Re: work station install, versus server install?

[penelope cotse net]

Mr. Dynco,
 Linux, in all its varied flavors is installed daily by hundreds of
thousands of professionals AND equal numbers of pimply-faced 15 year-olds
(who hack the kernel and play your silly games too);  is this not a
daunting realization for you?  I begin to wonder if you are a seeker of
knowledge or just some bored Micro$oft engineer taking potshots.  You
continue to question the very basis of Linux -- I think you are just
pissed off because you don't have one of those infuriating wizards to
walk you through every task.
 If you demonstrated the same degree of tenacity concerning your Linux
install and config as you have towards chewing up this list's bandwidth,
you would have been happily on the Web by now, playing your little games
contentedly.


> In response to my post submitted yesterday, Grendel offered a couple of
> comments which reveal a bias towards installation of RedHat 7.3 as
> SERVER, rather than as a WORKSTATION operating system.   Isn't it
> obvious to others on this list, that the majority of folks who offer
> questions to this forum ARE NOT experienced LINUX users, and are
> therefore MOST LIKELY trying to use RH 7.3 as a workstation operating
> system?   System Administrators have a variety of other
> problems/questions, and I would suppose, a separate forum to address
> these issues.  Perhaps my analysis is in error, and only a few folks are
> evaluating RH 7.3 as a potential replacement for Microsoft's products on
> their workstation.    Here are Grendel's observations:
>  "... suppose you are serving files on
>>your cdrom via your webserver to some hundreds of your local clients,
>> and you suddenly press the eject button by accident and the cd pops
>> out, well its going to leave a lot of people pissed off against you. "
>  ...
> ">Well in linux or unix there is not a single user is there, its a muti
>>tasking MULTI USER OS, and there are certain design decisions to be
>> taken. ...."
>
> In my opinion, Redhat, or any other distribution of Linux, needs to
> clarify whether it is indeed intended ONLY to serve as a MULTIUSER OS,
> or ALSO as a workstation.   The installation and operation of the two
> are completely different.   For one thing, a multiuser system must offer
> the possibility of REMOTE installation, whereas, a workstation, by
> definition, is sitting right in front of the user.   Workstations have
> no need for all of the excess baggage that UNIX provides.   A proper
> workstation OS leaves the USER, not some distant administrator, in
> charge of his/her own computer hardware, and thus, the cd-drive
> mechanism responds AT ANY TIME to the user, and does not require the
> real time approval of a non-existent system administrator to function
> correctly. If Linux can not be placed on a diet, and slimmed down to
> serve the purposes of the WORKSTATION user, by selecting the appropriate
> options during installation, then Grendel was correct in writing that my
> submissions to this forum constitute nothing more than spam.  Regards,
> Sol
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Tired of all the SPAM in your inbox? Switch to LYCOS MAIL PLUS
> http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-install-list mailing list
> Redhat-install-list redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list