Hi, new here. We'll be purchasing a new server soon and are considering running Linux on it. All of our client pcs are running xp. Will we run into lots of issues w/ compatability? We'll primarily be using the server for storage, networking, website and email. Also, which is the best topic area to post ?'s regarding building a server? Thanks
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Linux MSft compatability
- Thread starter scottmkq
- Start date
UMCPWintermute
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2004
- Messages
- 445
Storage, you can use samba to create windows file shares.
Networking, you mean as a router? You can use Linux for this. If you mean as a Windows Domain Controller, it's not recommended.
Website, Apache runs great - you won't have problems with it.
E-mail, not my area of expertise - but I know there's a huge number of Linux/BSD e-mail servers (sendmail, etc.)
Out of curiosity, if this machine is going to be strictly a server, why are you considering Linux over BSD?
Networking, you mean as a router? You can use Linux for this. If you mean as a Windows Domain Controller, it's not recommended.
Website, Apache runs great - you won't have problems with it.
E-mail, not my area of expertise - but I know there's a huge number of Linux/BSD e-mail servers (sendmail, etc.)
Out of curiosity, if this machine is going to be strictly a server, why are you considering Linux over BSD?
MTB2Live Live4Comps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,968
you'll notice there are specific forums for topics such as Networking, General Software, Linux/BSDs, Multi-CPU hardware, etc. depending on the question, those are the best places to get answers.
as for compatibility, you shouldn't have any issues. But like already asked, why not a *BSD?
as for compatibility, you shouldn't have any issues. But like already asked, why not a *BSD?
A new Linux server would work out just fine in an environment of XP clients. Sure, you wouldn't have Active Directory, but utilizing LDAP and user profiles stored on the server you'll have fairly similar capabilities without the "Windows Way" of doing things. It'll take some getting used to with no admin that has experience setting it up, but once it's set it'll be fine. I suggest studying up on options you'll deal with before going full throttle, just like I would for any server operating system.
What does the rest of the environment look like? Do you have other servers in place already or will this be the first one?
What kind of environment is this? What are the important factors? Are you concerned about cost? Security? Functionality? Ease of Administration?
I run a lot of cross platform stuff and in all honesty Microsoft has some very strong advantages and obvious weaknesses. What *nix purists often overlook is that in many use-cases the weaknesses aren't that important but the strengths are very compelling. I know I'll get a lot of shit from that remark from the peanut gallery but I really don't mind. You can go nuts these days with Cygwin, Samba, SFU, etc. and make any OS look just like any other OS. You want to run OpenSSH on Windows? (for example) Great, there are at least three common ways to do it. You want to store all your files on Linux and access them from Windows clients? Same thing.
I'd think about the reasons why you're considering Linux and unless it's cost or a particular technical need, I don't see too many other reasons not to go Windows on the server. Of course if it's just for fun or to support diversity, that's cool too. Just understand that Linux is still a little behind the curve when it comes to seamlessly serving Windows clients.
What kind of environment is this? What are the important factors? Are you concerned about cost? Security? Functionality? Ease of Administration?
I run a lot of cross platform stuff and in all honesty Microsoft has some very strong advantages and obvious weaknesses. What *nix purists often overlook is that in many use-cases the weaknesses aren't that important but the strengths are very compelling. I know I'll get a lot of shit from that remark from the peanut gallery but I really don't mind. You can go nuts these days with Cygwin, Samba, SFU, etc. and make any OS look just like any other OS. You want to run OpenSSH on Windows? (for example) Great, there are at least three common ways to do it. You want to store all your files on Linux and access them from Windows clients? Same thing.
I'd think about the reasons why you're considering Linux and unless it's cost or a particular technical need, I don't see too many other reasons not to go Windows on the server. Of course if it's just for fun or to support diversity, that's cool too. Just understand that Linux is still a little behind the curve when it comes to seamlessly serving Windows clients.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,141
First thing that comes to mind...........Windows server 2003 - $1000 to start. Linux operating system $0 to start. But keep in mind things like SUPPORT.
Typically the OS license is a rounding error compared to the cost of the hardware and the ongoing maintenance. And if you're paying more than $400 for Standard Server 2003 then you need to work on finding a better deal.
I was assuming that a commercial distro like SUSE or Red Hat Enterprise was being considered, at which point the costs would be fairly equivilent.
Nothing wrong with Linux. But the OS cost for Windows Server is only prohibitive for home users. Any business that does a full cost comparison will look at the OS license as a washout.
I was assuming that a commercial distro like SUSE or Red Hat Enterprise was being considered, at which point the costs would be fairly equivilent.
Nothing wrong with Linux. But the OS cost for Windows Server is only prohibitive for home users. Any business that does a full cost comparison will look at the OS license as a washout.