Text 5095, 203 rader
Skriven 2005-03-17 13:12:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ALAN ZISMAN
Ärende: Re: lan
===============

123c5407bdee
win95



Hello Alan - 

AZ>>> Although the Win98 server showed up in the My Network
AZ>>> Places list, it gave an error message saying I was not
AZ>>> permitted to connect. I installed NetBEUI from the XP CD,
AZ>>> and it now connects without problem. 

CA>> What "server" are you referring to? From what you have
CA>> described there are no "servers" it's a LAN with shared
CA>> resources - no server. An unused client does not
CA>> constitute a 'server'. 

AZ> We're running into semantics here... 

This is true and I claim 'mea culpa' for seeming to be so petty
but lacking illustrations and roadmaps the terminology is all
that I have to direct me when attempting to
setup/use/troubleshoot a networked group of computers. 

If the terminology becomes clouded results become 'iffy' at
best. 

AZ> if 'server' means a system running a Network Operating
AZ> System, then I don't have a server for my school network,
AZ> since the two computers that are 'acting as servers' are
AZ> running Win98. If 'server' means a system that is primary
AZ> used to share files (or printers or other resources) to
AZ> other computers, than I have a pair of servers. 

'Server', to me, means a machine executing server software that
is unable to function as a client while executing that
software. True a 'server' serves but 'sharing' is not
'serving'. Sharing implies that the machine can become a client
at any time. A server often has no monitor attached and some
have no keyboard since a server _only_ serves it does not
require human access components. 

AZ> I tend to assume that if a system is acting like a server,
AZ> then it IS a server... but others may disagree. 

Again, I know this seems petty, but I would disagree. 

AZ>> 2) Local Area Networks can be designed to work around a
AZ>> dedicated server-- Novell Netware, or one of a variety of
AZ>> Windows server versions are examples. Peer-to-peer
AZ>> networks use software in which any of the systems can be
AZ>> sharing resources (typically files or printers) with the
AZ>> others. WFWG, Win9x, WinNT Pro, Win 2000 Pro, or Win XP
AZ>> (Home or Pro) can all be set up for peer-to-peer networks
AZ>> (as could the old Lantastic). 

CA>> When there is a machine designated as a 'server' that
CA>> machine is executing 'server software' and the
CA>> workstations access that machine using software described
CA>> as a 'client'. With P2P there are no servers/clients. All
CA>> machines are executing the same software. Or am I wrong
CA>> about this fact? 

AZ> All systems are running Win98 (actually, a few are running
AZ> Win2000 and now one is running WinXP, but that doesn't
AZ> really change anything)... but File Sharing is only turned
AZ> on for the two 'servers'... so they are 'serving' files,
AZ> the others are receiving files-- just as would be the case
AZ> if I was running, say, Novell Netware on those two systems. 

I do get your point that only two machines are 'sharing' but a
server can _only_ serve up files and cannot grab files from the
rest of the network. In this case, the two machine _could_ with
minor changes to the configurations. 

AZ>> In my school, I use Win9x peer-to-peer networking, but
AZ>> designate a couple of systems as what I refer to as
AZ>> quasi-servers; they're acting as servers because no one
AZ>> sits down at them and uses them as workstations. I do that
AZ>> for a couple of reasons. One is security; I wouldn't want
AZ>> a kid to be working at the system that stores everyone
AZ>> else's files, records for keyboarding and ESL software,
AZ>> etc. The other is performance... I found that having
AZ>> someone using possibly CPU or Disk-intensive programs
AZ>> while others were accessing files or printing via that
AZ>> system made for a poorly-performing workstation and a
AZ>> poorly-performing server. 

CA>> This arrangement works for you, obviously, but the
CA>> designation of 'server' and 'client' seems to be clouding
CA>> what is actually there. This is one of many reasons why
CA>> discussions of networking become confusing (to me). The
CA>> terminology is applied to anything and everything and it
CA>> becomes a mishmash of random information with no way to
CA>> find the proper path. 

AZ> As I said above, one can define the term 'server' in a
AZ> variety of ways. In my school district, there has,
AZ> historically, been some politics around this-- for a couple
AZ> of years, the district IT department was pushing what it
AZ> called a 'Local Area Network Initiative' aiming to put
AZ> Novell servers into elementary schools, serving an
AZ> expensive collection of (in my opinion poorly designed) IBM
AZ> educational software. I opposed having my school buy in
AZ> (schools had to put up their own money to buy into this
AZ> program), noting that we already had a local area network.
AZ> The IT administrator pooh-poohed my network, since as a
AZ> peer-to-peer network, it wasn't a 'real' LAN... regardless
AZ> of whether it worked for us (and was affordable by us). The
AZ> whole experience left me bitter and twisted around the
AZ> question of what's a 'real' network, however. 

I'm sorry that the school's IT department has not been
appreciative of your efforts to save the schools some money.
Bureaucracies can be unrewarding to have to deal with. :-( 

I'm only trying to define terms here. I have no axe to grind as
to what constitutes a _real_ network or what networking
software is better than the other. 

AZ>> But it's a 'quasi-server' because it's running Win9x
AZ>> rather than a 'real' network operating system. In some
AZ>> cases, the distinction can be nominal-- there are
AZ>> reportedly only a few Registry settings different between
AZ>> NT 4 Server and Workstation or Win 2000 Server and
AZ>> Professional-- and a hack floats around the Net to
AZ>> instantly switch between one and the other. 

AZ>> A Linux installation can be used either as a workstation
AZ>> or a server; the difference is what optional programs are
AZ>> installed (Apache for web serving, for instance). 

CA>> This would also be true for Windows. I don't see a
CA>> difference here? 

You mention of Apache for web serving and the difference being
what optional programs are installed is where I am drowning in
terminology. For me clients are _always_ clients while
executing client software and servers are _always_ servers when
executing server software. From this perspective P2P is not a
true 'network' (no servers) and is only sharing resources
(similar to bittorrent - no servers per se). 

AZ> Other than the limitations that MS has built-into the
AZ> workstation versions of Win NT/2000/XP, I would agree. I
AZ> use Win98 because it doesn't have the same limitations of #
AZ> of connections as the workstation versions of NT/2000/XP,
AZ> and unlike the MS server packages doesn't require paying MS
AZ> a licensing fee for each connected client. 

There are opensource versions of server software that will
execute on Windows. 

AZ> And ironically, even with 60 or so clients, I'm finding
AZ> these Win98 pseudo-servers very stable-- while my Win98
AZ> clients freeze and crash regularly, the pseudo-servers,
AZ> which do nothing but sit there sharing files (on one) or
AZ> running a couple of databases of student records accessed
AZ> when the kids use their typing program or ESL software (the
AZ> other)-- haven't had to be reset since September. They are
AZ> remarkably stable. 

Can't argue against what works but my focus is to define terms,
not to disparage your accomplishments in putting legacy
hardware and software to good use. Legacy s/hware is a
preocuppation of mine as well. :-) 

AZ>> 3) I agree-- I don't know of any 'theoretical' reason why
AZ>> NetBEUI should be needed on a properly set up TCP/IP
AZ>> network... but it seems to make a big difference in real
AZ>> life. 

CA>> I have zero doubts that what you are telling me (and
CA>> others) is true, that NetBEUI makes it all 'come together'
CA>> and work. I just don't like shooting blind not knowing
CA>> what I am adding to my OS or why I am adding it. Somewhere
CA>> down the road when trouble starts I have no place to start
CA>> because I never knew why it worked in the first place. 

CA>> I know, I'm being a pest about this but if no one here on
CA>> FIDO knows then I will ask elsewhere and continue my
CA>> search until it ends or I do whichever comes first. :-) 

AZ> I'm a pragmatist; if something works, I don't necessarily
AZ> need to know why. But I'd be interested if you discover
AZ> anything. 

I have, in my travels to-fro around the internet, found an
explanation of what NetBEUI adds to Windows networking but it
was not a focal point for me at the time and now I must attempt
to locate that information again if I can. :-( 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)