dgboles at gmail.com
Sun Dec 30 20:26:32 UTC 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Kam Leo wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 7:25 AM, David Boles <dgboles at gmail.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Kam Leo wrote:
>>> Why not? IIS has been available for Windows 2000/XP Pro for a long time.
>> Perhaps I said that incorrectly.
>> "I would not expect a Windows XP Home/PRO computer to be a server
>> installation for example." because it is not normally done that way.
>> Installing ISS on Windows XP Home can be done but it not supported
>> because ISS is not included on the XP Home install disk. You have to use
>> the ISS from Windows 2000.
>> ISS can be added after a normal install of Windows XP PRO and is
>> included on the XP PRO install disk. The ISS from Windows XP Pro will
>> not work with XP Home.
> What is normally done? Apache, Samba and a whole host of other
> applications are not installed and/or enabled by default, either.
I really don't know what is normally done. But since XP PRO is a
*desktop* install I seriously doubt that "Apache, Samba and a whole host
of other applications" would be installed at all let alone by default.
Home is a stripped down PRO so I would think, even more, that these
would not be defaults.
If I wanted a Windows server I would use Windows 2003 which *is* a server.
As for Linux? If I wanted a server I would install RHEL or CentOS or one
of several other Linux server installations. I would *not* try to run a
Linux server system with Fedora. It changes too quickly and too often to
bother with in the long run. Thirteen months of support before EOL
compared to 3/4 years is a no brainer.
> How did XP Home get into this conversation?
XP Home and XP PRO are related. Home is XP without the office networking
stuff. Just what the name implies. XP for use by a home user. And you
mentioned it. Look about at your quoted section.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the users