Server comments

[Julio Biason]

On 2/16/06, Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) <JimBodkins at yahoo.com> wrote:
>    My real problem is with the server install. Come on guys. Are you
> serious? What you call a server install, stopped being useful ten years ago.
> Contemporary servers require desktops and more. (I am more than capable of
> admining a server from a command line. But a credible and 'deployed' server
> needs admining by others, not just me)

I don't get it. I mean, why a server would ever need a desktop? A
server won't be used for anything other than serving a network. You
won't write a document on a server, just store it there.

But I agree that the name "server" is a little bit misleading: it
actually install just the base system. It won't even install apache or
any other serve (except for postfix, that also comes with the desktop
install), so it isn't a server on the real meaning of the word. Maybe
"base"?

[PS: Looking at that perspective, your view of a server is just a
normal desktop install followed by the installation of the servers you
want]

--
Julio Biason <julio.biason at gmail.com>