Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Adam Warne » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 19:15:38



Hi all,

I just found this on Microsoft's site:
http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
copyright 2001.

Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
piece of spin:

"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments are
somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network. If
that technology provider is not available to continue to provide support,
there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step in and have
the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built network."

In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is false).

It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its search
engine does not allow you to sort by date.

Regards,
Adam

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Nick Cond » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:52:27




Quote:>Hi all,

>I just found this on Microsoft's site:
>http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

>No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
>copyright 2001.

>Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
>piece of spin:

>"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments
>are somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
>together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
>technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network.
>If that technology provider is not available to continue to provide
>support, there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step
>in and have the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built
>network."

>In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
>then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is
>false).

Not to say hypocritical.

If your closed-source technology provider is unable to continue to provide
support - to pluck an example out of the air,  let's say an anti-trust
investigation orders their execution - there is not likely to be another
provider who can easily step in.

With an open-source solution, anyone can step in and take over.
--
Nick

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by sfcybea » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:06:35


Yeah, MS is running scared.



Quote:> Hi all,

> I just found this on Microsoft's site:
> http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

> No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
> copyright 2001.

> Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very
impressive
> piece of spin:

> "The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux
deployments are
> somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
> together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
> technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based
network. If
> that technology provider is not available to continue to provide
support,
> there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step in and
have
> the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built network."

> In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you
will
> then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is
false).

> It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its
search
> engine does not allow you to sort by date.

> Regards,
> Adam

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Robert Morell » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:56:50




> Hi all,

> I just found this on Microsoft's site:
> http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

> No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
> copyright 2001.

> Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
> piece of spin:

> "The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments
> are
> somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
> together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
> technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network.
> If that technology provider is not available to continue to provide
> support, there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step
> in and have the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built
> network."

> In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
> then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is
> false).

It seems quite transparent to me what's going on.  In classic
FUD,  they face a competing product from a competing business with
a less secure future than their own.  In that situation,  it's easy to
generate the fear that customers will be left with an unsupported
product.  With open source,  they're fighting a different sort of thing.
Since an open source project doesn't depend on any one business or
set of individuals,  you can't really kill it.  In fact,  it can't really die.

So MS faces the puzzle:  how do you create FUD about something
that can't die?  Well,  they claim that the particular way the network
is configured might be specific to a vendor and impossible for anyone
else to decipher.  

I suppose some people would see this as impressive spin.  Personally,  
I consider the argument implausible,  and really laughably weak.  
If you're really dealing with open source,  nothing is hidden,  so anyone
with sufficient expertise can pick it up and support it.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its
> search engine does not allow you to sort by date.

> Regards, Adam

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Adam Warne » Sat, 10 Feb 2001 06:24:20


Hi Robert,

Quote:> I suppose some people would see this as impressive spin.  Personally,
> I consider the argument implausible,  and really laughably weak.

Of course it is. Impressive in the sense that you are taking some of the
best features of open source (customisability and vendor choice) and
somewhat plausibly turning them into faults. This might work on, say, 50% of
the population (maybe more).

Quote:> If you're really dealing with open source,  nothing is hidden,  so anyone
> with sufficient expertise can pick it up and support it.

Yes, debunked. The network protocols are open and standard solutions are
widely known and implemented whenever possible.

Regards,
Adam

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by The Ghost In The Machi » Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:54:05


In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adam Warner

 wrote
on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:15:38 GMT

Quote:>Hi all,

>I just found this on Microsoft's site:
>http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

>No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
>copyright 2001.

Evidently Jan 14, 2001:

$ telnet www.microsoft.com www
Trying 207.46.230.218...
Connected to www.microsoft.akadns.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD /SBServer/productinfo/linux.htm HTTP/1.1
Host: www.microsoft.com

 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
 Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:14 GMT
 Content-Type: text/html
 Accept-Ranges: bytes
 Last-Modified: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:05 GMT
 ETag: "067246b5f7ec01:87b"
 Content-Length: 28746

(and then it hung, probably because I forgot to tell it to close
the connection; :-) my bad).

Quote:

>Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
>piece of spin:

>"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments are
>somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
>together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
>technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network. If
>that technology provider is not available to continue to provide support,
>there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step in and have
>the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built network."

>In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
>then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is false).

>It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its search
>engine does not allow you to sort by date.

And remember, the price of chocolate just dropped to 20 cents.  :-)
[_1948_]

Quote:

>Regards,
>Adam

--

EAC code #191       3d:19h:21m actually running Linux.
                    Yes, uptime & wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Adam Warne » Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:38:07


Hi Ghost In The Machine,

Quote:>  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>  Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
>  Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:14 GMT
>  Content-Type: text/html
>  Accept-Ranges: bytes
>  Last-Modified: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:05 GMT
>  ETag: "067246b5f7ec01:87b"
>  Content-Length: 28746

Could you please explain how you achieved that? I am obviously not able to
telnet into Microsoft's site to check out last-modified headers. Is there a
browser or application that can give this level of detail from the web
server?

Looking at the page info under Netscape 4.76 it tells me that the document
was last modified "Sunday, 14 January 2001 7:23:05 p.m. GMT" (also "Monday,
15 January 2001 7:23:05 a.m. Local time"). IE5.01 tells me that the document
was created and modified 8th Feb 2001 (at least we know IE5.01 is lying).

It would be really nice to be able to type in a web address at a command
line and see all information provided to the client. Any suggestions?

Quote:> >In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
> >then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is
false).

> >It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its
search
> >engine does not allow you to sort by date.

> And remember, the price of chocolate just dropped to 20 cents.  :-)
> [_1948_]

Well I didn't get the joke but after a bit of searching:
http://www.whistlestop.org/BERLIN_A/CHOCOLAT.HTM

I still don't get it! Am I on the right track--the Berlin 1948 chocolate
drops?!?

Have fun,
Adam

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by J Sloa » Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:59:59



> Hi Ghost In The Machine,

> >  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> >  Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
> >  Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:14 GMT
> >  Content-Type: text/html
> >  Accept-Ranges: bytes
> >  Last-Modified: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:05 GMT
> >  ETag: "067246b5f7ec01:87b"
> >  Content-Length: 28746

> Could you please explain how you achieved that? I am obviously not able to
> telnet into Microsoft's site to check out last-modified headers. Is there a
> browser or application that can give this level of detail from the web
> server?

Telnet to port 80 and type, for instance:

HEAD / HTTP/1.0

and 2 carriage returns.

jjs

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Adam Warne » Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:45:26


Thanks J Sloan,

Quote:> Telnet to port 80 and type, for instance:

> HEAD / HTTP/1.0

> and 2 carriage returns.

Cool it worked, thanks (I needed to use the right port number).

Regards,
Adam

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Peter K?hlman » Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:48:06



> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adam Warner

>  wrote
> on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:15:38 GMT

> >Hi all,

> >I just found this on Microsoft's site:
> >http://www.veryComputer.com/

> >No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
> >copyright 2001.

> Evidently Jan 14, 2001:

> $ telnet www.microsoft.com www
> Trying 207.46.230.218...
> Connected to www.microsoft.akadns.net.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> HEAD /SBServer/productinfo/linux.htm HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.microsoft.com

>  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>  Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
>  Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:14 GMT
>  Content-Type: text/html
>  Accept-Ranges: bytes
>  Last-Modified: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:05 GMT
>  ETag: "067246b5f7ec01:87b"
>  Content-Length: 28746

> (and then it hung, probably because I forgot to tell it to close
> the connection; :-) my bad).

I did post the following already 2 weeks ago, but there is another quirk
with W2k Telnet:
You can disable ANY further Telnet login to a W2K machine by simply
telnetting to it and then NOT log in. Just let it wait for login. POOOFFF

MS probably has not heard of time out.
Well, who would think of such advanced stuff.
But then, who would think of putting in TELNET instead of SSH into
W2K. But then, MS probably does not have the brains to come up
with a SSH of their own, so they were content with a broken telnet.

regards,
Peter

--
"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and * his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by Roy.Cull » Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:49:34




Quote:

> I did post the following already 2 weeks ago, but there is another quirk
> with W2k Telnet:
> You can disable ANY further Telnet login to a W2K machine by simply
> telnetting to it and then NOT log in. Just let it wait for login. POOOFFF

> MS probably has not heard of time out.
> Well, who would think of such advanced stuff.
> But then, who would think of putting in TELNET instead of SSH into
> W2K. But then, MS probably does not have the brains to come up
> with a SSH of their own, so they were content with a broken telnet.

If this is true then it is even worse than you say. Even if someone does
login anyone else is blocked until the first login is completed. What
sort of design is this? In Unix, daemons that expect many simultaneous
connections will first fork a child process to handle the connection.

What you are saying is that W2K waits until after the login process before
creating a new thread (they don't have fork do they :-). The fact that
the login doesn't have a timeout is even more pathetic. As for ssh, when
has microsoft ever cared about security?

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by T. Max Devli » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:28:32


Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:15:38
GMT;

Quote:>Hi all,

>I just found this on Microsoft's site:
>http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

>No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
>copyright 2001.

>Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
>piece of spin:

>"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments are
>somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
>together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
>technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network. If
>that technology provider is not available to continue to provide support,
>there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step in and have
>the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built network."

>In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
>then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is false).

This goes along with Microsoft's recent ad campaign trumpeting their
"enterprise" software.  (I cannot even consider putting the word
'enterprise' in association with Microsoft software unless in quotes.)

The copy basically ran "companies can merge and their databases will
talk together easily."  The unstated but necessary assumption being, of
course, that the merging companies all use all Microsoft.

Quote:>It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its search
>engine does not allow you to sort by date.

Its even harder to find anything worth looking for on Microsoft's site.

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by T. Max Devli » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:28:34


Said Nick Condon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Feb 2001 12:52:27 GMT;



>>Hi all,

>>I just found this on Microsoft's site:
>>http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm

>>No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
>>copyright 2001.

>>Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
>>piece of spin:

>>"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments
>>are somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
>>together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
>>technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network.
>>If that technology provider is not available to continue to provide
>>support, there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step
>>in and have the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built
>>network."

>>In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
>>then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is
>>false).

>Not to say hypocritical.

>If your closed-source technology provider is unable to continue to provide
>support - to pluck an example out of the air,  let's say an anti-trust
>investigation orders their execution - there is not likely to be another
>provider who can easily step in.

>With an open-source solution, anyone can step in and take over.

ROTFLMAO!  Good one.  Yes, I'd say you made that point.  Have you seen
the TV commercials for Microsoft "Enterprise" software?  Guffaw!

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by T. Max Devli » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:28:35


Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:24:20
GMT;

Quote:>Hi Robert,

>> I suppose some people would see this as impressive spin.  Personally,
>> I consider the argument implausible,  and really laughably weak.

>Of course it is. Impressive in the sense that you are taking some of the
>best features of open source (customisability and vendor choice) and
>somewhat plausibly turning them into faults. This might work on, say, 50% of
>the population (maybe more).

You can, indeed, fool some of the people all of the time.

Quote:>> If you're really dealing with open source,  nothing is hidden,  so anyone
>> with sufficient expertise can pick it up and support it.

>Yes, debunked. The network protocols are open and standard solutions are
>widely known and implemented whenever possible.

This is the classic inversion and subversion of the very concept of
"interoperability" which Microsoft has used all along to mask their
illegal monopolization.

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison

Post by T. Max Devli » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:28:36


Said Roy.Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:49:34
+0100;



>> I did post the following already 2 weeks ago, but there is another quirk
>> with W2k Telnet:
>> You can disable ANY further Telnet login to a W2K machine by simply
>> telnetting to it and then NOT log in. Just let it wait for login. POOOFFF

>> MS probably has not heard of time out.
>> Well, who would think of such advanced stuff.
>> But then, who would think of putting in TELNET instead of SSH into
>> W2K. But then, MS probably does not have the brains to come up
>> with a SSH of their own, so they were content with a broken telnet.

>If this is true then it is even worse than you say. Even if someone does
>login anyone else is blocked until the first login is completed. What
>sort of design is this? In Unix, daemons that expect many simultaneous
>connections will first fork a child process to handle the connection.

>What you are saying is that W2K waits until after the login process before
>creating a new thread (they don't have fork do they :-). The fact that
>the login doesn't have a timeout is even more pathetic. As for ssh, when
>has microsoft ever cared about security?

Well, what did you expect?  They don't even have an inetd, let alone an
init or a tty.  Just "whatever proprietary monopoly crapware we can
foist on people".

--
T. Max Devlin
  *** The best way to convince another is
          to state your case moderately and
             accurately.   - Benjamin Franklin ***

 
 
 

1. Replacing MS Small Business Server 2000 with Linux

Has anyone successfully built a server that replaces MS Small Business
Server?  I have a client who bought MS Small Business Server earlier
this year.  After being demolished by the Nimda virus, I was convinced
by a colleague that Linux could do what SBS could.

So out went the NT server and in came Mandrake 8.1.  SBS's main
features include:

1) File/Print Server
2) Faxing software
3) Exchange mail/groupware server

Linux is working great with the File/Print server. However I have
spent an enormous amount of time on HylaFAX (NB- read the HylaFAX
mailing list archives and subscribe to the list - the *best* way to
get help!). Now the customer is very close to scrapping Linux and
going back to Windows because they cannot get their work done.  They
rely heavily on Outlook and shared contacts.

I have read extensively on replacing Outlook address book with LDAP,
however I am just getting into it and it seems very clunky (I have no
prior experience with LDAP, so it may just be me).

Bottom line - can Linux replace MS Exchange server or not?  Should I
migrate back to SBS or continue?  Is Outlook the best client to use or
should I be looking at another way for them to share contact
information?

Thanks in advance,

Miles K. Forrest

2. Which SCSI?

3. Comparing Unix versus Linux versus Windows NT/2000

4. Executing a scsi command

5. XP Pro versus Home versus 2000

6. The meta key question

7. Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime

8. udp port 1024

9. Microsoft FrontPage? 2000 Server Extensions for Linux...

10. Microsoft bCentral Helps Level the Playing Field for Small Businesses

11. Perfect Linux server solution for the small business market

12. The Bible according to Linux: Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 versus UNIX

13. linux versus windows 2000