Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:11:56 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010412061155.B251809@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <15061.13268.347161.47426@guru.mired.org>; from "Mike Meyer" on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:49:24PM References: <117124895@toto.iv> <15061.13268.347161.47426@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:49:24PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> types: > > In "How Networks Work", by F.J. Derfler, Jr. and Les Freed, Chap. 18, > > "Server-Based LANs", the authors refer to the PCs hung off the Server as > > Clients. In Part 5 "Workgroup Applications", they point out that "the term > > client/server has a slightly different context..." -- which I understand! > > For example, Apache(web server) running on the Server; Netscape(web > > client/browser) running on a Client. mySQL(server) on the Server; a CGI > > script on the Client. Am I close? > > CGI scripts run on the server, not the client. JavaScript runs on the > client. You bet... I knew that! ;) I meant a CGI script invoked from the Client. > > To complicate the issue ;) .... I suppose that "server" software doesn't > > necessarly *have* to be running on the "Server". It could just as well be > > running on a big-buck Workstation-- no? > > Or an el-cheapo box built out of spare parts. I have one server on a > book pc, just to conserve space. This I know first-hand ;) What I meant was -- given a small home, Server-based LAN (a FBSD gateway box, a win9x box and another FBSD box) where the FBSD gateway box is performing as a Server by-and-large -- there is no reason why Apache could not be transfered to the 2nd FBSD box is there - even though it was being used more as a "desktop" than as a "Server"? > > Now... for the distinction you make (above) between Windows and Unix -- > > say that I have a win95 box hung off a FreeBSD gateway box, the latter > > sporting Apache and mySQL. Throw in a third box into this LAN - a FreeBSD > > "Client" with StarOffice, Netscape, Mutt and a few odds an ends. I build > > a private Website to be served on the "gateway"/"Server" box by > > Apache/mySQL. What differences would I observe when I accessed the > > Website from the win95 box compared to accessing same from the FreeBSD > > "desktop" box? Netscape on the FreeBSD box, and IE on the win95 box are > > both "presentation"/"client" apps. So where's the diff? I'm not seeing > > something I'm sure! > > The difference is that the FreeBSD client will be more stable, > reliable, and deliver better bang/buck. Having helped run some fairly > large Unix installations, I'd say that Ted's characterization of Unix > workstations is flawed. The only real difference between using Unix on > the desktop - even FreeBSD - and using Windows is the applications > selections. I understand! ;^) Thanks for the input and clarification. -- -duke Calgary, Alberta, Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010412061155.B251809>