version and I have no trouble at all with it.
>>
>> Mihai
>>
>>