Re: isaserver.org gets SBS friendly

Dvord Direwood wrote:


"Steve Foster [SBS MVP]" <steve.foster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:xn0e6gfqq76xiui02g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Dvord Direwood wrote:

"Steve Foster [SBS MVP]" <steve.foster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:xn0e6fdt968mtlm02c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Dvord Direwood wrote:

Frank,

I appreciate your comment. Let me take your metaphor a little further. What you're suggesting is that I buy your convertible because it will take me down the road and it's cheaper than a car with a roof. When I get down the road and it starts raining, the roof does not come out, I get soaked, and my electronics burn out, and I'm stranded by the roadside.

Baloney. The only reason that would happen is if you didn't follow the instructions that said "Before driving, please attach the roof to the car".

I think the meaning is getting lost in the metaphor. I'll agree, if you fail to follow instructions, bad things happen. I was more referring to the fact that SBS is a product with marketed features, some features (like a internet-ready version of IIS complete with ability to generate reports on individual visitors to your website) don't work.

Technically, this is an issue with ISA2000. SBS2000 (and SBS2003 Premium without SP1) inherit the problem. There is a workaround of server publishing IIS instead of web publishing it.

So, you are ok with a company developing a product which has problems and to fix them you either BUY a new version or use a Workaround?? Shouldn't they be FIXING the PROBLEM? Why can't the product work AS ADVERTISED??

Can't say as I recall any advertisements for SBS that proclaimed "See some IP address in your logs each time your website is visited". <g>

If you want to take issue with how software is developed and released, that's fine. No software company (or individual) on the planet produces bug-free software. Ideally, we *would* have a better way of producing software, but it's not been invented yet (feel free to do so, and do the world a favour!). In the meantime, we're pretty much stuck with what we have. People produce software, other people find bugs/unintended features, the first lot improve/fix their software, etc. Sometimes the improvements/fixes are available in current versions, sometimes they have to go in new versions.

Other industries work this way too - you don't see GM/Ford etc fixing every single problem with particular models of car. Some get fixed, others are dealt with in new versions.



Taking that one step further, I come back to you and say "well this won't
<SNIP>
the standard products in the first place.

I've talked to 3 different Microsoft Business Partners on what we can do with our SBS2000 server. This was NEVER mentioned. I can't find anything on the Pricing and Licensing for SBS2K3 either, would you be so kind as to pass me a link to where I could find this Transition Pack?

Um, Microsoft Business Partners tend to focus on enterprise level stuff. They mostly aren't interested in SBS - they perceive the customers as being too small/low value to be of interest.

I suppose Microsoft trains that into their business partners too? I mean they have to meet a standard to be a partner right? Is it business practice to ignore, mislead or refuse to help small businesses who might someday be large businesses? Oh yes I forgot. Microsoft is not interested in the future, they want to make large money, and make it right now. No wonder they developed a product like SBS which on the surface caters to small business, yet hamstrings them with little-known upgrades and workarounds instead of fixes... 

What was that about "fervor" ? <g>

And where they do know "of" it, their knowledge often stops at SBS4.5 or even SBS4.0.

The Transition Pack is quite clearly documented on the SBS section of the Microsoft website. It's for SBS2003, though. SBS2000 had the Migration Pack, which is, AIUI, no longer available from MS (not really a big surprise). You could probably still find copies out in the channel though if you really needed it.

Yes, I see that now. You see, most companies call them "upgrades", so when you look to UPGRADE your software to look for UPGRADES. Microsoft doesn't sell UPGRADES, they sell "transition packs", and "software assurance". I assume this culture of misrepresentation and deciet is acceptable?

Scalability improvements (which is essentially what the Transition/Migration Pack are about) aren't usually called upgrades. At least not by any vendor I'm familiar with.

Not sure why you mention Software Assurance, since it's not relevant to the topic at hand.



I appreciate the work they have done with SBS. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and putting multiple services on the same platform is still bad news.

So you routinely equip your customers with 6 servers when they ask for ISA, SQL and Exchange? Even for a 10-20 user shop?

Personally I won't recommend Microsoft products to ANYONE. I will suggest they get Linux because they'd get 100% of the features for less than a fraction of the price.

So, you'd happily recommend a single linux server running a whole bunch of equivalent services? Does that not conflict with your "putting multiple services on the same platform is bad news"?

Where did I say that I would run services on a single Linux box? You copied the text of my words, but I don't see that concept.

You said that "if" you installed a MS solution, you'd use 3-4 servers. That implied that you'd use fewer servers for a non-MS solution (I suppose it's possible you meant that you'd advocate a higher number of servers, but that seemed unlikely). There aren't a great deal of options for a number of servers less than 3. Therefore, there would have to be multiple services installed on a single server.

Let me answer the questions in the quoted, misrepresented, text that you posted here:

I don't routinely equip my customers with any servers. I try to fix what they have. 100% of them have Microsoft, and they're suffering for it. I can't switch them to Linux because they've had to gear their business processes around undelivered features and workarounds.

I said I would suggest Linux. If you want me to break it down, I would have a Linux cd-bootable firewall box. I would have an e-mail/web server, and I would have a file/print/antivirus server. For most small businesses I'd suggest three servers. I'd build them by hand (as opposed to buying Dell, since you can build servers by hand for frequently half the cost, must be Microsoft's pricing model), and use Linux and even train someone on site for less than 1 SBS2003+Hardware.

<SNIP>

Really? Well if you believe that I haven't, based on those paragraphs I'm afraid you'd be wrong. Since convincing you otherwise in a newsgroup would be impossible, based on the fervor you've returned in your message, discussing that point any further would be counterproductive. 

Well, lets see:

p1 - IIS on SBS is no more vulnerable to attack than any other IIS deployment

Yes it is. Try enabling the tracking features to be able to see who's visiting your website. This is a feature perfectly secure and built-in to other FREE web servers on the market. If you CAN do it with IIS then it usually breaks something else like OWA, or simply exposes you to greater risk than on another platform. Oh but wait, that's a conflict. Properly configured versus industry standard features...

You stated that IIS6 on SBS is "more vulnerable" - the ability to track an external IP with each web request has no impact on this.

BTW, no webserver on the planet can accurately track visitors using IP (v4) addresses. At least, not today. You won't get my IP address if I visit a website you host, at least not without persuading me to let you run code on my machine. You might get the address of a firewall or proxy server that's between your site and my machine though.



p2 - all the flaunted features are available, downtime on a properly configured SBS is practically non-existent, and SBS has the same status as any other MS product vis-a-vis vulnerabilities. 

Out of the box SBS doesn't deliver.  See point above.

p3 - I think we've covered all that ground, either in p2 or earlier in the discussion of the Transition Pack.

Which doesn't work for SBS2000.

I believe I said "discussion of", and I did mention the Migration Pack in that discussion. Tell you what, to save my typing, any time you see reference to Transition Pack from now on, you can take it as "Transition Pack (Migration Pack for SBS2000)". Better?


--
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
---------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Migrating from SBS 2003 to 2003 Std R2 in a new forest - Any ideas
    ... You transition the SBS, you move the applications off to ... requirement that the new servers be in the same domain, ... Should make your cross forest migration a lot easier. ... I don't want to go the route of the transition pack we ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: isaserver.org gets SBS friendly
    ... I was more referring to the fact that SBS is a product with marketed features, some features (like a internet-ready version of IIS complete with ability to generate reports on individual visitors to your website) don't work. ... It's called the Transition Pack, and is priced so that you spend the same amount that you would have done buying the standard products in the first place. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Migrating from SBS 2003 to Windows Server 2003 Std x2
    ... It is certainly more economic to use the transition pack as you only pay the ... difference between the SBS and the new servers and you keep all your CALs. ... Currently I have SBS 2003 Prem and now about to push the 75 user limit. ... licences new. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Two server in one domain
    ... With two, there are a total of 2 servers, ... If Primary Domain Controller is installed with Win SBS 2003 ... Because in site B only have server Windows ... HQ internet must be up and the remote user must have ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: How to bring SBS 2003 network into a Win2003 AD network?
    ... Make sure on that "two SBS servers" as SBS doesn't normally do that nor ... >> CALs are effectively Per Seat in that a single SBS ... > What if I wanted/more than one server running Exchange? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Loading