[Gllug] Server v. Desktop

[John Winters]

On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 10:49, Ms. Lene Jensen wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Andrew Black wrote:
> 
> > What are there pros and cons of installing as a server v. desktop.
> 
> Ok, here is what a desktop install does: It installs everything that you 
> would expect from a desktop machine/workstation.  Such a computer are 
> mostly used by people who do not need to be computer litterate, so no 
> services are installed.  This is done for security reasons, you should 
> never run services you do not need.  Client tools are available.  If you 
> have another OS on the machine, it will not touch this.
> 
> A server install installs all services you need.  It doesn't install X 
> by default, but you can add that if you like.  It will wipe _all_ 
> existing OS'es, as a server by definition should be running all the 
> time.

Red Hat did do this at one stage but it doesn't seem to now (7.3).  When
this behaviour first came in we got a lot of stick because customers
would choose "Server", thinking server was just "better" than
workstation, ignore the *two* messages saying, "You are about to wipe
all data from your hard disc", then scream loudly when they found they'd
lost their Windows installation.

Current versions of Red Hat offer you a choice of automatic or manual
partitioning, and if you choose automatic then ask which existing
partitions may be removed.  This is true even if you choose the "Server"
installation type.

There are good reasons to have another installation co-residing, even on
a server.  Some cards come with configuration utilities which run only
under DOS.  By having a small DOS partition on the system you can keep
them resident and not have to go hunting for the right floppy when
maintaining the server.

John

-- 
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/

We had a woodhenge here once but it rotted.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug