Windows Small Business Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 Known Issues

ninja fetus

lol, why not save time and money by switching to a linux based server? I don't get it.

Anti-Trend

The reason many small businesses use Windows instead of Linux on a server is that either they are completely unaware of Linux or they don't know how to set it up. Remember, it's not like Linux is some fortune 500 company competing with Microsoft; it's more of a grass roots movement. There's no money for catchy ads on TV, so many people are completely unaware of what Linux is or what it can do for them. I was one of those people once!

__________________
See My Desktop | Try Linux | Install Linux | Visit My Server | Support Hardware Forums | Easily rip DVDs in Linux | Remember Everything

ninja fetus

hmm, I've known about linux as long as I've known about PC's. Sucks for them

Nic

Id always heard of Linux i just did want to switch coz i was in my comfort zone in windows btu I guess servers should be Linux because its not like you use them for browsing the net or playing games

__________________

syngod

With Small Business server I'd say the main reason they stay with Windows is because:

a) It comes with Windows Server 2003, SQL Server, Exchange, and Sharepoint at a fairly low pricepoint.

b) MSCE's are fairly easy to find, however try to find anywhere near the number with a linux certification.

c) MS's marketing does it's job. MS is a marketing company and they're good at what they do, they've built SBS up to be an easy to set up, and it's what it's known for.

Edit: Whoops forgot to include ISA server in the list of shipping components.

__________________
DVD Collection

Anti-Trend

ISA is arguably a terrible product though. I've actually been ISA certified for years, and I've never deployed a single ISA box outside of labs. It's hard to find firms who want an edge router that is susceptible to viruses and takes a ton of resources.

__________________
See My Desktop | Try Linux | Install Linux | Visit My Server | Support Hardware Forums | Easily rip DVDs in Linux | Remember Everything

syngod

Yeah I agree ISA is a fairly poor solution but for small business's which at least at start-up are fairly cash strapped, being able to pick up SBS for what they can and it being included the majority are probably going to use it.

__________________
DVD Collection

Anti-Trend

In that light though, I don't see what's wrong with LAMPS (no pun...OK, pun intended). Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, Samba. All free, all open source, all widely supported.

__________________
See My Desktop | Try Linux | Install Linux | Visit My Server | Support Hardware Forums | Easily rip DVDs in Linux | Remember Everything

syngod

The 2 biggest issues I see there is 1) MS is a heavily recognized brand and are able to better market to small business than the fairly segmented Linux market. And 2) I know quite a few businesses who don't trust free software. When they look at it and see it being given away for free they see no sustainable business model and get scared about future support issues.

While point 2 may not seem like an issue if you've ever been using a program and had the company go out of business you'd know why some are leary about using a free solution.

__________________
DVD Collection

Anti-Trend

Alright man, it's plain to see that you're an intelligent fellow. But where the heck did you get that info, straight from Redmond? The whole beauty of open source is that there will always be somebody to take over the project since the source code is public. It won't just be locked away on some vendor's dusty hard drive somewhere. The problems you've pointed out are all pitfalls of proprietary software if anything.

__________________
See My Desktop | Try Linux | Install Linux | Visit My Server | Support Hardware Forums | Easily rip DVDs in Linux | Remember Everything

syngod

I've dealt with quite a few businesses that have looked at the issue. While it may seem irrational, sure anyone can take over developing the product, but there main concern is over who's going to support it.

It's the same concern that Red Hat has banked their business model on and the same reason MS can make a nice profit off of support calls.

Proprietary software runs the same pitfalls that a devloper can go belly up, but alot of companies I've talked to don't see how giving the product away can be a viable business and don't want to risk having a company fold and be left with no support or having to switch to a different Linux vendor.

MS on the other hand most companies know that unless their is some major accounting fraud going on that they have a long lasting sustainable business model, and that they will be able to have their support issues handled by one company.

__________________
DVD Collection

syngod

Basically what businesses and consumers are running into the same issue I run into on a daily basis selling wireless phones.

You have some people come in and they believe a free phone is just as good as a $300 phone minus a few unneeded options. Then you have the ones that come in and say what's wrong with the phone that your giving it away and buy the $300 phone even if they don't need a camera/camcorder/insert other feature here because they perceive the free or low cost phone to be crap based on it's price point.

Same thing I find with the Linux/Windows debate you'll have some people saying I don't need the features Windows includes and I want a stripped down, small operating system at a free price point. Then you'll have the company/consumer that even if they don't need the features included takes them because obviously there has to be something wrong with Linux for it to be available for free.

While some companies have capitalized on this way of thinking by charging for the os on disc. There is still quite a few roads Linux needs to pass to win over these users.

__________________
DVD Collection

Anti-Trend

Really? The only company I've heard mention that issue so far is Microsoft themselves. I can only speak from my personal experiences, but vendor support has never been much of an issue for any companies I've ever worked with. That is, as long as there's some kind of support available. In all fairness, 3rd-party support for MS products is often much better than MS's. In a worst case situation, Linux gives you the contingency of handling that situation yourself. If some doomsday scenario was to leave you with an unsupported, mission-critical piece of software, you could always hire somebody to fix it or even do it yourself. You don't have that luxury with proprietary software. My point is that even if your particular open-source airplane goes down, the terms of the license can act as your parachute. However, to my best knowledge this hasn't ever happend anyway. If a particular program was to be useful enough to base a business model on, and that development was to cease on that project, it would almost certainly be picked up by another group and development would continue.

Yep. But Linux is not a corperation, it's more of a movement in which several corperations choose to participate. Many companies are perfectly happy with a 100% non-corperate Linux solution (i.e. Debian, Slackware). That means the product is 100% free, community supported, and of course there are plenty of firms that offer heavy-duty, for-profit IT support on even these free-only offerings.

First of all, the product already belongs to us, as in you and I, as much as anybody else. There is no question of giving it away, since we already have legal usage of it. If you choose to purchase a Linux vendors wares, it's the support you're paying for (and maybe some proprietary software addons), not GNU/Linux itself. The code is released under the GPL, which gives us many liberties on how we use the code and protects those liberties quite eloquently, guarenteeing the availability of the code and the usage thereof. It's not a question of whether or not to posses Linux, but whether to utilize it.

Secondly, Linux is Linux is Linux. If one Linux distro was to go the way of the dodo, Linux marches on. The software is interoperable (because it's the same OS!), and any distro can be tuned to look like | act like | feel like | be like any other distro. The only real difference between distros is focus. Which niche is the distro targeting, and what features they tend to put more weight upon. For the record, I think Red Hat is nowhere near the best Linux distro, and I don't feel it is indicitive of Linux in general. It's still a pretty good product, but I believe Suse, Mandrake, and many other distros surpass Red hat in many ways, despite common functionality. Try each out individually some time, and I think you'll see what I mean.

This is perhaps the biggest misconception. Microsoft, by the terms of their own EULA, is in no way liable or responsible for their own code. In my opinion, the single biggest contributor to Microsoft's business model is breaking support with their own products, forcing perpetual upgrade. Aside from the obvious fact that the customer is the loser in this scenario, the product suffers in the process. An observation along this thread of logic, Microsoft software is in a constant beta state. Hear me out on this one: the moment their software gets close to being solid, stalwart and nearly perfected [Windows 2000], their profit-driven business model dictates that they must yank the carpet out from under their clients and add a new swath of bloated and useless features [Windows XP].

__________________
See My Desktop | Try Linux | Install Linux | Visit My Server | Support Hardware Forums | Easily rip DVDs in Linux | Remember Everything

Anti-Trend

Another big misconception. Linux is not some stripped-down wannabe Windows. It's actually a free clone of Unix, which is quite a different beast. At first, people just wanted to able to have the power of Unix on their home PCs, instead of just at universities and large companies with cash to burn. Over time, through the efforts of dedicated volunteers, Linux has not only become a freely available Unix that will run on a vast array of hardware configurations, but has actually surpassed Unix in many ways and will continue to do so.

Just because Linux can be used non-graphically does not mean that Linux is a non-graphical OS. As a matter of fact, there are literally hundereds of different interfaces one can choose from to suit their needs in a desktop environment, from thin and sleek to epic and full-featured. I prefer KDE, one of the two most popular and widely-used Linux desktops. As you can see from the screenshot, it's not some afterthought that allows Linux people to use a GUI with their meager, console-driven OS. Every asthetic feature and customization shown in the picture below is native to KDE; none of it is provided by 3rd party software.



P.S. - My apologies, dialup users!

__________________
See My Desktop | Try Linux | Install Linux | Visit My Server | Support Hardware Forums | Easily rip DVDs in Linux | Remember Everything