On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:41:55 +1000
"Aaron Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Centralised admin is my primary concern. User perspective is
> obviously functionality.
> I've decided the best course of action to save money for the company
> is to run a kickarse
> Microsft 2K3 server Terminal Server, then use "SOME SORT" of ULinux
> OS to run on the client machine with a compatible TS client like
> rdesktop, PXES etc. possibly including a combo with LTSP, Rdesktop
> and Wilisystem if I want an EPROM diskless total boot from ULinux
> workstation desktop to W2K3 Terminal Server without user
Can be done using freebsd too. Look into bootp, PXE, and whatever...
And there is even more info out there on how to do it. ;)
> The question is, out of all the ULinux flavours, which one should I
> run which costs nothing or very little and will last for 4-6years in
> that time period? "Very little" equates to somewhat less than
> running Windows XP for a similar period.
You can DL freebsd and get it all working with everything you need for
free. Cheaper than running WinXP is easy in this area.
> Cost savings include at least virus scanners and significant patch
> updates from Microsoft. Of course I'd rather update a single server
> than around 500 workstations both LAN and VPN remote machines. Virus
> signatures, multiple Microsoft patches etc. can be avoided.
Depends on how the antivirus is liscensed.
> Reminder is I'm used to using XP. Our users range from Windows NT
> 4.0,Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP. Based on a decent TS client,
> this shouldn't matter anyway.
> Your advice appreciated.
> Aaron Benson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vulpes Velox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 26 July 2004 4:43 AM
> To: Jorn Argelo
> Cc: Aaron Benson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST)
> "Jorn Argelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This email is going to any Linux house whom has pitched
> > > themselves via their websites and reviews, from my research as
> > > being possible alternatives to XP at this stage. Depends on your
> > > Google hit and thereafter (if found within 2 pages) site FAQ's I
> > > suppose.
> > >
> > > As a currently dedicated M$ house (apart from Oracle Databases),
> > > we question the move to a XP desktop amid the Linux hype in
> > > recent times. Any IT department trying to save company money is
> > > only doing the right thing and ask the question, what can Linux
> > > do for us?
> > As mentioned before, FreeBSD is NOT Linux. Keep that in mind.
> > > I've flipped through your FAQ's and over forums but result in no
> > >
> > > answer for Active Directory 2K3 and Exchange 2K3 server client
> > > connectivity, integration and functionality? Note that we have
> > > not moved to these product versions yet. Hence this email.
> > KDE's Kmail can connect to Exchange servers, I believe. As for
> > logging
> > into active directory ... That doesn't exist AFAIK. Perhaps there
> > are programs that allow such things, but I wouldn't count on that.
> > Windows
> > is an excellent OS for integration with Active Directory.
> AFAIK sylpheed-claws can too... IIRC Exchange is imap... or
> Windows see below for more info on active directory integration. :)
> > > I ask because I cannot see a server based centralised
> > > authentication
> > > and administrative option in Linux. If there were, say a
> > > "centralised server option" for Linux, this would be seriously
> > > considered. Is there a User Manager equivalent (NT4 domain for
> > > example) or Exchange Administrator equivalent (Exchange
> > > 5.5) "functional" alternative? More importantly, 2K3 Server and
> > > Exchange integration?
> > >
> YP/NIS works and can be gotten to work on Windows(using something
> free similiar to below from Microsoft.) Many unixes(note lower case
> :P) are also begining to supprt LDAP now. IIRC FreeBSD 5x does.
> > Not AFAIK.
> > > Failing that, connecting clients as above to M$ servers would be
> > >
> > > sufficient. Stay with M$ in servers, go with Linux in desktops.
> > > I've
> > > seen enough "glossy brochures" and want to know the facts.
> > Again, you can't do this when you want centralised server option.
> > > The cost difference is obvious. The functional difference is
> > > not. I've still no reason to choose your Linux over Windows XP
> > > Pro at this stage. Cost is not enough. Any sane IT department
> > > doesn't need screaming users due to lack of pure functionality.
> > > Experience suggests most find it difficult enough getting around
> > > the OS to even
> > > perform basic functions, let alone usability.
> > >
> > > Assuming aforementioned functionality, where does your Linux
> > > stand with converting between M$ Office 97/2K/2K3? Will our
> > > accounts department be able to work with their previous 40Mb
> > > Excel files full
> > > of VLookups and Formulas straightup, or is it going to be bigger
> > >
> > > than a Lotus 4.1 to Excel 5 conversion debacle? Of course
> > > Word,PowerPoint,Publisher and Access are questioned also.
> > OpenOffice.org can do the job there, but a file created with OOo
> > will be rather misshapen when opened with Excel and vica versa. So
> > it's not
> > advicable.
> What about gnumeric? There are also other assorted programs out
> there to fill the need desired.
> Remember, on unix you are not as limited in vendor options as you
> are on windows and there is a much larger software base to choose
> from. :)
> > > I'm talking up to 500 user desktops to be upgraded. Upgraded
> > > need not be a literal word. Installing Linux from scratch would
> > > be expected. Anything "upgrade wise" extra would be a bonus.
> > >
> > > Outside of M$ Office, current application functionality would
> > > have to be trialed. This is expected. A list of currently
> > > supported M$ applications would be helpful.
> > >
> > > Your detailed reply appreciated
> > >
> > So, for your needs, upgrading to Linux or BSD or whatever is a BAD
> > idea, IMHO. Your employees and your desktops simply don't have any
> > use
> > of it, with the desires mentioned above. As long as you wish for
> > integration with Active Directory, then an Microsoft OS is still
> > the best for you.
> Can be done :)
> Those idiots still have not put in ssh, thought!?!?! :/
> /me feels telnet should be a executable offense :P
> BTW I have been using unix since it is simpler to type than
> unix-like os or unix derivative... not to be confused with the upper
> case UNIX ^_^
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"