On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Octavian Rasnita wrote: > Please tell me what is the difference between installing Linux > as a server and as a workstation. Answer in FAQ format: Question: Should I do a Server install or Workstation install? What is the difference? SERVER install -- don't do it: The Server install will install a bunch of servers you almost certainly don't want or need (and can add later). These servers listen for connections to your machine from all over the world for login (telnet, rlogin, rsh, etc), for web service, for ftp, file sharing, popmail, and a bunch of other ways you can allow others to use your machine, and possibly abuse it. If you do a server install, and you don't know how to properly administer, monitor, and secure your machine, you will likely get hacked in about a week (compare with less than a day with M$). Except that newer distribution versions default most of these servers to off (inactive) these days, so you might fare better. Why not do a WORKSTATION install: It's probable that a workstation install will fill lots of space on your hard disk with X-windows GUI (graphical) stuff you may not want, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, realize that if you have a separate hardware terminal, such as a synthesiser or braille terminal, Linux will happily let others in your family or office use the same machine at the same time you are using it, with the GUI for them, and textmode for you. Linux is a true multi-user system and can support many terminals, both graphical and text based, on the same machine. Some servers support hundreds of users simultaneously. Even a modest machine (say 300MHz) could support your whole family or a small office simultaneously in graphical mode (say, with resurrected 486s for graphical terminals). CUSTOM install is better: Installing too much is a common mistake for newbies, regardless of brand. Usually it's better not to install any software (server or otherwise) you don't know you want or need (this applies to any OS, especially from Microsoft). Doing a base install, or a custom install is best, even if it forces you to learn more about the various packages: after the install, you can make or get a package listing, with descriptions, and add stuff by hand later, as you learn how to use the programs. The base install will force you to install the stuff you need for a working system: add to that, emacspeak, and other stuff you see in the blinux FAQ, that apply to you. See your distribution's manuals for details. [added comments about particular packages needed for speech, etc, are appropriate here]. With Red Hat, if you do a custom install, and select nothing (except perhaps emacspeak and some textmode sound applications), you will get a base install: other distributions are similar, I assume. Trying to select all the packages you might want during a custom install would very time consuming, and probably frustrating (there are hundreds). Wait till later for most of them, unless they are, say, speech related. You may need to build some of the speech related packages from source code, so you might want to select the whole development group, as a unit (you can delete individual language packages later). Source code packages contain, by convention, recipe type build instructions pointed to by a README file -- usually you don't need to know how to program, or anything like that, and there are HOWTOs that can help with the details for some of the more complicated stuff. LCR PS: After writing this, I realized that, although it doesn't often get asked, this question must be a common concern of new users during the install process, and is a likely source of mistakes and problems: perhaps this should be revised for entry in the FAQ, after commentary by others? -- L. C. Robinson reply to no_spam+munged_lcr@onewest.net.invalid People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and instability instead. This is award winning "innovation". Find out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see "CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html