Considering SBS 2003? Read this first!

[jazzcat]

Greetings Everyone!

I've read a few messages in this forum in the past few months about people attempting to install or configure Small Business Server 2003 for file and print sharing operations.

If you need a server, and all you need your server to do is share files and printers, don't buy SBS2003 - save $750 (CDW price for SBS Standard is $759, not including media) and use Linux instead. It is rediculously easy to set up Linux and configure it as a File/Print server for your windows desktops.

Spend $9 at this link (http://www.madtux.org/store/index.php?cPath=31&osCsid=633e2fa808a1f0cb66bc4e93ace8006d) to buy a CentOS DVD or CD's. CentOS is just like RedHat, which is very easy to use. Then, go on over to RedHat's Easy to Use (http://www.redhat.com/promo/easy/) promo and see how easy it is to set up your file shares.

Linux is just as capable as SBS2003 - even more so - and it's far easier to manage and better behaved when it comes to combating viruses, spyware, and software gone haywire. (You won't have to run virus scanners on Linux...) Granted, its capabilities are somewhat limited out of the box (as it does not include Exchange server or a workalike), though those capabilities can be added on by competent individuals.

[bluegrassjeff]

Here here!!

Glad to see Linux proponents in these forums. I've been running Linux for my servers--and my desktop--for several virus-free years, and couldn't be happier. It amazes me the amount of money that organizations will spend on Microsoft licensing fees when there are mature, tested-and-tried (and often free) open source alternatives available.

And yes, you're right, jazzcat...Exchange substitutes are available. There's no reason in my mind why a company shouldn't want to run Linux for their file/mail/print servers. They're more reliable and much more economical.

[Responsive]

It may be true that not every small firm needs all of the bells and whistles of a Small Business Server 2003 ('http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/products/server/detail.mspx') installation, I am yet to run into one that didn't grow into it.

It is my company's experience that everyone wants to share their team's information easily and consistently. That doesn't just mean a few Word and Excel files. It means being able to share contact lists, calendars, and general information postings from both within the office as well as remotely. SBS2003 has all of this in a very affordable package with tons of support.

While we're glad to see competition for Microsoft in the form of Linux, Small Business Server 2003 is a real and dependable solution for small businesses.

_______________

Keith Wheeler
Responsive Network Services LLC ('http://www.responsive.us')
Chicago's Small Business Computer Consultants ('http://www.responsive.us/about.rns.asp')

[sevenoaks]

I know... I'll be flamed but I can not resist.

I'm an IT consultant in Italy, and I worked both for large and small firms. I've been around for about 10 years now.

The point.

I've seen a LOT of businesses trying to spare money moving onto Linux/OpenSource, at least partially, and I've seen as many failures/nightmares/money sinks UNLESS this option is chosen from the very beginning and, in this case, be prepared to remain to a quite basic level of integration.

1) It's not entirely free as it seems. Many Linux distributions should be paid.
2) Setup is not always easy, and configuration may become a nightmare, far beyond the competence of the average small business user.
3) Consulting is more expensive, and most likely you will require a larger amount of it.
4) In Linux/OS world you will find a large number of cheap/free applications, superbely coded, to satisfy the bulk of business requirements. In the same time, you'll find almost impossible to have them integrate each other.
5) If integration becomes mandatory, probably it will require a very expensive ad-hoc development.
6) There's a chance that, if ever tech support is required, you will not get any.

This choice only gives you the feeling of sparing money but, in the long run, it will probably cost about the same and it will not be able to scale as easily as Windows based apps with the requirements of a growing company.

There is no doubt, indeed, that there are niches where Linux may be a net saving. For example, a Linux firewall will be safer and cheaper than a Windows one. If you need a simple file server and nothing more on the same machine for the eternity to come, maybe Linux is suitable.

This is what my experience teached me. I'd be pleased to learn the contrary, but till now I do not see any evidence.

Best regards

R.sevenoaks
http://nuke.poldina.net

[jazzcat]

It is my company's experience that everyone wants to share their team's information easily and consistently. That doesn't just mean a few Word and
Excel files. It means being able to share contact lists, calendars, and general


Excellent point. While Linux offerings aren't quite there yet in this regard, I expect them to be there by 2nd or 3rd quarter of this year. Having said that...


SBS2003 has all of this in a very affordable package with tons of support.


Unfortuantely, "very affordable" and "tons of support" are mutually exclusive with any operating system. For any problem, with any OS, a small business executive will need to pay someone to fix it; that someone could be a Linux ISV, a Microsoft Certified Partner, Microsoft itself, or RedHat. The question remains, which OS requires more support, both in initial implementation and continued operations? Microsoft may have the advantage in initial implementation for advanced applications (data sharing as you describe) for the time being; however, I expect solid Linux-based solutons to appear by 2nd or 3rd quarter of this year.

As a recent EU Survey (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060119080108568) indicated, Linux is easier to administer once it's going and therefore would logically be cheaper. In fact, a mid-sized (200 seat) Cardiology practice in New York is saving more than $400k over the course of five years by using a Linux solution instead of Windows. I'm looking at a similar solution for a 50-seat real estate office that saves around $40k by using Linux instead of Windows. It is an error to assume that Microsoft is always the better proposition, or even a better proposition most of the time.

[jazzcat]

I've seen a LOT of businesses trying to spare money moving onto Linux/OpenSource, at least partially, and I've seen as many failures/nightmares/money sinks UNLESS this option is chosen from the very beginning and, in this case, be prepared to remain to a quite basic level of integration.


Another excellent observation. However, this is true regardless of operating systems. I've seen just as many boggled systems running the Windows family as I have Linux. With any IT infrastructure, regardless of operating system(s), a lack in time or funding for proper design will result in a system that is prone to failure or, as you put it, a "money sink".


1) It's not entirely free as it seems. Many Linux distributions should be paid.


Depends on if the small firm's executive trusts the VAR doing the installation; if so, then it may be acceptable to use a free distribution. But let's look at paid distro's for a second. RedHat's ES "Standard" package costs $799 per year; Windows SBS costs approximately the same (from CDW anyhow). And yet, the RedHat package provides far more support than the Windows package does.


2) Setup is not always easy, and configuration may become a nightmare, far beyond the competence of the average small business user.


Using which distribution? On what hardware? If a small firm executive (or the consultant) is smart enough to consult the hardware compatibility charts, and use a well-supported distro (such as any of the RedHat clones) then setup and coniguration always will be easy; see the links I posted in the original post for some examples.


3) Consulting is more expensive, and most likely you will require a larger amount of it.


"Most likely"? Do you have any specific examples to back up your assertion? On the contrary, several studies have found that not to be the case.


4) In Linux/OS world you will find a large number of cheap/free applications, superbely coded, to satisfy the bulk of business requirements. In the same time, you'll find almost impossible to have them integrate each other.


You are spot on with this point - but as I said, I expect those problems to be solved this year.


6) There's a chance that, if ever tech support is required, you will not get any.


But, alas, this is the case with Windows as well; I've seen cases where companies run into problems with Windows to such an extent that even the Microsoft Partner had to consult with Microsoft, they pay Microsoft hundreds or thousands of dollars for support time, only to have Microsoft come back and say "reinstall the OS and apps". If you go with a supported version of Open Source software, the vendor is contractually obligated to fix your problem - contrast this to the Microsoft EULA, which basically says "if it breaks you get to keep both pieces".


This choice only gives you the feeling of sparing money but, in the long run, it will probably cost about the same and it will not be able to scale as easily as Windows based apps with the requirements of a growing company.


Again, do you have any specific examples to back up the theory that Linux will "probably cost the same" and "not scale as easily" as Windows? We can talk generalizations all week but what really matters are specifc cases of dollar-and-cents (or lira) savings over a period of time.

I have no doubt that you are accurately and faithfully reporting your experience; however, there aren't enough details to make the assumption that Windows is cheaper than Linux over the short, or long, term. At least it gives Linux VAR's a good idea of the targets they have to hit when marketing to small firm executives.