[Wolves] Converting SBS2000 to a linux based server
James Turner
james at turnersoft.co.uk
Fri Nov 12 02:30:30 GMT 2004
On Thursday 11 Nov 2004 14:02, Chris Ball wrote:
> mainly the work of an idle mind.
>
> Is it worth moving away from Active Directory and Server2000 towards a more
> linux approach to my Servers?
Maybe. From a technical point of view, Linux is easily capable of performing
an equivalent role to a similar or better standard, depending on specific
needs. Here are some examples of Open Source alternatives to various SBS
facilities:
(use of fixed-width font recommended to view table)
Microsoft based solution Open Source (Linux) based solution
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File and print services Samba
Active Directory Samba (acting as NT Domain Controller)
Exchange Sendmail, Exim or Postfix
Exchange Outlook Web Access SquirrelMail or Horde
SQL Server PostreSQL or MySQL
Internet Information Server Apache
Active Server Pages PHP, Python, Perl, CGI and many others
Shared Fax Service Hylafax or Mgetty-Sendfax/Getfax(?)
Internet Security/Acceleration Server Squid, SquidGuard, IPtables
SharePoint Gluecode or Metadot(?)
Routing and Remote Access PPPD, Linux Kernel - IPtables, IPsec
FrontPage Mozilla Composer, Quanta, text editors
Internet Explorer Whatever web browser you like
Outlook Whatever POP/IMAP/SMTP client you like
> I understand it will be more hard work to set up, but for a small company,
> would it be worth it?
The cost/benefit breakdown would depend on the specifics of the company, which
we obviously don't know anything about. What are the current and future
requirements? Which of the SBS components are in use? A detailed feasibility
study may be needed to answer the question fully.
Some of the issues you may want to consider (in no particular order) are:
Are there any office politics or prejudice-based reasons why one type of
IT solution should be chosen over another?
What's already in place? How much is likely to cost to change/upgrade it
now or in the future? What are the perceived benefits? Is it worth
making a change?
What risks are involved, are they worth taking and will they grow/shrink
in the future?
Are routine sysadmin tasks easy for staff to perform, without too much
risk of costly errors? If desired, are outsourced/managed solutions
providers available to provide a system administration/support service?
What is the proposed product's record on reliability? What resources
(time, staff) are needed to cover routine maintenance and support
tasks?
In financial terms, how critical is reliability to the continued
running of the business? What is the financial cost of an outage or
malfunction? Are high availability features available, and at what cost?
Do IT staff have the skills to be able to support the product? Would
training be needed?
What level of security does the product provide? What are the
consequences of a security breach in terms of financial cost and
business continuity?
Is it easy to make/restore backups? How long would it take to restore
a working system following a major hardware or software outage, and
what costs are associated with this? Have you actually tried this in a
test environment?
How much does it cost to license an additional desktop machine?
What desktop operating systems are supported?
How much does it cost to add a desktop machine above any hardwired limit
within the product? (i.e. how much does it cost for a 51st machine with
SBS?)
How much will it cost to upgrade to a future version of the product?
Will new client licenses be needed for every desktop?
Does the product have any built-in limits to scalability? Is there a
smooth and cost effective upgrade path to higher-end products?
Is the product based on genuinely open, widely supported standards that
will facilitate broad interoperability with third party applications,
etc?
Can extra facilities be added to the base product fulfil future needs?
Are they readily available and how much do they cost?
Is the product (or a successor) likely supported for a long time into
the future? Does this depend on the needs of the users or the vendor?
The problem with many current Microsoft-based products is that when the sales
people demonstrate them they appear (to the untrained and uncynical eye) to
be fantastically easy and simple to run whilst providing unique and amazing
levels of functionality, performance and reliability. It's only when a
solution has been purchased and the poor folk "on the ground" have wrestled
with it for a few days/weeks/months that the grim reality starts to sink in.
I've heard too many false or misleading promises (like "high level,
government-approved standard of security" on NT4, then 2000, then XP) to take
much of the sales patter at face value any more.
Anyway, enough waffling and bitter MS complaints for one night (from me
anyway). Let us know how you get on!
Best wishes,
James
More information about the Wolves
mailing list