Linux File Server For Mac Os
Search Linux Server For File

I have two PC towers that have AMD X2 dual-core, both roughly 4xxx series.

@Bernard you should edit /.ssh/config with a text editor, like nano, gedit or any other that you like. Simply type in these lines or copy paste them. For example: nano /.ssh/config this will open the file in the console text editor called nano.So after you're done typing in these lines, press ctrl+x to exit from nano and then y to confirm your changes – Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-A. Get Ubuntu server. Option 1: Multipass. On-demand Ubuntu Server VMs for Mac, Windows and Linux. Multipass provides instant Ubuntu VMs; Use cloud-init metadata for rapid cloud development and testing.

Both run Linux fairly well, as Linux just needs much memory, fast hard disks, and a decent processor.

Both can be replicated today with 16 GB memory (assuming the mohterboard holds it) for about $1000.

If you ask the forum how much the 'Apple ordered' Java update to version 29 has caused several issues, you would likley see some wisdom to managing your own server with RedHat Enterprise Linux (annual license fee of $400) with less hardware cost than an Apple, and you get to manage system components.

Linux File Server For Mac Os

Consider also the hardware repair difficulty of 'Apple hardware at Apple Genius Bar' vs MicroCenter or Fry's online purchase of a standard graphics card.

If repair costs even of $1000 to Apple can be crippling (I am not judging, just offering a possible scenario), control costs by controlling all aspects.

My humble opinion.

I would stay away from the Synology NAS's for a primary file server.. I have one- and they do have their places. However the hardware is under powered (this of course will depend on how many users or how much data is involved) and samba is not patched in a timely manner, and you can't easily share the same directories via samba and NFS (if you had both linux and windows clients.)

The samba patching really does matter since some of the recent ransomware worms use weakly protected 'windows' shares on windows or linux/samba servers to propagate. And even if the servers are patched up, the main threat is a careless uses on a Windows machine who has access to a lot of network shares .

That being said , there are fewer viruses that run directly on linux. But if you don't already have linux/unix/samba experience and you don't have linux clients, then I would stick to windows servers. If you do go with linux, go with either Ubuntu 16 LTS , or CentOS/RHEL 7.x (also a long term supported OS.) If you want a the option for a support contract, go with RedHat or Ubuntu.

Re licensing- if you have a windows domain controller, a windows file server and 100 users, you need 100 MS server Client Access Licenses. If you have a windows domain controller, a linux/samba file server and 100 users, you still need 100 Client Access Licenses.

Search Linux Server For File

FYI- I run Samba on Oracle Solaris, in a mixed linux environment. The Solaris ZFS file system does a pretty good (not perfect) job of keeping permissions mapped up between samba and nfs clients.