need help setting up computer network for small business (need info)

[bigmike82]

Dude, those are Linksys products.

Rebranded linksys is still linksys.

[smird]

Dude, those are Linksys products.

Rebranded linksys is still linksys.

And who owns linksys?

[bigmike82]

Irrelevant.

A Linksys product is not equivalent to a Cisco product, regardless of logos and writing.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Yup if you have 4 workstations you don't need much. But he said 5-25.

Then I asked some questions, instead of selling him on my favorite solution.

The number of computers has nothing to do with it. You name the number of clients.... 5, 50, 500, 5000, you name it, and I can build you a linux server that is just as fast for half the money. A business out-grows a linux server when a software solution he is required to have will only run on an MS server. If their software requires MSSQL and will NOT run on MySQL, or the engine only runs on a WIN32 system and WINE does not support it. These scenarios are exceedingly rare. I have enterprise software running on a linux server with WINE because the software required MS WINDOWS.

The Wine and Samba packages have come a long way in the last couple of years. Try playing with it a while.

I would love to run Linux servers and workstations even, but most business software won't run on it.

I have rarely had an issue getting software to run on linux. In a worst case scenario, its as easy as installing virtualbox and running an old copy of server 2000 in a virtual machine. The only time I am really forced to run a windows server is when the company deals with clients or vendors that require it. Certain MS Project installations and software that integrates with MS software. In that case, I build a small server running Windows Server and handle all the real work with the linux box.

BTW my little 25 pc network is in a company that does 6 million a year. spending even 50 grand every few years isn't going to break us.

I would not classify your business as a small business. That is what we are talking about. Computer techs go into a small business and sell them a $10k network to service 5-10 computers. If you have the income to support a $10k-$40k network, then great. I would say real cisco all the way.

You can buy Cisco switches and routers a lot cheaper than that LINK

Again.... why??? A small business with 5-20 workstations with a 1mbps cable modem doesn't need anything more than a $50 linksys router running DD-WRT. If network needs expand later, then buy a Cisco.

I have configured everything from a Cisco 1700 to a 7206VXR. I have also dealt heavily with PIX firewalls and Catalyst switches. I am no stranger to expensive networks. It is very rare that a small business requires this kind of equipment.


P.S.
Linksys has never been and will never be Cisco.

[KillZone45]

Bigmike82 and E Pluribus Unum, I am currently a tech student and have much to learn. I WISH I could just hang out with you two and learn. That is pretty awesome what you two know!

[smird]

The Wine and Samba packages have come a long way in the last couple of years. Try playing with it a while.

Ok maybe this is the part I don't get. Granted It's been a while since I've played with Linux of any flavor. Hell I've got a SCO Unix Ace cert laying around here somewhere along with a CNE.

So I have a accounting package that needs to run in 2003 server or better. So I set up an linux box with wine or what ever. To run windows server inside of linux. Doesn't that server need to be just as powerful or more so than the stan alone windows server? Since it is running both?

For workstations, how do you get the client past the "this isn't windows" thought process? Hell, I have a tough enough time changing versions of word on them.

BTW I agree that for a small business all they need is a DSL line and cheap router.

My whole point to this is the OP said build me a network. Well that's like saying build me a vehicle. What do you want to do with it? We could do anything from a VW Bug to a


So what flavor of linux do you recomend I play with?

Brad

[bigmike82]

"Doesn't that server need to be just as powerful or more so than the stan alone windows server?"

Not if you offload as many processes as you can to the 'nix server. You'll want to have the VirtualBox run *only* the accounting app. Everything else (printing, file, etc) is running on the Linux box. So the server will need to a bit more powerful than before, but still not quite as powerful as if everything were running on Windows.

"how do you get the client past the "this isn't windows" thought process?"

You can integrate Windows clients into a Linux infrastructure with little visibility to the actual users.

Your right in trying to get more details, but even bigger than that is the lack of a budget. That is the driving force behind any purchasing decision, and leaving it out kinda screwed the assignment, I think.

"So what flavor of linux do you recomend I play with?"

I prefer CentOS on the server side. If I were you, I would just get a server going and start installing all the correct packages to do what you would want a normal Windows server to do (file, print sharing, authentication, etc). Even if you end up not going the Linux route for most general purpose processes (I don't), you'll still be able to better analyze future requirements and potentially save yourself some budget for fun stuff (like...training). And setting up a server with actual real world requirements is the best way to learn. Once you figure out how to install and configure the packages to your liking, start looking into the security side of things (how to lock down SSH, how to configure IPTables, what applications (if any) do you chroot, and so forth). Best of all...this is all free.

E Pluribus and I have two different approaches to this problem. My default solution, for a small business, is a Windows network. His is a Linux network. And, quite honestly, there's no real right answer. There are compelling arguments for both methods. But regardless of what you choose, it's a great idea to be competent with both technologies because it can save you money or administration headaches in the future.

[DaveInOroValley]

I'm not a Win guy but I have to say, excellent write up and advice E P U

[E Pluribus Unum]

So I have a accounting package that needs to run in 2003 server or better. So I set up an linux box with wine or what ever. To run windows server inside of linux. Doesn't that server need to be just as powerful or more so than the stan alone windows server? Since it is running both?

It depends on which option you use. Wine does not run windows server within linux. Wine runs the Windows binary natively in linux without emulation. It is quite efficient and much faster than Windows. Wine does not always work however. In the Wine configuring, you tell it what OS you want it to report to the software. You can make the accounting package think it is running on anything from Windows 95 to Server 2003.

There are some programs that do not work well with Wine. The biggest PITA for me has been Itunes and Quickbooks. For these software I have to run them in virtualbox in a Virtual Machine. Believe it or not, my XP virtual machine runs faster than XP does natively on my hardware. I have 2 gigs of RAM on my PC and Unix runs fine on 1 gig. Most of my disk operations for the virtual machine are done in RAM and it runs super fast.

If your accounting software will not run in Wine, then a virtual machine will run it. If the client is an enterprise level client, they can afford to just have two servers; one as a linux file server, and the other as a Windows 2k3 accounting server. A small business wont have the traffic to overwhelm the virtual machine.

For workstations, how do you get the client past the "this isn't windows" thought process? Hell, I have a tough enough time changing versions of word on them.

I do not run linux workstations usually. Unfortunately, the average user is not open to learning a new GUI and they are all brainwashed with Windows. I do have a Windows theme for gnome though; I can make the Linux GUI look just like Windows. Samba server with slapd appears to be a Windows server on the network. The older version of Samba appears to be an NT4 Primary Domain Controller, and the newer version of Samba appears to be an Active Directory server.

I despise Windows Vista. For the last couple years I have kept all of my clients that would listen on Windows XP. Windows 7 appears to be much better than Vista, so soon I will abandon XP for Windows 7. I'll let all of you beta test it a bit more and I'll go to it when the next service pack.

So what flavor of linux do you recomend I play with?

Ubuntu is just about to release the new version in a week or so. Download the pre-release and run it... its awesome.


Download the ISO image of the DESKTOP version. I actually run the desktop version on all my servers. The GUI is much easier to setup and layout and once I get it all configured I just disable gdm (the gui).

After you get the desktop version installed you can uninstall the frills to make it more efficient or switch to the server version later once you become familiar with it.

go to www.ubuntu.com and download the 10.1 beta ISO file.

After you boot to the live CD and install linux, drop to a terminal and type:

sudo apt-get install wine1.2 samba4 virtualbox-ose slapd


You will probably need some help configuring them later, but that will get you started.

[bigmike82]

"they are all brainwashed with Windows."

God I hate Linux attitudes sometimes. It's not brainwashing...it's the fact that it *works* painlessly. That's not something Linux on the desktop offers.

[E Pluribus Unum]

God I hate Linux attitudes sometimes.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but it is what it is...

It's not brainwashing...it's the fact that it *works* painlessly. That's not something Linux on the desktop offers.

I consider people brainwashed because Windows is the only thing they are exposed to in school and work. How do you go to someone who has NEVER seen a linux box and convince him to try it?

You show me a high school that has even just ONE linux desktop setup for kids to use.

If things were even, people would be shown both, and given an opportunity to choose. They are not given that option. They are force-fed Windows and they don't know about anything else.

To me, that is brainwashing.

[bigmike82]

"I consider people brainwashed because Windows is the only thing they are exposed to in school and work. "

Bullcrap. Any K-12 school I know of uses MACs exclusively. And yet people still gravitate towards Windows when they've left...

"How do you go to someone who has NEVER seen a linux box and convince him to try it?"

By giving them a *compelling* reason to do so. For the desktop, there isn't a big compelling reason to switch for most people.

[jammer2k]

As an IT person there is no way I would even consider deploying Linux to the desktop. It has nothing to do with any technical capability of Linux and everything to do with users. Windows is what they know from previous work and their (mostly) home computers, even the 'savvy' users I have don't touch Linux. On the server side it is slightly different, I still use mostly Windows since almost all the apps we use require it and the poor availability of skilled Linux admins/engineers vs the far greater availbility of Windows admins/engineers way more than offsets any cost savings of Linux.

As to the orginal question, you really would need to define more in what the nature of the company is and what their computer needs are. An accounting firm has completely different needs than a Engineering firm or Ad/Marketing firm. Future growth and mobility of users are other factors (just to name a few) to consider.

[E Pluribus Unum]

As an IT person there is no way I would even consider deploying Linux to the desktop.

Who here has suggested this?? We have been talking about servers.

[jammer2k]

Who here has suggested this?? We have been talking about servers.

Sensitive much? Since Linux was brought up my response was a general one, not really specific to anything other than the OP.