Hey Microsoft… UP YOURS!
Sometimes the idiot things that Microsoft does just blows my mind. Take for example their small business server product. Here is a little excerpt from their FAQ about the small business server:
- Only one computer in a domain can be running Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server.
- Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server must be the root of the Active Directory forest.
- Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server cannot trust any other domains.
- A Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server domain cannot have any child domains.
- Each additional server must have a Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server client access license (CAL).
Lets step through this… Only one computer in a domain can be running SBS. OK, I know this is for small businesses but it’s just ignorant to assume that an organization will only have ONE server. I have never worked for a business (no matter how small) who has had less than two servers. Being able to only run one server is asinine.
SBS must be the root of the AD forest. This just makes no sense, you can only run one SBS server per domain anyhow so the whole concept of a forest is non-applicable.
SBS can’t trust any other domains. Well that about screws you for mergers. What if your company gets purchased by another company and they want to merge your existing AD into theirs? You’re both screwed.
SBS can have no child domains. This is the only restriction that makes sense. How many small businesses really need child domains?
And finally, all others servers must have an SBS CAL. No point, you can only run one server per domain with SBS. Foolish.
And for the clincher, you can’t even join an SBS server to an existing domain, even if it is not serving in a server roll. If you join an SBS server to your existant domain (ours runs on 2K3 Standard) it will send out an unlicensed message to all your users and then shut itself down every 60 minutes. How stupid, it might as well just format itself off the box because that’s exactly what I plan to do. Server… say hello to Linux!
Hey Crute, read a little further along willya?
First, you can have a backup domain controller (BDC) — a copy of your domain for a rollover when main box crashes.
Second, you can configure a server for Exchange. It’s even recommended if you’re running more than 20 active systems on the network.
Third, you can have any number of file servers on the network.
Fourth, you can have a Linux box anywhere on your network. One of the best uses for it would be as a DMZ controller or firewall.
The idea of having other servers take up an SBS CAL suddenly makes sense, if they’re Microsoft boxes. If you use Linux on the servers, you don’t have to worry about the CAL usually.
You use up the CALs for a machine, whatever your use of the machine. One of the most common examples is having a local fax/printer on the main desk. It only uses up one CAL on the network, but the faxes can go out over SBS (as email through Exchange) or through the fax modem.
I love Linux. It’s easy to configure, inexpensive if you know what you’re doing with it, and frankly gives you the sense that you know what you’re doing since you’re not working through tiny peepholes in the GUI (often obscured even more by confusing MS documentation.)
But give SBS its due. It’s a great system for a small business because it integrates the management capabilities of SharePoint and the power of Exchange.
If you don’t like Exchange, join the club. The team that designed that mess was high on drugs designed specially for them.
SharePoint and SBS 2003, on the other hand, are great products that bridge much of the gap between the black box server and a real application to help manage a business.
Take a good look at SharePoint, then compare it with other CMS. If your people like to surf the web and still want to feel like they’re working, SharePoint is for them!
–Paul
Paul Donley said this on March 1st, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Don’t get me wrong I actually find Windows server nice when I have to maintain a whole organization full of Windows PCs, Active Directory implemented properly makes this a snap. But for any real tasks such as email, web, file, database, etc… serving I use a real OS on my boxes. Same goes for all my network routing equiptment.
None of that is the point here, what is really ticking me off is the bogus licensing restrictions they put on their software. In my situation we have an existing AD implementation to which I can not join a SBS server because of those stupid licensing restrictions.
Another sidenote, we are using piloting opensource web based groupware. Exchange sucks and I don’t want to run anything but AD on the Windows boxes.
Mike Crute said this on March 2nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Mike,
SBS is not targeted at you so why would you care what it has or does!?! It’s not bogus licensing… it’s actually a pretty well balanced science.
Consider that with standard Windows Servers, you would never put your Exchange Server on a Domain Controller. You’d never put your SQL server on a Domain Controller. Etc, etc, etc.
The fact is that there are tons of businesses that have less than 20 users and a single server is PLENTY for them. Most of them didn’t even have a server before SBS, so you aren’t going to get Mr. Smallbusinessperson to start spending tons of money on hardware and maintenance etc, when he thought that his Win98 machines were doing just fine.
Most of all though, the end-users of this product don’t want to know any more than they already do about operating systems… they are experts in whatever field they are in, and SBS will help them do those jobs better. Simply. So they arenh’t going to buy “boxes”. Just a box.
Jeffrey B. Kane said this on July 10th, 2006 at 11:22 pm