Re: Comparison between SBS 2003 and Linux ES 2.1
- From: pheonix1t <nothing@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:08:59 -0500
Abhinav wrote:
I would like to get some whitepapers describing the detailed comparison between Windows Small Business Server 2003 and Red hat Enterprise ES 2.1http://www.nitix.com/products/os/index.php
1. What is the maximum number of users which are supported in Red Hat Linux Enterprise ES 2.1 as the maximum number of users supported in SBS 2003 are only 75?
2. What are the technical components of Red Hat Linux Enterprise ES 2.1 in comparison to SBS 2003?
3. What is the geographical boundary of creating a domain in SBS as it only supports single domain system, e.g. a company has 60 employees and 40 employees sit at the main office and other 20 at the remote location, would they be able to access the SBS by logging in to the domain remotely and if yes then how?
Would really appreciate if someone can assist me on this.
Thanks much
abhinav
http://www.open-xchange.com/EN/
http://www.bynari.com/
Here are 3 linux servers made especially for the SMB market.
The open-xchange has features that are very similar to microsoft sbs2003. (portal, webmail, document management, etc).
These are all very easy to setup and use web-based administration. I also work on sbs2003 and after a few years of working on both, it's a very close call. These linux servers are very easy to manage for normal, every-day stuff like adding users/changing passwords/adding contacts.
The open-xchange and bynari use postfix for it's MTA and I know this server is far superior to exchange as far as controlling spam/viruses. Linux/Unix email servers in general are modular so the MTA is dedicated to just being an MTA. If you look at the postfix website www.postfix.org you'll see that it has very powerful capabilities that Lotus/Groupwise/Exchange can't even come close to for controlling spam/viruses. It's so good that many companies use Postfix running on a unix/linux server as an email gateway to protect their groupware servers. Postfix is much better at controlling spam/viruses than any groupware application, so companies use it exactly for this purpose. After the emails are clean, postfix relays it to the groupware server your company has. By doing this, the groupware servers deal with only 'clean' emails and very little if any spam. You also save A LOT OF MONEY by running commercial virus scanners on unix/linux. You can even run open-source virus scanners that are free! Think about this for hundreds or thousands of users.
Just as an example, vexira www.centralcommand.com costs about $300 for a one year virus scanner for unix/linux mail servers that is good for up to 6000 users!! Vexira is very highly regarded for email servers.
The best part is the technology is built-in to Postfix! You don't need to buy extra user licenses or anything like that. On Exchange, getting good quality virus scanners and spam filters starts getting expensive pretty quick.
To answer your questions:
1. Please visit the above 3 websites. They have several white papers. Maybe not all of them compare to sbs2003, but you'll get the idea.
The linux servers have no maximum! If you get their version of the small business servers, the max is around 25 for the open-xchange. But if you get the advanced server, there is no limit. It can easily run several hundred to a few thousand users. Bynari and Open-Xchange have references from several companies/gov't agencies with large amounts of users (hundreds or thousands).
Please keep in mind the costs as well. For the open-xchange server, the cost per additional user is $25!! This is a much better price than Microsoft sbs2003!!
2. The technical components are very similar. Both have directory services (openldap vs. active directory). Both have email servers, both have database servers (sbs2003 only with premium). Linux has the LAMP stack which is a very popular web development platform. Database servers can be mysql or postgresql, both very good. Printer and file sharing, VPN capable servers (ipsec and pptp/l2tp). Both also have web portals (open-xchange) with document management.
This basically comes down to what the customer wants. It all depends on the needs of the customer.
3. the microsoft sbs2003 has several limitations put on it on purpose in regards to it's active directory services. The linux servers don't have this problem. You can join other domains, make new ones, even join these servers to active directory domains!
To answer your question on this regarding remote employees, I'd suggest using VPN with a terminal server if you have 20 remote employees. I do that at one of the hospitals we work at. But they have citrix so the VPN is not used, citrix is better.
In regards to another poster saying that sbs2003 is more secure, I'd like to have proof of that. According to whom? By my experience and according to many INDEPENDANT reviews (not commissioned by microsoft!!), linux is more secure than windows. In the IT world, microsoft's credibility is spotty at best. They have been caught on several occasions paying lots of $$$ to some cheesy lab to run comparisons. However, after looking at the details very carefully, many people realized the labs modify the microsoft products a lot to improve performance but they don't modify the other product being compared to.
What kind of comparison is this?? This is a microsoft comparison! Cheating right from the beginning! Novell and IBM have lots of evidence to prove this.
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/competitive/windowsToLinux.shtml
http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/response.html
This type of behavior is why microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Lots of legal troubles in USA and EUROPE. Only a fool would believe anything they say without first confirming it (do your own research).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comparison between SBS 2003 and Linux ES 2.1
- From: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
- Re: Comparison between SBS 2003 and Linux ES 2.1
- Prev by Date: Re: Can ISA 2004 (SBS) restrict Internet access based on time of d
- Next by Date: Re: CRM compatibility with SBS 2003
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparison between SBS 2003 and Linux ES 2.1
- Next by thread: Re: Comparison between SBS 2003 and Linux ES 2.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
