Should Linux sue SCO?

Groklaw ^ | 2005-08-08 | PJ

[js1138]

I was merely trying to demonstrate that Windows Server adds about $10 a year to the cost of a business workstation. that's including exchange and SQL Server.

For that you also get remote access to the workstations, the equivalence of PCAnywhere at every workstation. You get a Web server. And The Web Server counts as only one user for SQL.

[N3WBI3]

For that you also get remote access to the workstations, the equivalence of PCAnywhere at every workstation. You get a Web server. And The Web Server counts as only one user for SQL.

Yea because the buying a sql server from MS does not actually mean you can use it.... It means if you have cals you can use it. CAL's are no doubt the worst thing MS has ever thrown at users. Cals kept us on snemail for years rather than moving to exchange..

[js1138]

Cals kept us on snemail for years rather than moving to exchange..

Yes, it's certainly unsocialistic to require payment for each person using a program. But for a few hundred bucks you can get small business server, and have as many mailboxes as you want, and there's no limit to the number of web clients. The Exchange web client looks better than most local clients. It's almost indistinguishable from Outlook.

[N3WBI3]

Yes, it's certainly unsocialistic to require payment for each person using a program.

lets see I license a mail server from you, but inorder for anyone to read the mail I also have to license them to read it... Its damn near criminal is what it is.. Its like buying a car but being told you need to pay the dealer for every passanger who you intend to drive around.

[js1138]

You obviously can't read. Exchange can be a POP3 server or a web host, with no limit on the number of mailboxes.

Server 2003 requires licenses for local logins, but not remote logins.

The cost per seat for Windows Server is such a trivial percentage of the overall cost of workstations that it hardly enters into the decision making process. No business is going to make a software decision based on saving $10 per year.

[N3WBI3]

BTW for $349 dollars you can get an enterprise level production server with unlimited cals for mail (and web based client, web, database, ldap, files, ftp, code versioning and others. This server comes with compilers for pretty much every language out there, can be used as a network monitoring, advanced network routing (unlimited VPN) and more..

This server will come with 24*7 email support with the company who produced the distribution and 9-9 phone support.

For 300 more you get five such servers to test, dev, qa, and other...

[N3WBI3]

You obviously can't read. Exchange can be a POP3 server or a web host, with no limit on the number of mailboxes.

No need to get insulting, but trolls on OSS threads generally end up getting that way. as a POP3 server you dont get the calendering and group ware functions which is what Exchange does better than just about anyone out there. At this point exchange is no better than sendmail, so what exactly is MS offering me here?

Server 2003 requires licenses for local logins, but not remote logins.

I was under the impression that server 2003 comes with a few loging for remote support but as a terminal server it does not allow unlimited connection in and of itself.

No business is going to make a software decision based on saving $10 per year.

Hmmm I have said in this thread "Eh I have auditors and PHB's to make happy so I just go ahead and drop the money for RHEL (full out for production) and developer entitlements to dev-test (at 300$ for 5 RHEL subscriptions you cant go wrong for dev/test).." So what makes you think my decision would be over 10$ per desktop?

Maybe if you got less snippy with people and engaged in conversation we all might get more out of this..

[js1138]

And a small business with ten employees would need all this for what reason?

I know several lawyers running Small Business Server 2003 in offices with five employees. All they want is Exchange with the remote Outlook client, Remote access to their workstation desktop, SQL for their database app, and workstation synchronization for automatic backup of documenmts.

They get all this, installed, for a few grand. It maintains itself.

The initial cost of this kind of software is not a big deal. What matters is whether you can hire a person who knows Word and Excel and plug them in without training.

[js1138]

I was under the impression that server 2003 comes with a few loging for remote support but as a terminal server it does not allow unlimited connection in and of itself.

You might think this, but you would be wrong. SBS allows unlimited remote logins for terminal services, and the Outlook web client. The Outlook web client runs on I.E. and looks just like Outlook on your office workstation.

My local school system runs 40,000 PCs on an MS network, and all the teachers and administrators use the web client for email.

[N3WBI3]

A small business with ten employees would need there own mail server why? Its cheaper to host your mail for ten people than to set up an exchange server (for one you don't need an Exchange administrator).. I would never recommend a company that small do any of their own IT (out side of desktop support)..

I know several lawyers running Small Business Server 2003 in offices with five employees.

And I know many who use linux is there a point somewhere?

They get all this, installed, for a few grand. It maintains itself.

bwhahahahahah my goodness for a moment I thought you had a clue about IT. While you may know licensing and basic admin you don't know squat about how to run IT the right way..

What matters is whether you can hire a person who knows Word and Excel and plug them in without training.

Or someone to run your exchange backups and restores, maybe someone who can *SECURE* your webservices? Any place running its IT infrastructure for *5* people inhouse is wasting more money than anyone could imagine.... *OR* they are running insecure, improperly, and defiantly not optimized servers.

BTW if someone is so dumb they know word but cant use OpenOffice (which I will concede feels more clunky than word) without a ton of training I dont want them as an employee..

[js1138]

Exchange gives you the ability to access archived emails and documents remotely. I'm sure there are alternatives, but as you said, a lot of people like Outlook. As for the Exchange administrator and backups. The SBS server I installed a couple of years ago has run continuously for the past six months without my intervention. It does have an email virus and spam filter added on. And an inexpensive external firewall from D-Link. The hardware and software combined cost about as much as one employee's salary for a couple of months. Backups are done daily to a USB connected hard drive that is swapped out. Four of these cost less than a tape drive, and the software comes with Windows. I know the backup system works because I used it to install larger drives last year. The only bad part is that it doesn't require much of my time. I'm sure a Linux system could be installed cheaper, but a business is going to want to know how easy it is to find someone to help them when their original vendor goes belly up, or pi$$es them off. The system I installed does run itself. The entire installation, including all the configuration screens is documented with screen captures. The few admin tasks that need to be done can be done by the office staff.

All the documents created on the workstations are synchronized on the server and backed up automatically. About a month ago the co-owner's workstation fried. She simply went to an unused PC, logged in, and all her settings and documents were synchronized with the new PC. All this functionality comes out of the box with Server 2003. Again, I'm sure Linux does all this, but I haven't heard anyone mention it.

[N3WBI3]

I'm sure there are alternatives, but as you said, a lot of people like Outlook

Outlook will work with *any* pop3 or imap server including sendmail, postfix, the old netscape servers, ...

The SBS server I installed a couple of years ago has run continuously for the past six months without my intervention

No security patches then eh?

The hardware and software combined cost about as much as one employee's salary for a couple of months.

At 5$ an account you can get a mail host (with virus and spam filtering) which will work with exchange. Thats 25$ for an office over the course of a year you have 300$..

The system I installed does run itself. The entire installation, including all the configuration screens is documented with screen captures.

Good job, if the same thing is done with a Linux system there is no trouble for any *nix admin to come in and run it.

[N3WBI3]

All this functionality comes out of the box with Server 2003. Again, I'm sure Linux does all this, but I haven't heard anyone mention it.

Most systems can be set up to do anything, and would be easy enough to maintain id configured and documented correctly. Yes Linux can do this and has been doing it for years (with either Linux or Windows workstations)..