The real reason consultants use Microsoft SBS over Linux

David M Williams
Saturday, 13 September 2008 09:03

Opinion and Analysis

Woah Nelly! I said "SBS sucks" and raised the ire of SBS consultants worldwide. However, their responses are very telling and blow the lid on the real reason anyone would recommend SBS to a company (and it's nothing to do with technology.)

On Thursday I contended Microsoft Small Business Server (SBS) was a woeful product.

Actually, I was really talking about how Linux keeps Microsoft honest. In the face of competition – no matter if you deride the amount of market share – the advent of Linux has forced Microsoft to enhance their server products. Really, this was no “Linux r00lz” argument but instead saying Windows offerings have been bolstered.

As part of this I made reference to Microsoft’s coming Essential Business Server (EBS) which gives a bit more than SBS traditionally had. The reason being that Microsoft knows SBS is a bad product.

After all, why would anyone recommend SBS over the regular standard editions of Windows Server and Exchange server except for the matter of price? You don’t do it for any functionality gain and you most certainly lose any chance of scalability. You lock yourself in if you use SBS.

A consultant with the interests of the client at heart could provide an open source Linux solution which still provides authentication, file and print sharing, groupware mail and calendars and a firewall. In fact, if they did this they’d be able to spend more money on the hardware because they’ve completely eradicated the software tax.

Microsoft knows this. This is why EBS lifts some of the shackles SBS places on a business to dole out just a little bit more. Of course, as it turns out, consultants will still recommend SBS because in the end it’s not about the technology. I’ll come back to this shortly.

First, let’s address some criticisms of my story.

The most frequent complaint was that zillions of small companies will never grow beyond 75 users. Actually, this isn’t really a criticism of what I wrote than a depressing admission that lots of companies will plateau, stagnate or fail.

In fact, this kind of statement even readily acknowledges SBS has limitations but is going with the line that the SBS constraints are tolerable in a lot of circumstances.

I would hate to be seen as lambasting small business. My parents owned their own restaurant for most of my young life. At other times they also owned a bookshop and a pool and leisure product store. On the one hand in a situation like theirs of course they’re not going to grow beyond 75 staff that legitimately require a login and e-mail address.

However, then again, isn’t that a limiting statement?

How can I look at a business and decide it won’t grow, it won’t become part of a franchise, and it won’t be acquired by a larger entity?

In a more traditional office environment than a restaurant or retail store this is even more significant. I’d be certain the bulk of service providers would love to grow. Even if they don’t have legions of staff it’s a certainty they’d like to operate out of more than location.

Which brings up another SBS fault, as well as – yes, it’s true – a mistake of my own where I unjustly repeated a common SBS fallacy.

CONTINUED