Subject: [netatalk-admins] Slightly Off-Topic: MacOS as server or Linux?
From: Oliver Wrede (owrede@ds.fh-koeln.de)
Date: Fri Nov 21 1997 - 16:07:43 EST
Hello,
my question ist slightly off-topic, but I think here are many
people who can answer with all of their experience. So excuse
me please.
I need an advice.
We are an educational institution with 300-400 users and
aprox. 30-50 client machines (mostly Macintosh) We have to
update our server infrastructure soon. Of course we want
to get as much features and benefit we can out of the
investment we can make.
We have a Mac-only LAN (just 4-5 Windows NT machines for
doing CAD and 3D stuff) Our current main Internet-Server
is a Linux box with only few diskspace, but doing all
the tricks you can want.
Right now, we have the problem with UNIX, that there are only
two, who can administer this machine. We are considering
to hire somone full-time to do the administration (whether
server platform is MacOS, Rhapsody, Linux or NT is yet
to be decided, but we want that person to be able to handle
it)
My current opinion is, that if there is someone, who can
handle the Linux box, we can use the money to buy a bulk
Intel machine with huge diskspace (mybe a RAID disk) and
best-of backup devices.
Is there any argument against this? Should we better buy
a MacOS machine as server and wait for Rhapsody? Could
we plan to switch to Rhapsody on the intel machine later?
What would you do with if you had - say - $30,000 left
to invest?
Oliver
--- . Oliver Wrede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . owrede@ds.fh-koeln.de . . tel. +49 2203 913 200 . office +49 221 9522 601 . fax +49 221 9522 605 . . School of Design, University of Applied Science, Cologne . . . . . . . . . . http://www.ds.fh-koeln.de/~owrede/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:28:15 EST