I'd like to know if Linux can do what NT can do in a client X server configuration. Let me explain. I don't want every workstation user an network/system administrator. With NT I can configure from server wich volumes will be maped for each user, wich workstation each user will be granted access, wich printer each user will be granted use. As well I can use the login script to set the general preferences and others.... Can I do that with Linux (UNIX)? Can I, from the server, attach or intall resources to workstations? Can the user login only into the server (not the localhost login)?
George Bonser escreveu: > > Your main choices would be Debian, Slackware, Red Hat and S.u.S.E though > there are a few others out there. Of the four, I find Debian to be best > suited for servers. The packages have well configured default > installations, are usually changed easilly by editing configuration files > in intuitive locations, and integrate well with other packages that they > might interact with. > > Red Hat is probably best suited to a single user desktops installations. > They have an extensive GUI control panel that works very well if resources > are being managed from the local console but leave much to be desired in > the server is being administered remotely. They also have invented some > interesting locations for configuration options that take considerable > sleuthing to locate if the GUI control options are not available. > > Slackware is basicly a bare-bones linux platform with a minimal number of > pre-packaged applications. Slackware takes considerable administation as > new software must be configured and built on the system. The local admin > is responsible for integration with other software. > > If you are familliar with Sun Solaris, you will find Debian very familliar > in layout. If you are experianced in Berkeley Unix, Slackware and Red Hat > will not seem too alien to you. > > S.u.S.E. uses the Red Hat packaging system with their own system > sonfiguration and management software. In addition, they are major > contributors to the XFree86 X windows project. > > Oh! I almost forgot about Caldera. They are a completely commercial Linux > distribution and offer support to include references to local providers of > on-site technical support. Netscape commercial servers are also available > for Caldera Linux. > > I use Debian for servers. It is easiest to keep up to date using remote > administration and has been extremely stable. One thing to look for is a > local consultant that has experiance in performance tuning. The default > distribution kernels can require some minor patching to raise the number > of allowable open files and processes that might be required for a very > busy server. This is just one example but the point is that a local > consultant can smooth the transition and save you considerable time and > money in the long run. > > On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Leonardo Ruoso wrote: > > > I want to install Linux in my company as the main server, file server > > and database server. Which one should I install? what the diference > > between then? > > > > Leonardo Ruoso > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > George Bonser > Just be thankful that Microsoft does not manufacture pharmaceuticals. > http://www.debian.org > Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]