Now , about Linux Mint ...

[Bud Frede]

Mint's release cycle mandates that they crank out new releases on schedule. There _could_ be improvements and security fixes, but that's not a given. :)

Also, I don't run servers using Mint. I don't think it's usable as a server OS. That's why I stick to Ubuntu (and waited about a year before using 16.04 for production servers).

I don't pay much attention to Mint's security recommendations either. I think they're morons in that regard. I take a stock Mint install and lock it down. I also remove some of their default apps since I don't need them or don't think it's a good idea to have them installed. I throw away their update tool as well, because it tries to convince you that not applying security updates is safer. (apt works fine for me anyway. I don't need some gui tool to help me with that).

MATE. I'd also be ok with LXDE or XFCE, but MATE is my favorite. I lean towards a minimal desktop, and MATE (Gnome 2) stays out of my way but also has some nice comfort features that I appreciate.

Other than a web browser or LibreOffice when someone sends me a document or spreadsheet, I mostly spend my time in terminal windows. I usually have between 1 and 2 dozen of them open, locally or running ssh sessions to remote systems - and for remote systems I use tmux too. :)

[Diesel]

I suppose it depends on the servers role, then. For me, it's a file server essentially. Provides read only access to my other machines for music/movies/isos, etc. Things I want/need the other computers to be able to access without them having to store local copies. Nothing uber fancy. If I was going to run another kind of server, I'd run CentOS or FreeBSD. Especially if it was facing the internet.

I've got MATE on the older machines that aren't snappy with KDE. For the ones that can handle it with ease though, I like the eye candy and additional 'features' out of the box. KDE has spoiled me rotten. [g]

[Bud Frede]

Even for a plain file server I'd choose something other than Mint. There's no need for the desktop stuff that Mint includes on a server.

FreeBSD is a good choice for a server, and OpenBSD is too. Ubuntu is not my first choice for a server, but it's what my workplace has decided on. I'd rather use CentOS or RHEL, and I've been agitating to move to those.

For use at home on my own network, I'd probably go with Debian or OpenBSD. I don't have any servers setup at home currently, but I'm planning to make some changes this summer and may add one or two. (I'm actually thinking of using Raspberry Pi's for that kind of thing. I guess in that case I'd be looking at Raspbian or Arch since those seem to be popular.)

I did like KDE 1 and 2, and 3 was ok. I've tried all the versions of KDE, but never stuck with any of them for very long.

I have friends that rave about how great KDE is and tell me how I'd love it if I would use it for a while. Maybe I'll give it a try again at some point, but for now I'm pretty happy where I'm at.

[Diesel]

I don't disagree with you, but, I like the fact I can use the machine as if it were another computer on the network while it provides limited file access to others. Think of it as an adhoc windows network server. Makes more sense to you that way?

RHEL is a fantastic option, but, it's not free as far as I know.

Unless the 30day evaluation is not just the OS, but, support? And the OS itself is still 'free'? I'm a bit unclear concerning that.

I've never gotten into the Raspberry...What makes it so interesting to you? [snip]

I understand. To each his/her own. :) I really don't care for the GUIs present on Vista onwards, I really like XP's GUI...And wish MS didn't f*ck it up...Alas.

LOL! I know what you mean.

[Bud Frede]

That makes less sense since I don't think Windows works very well as a server. :) But I see what you're saying now.

CentOS is the code from RHEL with various logos and brand names stripped out and then compiled. It's free (as in beer as well as in freedom).

RHEL is the product that RH sells support for. Support in this case includes patches and updates, as well as extra documentation and things like that.

IIRC, a desktop license for RHEL is only $49/yr., and you get some support (I don't remember if it's e-mail-only or what) plus access to their extra documentation and knowledge base and I'm thinking it includes access to some private forums too.

What I was saying about my workplace is that I'd like to use RHEL for production systems, and then depending on how the support contract is written, use CentOS for dev systems or temporary test beds, etc.

Part of it is size. I just think it's amazing and really cool that we can pack so much computing power into such a tiny space.

I'm also very interested in it because it is very power-efficient. You can run quite a few of them and still not come anywhere near the power usage of a typical laptop or desktop system.

A typical RPi system is also all solid-state, with no moving parts. You don't even need a fan in many (if not most) cases. So you can just mount the whole thing on the wall in a closet or your basement, or on a shelf somewhere. It means I can put a powerful computer in a lot of places I couldn't before.

Then we get to the uses of such a system, and I admit that I haven't fully explored those. I've looked into setting up streaming audio and video, and doing home theater type of stuff. I've also looked into home automation a bit.

One thing that I'm going to do early on is setup a wall-mounted touchscreen monitor with an RPi mounted on it in the kitchen so my wife and I can look at recipes or even watch videos or whatever while we're in the kitchen. I suppose we could do the same thing with an Android tablet, but this could have a much larger screen and I feel I'd have more control over what software is installed and what's running, who it's communicating with, etc.

I feel that the Windows UI reached its zenith in Win 2K. :) The whole Luna look of XP just seemed to be a bad case of Mac OS X envy.

I do admit that XP had some good features that Win 2K didn't. They applied enough of a band-aid onto "DLL hell" that it no longer caused so much hassle for most people. They also added restore points, so you stood a chance of being able to roll-back something that hosed the system.

[Bud Frede]

I'm ok with subscriptions for support, and not so ok with subscriptions that force you to pay every year or the product stops working.

Since RH makes CentOS available for free, I think it's reasonable for them to sell support - if that's something you want.

It's probably better to pay for support than the method that more traditional software companies use to keep money flowing in; keep producing new versions. If they have to keep cranking out new versions with new features to keep the revenue stream going, they're not going to spend time fixing bugs or reducing other technical debt, and they'll keep adding features whether people really use them or not.

I think that's the whole problem with all of Microsoft's software. The priority was shipping new versions, and they never fixed old bugs. Whatever sort of works so the sales creatures can claim X number of features, and just shit it out onto the market. Who cares if it's crappy and full of bugs? We'll fix the worst problems after release, and then it's time for the next version. In fact, leaving bugs in the current version gives you things to promise will be fixed in the next version. :)

Perhaps they have now realized that selling new versions of Windows won't work because the desktop market isn't growing anymore. They make money on OEM licenses of Windows with new computers, and then they make a lot of money on Office. I don't know how much of their revenue comes from business customers, but they had basically changed that to a subscription model a long time ago, with "software assurance" and things like that. Even the MSDN subscriptions from years ago came with software and I remember Microsoft salesmen saying that if you bought MSDN you wouldn't need to buy any licenses for other Microsoft software. (I don't know whether that was actually true or not. I never really bothered to check into it, but then I wasn't really very interested in using any of that other software.)

It's regular flash memory. I've seen micro SD cards used and also USB thumb drives. It's not soldered on the board or anything like that.

I think in most cases you're not storing a lot of data on it, just whatever software you're using and the configuration files. So it's relatively easy to replace the storage.

For audio I'm looking at something like the Hifiberry DAC+.

piCorePlayer looks interesting.

I'd combine that with a server running Logitech Media Server. I haven't decided how I want to do the server, but it might be easiest to run LMS on a NAS device. For instance, you can install it on FreeNAS, or on a Synology NAS if you want to buy a complete NAS device instead of building your own.

Another option might be Rune Audio. You don't need a server as such with this, just a network share or attached storage for your music files.

Or how about Kodi on a Pi?

Home automation?

Here's one of many articles on using a Raspberry Pi to run a firewall:

[Diesel]

Microsoft isn't alone in this respect. Sadly, many software companies have opted to go this route, too. Malwarebytes being a very good example. It's as if they took a section of Microsofts own playbook and are using it, to the letter.

Ah. Replaceable then. That's a good thing. [snip]

I'll check those links out at a later date. Thanks!