workgroup vs. domain

[fractilian]

I think I know the answer to this but here goes... What is the difference between workgroup and domain in windows. My main issue is that when I go to get stuff off another computer it takes forever to scan the network and display avaialbe computers. Then it takes more forever(yes I said more forever) to pull up available shares on the particular computer. And retracing my steps to go back a directory takes forever too. I want to setup a file server but this forever thing is kinda in the way. I only have about 7 computers on a cat 5 network with 100mb nic cards. Humm i kinda went overboard on the text thing. Anyway would switching to a domain setup help?

 

[Micronaut]

You COULD just setup a DNS server. That would help alot.

If you don't want to do the login thing, that would be a good solution.

I've HEARD that some 2000 & 2003 domains slow down SMB traffic due to signing, but that can be disabled. (or there's another fix, I don't recall exactly).

I've found the headache of peer-to-peer (workgroup) to be more of a pain than it's worth.

 

[fractilian]

humm i'll look into that thankyou for the idea.

 

[Nothinman]

I've found the headache of peer-to-peer (workgroup) to be more of a pain than it's worth.

I've found the headache of Microsoft networking to be more of a pain than it's worth.

 

[ktwebb]

With only 7 workstations you could use your hosts or lmhosts file however I'd probably just map some drives. Or I typically just use the UNC path to get to shares. \\servername\share I haven't "browsed" with Network Neighborhood/Places in years.

 

[Granorense]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I've found the headache of peer-to-peer (workgroup) to be more of a pain than it's worth.

I've found the headache of Microsoft networking to be more of a pain than it's worth.

Man, I wish I knew linux so that I could set up my new server with linux instead of windows. I know a little bit but now enough to set up a server.

 

[kevnich2]

Same here, I just use \\servername\sharename. Network neighborhood browsing was always too slow/unreliable so I either do that or just map my commonly used items, voila problem solved.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not terribly hard, do the installation with a minimal set of packages, install the ones for the server's that you want and then do any configuration. If you want an FTP server install ProFTPd, if you want a web server install Apache, if you want a SMB server install Samba, etc. It's a little different in that you usually have to read a little documentation to get things rolling, but the time spent up front learning the product saves a lot of headaches later on when you want to change or fix something.

 

[skyking]

a unix machine with smb can be a primary domain controller, or a secondary where the primary is another unix machine.
Even if you stick with a workgroup, putting the files on an smb server is very smooth.

 

[Micronaut]

Other than working with old technology, Server 2003 rocks. Group Policy, DNS, -- it's all very straightforward and powerful.

Nothing wrong with MS stuff. And it's a heck of a lot easier for most people (that are comfortable with Windows).

 

[Nothinman]

Nothing wrong with MS stuff. And it's a heck of a lot easier for most people (that are comfortable with Windows).

That should be on a fortune cookie. "Windows is a lot easier for most people to use, if they're already familiar with it that is".

And there's a lot wrong with MS stuff, mostly in the advanced usability and security areas. Sure Windows is really easy to install and turn on IIS, but within minutes you'll be part of the CodeRed army or Slammer if you decide to install SQL Server. And the time you save up front during the installation is more than made up for when you try to debug a problem because MS doesn't believe in any type of real logging or if you're one of the few that tries to lock something down, get ready to enable file auditing on everything and weeding through tons of event logs to track down why something isn't working with your locked down permissions.

We recently began setting up an internal server to run IIS and some 3rd party product I won't name. It's been ~2 weeks now and we've just about got the thing in a semi-good state, but it doesn't mean our normal set of security requirements because of the 3rd party app. Granted that's not MS' fault, but debugging that needed enabled was a real PITA and that is MS' fault, if this was Apache on unix I have no doubts that we would have been done in 2-3 days.

And just now with whatever is coming out after Win2K3 will MS include a command shell that will stand up to what unix people have had for decades. It took MS this long to realize that admins aren't programmers, they don't want to have to learn VB in order to automate their jobs. Shell scripting should be quick and easy, but we'll have to wait and see if MS got that right with this new shell, somehow I doubt it.

 

[Micronaut]

I'm no SQL specialist. But I do know that you can harden a 2000 or 2003 server very easily. And it doesn't make it unusable.

And the user base that's familiar with Windows is about oh, 1,000 times larger than that of non-Windows.'

IIS has great logging, if you enable it and know where to look. Then it's just a matter of knowing how to parse them.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm not saying it's not possible to setup a good Windows box, just that it's a lot more work.

And the user base that's familiar with Windows is about oh, 1,000 times larger than that of non-Windows.'

So? That's part of the problem. Joe Power user installs Win2000 AS on his home machine because he likes to be cool and unwittingly contracts and spreads SQL Slammer, CodeRed, etc. Would it surpise you to know that I still get CodeRed attempts in my Apache logs? CodeRed came out like, what, 4 years ago?

 

[Micronaut]

Joe Power User shouldn't be touching Advanced Server.

No, it wouldn't surprise me, but then again I'm not your run-of-the-mill joe. (mcse:security)

 

[Nothinman]

Joe Power User shouldn't be touching Advanced Server.

But he's familiar with Windows and Windows is easy, right?

 

[nweaver]

I am a linux nut (I am moving what I can to it, because I like it). The advantage of Windows vs. Linux, preference. Windows can be hardened to be as secure as linux, and doesn't take that much to do, except knowledge. The same can be argued for the other end. Sometimes I use windows, because its faster/easier/compatible. Sometime I use linux for the same reasons.

Don't just give the "Windows is insecure" line. The last 2 boxes hacked in our company were both linux......Security is the Admin's responsibility, not the OS's.

 

[imported_SeanRinVA]

Originally posted by: nweaver
I am a linux nut (I am moving what I can to it, because I like it). The advantage of Windows vs. Linux, preference. Windows can be hardened to be as secure as linux, and doesn't take that much to do, except knowledge. The same can be argued for the other end. Sometimes I use windows, because its faster/easier/compatible. Sometime I use linux for the same reasons.

Don't just give the "Windows is insecure" line. The last 2 boxes hacked in our company were both linux......Security is the Admin's responsibility, not the OS's.

QFT

 

[Kelemvor]

I have mostly XP machine at home and I've never had a problem. I have 4 computers in various parts of the house on the network. I jsut set them all to the same Workgroup name. Then when I want to view them I just:

Open Windows Explorer
Go to My Network Places - Entire Network - Microsoft Windows Network - <Workgroup Name> - Computer Name - Share name.

Never takes more than a couple seconds...

If you use them often you could just map the drives permanently using the \\name\folder method.