What is the difference between OpenSUSE desktop and Server?

English Install/Boot/Login
#1

I am new to Linux. I want to set up a home file/media server using Linux and have been investigating the possibility of using OpenSUSE for this task for a couple days now.

I posted up some questions over at linux questions, but figured this one would be better suited for the OpenSUSE forum.

My question is simple, is there any fundamental difference between OpenSUSE Server, and OpenSUSE desktop?

What I mean is, is there any difference to the basic programming of the operating system.

From what I gather, when you install a Linux Distro for a server, it is just a striped down version of the desktop install. It has no GUI, and installs the complete bare minimum of software to get your server up and running. Is this correct?

I am asking these questions because, as I said, I am new to Linux. I am not comfortable using command line only, and would very much like to install the desktop version of OpenSUSE, plus Samba, openSSH and Webadmin, then use that configuration for a server.

Would setting up OpenSUSE as I stated above be the same as using the server install, just more “bloated?” Or is the server version of OpenSUSE coded differently?

For example, comparing Windows Vista to Windows Home Server. Windows Vista isn’t practical to use as a home server OS, simply because it was never coded to be one. Where as Home Server comes with software and is setup to be a server.

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am. Linux is much different. Any Linux distro can be a server, even the desktop version. You just need to get the proper programs (like Samba, SSH, Webadmin) for the job. The people who use the Server version, simply just want something less bloated then the desktop version, but the desktop version works just as good as a server if you have the proper hardware?

I was debating on putting Windows Home server on the machine, but very much want to learn Linux, and figure this is as good of an opportunity as any. It also helps that a desktop install of OpenSUSE takes less resources then Windows Home Server.

#2

In a nutshell;
Linux is modular, hence almost any Linux distribution can act as a server, some are better suited for the task because of certain optimizations in the kernel but nothing prevents you from implementing these in your own system but they would only become important if you were running massive systems under heavy loads (or have specific real time requirements).

You can setup a SuSE system to act as a server with a full blown GUI, it’ll cost you a little memory and some performance if you’re doing something on the GUI but apart from that the footprint you get won’t affect the server performance in any radical way you’ll be likely to see - especially in a home environment.

You ‘cherry pick’ the tools you want instead of being offered a ‘certain OS for a certain task’.

#3

I just use opensuse 11.2 on my file/print server at home.

It was installed from the dvd with the KDE4 desktop.
although I’ve set it to boot into runlevel 3 (no gui) since then.

You will need to install the yast2-nfs-server package for the configuration dialogue to appear in YaST under the network services section.

#4

Wow! ninja post:D

#5

Thanks for the response.

Thats what I thought. I am not worried about resources, as this will be a simple media/file server and will have 4gb of ram and a decent CPU.

I was just worried it was like Windows, where as you say, you buy an entire OS for a certain task, and each OS is constructed to benefit that task the most, and not the other, thus making you spend more money.

Another quick question. Outside of Samba, OpenSSH and Webadmin, are there any other pieces of software you recommend for a media/file server that will be connecting to Windows machines?

#6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I do not recall there being a server “version” as far as the installation
media are concerned. You either choose Patterns during the installation
that make the machine desktop-ish (more GUI, fewer services) or more
server-ish (less GUI, typically, and more services).

The term “server” is often given, as you’ve noticed, a bit more importance
than worth (in my opinion). What makes a server? The fact that is
“serves” stuff via services. With that said you can add Apache and MySQL
to any machine on the planet from SLES 11 to Fedoara 12 (or even windows
since both projects are open source software) and call those machines
“servers” because they serve up data. You can also have GUIs on the
machines so they can act as your desktop.

So can you use OpenSUSE as a server and desktop? Sure; if the machines
are different you just install different packages on each to fit your
needs but you could easily add Gnome, KDE, or something else X-based to a
server. In any case Yast is available in either ncurses (no-X) or full
GUI (X) modes so you will not be out in the old just because you have not
mastered the entire command line.

Good luck.

Trimp wrote:
> I am new to Linux. I want to set up a home file/media server using Linux
> and have been investigating the possibility of using OpenSUSE for this
> task for a couple days now.
>
> I posted up some questions over at linux questions, but figured this
> one would be better suited for the OpenSUSE forum.
>
> My question is simple, is there any fundamental difference between
> OpenSUSE Server, and OpenSUSE desktop?
>
> What I mean is, is there any difference to the basic programming of the
> operating system.
>
> From what I gather, when you install a Linux Distro for a server, it is
> just a striped down version of the desktop install. It has no GUI, and
> installs the complete bare minimum of software to get your server up and
> running. Is this correct?
>
> I am asking these questions because, as I said, I am new to Linux. I am
> not comfortable using command line only, and would very much like to
> install the desktop version of OpenSUSE, plus Samba, openSSH and
> Webadmin, then use that configuration for a server.
>
> Would setting up OpenSUSE as I stated above be the same as using the
> server install, just more “bloated?” Or is the server version of
> OpenSUSE coded differently?
>
> For example, comparing Windows Vista to Windows Home Server. Windows
> Vista isn’t practical to use as a home server OS, simply because it was
> never coded to be one. Where as Home Server comes with software and is
> setup to be a server.
>
> From what I understand, and I could be wrong, and please correct me if
> I am. Linux is much different. Any Linux distro can be a server, even
> the desktop version. You just need to get the proper programs (like
> Samba, SSH, Webadmin) for the job. The people who use the Server
> version, simply just want something less bloated then the desktop
> version, but the desktop version works just as good as a server if you
> have the proper hardware?
>
> I was debating on putting Windows Home server on the machine, but very
> much want to learn Linux, and figure this is as good of an opportunity
> as any. It also helps that a desktop install of OpenSUSE takes less
> resources then Windows Home Server.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=r0Yc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

#7

Thanks.

Last question is. Should I go for a 64bit or 32 bit version in terms of software compatibility.

The last time I tried Linux, which was an older version of Ubuntu, 64bit gave me a lot of problems. Almost no software I tried to install worked. I am not sure if these problems have been fixed in Linux, like they have in Windows. (such as being able to install apps of both flavours on a 64bit system).

#8

32 bit apps run fine on a 64 bit system. I run 64 bit without problems. The advantage of 64bit is the amount of memory it can use. If you need no more then 3 gig you can use 32 if you have a new 8gig machine I advise you to go 64bit to take advantage of all the memory. 64 bit is fine and if you must run some 32bit app there are no big problems. All the OS stuff is available as 64bit it is only some of the propritary stuff that is still 32 bit only.