I've got a smaller network - currently just P2P with one machine set aside as a file server only. Adding more workstations soon (will have 8 total: 7 XP PRO, 1 Win98). Am feeling a need to get a more traditional network config. Considering MS Server, but expensive. It will be used for just serving up files (all apps run from the clients) and may serve 1 printer. My main reason for considering more traditional server software (rather than just p2p) is to 1. be able to better set privelages for file access,etc and 2. basic stability. >>Would some LINUX product be just as good/better (and cheaper)??? Any Advice Appreciated. THANKS!

i would say, go for windows server 2003..for its power, performance, stability, and etc..no doubt is a bit pricy, but it is a long term investment..:)

I aggree with desperado. Linux is definitely cheaper, and it's not a bad server OS. But it sounds to me that you don't know much about Linux. It's not easy to learn. And I'm not sure how good Linux is for file permissions, user privelages, etc. I say Win2k3 also.

Interesting question and sure to spark heated arguments on both side's, linux and Microsoft.. I really would go in your situation for linux.. There are some good server software that runs great in linux and the new kernal is a big improvement. I run linux on a smaller network, if its properly configured you have less trouble then the ms machine, I run microsoft on a larger network 40+ machines.. Larger networks.... if it's just you.. I would go with Microsoft.

If you never work on linux before and try to maintain a window network, i would say go with windows first. To get linux work in windows workgroup, domain or active directory environment, you need to get linux running with samba. For a beginner, i don't think that would be easier. I have been running NT with 1000+ users. I have about 50+ NT servers and 30+ Unix servers running Samba to act as NT file/print server. If you have exp. with Unix, yes, it would not be very hard to configure samba, but if not, you might have to spend more time to get it going than a window's server.

Intersting discussion here folks, I'm having in my hand a similiar project, except we already have an NT domain with 30 workstations, and there's going to be an additional server with OS at my choosing. This additional server will be as a backup server providing extra storage, file sharing, printer sharing, and a tiny bit of application sharing. It would be the best if we could have it as a secondary domain server to participate in user authentication in case the existing server is down (knocks on wood). What is the best choice? Linux or W2003? If I choose w2003 or w2000, would I be able to configure it as secondary domain server? Or have it as primary and the existing secondary? We already have 30 per seat licenses. What kind of license do we need to purchase if at all to have two windows servers? Thanks a lot in advance!!!

Phil, Win 2k3 Enterprise. Hands down. It's ability to integrate to your existing setup will be a dream for you to run (perhaps with a few teething pains on initial setup), and each of the roles you mentioned are easily configurable in 2K3. Not to mention, since you already have the NT infrastructure, 2k3 makes sense in that you have an easy upgrade path once your company decides to get away from NT. As for configuration, it will run beautifully as either the primary DC, or as a subsidiary DC. And it's rock solid, I was on the beta newsgroups back in the RC days, and several of them guys had 4+ months up-time, and more than one had 6+ months.