SLES9 vs. Windows Server 2003 In A Windows Network

Gsurface writes "Can SLES9 be a viable server solution as an answer to using a Windows 2003 Server? This article compares these two server products in a small to medium sized Windows network environment. The comparison covers areas such as reconfigurability, basic administration tasks, server tasks, file system performance, overall cost and user/computer management. These are basic functionalities that every network server needs to provide. Overall, makes for a good Saturday read." (That's "Suse Linux Enterprise Server," if you're not up on your acronym soup.)

Emulating Windows Server is the wrong approach.

[Ogerman]

I've set up Samba + LDAP to serve Windows clients using Debian. Unfortunately, in this case, it takes a whole lot longer because nobody thus far has seemed interested in writing a good Open Source tool to aid in making this work out of the box and to ongoing Samba administration less of a hastle. Setting up a small enterprise server with Debian feels a whole lot like building a microprocessor given a pile of sand. As a result, we have the market for SLES, RHE, and others. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, it would be better to have one popular open source solution that everyone is familiar with instead of dozens of proprietary GUI tools packaged with the commercial distros. "Widget frosting" is not a sustainable OSS business model.

A major issue not mentioned in this article is the prevelence of Windows-only server-side software. Besides easier administration using AD, this is another significant reason why people stick with Windows Server in real life. They absolutely need their custom departmental business apps, so the choice of operating system becomes secondary. NOTE: This is why we need a strong focus on real-world F/OSS database applications. This is without question the killer app of Open Source in the enterprise. (Hint: big money here, and think Java)

One last thing not mentioned is the fact that the Windows server environment is not just about sharing files. Group policies, MSI, etc. are powerful tools for administering a Windows network that Samba does not provide. After all, Samba is only one piece of the puzzle. That's not to say that these solutions are ideal, but if you're stuck with a Windows environment, they become a valid factor to consider.

All things considered, we as the Open Source community should not be focusing on emulating Windows Server as the key to the enterprise. This is an endless game of catch up to unstable, proprietary standards. We need to aim higher. We should be innovating and re-thinking the current office computing paradigm. We need to make it attractive not only to replace Windows on the server but also on the desktop as a direct result of the benefits of a purely non-Windows environment. Those benefits can only materialize if we create our *own* enterprise solutions instead of trying to just become compatible with the status quo.

Re:Emulating Windows Server is the wrong approach.

[MBCook]

And this is a problem that will be hard to solve untill Linux gets MUCH more popular or MS embraces (true defintion, not theirs) heterogenous environments (don't hold your breath). The fact is MS will always have some advantages (especially in ease of use) when you use Windows clients. Linux might give you advantages if you use it to serve files or mail and use Windows servers for profiles and AD. If you had Linux clients and were deciding between Windows and Linux for the server, would there even be much of a contest? I doubt it.

Why not make their own unix (I know they had one, Xenix right?) and position Windows Server as a managment tool for their unix servers or a server for small businesses (sort of like many people might use OS X machines). Given MS's nice tools, if they made it so that it could manage Linux machines with it's tools and wizards and such they would have a great product.

But they won't do that becuase it would let people use Linux. That's why they could do it with their own Unux.

But they won't do that becuase it would make Windows server look bad and could be confusing.

The solution: GET YOUR CUSTOM STUFF CROSS-PLATFORM. That's the true solution.