Slashdot Mirror
Windows Home Server Details
phorest writes "Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server? In any event Microsoft is opening up WHS for users to construct their own system after all; though I'd like to see the price of this OS release before making the jump. From the review: "At the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week... Microsoft previewed its long-awaited Windows Home Server product, a Windows Server 2003 R2-based server for consumers that dispenses with the complexities of most Windows Server versions and provides the core storage, sharing, and remote access functionality that digital media and home networking enthusiasts require... Microsoft will make WHS available in two ways: Bundled with new WHS hardware and software-only, the latter so that enthusiasts can install the system on the hardware of their choice... If you're building your own home server, Microsoft requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more, and as many disks as you think you need. The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."
The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."
Easy... Lots of Money.
I for one think this is a great idea and something I have wanted for a while. I currently do a cobbled Linux/rsync backup system, but it is no where as easy as this thing looks. This will make MSFT matter for the home geek.
I would actually be interested in having something like this, *if* it weren't from Microsoft, because I will bet you that it will be far too helpful for my tastes. Anyway, this would probably help the average user navigate the sometimes-confusing options for servers.
I really think that MS needs to lock up WHS to be idiot-proof tight. If you need to put software on it (plugins for mediacenters, game servers, etc.) you should have to burn it to a CD, put it in the server, and then go back to the interface to see what you're going to install, and confirm it by pushing a button on the server. Yes, it's a hassle, but makes sure it's near 99% idiot-proof. Clicking through boxes is one thing. Having to physically push different things should set off alarms for someone
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
More likely they are currently flooding the market with "educational" pieces designed to increase the public's awareness of a new category of product; its no coincidence that the forthcoming product will match what the public has been trained to expect of it in advance.
(Hint: look up "AIDA" as a marketing term sometime...)
Windows Home Server = Windows XP Pro? I was under the impression that Windows 2003 was simply Windows XP with some goodies for servers, if they take that aspect out aren't they basically selling your Windows XP with a couple patches?
I don't see why they would market something based on Windows 2003 right now anyway, with Vista here / around the corner (depending on who you are)
WHS Video Interview
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
By the way, the New Apple Airport Extreme Base station supports sharing USB 2 Hard drives on the network. 50 Users Limit and there is a small utility to put privileges.
That makes an almost solid state device to:
Provide wireless Access (N) in your home
Act as router (3 ports)
Share USB printers
Share storage
To me, it's a more integrated and "out of the box" solution.
I know, it can't serve webpages...
But still, it seems a little easier for laymen.
"I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." Through the looking glass and what
Price for "Cheapo Depot" server hardware: $800
Price for MS XP: $100
The look on the face of the 14 year old that pwnes your sorry ass in less than five minutes by using the zero-day exploit of the day: Priceless
=)
I appreciate people wish to share photos etc online with friends and family.
The slashdot crowd take old pc`s and turn em into servers.
Surely the way forward for home users is networked storage that probably use less AC than a PC?
Especially as we are now seeing combined adsl-router-NAS with built in raid. Is there then less chance of getting owned than with a MS based system? I know server 2003 that this is based on is more secure than previous MS offerings, but still...
Acid House saves Souls
This sounds pretty good, and depending on pricing, something I could use. I can, and have cobbled together various backup sever solutions over the years, but who has time for all of that? Having the choice of a hardware bundle or loading my own custom server sounds like a pretty easy path. Aside from pricing, the only other issue of concern to me is how buggy with the first releases be. I wonder if this will easily integrate with an Xbox 360 at some point. It might be just the thing to address the 20GB hard drive limitation right now.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Great move but it'll be a cold day in hell when I let Microsoft manage what's on my home server. Not being a deliberate troll or flamebait, I'd look for them to sell out and start locking up my media files. I just would approach this with a long stick - or just keep using my home-brew server.
Most of the stuff on
I still wouldn't buy that.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
To convince folks that when they go out and buy a new machine they really need 2?
Sure, you can get it retail, but the product doesn't seemed designed or targeted at people who would install it themselves.
I know burning data to DVDs is tough these days, but still, it doesn't seem like an easy sell...
that I can't already do with share level access and the appropriate client application? Does it handle sharing removable drives better (i.e. mp3 players)? Will I be able to create NT domains with it? Will mapped network drives finally stop periodically vanishing?
:).
I mean, really, does any home user need the kind of performance a networking OS brings? You're gonna have at most 10 computers hooked up to the darn thing. Now, otoh, it might be a cheap way to build a domain
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
-b.
Back in my day we had Samba, and we were grateful for it!
Register the editry.
"based on windows 2k3 server" ... so the target users will think "ok, it wont lock down my content like vista will" .... but unbeknownst to them, will have (as usual) more than its share of "critical" fixes neccessitating a service pack in the first 8 months. A service pack that just happens to "upgrade" you to vista-style DRM shit and lock-down existing files.
Tread carefully..
Based on your language of "picked Samba and Apache", I am guessing you just didn't know what you were doing.
The SBE (Small Business Edition) is a streamlined (in terms of set up and interface) version of W2003. It's preconfigured for common uses for small groups, but it can be tinkered with however you like. They've hobbled it to make sure nobody with a large group uses it (in which case you should probably have an IT guy who knows what he's doing, and can set up W2003 properly).
At least, that's what it sounds like. I think SBE is about $1k at retail, I think, with promo/NFR versions down in the $400-500 range.
I'm going to guess $600 for the retail software. We'll see how close I was when it really ships.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Huh, I've set up lots of 2003 servers as file and web servers with no issues.
.conf files is easy for Apache and Samba, but no easier than the windows GUI settings.
My windows boxes don't become unstable after weeks of running.
If you only had the 2nd problem, I would have guessed you had a bad driver.
Since you also had the first problem, my guess is you are just clueless.
Editing some
Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.
I haven't RTFA, but knowing what prices MS charges for their products, why would anyone buy into it... I can't see how a home server from MS would be any less complicated than setting up a Redhat Linux server, especially when Redhat has gui's for just about configuring everything... Plus Redhat, oh sorry, Fedora, is free. Just wondering out loud here.
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
Waht if I think I need 0 disks?
Do any other NAS type boxes work with the 360? Thats the one thing that seemed unique about WHS was that you could use it to store media for the 360.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
Yep. That's it. Attack the guy's competency. Sounds like another community, not the famously n00b-friendly Windows one....
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't work. W2003 is not your typical desktop OS. I'm sorry you blew four figures on an OS that you couldn't figure out.
As for stability, I've had an XP Pro machine doing file and print services for four years straight except for occasional sp upgrades and patch restarts - say once every month or two. It has never crashed (BSOD), and runs 24/7 otherwise, though its really only loaded during the workday, "serving" 3 client machines.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.
And Macs work great if you are! ; )
This guy's the limit!
Assuming you didn't try to set it up to do a domain, here are some quick tips... and I can't believe someone modded you insightful, either. Good heavens.
1. To share files on Windows Server 2003 in a workgroup environment, you have two choices. You can either create a login for each person that will access them on the server or you can set the NTFS permissions to "Everybody->Read" on your shares. Make sure that share permissions are "Everybody->Full Access" - this actually isn't a security hole since Windows Server 2003 grants the least permissions it can based on what you give it, which means it'll run off NTFS permissions instead, which are far more flexible. This will also give you one place to look for permissions issues, instead of trying to guess how NTFS and share permissions are working together that day.
2. You probably didn't set your IIS page to allow anonymous access. This is as easy as right-clicking on the web site in IIS, choosing "Properties", then going to "Directory Security", clicking the first "Edit" button at the top, and then checking the "Enable anonymous logon" box.
I'm not a big fan of Windows, but it's not THAT difficult. That's not to say you didn't do better by going with Samba and Apache, either.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-gen eralization.html
1973 called. It wants its system interconnectivity dilemmas back.
So now since MS is going to spend a ton of money on marketing the idea of home users running file servers, I think this is a perfect opportunity for the likes of Dell and HP to sell their own, less expensive HomeNAS. They take a NAS device, that they already make for the enterprise, throw on a lightweight Linux. Throw on some Samba, Apache, etc. Write some easy to use "Wizards" to make it really easy for the normal Windows user to connect their PC's, upload files, and do things like schedule backups, and you have a much lower cost solution than the likes of Microsoft. On top of that, it's more secure, more stable, and the software is OSS!
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
You sir are an idiot. I've set up a file/print/web server on Windows 2003 and had no trouble whatsoever. IIS works just for hosting my portfolio site and all the computers can access the file/print server wirelessly. Once I get my XPS M2010 (waiting on Vista) I'll be able to connect my XBOX 360 to the mix as a MC extender and store all the TV shows on the server. I had no trouble setting up the latter with the beta of Vista Ultimate. By the way, I'm just a graphic designer and was able to to all this with no problems whatsoever and no CS degree or certifications required.
Had a home server for years. It used to run Fedora, but I upgraded to Solaris 10.
Why is it that Microsoft is always five years behind the times?
There is nothing, repeat nothing in Vista that locks down non-DRM content, you can rip CDs and DVDs with the same tools you used in XP and Vista does nothing to them. How long will mindless knee-jerk anti-MS folks continue to push this BS.
Here's a challenge, find one example of Vista applying DRM to non-DRMed content, come on, just one example!!!!
Oh shutup. Windows has never been difficult in allowing it to share data.
At the MOST you have to say "Yes, I know it's dangerous to share my pr0n". Click Yes and you're sharing.
Drop the OSS fanboy attitude.
Setting up a windows server is about as straight forward as you can get. Setting up a linux anything on the other hand is a complete crapshoot that works only when the planets are in alignment with all the hardware you have. I gave up my last attempt after spending days trying to get any of the network adapters (both wired and wireless) I had working in linux.
Like others have said: This is Microsofts fault how?
IIS isn't that difficult. Changing the setting from integrated windows security is, seriously, 2 or 3 clicks from the control panel.
And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.
And no, it's not "idiot proof" but you're talking about a SERVER PRODUCT. A standard license runs for $999. It's meant for PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, it's NOT meant for the home. Thus, WHS.
And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot (assuming you did buy the license).
So what you're really saying is that your XP Pro machine has been running solid for a month or two.
One thing's for sure. Servers are amongst the most interesting pieces of hardware you can hijack. They run 24/7, they usually have a good bandwidth (ok, not necessarily so for home servers) and they usually also have lots of storage space.
The target audience for those server systems are home users. Who not necessarily have any clue when it comes to security. Actually, it is quite likely that the people buying this kind of system will not have a lot of knowledge in the IT area. And of security.
The systems will also be very similar, if not identical. Unlike Linux boxes, which can almost never be hijacked cookie-cutter style, this would open the venue for boxes which are most likely easier to hack than current implementations of servers.
Not necessarily because MS does a worse job than OSS developers. But it's just like with the other MS systems. The possible gain from a working exploit is incredible, so the effort will match it. And twice so if you can rely on the system running 24/7 and having lots of storage.
I predict a completely new kind of problem for the 'net.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
dispenses with the complexities of most Windows Server versions and provides the core storage, sharing, and remote access functionality that digital media and home networking enthusiasts require
They sure used a lot of words to say:
"stripped everything except DRM services"
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
In evaluating the comment, don't we need to know how competent the guy is?
With this home server coupled to what I know about Vista, how it works, and it's licensing stipulations, I have arrived at a conclusion as to what Microsoft wants you to think in regards to computer hardware and it's use in the future.
Knowing that Vista's licensing currently allows limited hardware alterations before requiring a new license, this server is almost a necessity. It seems to me that Microsoft wishes to alter the traditional role of the Personal Computer from it's current form, an upgradeable freely chosen conglomeration of hardware designed to function as a unit, user customizable based on what the user deems is necessary or desirable to a format where content is stored on this home server, and fed to your new box that is practically disposable. This server coupled with Vista is in my opinion what Microsoft thinks the world should have, rather than an all powerful PC with it's potential for upgrades. It looks like they want to close the gap between what a game console and a PC is to the home user. If they could do this I can imagine many marketing positives in this regard. Likely the biggest is a single product line gets all new engineering time.
That said, this might be a positive thing in the future, if hardware technology is released at a faster and faster rate, it may be a good thing to create a nearly disposable PC, except for the environmental concerns (which isn't a small issue).
I have many non-hardware-enthusiast friends who usually buy a cheaper big name PC with the thought that within a year or two they can upgrade to an exponentially better PC for similar money or less, in the end saving likely 50% of buying that real smoking PC the first time around. It works for them, and they always have a newer PC.
109 97 116 116
Its Bill's old tried and true: "you must be a luddite if you can't operate X"
Until I can ssh into a command line shell on an out-of-the-box windows machine and get something done, it is useless to me. Windows is a toy operating system designed to showcase multimedia single-user applications (aside from its real purpose to generate revenue for MS). Interoperability and POSIX OS compliancy is a joke - it only really networks well with itself. Sure you can share files between other windows boxes, but you can't easily share cpu resources - and the FOSS community had to come up with a solution (Samba) before you could share files from a Windows box on a hetrogenous network.
Someone could make Windows useful - on par with linux/unix - but I doubt that will come from Redmond. They have no interest in doing so. Then again, with the unrealistic pricetag, interoperability issues and moby failures (security, OS bugs, and spy/disable-ware), why would anyone put anything mission critical on a Windows platform anyway?
Windows is snake oil. I said it when I loaded 3.1, I continue to say that today, and nothing out of Redmond has proven me wrong.
I've got a Mac Mini at home that's set up as a fax server, a fileserver with an external USB 2.0 hard drive, a print server, a web server, and an ssh portal. Setting it up was ridiculously easy: - One click to enable printer sharing. - One click to enable file sharing - A few clicks and keystrokes to make non-admin accounts and home folders for my wife and I Then I did a couple slightly geeky things like partition the external drive and write a cron job to rsync to my web host nightly that most people wouldn't be doing, but the Mac Mini, even without a special "server" OS, is a great way to get a cheap, reliable, Unix-based server. Heck, I've even got mine running as a development server with PHP/MySQL and RoR (thanks to Locomotive). And to make me feel less guilty about having a computer running 24/7, it's running the ClimatePrediction.net BOINC project. In the future, when I get an iTV, I'm definitely going to be having iTunes running in both of our separate user accounts so that we can stream our stuff to our TV. Lately I've been hooking my Powerbook up to our TV using S-Video and the headphone jack. The only problem I can see using iTV is videos I acquire through, *ahem*, alternative distribution methods will require some conversion before they're viewable. However, season passes to shows through the iTunes music store means I can finally, FINALLY, tell Comcast where they can put their $70/month internet access. From what I've read about the Windows Home Server, it doesn't give me much more capability than my Mini, other than it can be installed in tower enclosures
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
What is the difference between windows home server and a windows xp pro machine with sp2 with shares and permissions setup on it or windows vista home premium with media center or windows media center 2005?
People seem to focus on what this competes with only on the software side (i.e. apache, samba, etc). In the long run windows home server will compete much more with things like "my space", "iblogger", and google ... it will give MS the foothold they need to do things google can't do with their search technology ... and allow some really cool things myspace etc could never compete with.
MS gave those windows laptops away for a reason ... it's not becuase the care about apache, samba, etc ... they want to take over blog-land!
Nevermind. This windows home server is windows 2003 with a much easier interface. It basically makes serving things out and general server stuff much easier. It can take automatic backups of all the pcs on the network (i mean full images), gets rid of drive letters and stuff liek that. IT has a whole bunch of new "microsoft technologies" . But its basically a much easier and non comp geek friendly server.wich doubles as a computer backup solution.
Anyone want to tell me why Linux isn't already up to the task?
And I imagine "ease of use" is one, but are there any other reasons, assuming I refuse to use DRM which hasn't been thoroughly cracked (DVDs)?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The Linux box has now run for two years, and no issues.
I know, your home server has been very stable and reliable and for the most part of these two years, I have tunneled my hacking attacks through it. Keep up the good work!
My experience, and that of many others, does not line up with yours.
This has been done millions of times now. It works. We're not talking NT4 here.
The hour for that kind of baseless FUD is well past. 8 years ago you would have had a point, but you've missed a few boats since.
Further, it is complete bullshit that someone who can't even get a windows 2003 server up and running with basic file sharing and web services would have an easy time setting up Mandrake, Samba and Apache.
I'm sorry, but your FUD is showing through loud and clear.
No Comment.
This is beefed up network storage. ITs more like a nas device then a server. This will have no monitor conenctions or keyboard ports. People read the link paul thurrott explains the whole thing on his site. Its sounds interesting. especially for people who know nothing about computers.
This is a hobby for some people?
He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
A. "I have used windows for many years, including setting up networks"
B. Flagged as "Insightful"
Sorry dude but if you say you have "set up many windows networks" I have to wonder if you are full of shit. My home network server runs WINS, DNS, DHCP, HTTP (.NET and PHP), SQL Server, MySQL, ISA, Active Directory and a DFS and the only time I have to reboot is when I decide to run a Windows Update, it has never just gone down unless I made it go down. This all on a 1.8ghz, 1gb ram on Windows 2003 Standard. Oh yeah I have had no training in Windows Networking (a developer) and this is the only Windows Network I have set up. All this based on reading stuff off the internet when I got stuck.
If I had moderator points I would have flagged you as a troll since that's all you are doing. I would assume that people have flagged this comment as insightful because you mentioned how bad Windows was and how good Linux is without realizing what you said didn't make any sense.
Not to me anyway.
been doing this for about 5 years now, using old pc's and various flavors of linux...
I have setup a Windows 2003 server as a file server with no problems. Each person only has access to their files.
You know, setting up a Linux server can sometimes be a real pain in the neck too. I have some experience with Linux (helped set up a couple servers, been using it for years on all my computers,etc.), and I can assure you that I've seen some freaky stuff that got me scratching my head... Like the time all I wasn't able to access any directory because the site admin's script didn't get rid of some control characters that ended up messing up the /etc/passwd file read bad.
Or when the SAMBA team "updated" their software and changed the way groups are handled, which is why I'm still running FC5 on my server at home.
Compare what you have to do to set up Apache (edit the config file manually,etc.) to what you *should* have done to solve your problem on Windows, and you'll see that ease of use is not what's making most people use Linux.
And when the crappy eMachines PC you bought for $299 dies, what happens to your data? What about those backups... oh yeah, there aren't any.
This type of niche is best filled by an appliance, with real HW. Wait, that means it will cost money, which puts it out of the niche market.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Then you're an idiot. Fileserver? No need to do anything at all! It's always there by default. In explorer just type \\servername\sharename (or \\computername\\c$ and such to use the administrative shares which are already there). Want more? Create the new shares where you want 'em (with the permissions you please), and of course make sure they have the required NTFS permissions too. The *only* thing I can imagine possibly getting in the way is a firewall.
Web server hard? Go to add/remove programs -> windows components -> Internet Information Server. Done! How hard was that? Need to change something? Go in MMC under IIS manager, and change stuff to suit your needs.
In many years of IT work, I've never seen either fail to work out of the box (or after selecting IIS in add/remove programs), not even once. And we've never had stability problems with this. Sounds like the usual Win9x-era BSOD FUD.
I can't say my install experience of just apache was nearly as smooth. Services not installed by default (didn't even know linux had services), ports not open, server not started, nothing configured, no idea where the web server's root directory/folder was at (htdocs or whatever you want to call it) - not like the installer tells you (and seemingly it changes from a distro to another), had a VERY hard time to get to the default page in firefox (apache just wouldn't serve the default page for reasons I couldn't figure out). Had to google for guides and stuff. It was a nightmare. I don't believe anyone with no experience with linux could just pick it up like that on the first attempt, configure it all properly (and have it all properly secured), stable and all. Tons of the stuff I read made no sense to me (things like the "wheel group" under BSD, or chmod this some number or whatever). I wouldn't even know where to start for samba, setting permissions, creating shares and such. I'd have to find some really good tutorials, take a course, or find some very good books and read for a while. And I'd doubt my work a lot - just might get hacked for not securing something right.
In other news, an incompetent idiot calls others crazy for picking something he doesn't understand but works fine for everybody else...
And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.
The default server role screens that come up lead you away from the easy way to accomplish many tasks. They also changed basic things about how the windows UI and the windows Server UI work in 2003 to make it sufficiently confusing for people who have basic experience with the older windows server products. The "Manage your Server" interface from 2000 is still there, for example, but "My Computer" is hidden by default, and the control panel is different, so it isn't easy to find the old way.
Personally, I much prefer configuring a Debian Linux server to a W2k3 server. Sure, it's not all graphical, but it's straightforward with basic knowledge, and hasn't changed for years. Plus it takes about 2 minutes to get to the point where I'm back in a comfy office chair doing the setup compared to the good 30 minutes standing in front of a rack for w2k3 before you can get a remote desktop.
Neither way is sufficient for a home user. If Microsoft doesn't fix their confusing settings UIs, I doubt they'll sell many of these home server things. The wizards had best be much easier than the ones in W2k3 also, because they're confusing as hell if you don't know what you're doing now.
And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot
Incidentally, when you buy Server 2003, it's usually pre-installed on a server, and it comes with no free tech support whatsoever. I agree though. If you just dropped some cash on a non-refundable product, you wouldn't toss it in the bin, you'd figure it out. He probably pirated it.
Headrick said that they're seeing 15-19 TB of data stored in 300 GB or less of backup space
WHAT?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Yes, my server runs for a month or two without a single keystroke or mouse movement of management. If it weren't for the inherent need to restart the system (which takes all of 5 minutes when I decide I probably ought to install the updates), there's no reason to believe that it would even need to be restarted. We see no loss of use over those couple of months, and no advantage upon restart. For my purposes (file and print services), it has run without a single instance of required intervention on the OS for 4 years. This is not a five or six - nines machine, just as a home server is not. We have traffic 9-12 hours a day. I don't consider pressing "install updates, restart when complete" to be an onerous task to perform eight times a year.
But hey, if you've got a production server that can't handle being down for 0.008% of the time, maybe you're not really looking for a "simplified" server OS.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
512MB of RAM? for a server? weird stuff...
I'll have to agree with BillyG on this, I do find X very easy to use.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Funny I didn't even pick up a server version of windows. Ran Apache, PHP, and MySQL on Home Edition and anyone within my home network could view the web pages just fine.
Did someone say cake?
"In any event Microsoft opening up WHS for users to construct their own system after all; though I'd like to see the price of this OS release before making the jump."
Ponder the above sentence; perchance, tardily, comprehend it.
What has been working for me is Ubuntu Server. I have a nice mini-atx case with a P3 700MHz processor and 512MB of PC133 RAM and a 120 GB hard disk. The server runs very fast, and has been more than I have ever needed for my personal needs. I use it as a small file server that is also accessible via SFTP (allowing me to do some work-related R&D at home and transfer the files to and from the office), I put my wife's portfolio/resume up there for interviews, and so on. It works great, and has never been put under any kind of serious load. It also uses very little power, generates very little heat, and is whisper-quiet. Ubuntu 6.10 server allows me to set up a LAMP server *very* easily, and from there setting up my favorite CMS was also *very* easy.
What I want to know is, even if they "dumb-down" the server administration and (at least to some extent) security, how much else can they dumb-down for this? Does it come with a database server? The average home user would probably like to host a web site, but are they going to include a feature-rich CMS to do this? Probably not...
Time was, something like DLNA would be called impossibly bloated. Today whatever the CEO says is the word of God and bloat is suddenly good, immediately requiring the commitment of hundreds of college students to copy every bloated invention Micro* puts out.
DLNA is one of those horribly complex things that works when it works and fills an entire career of debugging when it doesn't work. It seems to have been originally a very simple way for anyone to get home networking but as more companies became involved, it evolved into an embedded, graphical version of Linux kernel config.
You can have multiple servers on the network, if you can get the permissions, security codes, version numbering, and network domains to work. Then there's the issue of file format matching.
He had no experience with servers, Windows or Linux, and in fact no Linux experience at all. But when he tried to set up a simple server, it turned out that it was much easier to do with Linux. Windows servers should be easy to use. Combine that with LAMP's reputation for being more powerful and more secure than any Microsoft platforms, and you have to wonder who in their right mind would chose to use a Windows server. Windows servers should be easy to use.
Apache has the majority of the web server market. It is very popular amongst large corporations, and apparently it is not that hard for newbies to use. That leaves Microsoft with a tenuous middle ground, if anything.
Single Instance Storage, look it up.
- get music on my 40 GB iPod (which is usually full to capacity)
- share the music with a mac
I used to keep my media on a headless box filled with hard drives and controlled remotely on the network, but the network lag made it difficult to manage the music library. If I could run a client program on the box that would expose a shared iTunes library and sync with the iPod, I'd be sold. Well, I might need to be able to hack Windows Media Connect to get it to support other video codecs too.I haven't seen anything about the ability to install software on it, and the article suggests it doesn't have USB ports (while the screen shot shows an external hard drive in the list of drives). I don't believe MS would add any special features to support iPod, especially now that they are pushing the Zune, but I can't see them getting too far selling simplicity of a media server without some type of support for the most widespread portable media player on the market. Without extensibility, this device is just a backup solution / file server. Of course, that may be enough.
I think you are off on a factor of 2 with the price; the lowest I can find is $85 with most places around $100.
But a neat box nonetheless. I suspect that it's probably worth the cost even if you have an old PC kicking around, just because of the reduced power consumption over the system's lifespan.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part and 2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.
Not to mention, you can click a checkbox on it and it never gets displayed again.
And you're right, "My Computer" is hidden. In fact, the screen is blank of all icons except the Recycle Bin. Windows XP is the same way. Adding these icons is pretty simple, but in any event the start menu was still there.
If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.
It comes with Aero 3D hardware accelerated desktop too?
It comes with the annoying Clipper too?
"requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more", lol, requires a 128 mb graphics memory too?
I can run a Linux box with a 386 or 486 at like 66 MHz and 16 mb RAM.
My friend used to run Apache webserver and an FTP on a 486, it worked great.
I know it sounds weird guys, but he's true...
Seeing as most of the computers in a regular household is Windows based, a WHS would be able to provide the clients with a (probably) more transparent and user friendly way of setting the "digital home" up.
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
My filesever has 64MB RAM. I found it on the street, it was perfect. I purchased some disks and a controller card.
Serves files, streams video/music, remote access, I'm happy.
"And of course using the term 'uneducated Slashbots' really isn't going to garner you any favors around here...ahh, but you knew that already didn't you?"
And "unwashed masses" is going to do any better out there? Let me know when the double-standard is lifted.
I was lucky to be able to sell mine on ebay for $50. Let some other poor sucker deal with the headaches of that piece of crap.
Microsoft does some incredibly stupid things, for no good reason...
.CAB file on the hard drive, and add a load of registry entries that basically enables all 4 of them.
The most major and glaring idiocy in Windows is hard disk controller drivers. For this reason alone, I wouldn't ever suggest using Windows as a server (or on ANY type of system that is remotely important in any way).
If you take the hard drive out of one machine (perhaps after it has become a smoldering pile of metal and circuit boards) and install it in different system, there's an extremely good chance Windows NT3.1/NT3.5/NT4.0/2000/XP/2003/Vista/etc. will BSOD. It will crash and burn before you can even boot into safe mode.
You see, for some reason, Windows has a different, incompatible driver for every different brand of controller. For IDE/SATA-based systems, there are basically 4 (VIA, Intel, etc.). Microsoft's only official solution to this problem is for you to buy exactly the same hardware again.
To their credit, they now have an unofficial and unsupported fix... and it only took them a little more than a decade from the onset... Now that's a speedy response!
The solution is to basically extract all the drivers from a
There are a few surprising things about this. First is how screwed you are if you don't know about this BEFORE your machine turns to mud, as you can't boot-up your system in order to add the necessary registry entries to begin with. Thanks to unofficial options like Bart'sPE and it's remote registry editor, you can spend a couple hours sorting out the mess, locating keys, copying, editing, and finally modifying the reg files so they can be added to the non-running system. EVENTUALLY, if you know enough about what you're doing, you can get it to work, and finally be able to boot-up your system.
The second surprising thing about this is that the problem is extremely serious, fixing it after-the-fact is extremely difficult even now, (it was borderline impossible before BartPE), yet the fix is minor and has no negative effects, and still, in the past decade of NT systems with this problem, Microsoft has NEVER made this behavior the default. The files and information are all already on the hard drive of every Windows system installed, the OS simply just won't consider using them.
For some reason Microsoft WANTS Windows to crash when you change the hard disk controller. ALL other hardware changes will be detected by the system, and proper drivers automatically installed by (recent versions of) Windows.
The number of registry fixes I add to any fresh Windows system to avoid bugs, stupid behaviors, bad defaults, and show-stoppers like this on, is absolutely staggering.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
So.. you have to actually be an idiot to use a Mac. Makes sense and explains why I don't like using them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
How does it handles patches and updates? Does it require a reboot of the whole system?
1. I find it offensive, and I think it says more about you than me, that you suggest that the copy was pirated. It was not.
2. Of course it is easy to share folders. However, if you have some computers with Windows for workgroups. some with security domains etc, you can *not* just share folders.
3. IIS is easy to set up and run if you dont need any features. Try to set up IIS with multiple domain names, and right security levels for the different parts. Try to do simple load balancing. Try to do simple packet mangling. Or rewrite requested URLs on the fly.
I tried this in good faith, and just gave up on Win. If you know how to do this, I would like to try again.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Not very competent at setting up web servers apparently. Maybe just impatient.
Did however write an IP stack, file servers, network boot software etc in use in most large router on the net.
Did set up a global network for ATT, and some national networks.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I've been using it for years. I think I started when it was on version 4, at the time, a free 486 w/12 MB of RAM did file, print, email, and web serving. OK, it was too slow for serving dynamic webpages, but it did a great job otherwise.
For the last year or so, I've been running SME6 on a Pentium 166MMX w/128MB of RAM. It flies! Plenty fast enough to saturate a 100Mbit network.
I wouldn't recommend it to "regular" folks though -- among other things, backups are a pain.
Windows is becoming as hellishly difficult to develop for as Linux. There are just so many versions, with so many different security settings, and so many features that are present or not present that it is rapidly becoming a QA nightmare. I thought it bad enough on XP + Server 2003. Vista and Server 2003 are going to make some QA tester's heads pop.
about the new M$ acronym. WHS for Brits stands for WH Smith, a big office_supplies/bookstore in the UK. On to more confusion this side of the pond.. /coralsaw
<before>now</before>
thought i got that exact product running at home.... oh wait its ubuntu not M$
"1. I find it offensive, and I think it says more about you than me, that you suggest that the copy was pirated. It was not." So you went out and purchased a $999 license plus the appropriate number of CALs and you just gave up and installed the free linux solution? Forgive me if I say you're full of it.
"2. Of course it is easy to share folders. However, if you have some computers with Windows for workgroups. some with security domains etc, you can *not* just share folders." Let me get this straight: You're running a domain controller in your home? An active directory implementation? So you could figure out AD but not how to share folders with it? And even if you have 1 PC on a domain (say, a laptop that you bring home from work) and the rest of your PCs on a workgroup, all you need to do is share folders. Period. The only caveat is going into the user management console, create a local account, and use that account to log in from client PCs. And by the way, "windows for workgroups" hasn't been around since 1993. I think you meant that some PCs were part of a workgroup, no?
IIS is easy to set up and run if you dont need any features. Try to set up IIS with multiple domain names, and right security levels for the different parts. Try to do simple load balancing. Try to do simple packet mangling. Or rewrite requested URLs on the fly
Uhh... This is still pretty easy. Setting up multiple domains with their individual settings is done thru the very first IIS management dialog. You don't even need to change tabs.
Load balancing is actually pretty easy in IIS6. Using Microsoft DFS for data sync among the nodes, it's pretty simple to setup basic round-robin load balancing.
And URL rewriting isn't even supported by IIS directly. You have to use an ISAPI filter. You can write your own, or use one of the dozens of free, downloadable rewriters like Op_URL or IIS Rewrite.
And let me get this straight: You needed web server load balancing & URL rewriting on your _HOME SERVER_?
Oh please........
That's like saying "This cell phone will work anywhere -- as long as it's on Cingular".
The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part
I do this stuff all the time, and personally I find that for many tasks the roles wizard is obtuse. I prefer to set things up without it.
2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.
I guess I wouldn't argue with that... My comment was more of a pointless rant, really.
If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.
Insert "Windows" in there, and I'll go along, otherwise I think that's absurd. If you're not familiar with windows servers, why would you think to right click, much less to do that to set up file services? It doesn't work like that on any other OS. Additionally, everybody needs to start somewhere.
I think you're full of it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One difference, learning how to use the computer has a practical advantage. Just like learning how to use the car.