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."
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).
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.
How appropriately named you are.
Microsoft thinks people:
1) Are increasingly moving toward a multi-PC household, with a desktop, laptop, and one or more computers for their children.
2) Are willing to spend money on a low-end server to accomodate the growing demand for shared files and applications.
3) Are looking for a way to get the most out of their WMC PC and their new XBOX 360 by streaming video.
Personally, I've been predicting this move since Media Center was announced. It's a logical step toward the "digital home" that we've heard so much about. WHS won't do anything near everything I want it to, but it's a step in the right direction. I'm hoping this will up the ante and get some good, easier-to-use OSS servers designed around home use.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.