Build your own GNU/Linux server

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

I'm working on a little side project, and I was thinking about writing up something like a continuation of the PC Mech articles build your own server and build your own network....except with GNU/Linux in charge. I had originally planned on doing it with Solaris or BSD, but the people that use those tend to already know how to do the stuff I plan on doing. so, I guess if I used Red Hat(even though I'd rather not) I might actually be doing something worth while. sure, there are how-tos and FAQs, but my idea is to focus on the whole, instead of only working on one aspect. kind of showing *nix in general to be the true Swiss Army server.

I figured I would start with NIS, NFS, remote administration, maybe a Samba PDC for windows clients, probably DHCP, Apache, maybe SSH...I even have a copy of Novell's eDirectory for Linux for NDS, but I doubt I would do that right off.

I dunno, seems like I'm missing some good stuff. what do you guys think, is it a decent idea or should I just scrap this one and go back to studying for that second SCSA test? any ideas? comments?

[Computer Hobbyist]

Your proposal is wonderful. Creating a linux server to network a bunch of windows clients is exactly the project I had in mind when I first thought about learning linux few weeks ago. Your project will answer all the questions a newbie like me will need to have answered to properly use linux. RIGHT ON.

[Statica]

Check out www.linuxnewbie.org 's NFH's for Networking windoze clients with or without Samba

[winston]

Yea sounds like a good Idea I'm a newbie on Linux also so that could clear up a few thing I have questions about.

[mairving]

I hate to say it but a lot of the Linux documentation is sad. A lot of the howto's are how someone who has been a Linux/Unix geek all his life did it. It needs to be related down to people's level. Even -help and man can be a bit daunting to someone with little Linux experience. People really do need step-by-step and troubleshooting instructions. I think that one should first learn some of the basic Linux commands like:
ls, cd, cp, mv, find, grep, cat, less, mkdir, more, ps, kill, etc.. Then it really helps to be able to know what the tab key & what the up/down arrows do. After that setting up a server can be a breeze.

You probably also need to determine if you will show how to set it up using X or at the shell or both.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

Originally posted by mairving I hate to say it but a lot of the Linux documentation is sad.

really? I've always found it easier to get answers from the Linux Documentation Project than it is to get answers from Technet. there are too many things that MS just doesn't tell you.

Originally posted by mairving You probably also need to determine if you will show how to set it up using X or at the shell or both.

well, I hadn't really planned on downloading precompiled binaries, it's a bad habit to get into. I also prefer vi to any X text editor, so there would be a good deal of command line stuff, most of it would be I think. I suppose I could just say open an xterm when I wanted to do something, but I don't really see how you could do the initial setup with X. ultimately, I had intended to show them how to administer their boxes from their other(windows) machines with Webmin and WeirdX, so at that point it would become more of an X thing. I wouldn't neglect telnet and openssh, though.

[mairving]

Well it looks like your plan is to teach more people to set up Linux servers to move them off the Windows one. I LIKE IT. Just don't tell Bill.

Anyway, all I meant to say is that yes there is a lot of documentation out there but much of it is not geared to a newbie.

And personal opinion is that they should not learn in X.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

well, at this point all development on NT 3.1-4.0 networking is over, because MS wants to put the nails in Novell's coffin with Active directory.

hmmm, anyone ever really think about how viral NT really was? it started by infecting OS/2 and Lan Manager networks, then taking them over...then it moved on to trying to get Novell's market, hey you can use our gateway features to let your clients access Netware. now with 2000 the new services for Unix package is aimed at the same thing, giving 2000 some limited NIS capabilities while migrating to 2000 workstations. all MS inspired compatibility is centered around migration. It started with Lotus and Word Perfect, up till they thought they took the market, then no further attempts at compatibility came. I can see why MS has a bad name, but dammit, Bill is just so loveable.

anyway, the NT4 domain model is still a viable method of networking Windows workstations, and with NT development gone, Samba will finally be able to catch up, cause MS won't be breaking the clients anymore. if Samba could hurry up and get trusts relationships and BDCs hammered out, I don't see why it couldn't be big....active directory isn't really the right model for small to medium size businesses, anyway.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

Winston and Computer Hobbyist,

what kind of questions do you have? I would like to know what I should focus on, if I decide to do it. it means that I'll have to free up a box and start from scratch with Red Hat, so I'm not sure how(if) I'm going to proceed....unless I have a plan.

[spinoza]

I think that it's a great idea!!

I've been working full-time for the last 2 months trying to get an email interface called Twig to work with Cyrus-imap,postfix,Apache, and Mysql. I started this on my practicum and since then they've hired me to finish the larger project that will see a total switch over from Novell and M$.

Let me just say that my documentation is extremely step by step with no step left out. It is not to be read by an experienced Linux user but rather by someone (like me) who's had very limited experience in the Unix world. This kind of documentation, if presented to me as a complete package instead of hasty howto's, would have been not only invaluable, but moreover, compassionate.

If you do decide to carry through with the project that you propose then all I can say is that you are not just doing it for yourself but rather keep in mind the person that is less skilled than yourself. Then you find that 'work' becomes pleasurable (although maybe not as pleasurable as a good scotch).

Take it easy,
Spinoza

[robo555]

It would be really good if you can do that tutorial, a Linux server with a group of Windows clients. Something on File, Printer and Internet sharing, maybe even something on domains and mail server?

[Computer Hobbyist]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I just wasted a weekend trying to restore my home network. It seems I spent Friday night building my duron system that I am going to use to learn Linux. The build went great until I discovered the vendor had sent me the wrong drivers for the AGP card. Or maybe they sent me the wrong card because the install program says the NiVidia AGP card it was designed for hasn't been installed. That problem is not too difficult. Contact the vendor and ask them to make it right. Suddenly Saturday morning, however, my Windows 95 proxie server, which had been functioning flawlessly for years, had a problem. In fact, a lot of problems. Along with everything else since my last backup, I lost the drivers I had downloaded the night before. I decided not to reinstall wingate on the reconstructed machine infavor of upgrading to windows 98 2nd edition. (Big mistake given the antique state of my hardware.) When it was all done I had restored the house to the web, but not before discovering that there has got to be a better way to connect a lan to the internet than windoze98 internet connector. I intend to seek such a better way starting tomorrow night, but I have to plan my actions carefully and execute them quickly. My wife, and especially, my daughter won't stand for any downtime. Now it seems to me that building a linux proxie server would be the way to solve my problems. I am such a newbie, however, that it would take me days to construct such a server by trial and error, days I don't have given the household demand for service. So if I had a step by step plan for creating such a server and connecting my windows computers to the internet, a plan I could execute quickly, say, when my daughter is a way for a weekend, one that would allow for a dial up connection to my ISP (I don't have broadband yet) and one that would provide a firewall, then this weekend would have been worth it. In particular I need to better understand TCP/IP and all of the alphabet soup associated with it. Those are some ideas. Off to bed, got a busy day tomorrow. I am too old for lost weekends.

[lynchmob]

WLSB.I think we're long over due for a revamping of the way Linux in general is documented.I favor somthing along the lines of an instruction manual

Computerhobbyist,check this out:http://www.learntosubnet.com/
lynch

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

I guess I just don't understand what you guys mean. GNU/Linux is by far the most well documented OS on the market. Novell's documentation is sparse, I remember looking for documentation on their implementation of XFree86, I never found what I was looking for. Apple only tells their users the least possible information about their platform. Sun has decent documentation, but the answer book is hard to read, and it still doesn't cover everything. SCO's best documentation comes from their users. Be's documentation is flaky, there are ways around it's limitations, but they don't want to deal with them. finally, there is good ole MS, who believes that we don't need to know how to do anything unless it's via a control panel applet. undocumented secrets tells it all about MS, they drop an occasional registry hack, the give us another applet or mmc panel to pacify us(tweakui), someone running through MSDN finds something cool and shares it, someone stumbles acrossed a new registry hack, or someone figures out how they do something.

the Linux documentation is all there, there are no secrets...I personally would rather have too much info, than not enough.

anyway, I intend to work on this project. I'm currently going over ideas with on a list I've been made a member. at this point, they seem to think my writings style presumes too much and that I shouldn't be honest and tell every potential problem that I might face, in order to not confuse. I'll listen to their advice and try to make it simple and direct, it may become a group effort.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Lynchmob

Thanks for the tip. I'll take the online course tonight.

[lynchmob]

Hello,WLSB.I agree with your comments about the availability of Linux info.There is so much of it that I have several bookmark folders just to keep it organized.
My problem with alot of it is the authors assume (in most cases)that you have reached at least an intermediate level of experience with the OS.
What I would like to see is a format that would make things easier and quicker to understand for the novice as a single user(and for the more advanced user who would rather not wade through tons of docs to get answers).
Most of the people starting to try out Linux now are single users who want an alternative to windows. There are a few good books out there for the people who stick with Linux long enough to learn the basics.Most of the Linux books I have looked at that claim to be geared toward the beginner are distro-specific and arent much use unless you plan to run the distro version they use in thier example.
For myself,I have a enough patience to learn these things,but I see so many people posting to various bbs,complaining that Linux is too hard to learn and they're going back to windows.I just think there must be an easier way to get newbies started with this great OS.
BTW,I am looking forward to reading your server article.
lynch

[Computer Hobbyist]

You know I too have seen the posts "to various bbs,complaining that Linux is too hard to learn and they're going back to windows." I am sorry they do, but I am not surprised, because I find that learning Linux reminds me of learning DOS back in the 1980's. Windows and other GUIs are intended to make computer access easier for the masses. For the most part they do just that.

The real problem with Linux is the requirement that the user know something about his computer before he tries to install. You know, monitor refresh rates, nic addresses, etc. He also has to make some decisions not required in the usual Windows install (eg partition sizes). Mostly he has to learn a new vocabulary. hda, man, tar, cd, root, etc. It is the last part, learning a new language, that is the most difficult, but after a few weeks, you learn the vocabulary and the power of the operating system opens up to you. If you are not just a curious soul by nature, or if you don't have need for the power of Linux, then maybe your better off with Windows.

Ron

[mairving]

Originally posted by Computer Hobbyist If you are not just a curious soul by nature, or if you don't have need for the power of Linux, then maybe your better off with Windows.

Too true. I have seen it so many times. People try to install Linux. They run into an install problem. They then proceed to tell everyone how sorry Linux is. Did they actually use it? Nope. Any way it is not for everyone but if someone is willing to stick to it, it's worth it.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

Originally posted by Computer Hobbyist Windows and other GUIs are intended to make computer access easier for the masses. For the most part they do just that.

but, to understand why X11 doesn't have everything a fully integrated windowing system has, you have understand that this statement doesn't apply to X.

in the others, the GUI was the model around which the OS was built, with the exception of windows 3.1, which wasn't an OS. X, on the otherhand, was originally developed to facilitate a multitasking environment. it was designed to allow you to run multiple xterms, because you can't really take advantage of heavy multitasking from a text console. you can do things in the background, but you can't really "simultaneously" interact with more than one application at a time. as things went on, they started to use the GUI functions more, and developed graphical toolkits to make better use of the GUI, but there are times when I wish they had thought a little more about it during the design phase. X is by far the ugliest of all GUIs, except OS/2(but the integration is higher). NeXT and SGI tried to raise the bar, but it never really took.

now KDE and Gnome are trying to push things to the point where the GUI is as tight as the other GUIs. But, honestly, after seeing Apple give *nix a facelift, I think maybe it would be nice if they would start looking into other options, cause X just ain't cutting it. big, ugly and slow just isn't my idea of a nice GUI. if the guy who designed AtheOS can write a nice, functional GUI from scratch in his spare time, I don't see why they can't make a good windowing system for *nix.

we'll also have to wait and see how the final product at the berlin project comes out, maybe it will be nice....but I doubt it, if they intend to implement GTK, at some point.

http://www.berlin-consortium.org/

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

looks like the team effort just went down in flames, creative differences and stuff.

if anyone would like to make this a joint project, email me....the content would be ok, but getting it web ready isn't my specialty.