Linux vs Microsoft and Number of Users 3

[kjv1611]

I was thinking about some information I had read about using Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 vs using Linux.

I read that Windows XP Home is limited to 5 connections, XP Pro is limited to 10 connections, and Server 2003 is limited to a much higher number, or just not limited.

So that brings me to a question on different distros of Linux:

If I wanted to use the Desktop edition of Ubuntu 7.04 instead of the Server version, would it make any difference in anything other than the GUI? For instance, would I be limited to 10 or some certain number of connections with the desktop edition as compared to the server edition?

Any info greatly appreciated.

BTW, this question is because the whole Shell thing just seems like a lot more work than being able to work within the GUI interface.

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[RhythmAce]

You will be just fine. There is no such limit on any version of linux that I know of. Most linux installation setups let you choose exactly what you want to install from the CDs. You can choose a desktop install but still add all the servers you want. Some will even make sure that all files that are required for the packages you choose also get installed. The same is true if you did a server install. All the most common packages needed for servers will be picked automatically then you can add anything from all the other categories at this point or any time later. Adding or updating your system is a lot like Windows Update. You can have a program check for updates and install them automatically at nite or you can use the GUI or command line. There is a small price to pay though for using GUI in the form of memory used. However, if you're a Windows sufferer, you are used to that. ;-)

 

[thedaver]

Define a "connection" please.

Locally logged in sessions of desktop users?
Shared folders connected by remote users?
Remote desktop sessions?

You're not comparing the same thing...

In Linux, you are NOT governed by a licensing plan for most distributions... Rather the limitations of your hardware capacity, your network, or the amount of resources a specific resource requires are the limitations...

You might be able to connect 10-100 FTP users to linux.
You might be able to connect 20-150 SSH users to linux.
You might be able to connect 7-15 remote desktop guis.
You might be able to open 10 local guis (though I cannot imagine why)
etc...
Again, CPU, RAM, disk, network all play a part in establishing a "cap" of what your linux can provide.

You may be able to find distributions (or more likely applications) that have a functional limit of number of sessions they permit under their license, but I would again assert that mostly the hardware limits you...

OK?



D.E.R. Management - IT Project Management Consulting

http://www.dermanagement.com/

 

[stefanwagner]

You may be able to find distributions (or more likely applications) that have a functional limit of number of sessions they permit under their license, but I would again assert that mostly the hardware limits you...

No.
The license (GPL) clearly forbits such restrictions.
Distributions might limit connections by a default configuration.
And they may limit their support for such configurations.
They may even provide their own tools with limits.

They clearly don't may limit the license of the underlying GNU/linux, and I would be surprised, if the apache-license for example would allow such restrictions.

I agree on the question "which kind of connection?".
SQL(odbc/jdbc) comes to mind too.
For postgresql I can say, there is no artifical limit.

Linux is allways "Buisiness Mega Premium Platinum Enterprise Professionell Extendet Free and Open Source" from the license-view.
Just support and per default installed Software differs from distribution to distribution, and a few tools like Suse:YaST are vendor-specific.

don't visit my homepage:

http://home.arcor.de/hirnstrom/bewerbung

 

[stevexff]

The limits in Windows are there to support their marketing efforts - need to support more users? Buy a more expensive license.

The Linux business model is different. If you have a distro that supports the setting of limits, they are there to protect your service levels, not to generate revenue for the vendor.

Steve

[small]"Every program can be reduced by one instruction, and every program has at least one bug. Therefore, any program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work." (Object:erlDesignPatterns)[/small]

 

[kjv1611]

Thanks for all the replies. I was basically interested just in client pcs for applications (maybe), but mostly for file sharing and possibly sharing printers.

That is good information to know. I kind of figured the Windows limits was mainly the licensing thing, and not a technical reason, but I wanted to verify.

Also, it may sound like I'm being a weenie with this one, but I'd almost like to install the desktop version of a Linux distribution instead of the server install, so that I have the better GUI for when I work on the server. But then again, the whole server part, pushing me to use the shell is also forcing me to learn the shell better, since I've hardly tinkered with it.

I've loaded a couple of distros before (GUI levels), and accessed shell from within the GUI, but the whole server thing is the first time I've ONLY used shell at my home.

It's definitely a learning experience.

So, now I've got to decide: am I going to make myself do the things in shell, and using the crazy "vi" text editor, or am I going to wimp out and go with the GUI. We shall see.

Memory won't really be a problem, at least at first. Here is my current hardware:
Biostar el-Cheapo Mobo and Sempron 2600+ CPU - It's really surprising at how well the Sempron performs, and while staying betwee 22 and 25 degrees Celcius so far - I'm very pleasantly surprised. Oh, and for memory, I've got 2 Gigs of DDR-400 SDRAM. Using onboard video for power consumption reasons, and that I don't really need dedicated video for a server for sure!

I really wish that I could find a way to use the SME Server with my current hardware, but I had to go away from that one. It wouldn't recognize my RAID card, and I do not want to go out and spend a few hundred dollars for a new one, when the one I have works just fine.

I've downloaded a few more distros overnight to try out if I end up not using Ubuntu 7.04. I downloaded Mandriva, which I'm kind of thinking about trying ASAP anyway, and I downloaded 3 different versions of Ubuntu 7.10 (desktop, server, and custom/for oems - all 32 bit versions).

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[stevexff]

While it is always useful to be able to use vi to get yourself out of a fix, this is the 21st century. So there really isn't any need to make life hard for yourself by going old school and deliberately using stuff that was designed for a VT100.

If you aren't logged onto it, the X server shouldn't take up too much memory, and the more modern GUI based editors are much easier to use for those occasions when you need to administer the server. Except perhaps when you need to edit the X server configuration files...

Steve

[small]"Every program can be reduced by one instruction, and every program has at least one bug. Therefore, any program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work." (Object:erlDesignPatterns)[/small]

 

[thedaver]

I'm going to write this as a FAQ pretty soon, but it's worth helping clear the air perhaps for the OP.

For all of the FREE distributions that I've seen, the only difference between the "Desktop" and the "Server" versions/flavors of their installations is a preselected list of packages/services that are installed by default.

You needn't normally concern yourself with how you start the machine's build from the selection of Desktop vs. Server. Later, you can install the Apache web server on a desktop machine, you can install the X Windows GUI on a server.

If you find you'll get off the ground more quickly by starting from the desktop kit, then you should do so. If you'd rather stay focussed on the server distributions that tend to omit X Windows services, then go for it!

This is the other place where Microsoft Windows and most linux distributions differ. Windows Server vs. Desktop has some specific limitations and controls and capabilties that are engineered to satisfy price points and market position.

There are possibly one or two fee-based linux distributions that have 'some' limitations around this model as well, but primarily when you pay for a linux you are paying for support.

I hope that helps you make your decision to proceed.







D.E.R. Management - IT Project Management Consulting

http://www.dermanagement.com/

 

[kjv1611]

Thanks for all the helpful posts so far.

Just thought I'd submit sort of an update for informational purposes on my current project. I looked at a posting for Mandriva Linux on the howtoforge site, and thought I'd like it. So, I downloaded it - the whole 4 GB version of it, and burned it to DVD (4 Gigs, b/c it seems to have everything you could possibly want, it seems).

And last night I started the install (went to bed without completing), and picked up again this morning before going to work.

And so far I was practically mesmerized by the setup interface and options, as well as the hardware support! Understandably, it supports my hardware better than any of the Windows versions seemed to. But it also seems to have much better support than SME Server 7.2 and Ubuntu 7.04!

The only thing I forgot to do was to configure a static IP address - oops. But I imagine I can go back and fix that later.

The whole setup routine is in a GUI, and you can EVEN use your mouse - or just the keyboard, either way works just as well!

And it was pretty - this ain't important, but it's always nice to see something aesthetically pleasing when you're trying to figure something out.

I went ahead and configured it with pretty much every option possible. I figured that I could try some other desktop type things out from within my Windows machine by remoting in when I want, that way, as well as configure the server if/when needed. Of course, I may later decide that I did not want to install everything, but I can just reinstall it if that is the case.

I left this morning with it downloading/installing a bunch of updates before saying "installation complete", so I'll have to see where it is when I get home.

Oh, even the Partitioner tool was really cool.

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me