Linux Server with Windows clients - doable? prudent? 1

[wrw1818]

I'm overseeing the upgrade of a small Windows based org... would like to avoid the cost of W2000 server + CALs, and RUN LINUX ON THE SERVER WITH WINDOWS CLIENTS. Would like technical expertise for pros/cons of doing so.

BACKGROUND: 10 node computer lab, plus 6-8 nodes throughout the bldg. NO networking/integration to-date outside of lab. former lab svr OS was MS BackOffice Small Edition (aka NT 4.0?).

OPTION 1: LINUX SERVER, WINDOWS CLIENTS (lab and offices)
- I've heard this is technically possible, but I don't have sense for whether it's "prudent" (think: non-technical staff, novice users, low budget, etc.)
- if "prudent", then which Linux?
- is Win98 as good as Win2000 for a network this small (max 20 wkst)
- what are some considerations for file/print/backup?

OPTION 2: LINUX SERVER, LINUX CLIENTS w/ GUI
I don't really like this "overlay", "emulation" idea. It seems to add to the overhead and admin. I could be wrong though. Any thoughts?

OPTION 3: WINDOWS SERVER, WINDOWS CLIENTS
this is the "safest" alternative of simply re-installing the antiquated but functional "MS BackOffice SB Edition" server OS. Old, but likely 2b sufficient for the minimal needs in a currently non-networked environment.

Is OPTION 1 way too risky for a novice admin person to "cut-my-teeth" on? thx...

 

[ifincham]

Hi,

Option 2 all depends on what client software is being used. Although linux has wine (

http://www.winehq.org/

and

http://www.codeweavers.com/home/)

and can run quite a lot on windows software, you may come up against some change resistance in people using a linux desktop. See

http://www.codeweavers.com/technology/wine/screenshots.php

. If you think you can overcome this then all linux has definite advantages but its certainly the most risky.

Option 1, by contrast, should be no problem at all. All you do is setup the 'samba' server package which is software that emulates the M$ smb/cifs file-server protocol. To a client, its all identical to a 'real' NT/W2K server and, as such, should be totally transparent. In some tests, samba actually outperforms W2K (

http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%3D1474%26a%3D16554,00.asp)

.

The only issues are the learning curve in administering a linux box and samba itself. In my view, its really not that difficult and there are plenty of gui tools around. Most notably for samba is 'swat' -->

http://www.samba.org/samba/GUI/

. There are some screenshots of swat here to give you an idea -->

http://www.guiadohardware.net/artigos/186-servidor-de-arquivos.asp

Also a good intro on samba is here -->

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/samba/?dwzone=linux

. Really, any of the major distros would do to run samba on - redhat, Suse, Mandrake are probably the best choices.


Option 3 - Works but costs Money and probably doesn't perform as well as samba.

Hope this helps

 

[wrw1818]

Thanks "ifincham" - i'm off to go read. this forum is the coolest! all the best, and thx again. (i'll probably be back again ).