Thank you, Michael, both for your information and for demonstrating so
clearly my contention that Linux partisans in general *cannot* see
issues from the perspective of the SOHO/home user.<g> The reason I speak
up on this is that like it or not, Windows users ARE looking at Linux as
an alternative. My impression is that many Linux advocates would like
nothing better than to see Microsoft taken down a few notches and to see
an end to the OS monopoly inflicted by Microsoft. There's not a
snowball's chance in hell of this worthy goal happening, however, unless
Linux develops a friendlier face that acknowledges the situation of
single users and people with truly small networks. By that I mean a
network of two or three computers, probably in a home, with one to four
family members as users.
You said:
>> I administered a small lan with 35 workstations <<
Ahem. 35 workstations is not really a "small LAN." It is compared with
5000 workstations, but when I talk "small LAN," I mean something like
what I have: two computers joined by crossover cable. It's glorious--I
can manage and use files on either computer and can use the LaserJet and
the good color printer on the home office computer from the hall
computer, and the crummy inkjet attached to the hall computer from the
home office computer. The only people who would or could use one of
these computers are my husband or I. He rarely uses the computer and
would certainly not be downloading programs, installing anything, or
messing with the system. That leaves one person--me--as root and user.
"Shares" are irrelevant in this situation. So are permissions. And so is
this kind of business:
>> With linux, there is more control over who can actually see the
shares--you have options to limit by IP (such that only specific
computers on the network can even see the shares), by users (such that
only specific users on the linux server can see the shares), by
permission (such that only certain users or groups of users can edit the
files, and other users or groups have read only privilege), or by a
combination of the above (such that only certain users from certain
computers can see the shares). <<
I agree that all of this is great on a multiuser system, even one with,
say, 10 users such as a smallish business, but on a two- or
three-computer, one- or two-user home network, it's irrelevant and more
of a bother than a feature.
>> This also leaves out the security risks of sharing an entire hard
drive to begin with, especially under windows. You are much better off
only sharing directories on the drive, then the whole thing (with the
wrong permissions, someone could delete the entire Windows or winnt
directory, which would leave the computer unuseable and almost certainly
require either a re-install, or recopying the hard drive image back to
the PC.) <<
These are all good points unless the one sharing the hard drive is ME.
Who is going to delete the entire Windows directory? Me?? Well, as
"root" I can do that anyway! So as a general statement, >> You are much
better off only sharing directories on the drive << applies only in some
small LAN situations. It most likely does not apply to home situations
where one or two mature, responsible, computer-literate adults share
computers on a network.
Anyway, SOHO and home computers should be backed up regularly,
regardless of what the networking situation is. Could you stand to lose
it? Do you want to start from scratch? If the answer is "no," you must
have a backup strategy and DO IT. It is a lot easier to keep the thing
backed up than to fool with permissions, shares, and passwords day in
and day out--again, in the two-user situation.
>> You incorrectly state that with TCP / IP file and printer sharing,
your hard drive can be viewed by the outside world. <<
Are you sure that's incorrect? I was under the impression that if you
had file sharing enabled under TCP/IP and had a cable modem, you were
essentially on a LAN with everyone else on your cable line. It would
seem that if they could access your machine, they could indeed share
files with it. I am obviously no expert on networking, especially TCP/IP
networking. The only LAN networking I have experience with is NetBEUI on
a small two- or three-computer network, entirely self-contained in a
home. I use TCP/IP only for Dial-Up Networking and it is not bound to
any components and NetBios is not enabled. While this may seem to be a
joke network to some Linuxies, it is exactly what we want and works
perfectly for us. I dare say this is what a large number of two-computer
households want in a network. We appreciate the value of heavy-duty
Linux networking where it is needed, but in our situation it is overkill
many times over.
>> There are problems with NetBEUI, especially so for larger networks,
but also applicable for smaller networks in that it creates a lot of
network traffic. <<
NetBEUI was never intended for large networks. In fact, I think there is
a rather small limit on the number of computers that can be connected
over NetBEUI. It is also peer-to-peer and cannot be anything else. It is
not appropriate for business networks of more than a few computers, but
is excellent for a very small home network because it is very easy to
set up and does not communicate with the outside world. Now tell me how
a network with two computers is going to "create a lot of network
traffic."<g> The *only* traffic on it is when I'm transferring files
from one machine to the other or sending data to a printer connected to
the other computer. That's it!! Never had a collision, never could have
a collision. There are no clients and servers, just two computers that
can be viewed from each other, with file management possible from either
machine and printers connected to each computer available to the other.
>> A much more efficient manner is to enable virus scanning at the mail
server itself -- such that mail is checked as it comes in, although that
doesn't obviate the need for workstation level virus software as well.
<<
Here again, your bias comes through. Mail server??? Give me a break.
There is no mail server, just two computers both of which can get
e-mail. I agree that a corporate LAN, even a small one, is well advised
to have virus scanning enabled where the mail comes in. But all your
Aunt Matildas and Uncle Joes who infect their computers with Love Bugs
and Melissas and Kak worms and Anna K viruses, and pass them on to all
the people in their address books, do contribute to the virus/worm load
on the Net and do so needlessly. Viruses require user action--or
inaction. It's an educational problem. The solution is not to complicate
up the OS to the Linux level because these folks would not adapt, they
simply would not use a computer. The genie is out of the bottle and the
High Priesthood had better get used to it. Clueless users are here to
stay and you can either write them off to the machinations and
monopolies of Microsoft or try to build user friendliness into a better
OS.
Please don't take this is an argument with what you're saying. You are
absolutely right within your context. And I probably was not clear that
when I talked about a "small LAN," I meant a *SMALL* LAN. So small it is
probably below the radar for anyone who thinks of networks in terms of
more than 6 users. But the home network is a rapidly growing segment of
the market and needs to be accommodated if Linux is to have any chance
of attracting nontechnical users.
--Judy Miner
