🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan1.102554.28575@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:

>For small organizations with limited computing staff (yes,
>even none!), a multi-user box is often the way to go.
>Networking introduces many complications which are often
>difficult to diagnose from off-site using anything less than
>a megabit/second link and a voice link to have a "slave" do
>the physical checks.

Well, at this small organization of 4 engineers, I do the network support
as well as billable hours. We started with a cheap 25MHz 386DX box running
Netware 2.2. We keep our group work on the server, migrating our development
work as it matures. I kept us out of trouble by simply backing up the
server and keeping a "stock" copy of our work systems disk environment.
When we went to Windows for Workgroups I was able to do backups of both
the server as well as the clients via peer-to-peer. I have everything
automated, and we use the mail and schedule modules now to let the others
know something important when we can't do it face-to-face. Based upon
my costs for boxes, NICs, and various pieces of software, it's a wash when
it comes to network versus box-and-terminals. But the nicest part of our
setup is the fact that my 33MHz 486 system is _mine_. If I have to do some
real intense work (like major builds or 3-D simulation) then I can withoug
hearing about it because it's impacted the rest of the group. If I want
to install some other environment (which I do on occassion) because of
a client's project, then I can. I have lived on WANs since 82 and LANs
(specifically Novell) since 86. I find LAN life preferable to living
on archaic multi-user boxes.

-- 
William H. Beebe, Jr. - wbeebe@bilver.UUCP
                 UUCP - {ucf-cs,peora,uunet}!tarpit!bilver!wbeebe
                      - bilver Public Access Unix, Orlando FL
                      - (407)644-8327  2400/9600  24 hours  8N1