On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 01:44:44PM +0100, Gil Andre wrote: > > Octavian/L.C. > > Here are a few qiuick thoughts on the subject... .... deleted > In the Windows world, there is quite a lot of difference between > the Win2K "server" and "workstation" versions. With Linux, a > workstation can act as a server and vice-versa. > > The only difference is the amount of software that gets installed > on your machine -- Red Hat "Server" can therefore turn your machine > into a web server, an FTP server, etc. RedHat is very bad in a sense that they don't know what the server is. Another words, they are like first Ford cars, you could get any color as long as you wanted it black. What they should have done is break the installation into two major sections, workstation and servers. Each section should be divided into subsections where you can select what kind of workstation (software developer, game player, graphics designer, etc.) or server (WWW server, NFS, DNS, etc.). We are dealing with their poor selection every day at work and it's very annoying when you need to reinstall "server" with different configuration for QA many times. > > This being said, I totally agree that you should *not* install the > Server version: having too many services available on your machine > is a bad idea, and pretty much useless if all you want is learn > about Linux. While I agree with the statements above, the last one is where I don't. If you want to learn about linux you better install everything and then poke around. That's the way I've done it. You do not necessarily enable all services but that's very easy after you learn the basics. That's assuming you have enough disk space which is about 4 GB for RedHat distribution these days. Also, if you want to develop or manage any kind of server you better have that installed somewhere to test before the deployment. > > Regards, > > -- > > Gil Andre gandre@arkeia.com > Technical Writer > Knox Software http://www.arkeia.com -- Rafael