David M Williams
Wednesday, 31 December 2008 12:23
Opinion and Analysis
Page 4 of 6
Ironically, the case study indicated the Windows network had suffered security violations in the past while the school network had not.
Nevertheless, the case study was yet another “Windows Server 2008 is superior to Windows Server 2003” story with a throwaway line that “oh, the company did have a small Linux server but we got rid of it” aspect.
Microsoft PR never wrote back to me. However, the HiChina saga illustrates they were paying attention!
In an effort to be fair I did suggest
one case study landed a real glove. Glidepath is a company that offers airport handling and sorting systems integration. Their Linux system was a mess. It was custom-designed by a third-party integrator and this integrator was charging a phenomenal amount for support.
Glidepath had servers which were crashing so something was clearly amiss. Reading through the case study the problem, I believe, was that the integrator was out of their depth. They’d implemented a rubbish solution.
Glidepath did save money by going to a Windows environment. Yet, it wasn’t because of anything inherent in Windows; it was because they used a quality partner this time who implemented a reliable network.
The spoiler here was bad support. Yet, this also wasn’t something inherent to Linux. It’s easy to find bad Windows consultants. I’ve seen a phenomenal amount. The problem is, it is easier to find good Windows support than good Linux support and there’s the rub. That’s a genuine argument against Linux (but must be weighed up against reliability, licensing, number of servers that can be maintained by a single person, greater opportunities for automation and scripting, etc.) and it is something the open source community has to address.
Why Small Business Server sucks and Linux alternatives
Turning from case studies, I began a new series specifically hitting out at Small Business Server – a blighted pimple on the backside of server infrastructure. To my mind, the whole reason SBS exists is because companies want a server product but can’t afford or justify the price tag of Microsoft’s full server range, thus they put up with a grossly-restrictive product instead.
Actually, I didn’t begin with that in mind. I began by merely
pointing out Microsoft were watching Linux and trying to adapt to keep up with areas Linux was showing strength in. One of these adaptations was a relaxation of certain restrictions in SBS – because, after all, why pay for a crippled server platform when you could use an unrestricted Linux offering?
This story caught attention with some SBS consultants telling me
they roll out SBS because they are comfortable only dealing with miniscule companies and that neither they nor their clients want to grow. I found that pretty remarkable but I guess the world needs all types.
Putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak, I then gave five Linux options to choose from to replace SBS over two parts
here and
here.
Netbooks –
page 1
Software releases, Windows Vista and open source advocacy –
page 2
The war against Microsoft’s war against Linux –
pages 3 and 4
Why Small Business Server sucks and Linux alternatives – page 4
Education, why open source makes sense –
page 5
Hard-core tech, festive fun and 2009! -
page 6
