You can do all that and more...but...it is not exactly the same for instance...the concept of "mapping drives" is well...not a Unix type concept :) but every l-user ( I am in service..I fix PCs...I say luser because I deal with the worst of the lot) has (in the normal configuration) their own "home directory" which only they have acess too (usually anyone can look at their home directory but cannot actually acess files... that can all be changed easily tho) Linux doesn't assign everything with these "ACLs" like NT does...Unix in general uses a system which I personally consider allot more sane :) you can also setup security easily denoting who is allowed to login to certain hosts in fact a common one is to NOT allow the root (administrator) to login (a person would have to login and then "become root" to have admin privillages) someone once said that "Unix is infinitly configurable" Linux can do everything NT can....faster and on cheaper hardware. not to mention: I work at a very large Windows NT domain... we have had numerous NT problems... Domain controllers going down and taking 10 000 users offline ( I am NOT exxaggerating either) but... there are a few unix systems....in all the months I have worked here..I ahve NEVER heard of one going down! Unix does take longer to learn... Unix/Linux looks ugly...until you come to find its "inner beauty" it looks soo complex..until you see its Simplicity anyway....if I were you I would give it a try... hey...its free to try (no $500 licence) -Steve Leonardo Ruoso wrote:
> 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] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
