On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Jason Belich wrote: > I would like to set things up so anyone with a username and ID will be > able to sit down at any computer and have access to all their services, > like home directory, etc. Are you talking about users being able to sit down at any Linux box and have full access, or are you planning on having only one Linux system as a fileserver and users access things via the network for file and print sharing? > Netatalk and Samba with tweaking can do this, but there will be > different servers at different buildings. So... Is there any particular reason why? If the systems cannot communicate via network, then you cannot make anything transparent. If there is a network, then there is no need for multiple servers. > Can RH5 give the appearance of a unified machine with a combo of > NIS/NFS? If you insist, yes. But I don't see a need for it. > If so, can samba and netatalk work within this framework? Yes. Samba and netatalk both use regular filesystem access, there is nothing special about them as opposed to any other program. > Also, a competitor is conning them into an NT based solution with the Oh, no. > promise of these capabilities, also MS proxy server to filter ala > cybernanny to keep the kids away from _bad_ stuff, central Linux has this ability too. In any case it costs an ungodly fortune, the software is easy enough to get but the lists are much harder to come by. It is possible to rig bots in perl which crawl the net themselves and enter objectionable material into a database, but the whole system is an effort. > administration (with them of course), unified file and print, www > server(s), mail, and the kitchen sink with extra rust. Linux, of course, does all of this fine. > Also he is promising the user and group capabilities of NT and Win95, > i.e. restricted access for users to screw up the network, but not Macs. Linux has the advantage of talking happily to the Macs. I don't know of any way to make NT speak Appletalk. Finally, of course, Linux's > I've tried to tell them that the setup isn't going to work, being NT, Don't tell them that, they won't believe it. In all honesty it probably WOULD work, even though it would be more expense and hassle than Linux. The way I see it your biggest advantage is the Mac interoperability. > but I can't convince them the glory of Linux without offering them > everything they've been spoon fed and more, for less. So do, there's nothing stopping you. > So what i'm concerned about is central administration, user > transparency WRT the network, restricting access to improper material, > and network security (to keep out student BOFHs and stupid teachers, we Central administration is a no brainer with Linux. NT has virtually no remote administration ability. User transparency will be pretty good in either setup, since Linux and NT both offer a full set of SMB services. Access restrictions will suck on both platforms, but it is simple enough to make Linux work with it. Linux makes a better proxy than NT but it is easier to get content filters for NT. They are not unavailable for Linux, however. If you need more assistance with this, I have looked into a couple of companies. Be warned, though, none of the content filters do a particularly excellent job. Linux of course runs rings around NT in security, especially if you don't give out unnecessary shell accounts or run unneeded services. Read the bugtraq archives. Remote crash exploits for NT are released almost weekly. Linux produces about one per year, and the fixes come out often the same day. The ones for NT come out a week or two later and sometimes do not even work. > Can anyone suggest a few good network setups? Put your Linux box in the middle and attach all the workstations to it? :) -- PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES! http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
