[CLUE-Talk] Shrinking server market

[Dave Anselmi]

grant wrote:

> Also remember that most Linux servers were once NT servers, but newer versions
> of MS software
> have become too heavy a burden for them, even though they still run Linux
> fine.

I've just set up a network for a medical practice, 4 w2k workstations and a debian
PDC.  The workstations are w2k because the software we need requires it (medical
records, electronic billing).  Most packages seem to use Access as the database up
to about 5-10 users and then switch to SQLServer for more than that.  Most
packages also seem to be low quality.

One package that we're hoping will integrate better than others requires w2k
server for SQLServer.  That would mean $800 for w2k server and $1200 for the
SQLServer licenses which is as much as we spent on hardware (well, the cpus).  It
isn't that much compared to $5-10k for the medical software, but I'm hoping to get
around it by running SQLServer on w2k professional (the demo works that way, so I
think we can swing it).

What I'd really love is if we get it running and stable to do a little test setup
and see if I can get the clients to connect to postgres or mysql.  Anyone know
anything about Borland Database Engine?  That seems to be what the clients use to
talk to the db.  I doubt the software companies are interested in claiming Linux
support - their clients are doctors who generally don't want to be bothered about
computers.  But it would be fun anyway.

As if I haven't strayed far enough from Grant's thread, a base w2k install seems
to take about 2GB.  I was plesantly surprised that debian for the domain
controller took about 250MB (no X or gcc, but they aren't needed yet).

Cheers,
Dave