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 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
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 really like all the things WHS says it will do, because it means I can put my mind on other things. I'm just not really sure how good a job it does.
Many of the things in WHS are things I've been saying I was going to do for years. "I'm going to set up a SAN for all our documents and pictures," I keep saying, "and I'm going to schedule nightly rolling backups for all the PCs in the house." Well, I just don't have time. But if I could go out and pick up a $1500 PC, click a few buttons, and be finished... I'd do it.
My major concern is the same as yours: will it actually do what I want? If it does, great, but what if it doesn't? At least if I buy $1500 worth of commodity hardware and cobble up a home-grown solution, I can make it do SOMETHING. So the hardware+software option looks like it might be a bad deal; I think I'll do better if I buy my own components with an eye toward the manual solution, in the event that the software proves inadequate.
Hey, I may work at Microsoft, but I'm not stupid. Since when is v1.0 of anything trustworthy? Screw the party line, I want my shit to work. I'll give it a fair shake, but if it rolls over and plays dead, it can stay there.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
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.
Based on your language of "picked Samba and Apache", I am guessing you just didn't know what you were doing.
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 ~
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
Heh, In the days of real computers we had to beg, just to use Kermit!
This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
Somehow, I'm not convinced. Ubuntu is still Linux. You can never click a few buttons and be finished with Linux, or indeed with any UNIX derivative. After you spend enough time doing the recurring tweaks, you just stop noticing them, and think it's being finished.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it's likely enough to investigate.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
what a useless comment.
if you're a tech geek with server experience, of course this isn't the product for you, just like you won't be using some fully automated linux installation if you've been compiling your own kernels since the age of 12.
choo choo, it's the obvious train. last stop: you.
on another note
i'd probably like it. easy to set up, that's the way i want it
me and my thinkpad, sittin' in a tree, c-o-d-i-n-g...
Ubuntu is really not the solution someone like the GP was looking for. It's a nice general-purpose server distro, but it's certainly not plug and play. And with Ubuntu's server installation, you're not going to be clicking any buttons, because by default there's no GUI.
I think that the dedicated home-server distros like Smoothwall or maybe Coraid's NAS distro would be more what he's looking for. They're not much harder to set up than a typical broadband router -- you just install from a CD and then do your configuration from a web page -- but they provide a lot of functionality, because they run on commodity PC hardware and run Linux (or BSD, depending).
I think the point the GP is making, and it's a good one, is that not everyone wants something that requires any level of configuration. People want things that are plug and play. Luckily, I think the market has seen this and is producing products that try to fill it: VMWare's list of virtual appliances lists dozens of possible candidates.
To be frank, I think that virtual appliances are the future of Linux and its related (*NIX) OSes, as it goes more and more mainstream. Average users don't want to configure things, which is why we've seen a tendency towards pre-rolled desktop distros and LiveCDs. As people's home networks become more substantial, I think home servers are going to be the same way. The geeks and early adopters will configure their own gear, but average folks want something that can shove in an old PC's disk drive and set up once, then never think about again.
"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.
You do pay a plumber to do plumbing, or an electrician to setup electricity, or a mechanic to service your car, don't you? How is this different? Don't come with the "I can do this myself". Sure you can because you learned something about it. I can't do plumbing, I can't install electricity and I can't service my car, but I damn well can maintain my own Unix servers.
A plumber probably does his own plumbing, but pays a mechanic to service his car....
I'll still use my 360 for games, but won't by bullied into either converting all my video to WMV or purchasing a pre-built (since the OS is only OEM) XP Media Center box.
So instead you'll limit yourself to Apple's proprietry formats and having to purchase stuff from the iTunes Store ?
The mind boggles at how someone could think moving from Microsoft to *Apple*, would reduce "lock-in"...