There is, in fact, no difference. Maybe someone can remember that NT4 WS could be "transformed" into a server by simply changing 2 or 3 registry settings. If there was a difference then MS sold servers as workstations (or Workstations as Servers???) Hence it makes sense to say XP = Win2k3 Server, unless MS made some tweaks so that you cannot make a server out of XP by changing registry values. And the RWTF is this Reply window that says "Internet Explorer cannot display the web page" every 1 time out of 2. So before submitting you better copy your reply to the Clipboard, just in case.

DigitalXeron:

There is no such  thing as a "Server OS" when it comes down to it, an OS's role is to act as the layer between applications and the hardware, not to serve data. The only reason why there's some "Enterprise grade" "Server OSes" is because often those "Server versions" of the OS come with services packaged in not available with the workstation/desktop installs. This is usually a marketting tactic by vendors to charge more for the services included in the "Server versions" that aren't available in the workstation/desktop versions.

You are wrong. There are many many differences between a server and a desktop/workstation kernel, including, but not limited to, memory management, process scheduling, VM management. On Linux, these options can be configured in the kernel at compile time, or in startup parameters. A kernel compiled for desktop isn't really feasable to run as a server, and vica versa. Your are not going to get premium multimedia performance from a server kernel because it is set up in a different way. On the other hand, a desktop kernel can handle significantly less load ceteris paribus. Note that these differences exist between the server and workstation versions of the Windows kernel too.

ClaudeSuck.de:

Hence it makes sense to say XP = Win2k3 Server

No it doesn't, because it is not.

ClaudeSuck.de:

unless MS made some tweaks so that you cannot make a server out of XP by changing registry values.

It was never actually true, so no.

ClaudeSuck.de:

NT4 WS could be "transformed" into a server by simply changing 2 or 3 registry settings.

NT4 WS was still NT4. It wasn't a desktop OS like Win95/98 at the time. 95/98 are definitely not the same as NT4.

ClaudeSuck.de:

And the RWTF is this Reply window that says "Internet Explorer cannot display the web page" every 1 time out of 2.

 Only for you.

ClaudeSuck.de:

So before submitting you better copy your reply to the Clipboard, just in case.

You could just stop posting stupid, illogical bad data.

MasterPlanSoftware:

The server version is night and day from the desktop.

 AFAIK, the only difference between the two installations is the default packages and the default configuration; it's still the same OS no matter what name they slap on the label. If you installed Fedora 9, installed Apache, Tomcat, and MySQL and configured it as a server, would that be considered to be a server OS?

The only real distinction between a server OS and a desktop OS is with Microsoft, and the only reason that distinction exists is that it allows seperate pricing for home users and businesses.

TRWTF here is that the manager couldn't clarify what he wanted without talking down to the OP and further perpetuated the stereotype of the irritable, socially inept IT worker.

durendal.mk3:

If you installed

It didn't come that way, so what would this change about how it is marketed/distributed?

durendal.mk3:

the only reason that distinction exists is that it allows seperate pricing for home users and businesses.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

durendal.mk3:

AFAIK, the only difference between the two installations is the default packages and the default configuration; it's still the same OS no matter what name they slap on the label. If you installed Fedora 9, installed Apache, Tomcat, and MySQL and configured it as a server, would that be considered to be a server OS?

Well obviously you know shit then.  There are kernel differences, the daemons are better tuned for server hardware and there are usually proprietary tools that are only available with the server versions of Linux.  Sure, you can take a desktop Linux distro and recompile the kernel and system software so it is server-like.  And you can even cobble together your own tools to emulate the proprietary ones available.  That only reinforces my point, because you have to significantly change a desktop OS to convert it into a server OS.  That means there is a distinction between the two, got it?

durendal.mk3:

The only real distinction between a server OS and a desktop OS is with Microsoft, and the only reason that distinction exists is that it allows seperate pricing for home users and businesses.

And Sun.  And IBM.  And every other fucking company that produces OSes.  Christ. 

Replying to myself here, but...

durendal.mk3:

AFAIK, the only difference between the two installations is the default packages and the default configuration

Actually researching Ubuntu Server Edition on the project website says differently.

Ubuntu Website:

Here is a list of the server-specific kernel optimisations that we include:[snip]

I take back my previous argument.

durendal.mk3:

The only real distinction between a server OS and a desktop OS is with Microsoft, and the only reason that distinction exists is that it allows seperate pricing for home users and businesses.

durendal.mk3:

Replying to myself here, but...

durendal.mk3:

AFAIK, the only difference between the two installations is the default packages and the default configuration

 

Actually researching Ubuntu Server Edition on the project website says differently.

 

Ubuntu Website:

Here is a list of the server-specific kernel optimisations that we include:[snip]

I take back my previous argument.

Amazing difference between running your mouth like an ignorant fool, and actually doing the research to know what you are talking about huh?

durendal.mk3:

 

Ubuntu Website:

Here is a list of the server-specific kernel optimisations that we include:[snip]

I take back my previous argument.

ClaudeSuck.de:

NT4 WS could be "transformed" into a server by simply changing 2 or 3 registry settings.

"NT4 WS was still NT4. It wasn't a desktop OS like Win95/98 at the time. 95/98 are definitely not the same as NT4."

Win95/98 was DOS with a GUI, hence, no "server OS"
NT4 was still NT4 (fortunately, what else should it become?). Reconfiguring the registry did, of course, not install services (which were not included in NT4 WS) or other more server related software. But nothing hindered you to do it yourself. And this was not the question, anyway. Which software you install is up to you.

ClaudeSuck.de:

And the RWTF is this Reply window that says "Internet Explorer cannot display the web page" every 1 time out of 2.

"Only for you" --> Well it happens at work and at home, thus, it is reproducible on two completely different systems. QED.

<p>

ClaudeSuck.de:

So before submitting you better copy your reply to the Clipboard, just in case.

"You could just stop posting stupid, illogical bad data. " --> Never will I

</p>

And don't get swampy...

ClaudeSuck.de:

ClaudeSuck.de:

And the RWTF is this Reply window that says "Internet Explorer cannot display the web page" every 1 time out of 2.

"Only for you" --> Well it happens at work and at home, thus, it is reproducible on two completely different systems. QED.

 Holy jesus... You fail quoting. This has to be the stupidest misuse of quoting I have ever seen.

ClaudeSuck.de:

Win95/98 was DOS with a GUI, hence, no "server OS"

I don't think you even understand your own argument. I guess you didn't really have a point, or don't understand the concepts at hand here.

ClaudeSuck.de:

Well it happens at work and at home, thus, it is reproducible on two completely different systems.

Again, only for you. That point is not changing, not matter how many times you try it.

ClaudeSuck.de:

Never will I

I know. But try to consider how stupid you sound.

Reading your post gave me deja vu....years ago, I started as a research tech in a lab in a basic science department at a large university. We had a departmental IT lady and an Information Services department for the univeristy that handled IT issues. The chain was IS - IT lady - lab computer guys (me).

I became the lab computer guy because I knew slightly more than the average person. Slightly. As in I knew what a CPU was and knew that AOL was not the same thing as the internet (this was mid-1990s). But I was a tech in that lab for 4 years before moving on to grad school, staying in the same lab. Altogether, I was there for 9 years, and I learned a lot and fast. And I got a lot of e-mails like that. I think the real IS people just assumed we had some kind of  training, and treated us as such. They'd get frustrated, but it was understandable if I kept that in mind. I just had to constantly remind them that I'm not really a computer guy, and they'd be a lot more understanding. 

But I neglected the same problem from the other angle. After a while, I had amassed a decent knowledge base for troubleshooting and getting things done. If I didn't know the solution I at least knew how to find it or figure it out, and that got me a reputation with the rest of the people in the lab. Everyone started coming to me for help, and stupid me was glad to volunteer my assistance and show off my new knowledge. It wasn't even an unofficial position. "IT" was nowhere in my job description, but eventually everyone just assumed that it was.

At one point, a subproject (of my real job) really took off; I was working long and productive hours at the bench, and didn't have time to dedicate to my unofficial IT position. People would ask me for help, and I'd refer them to Departmental IT lady. "Sorry....I'm really busy here...can't help you with your computer stuff right now." People actually started getting mad at me. I finally gave up the "position" when I overheard people complaining that ITLady took too long and it was all my fault for overloading her because I wasn't "doing my job" as the lab computer guy.

That was the most important lesson I learned about computers from all that. I couldn't even ditch that image in grad school, mainly because I stayed in the same lab. I am in a new lab now, and I do my best to keep my field acquired computer knowledge well hidden.
 

ClaudeSuck.de:

There is, in fact, no difference. Maybe someone can remember that NT4 WS could be "transformed" into a server by simply changing 2 or 3 registry settings. If there was a difference then MS sold servers as workstations (or Workstations as Servers???) Hence it makes sense to say XP = Win2k3 Server, unless MS made some tweaks so that you cannot make a server out of XP by changing registry values. And the RWTF is this Reply window that says "Internet Explorer cannot display the web page" every 1 time out of 2. So before submitting you better copy your reply to the Clipboard, just in case.

Note that I mention AD, because calling an AD-less windows installation a "server" is kind of like adding cardboard wings to your car and call it a jet.

If I remember correctly, even the AIX installs differed a bit from workstation versions to server versions; but I can't really be sure about it, it might be the same thing.

Linux, however, does blur the line, as practically any install can be made into a server, by selecting the right options on install time.

DrJokepu:

DigitalXeron:

There is no such  thing as a "Server OS" when it comes down to it, an OS's role is to act as the layer between applications and the hardware, not to serve data. The only reason why there's some "Enterprise grade" "Server OSes" is because often those "Server versions" of the OS come with services packaged in not available with the workstation/desktop installs. This is usually a marketting tactic by vendors to charge more for the services included in the "Server versions" that aren't available in the workstation/desktop versions.

 

You are wrong. There are many many differences between a server and a desktop/workstation kernel, including, but not limited to, memory management, process scheduling, VM management. On Linux, these options can be configured in the kernel at compile time, or in startup parameters. A kernel compiled for desktop isn't really feasable to run as a server, and vica versa. Your are not going to get premium multimedia performance from a server kernel because it is set up in a different way. On the other hand, a desktop kernel can handle significantly less load ceteris paribus. Note that these differences exist between the server and workstation versions of the Windows kernel too.

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn! 

ClaudeSuck.de:

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn!

Wow, proving your intelligence and your maturity with one simple, misspelled word. 

Thank God he's not out in the workforce (yet)...

The OP  is in the workforce Morbiuswhatever, the sentence "I work in a lab at a university." is possibley the give-away here.

Rather than drooling at the thougt of initiating another devistating flame war why don't you take the time to actually read the post.

matterific:

...Morbiuswhatever...

Is it really that hard to copy-and-paste my nick?

matterific:

...the sentence "I work in a lab at a university." is possibley the give-away here.

Being Lab Bitch at a university isn't a real job. 

morbiuswilters:

Is it really that hard to copy-and-paste my nick?

 I don't like to, it's sort of like summoning satan. 

 Nonsense level close to 100% detected. Thread locked.