steve-ss wrote:
On Friday 30 January 2004 20:03, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
I've never found time to focus on this topic, but I believe it is very important.
To us it's vital. We run 20 boxes nfs and nis with autofs. There are 160 user accounts. The SuSE software cost us Euros 60. The microsoft software would have been so way off budget to be unthinkable. We are a small school so security is not such a big issue. We have a firewall which stops the baddies from outside and file permissions seem to guard against the rest internally. I found the learning curve steep as I'm not trained in computers but within our budget there really is nothing to touch it. I often wonder what a NT or 2000 network feels like compared to a Linux one and how much more you really get by paying microsoft prices. It would be interesting to hear comments from someone who has used both. Thanks for the topic. Steve.
We have a Win2K network at work. Have lots of trouble with windows explorer finding the servers sometime. Used to have alot of lockups and crashes, but the sys admin reboots the servers every two weeks, so that has gone away. It is easy to setup, but I would not say any more difficult than windows if you are not used to either one. For awhile, we were getting worms from the Taiwan and India VPN on the network, and if you shared a directory, you would get a worm within about two minutes. That has improved with the McAfee antivirus on the servers, but I still don't trust it. I still use Norton antivirus to scan the executeables when I share a drive even though it slows down the machine. One guy one time had 1400 files infected on his machine. He cleaned it, then shared a drive, the next day he had 800 files infected again. He finally learned not to share directories on the network and to use antivirus. Art