Slashdot Mirror
Windows Server 2008 One Year On — Hit Or Miss?
magacious writes "Friday marked a year to the day since Microsoft launched Windows Server 2008, but did it have quite the impact the so-called software giant expected, or did it make more of a little squeak than a big bang? Before its arrival on 27 February 2008, it had been five long years since the release of the last major version of Windows Server. In a world that was moving on from simple client/server applications, and with server clouds on the horizon, Windows Server 2003 was looking long in the tooth. After a year of 'Vista' bashing, Microsoft needed its server project to be well received, just to relieve some pressure. After all, this time last year, the panacea of a well-received Windows 7 was still a long way off. So came the new approach: Windows Server 2008."
You can mock all you want, but I find decreasing the attack vector for an out of the box install a sensible approach. Something all server intallations should do, regardless of their creators image.
2k3 just works.
Does anyone have a compelling reason to use 2k8?
It's not useless, and in fact, it's the very first thing I thought to myself when I read the summary.
To further your own analogy, how seriously could you take an article that, in it's first paragraph dismissed the Nazi Germany as a something the world over-reacted to, and never should have taken seriously?
It sets a tone, that perhaps the author's views are badly colored.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Not costing you money (lots of it, as far as I can guess) is also relevant when choosing a file server, especially when you can get Linux distributions for free that have had the capability to do a "minimal install" for as long as they've existed. Surely even a very Windows-centric company can manage to meet their file serving needs using Samba.
I'm a busy admin too. Fortunately it doesn't take long at all to install Ubuntu Server, apt-get install likewise-open, and then type "domainjoin-cli join my.domain my-username" in the command line.
When you use being "busy" as an excuse for being ignorant of your options, you do your employer a disservice. That page you linked to hasn't had a major edit in two years or so, and it does not reflect the current best practices for setting up a simple Linux/Samba file server with AD integration. And no, no extra $$ is required for Ubuntu Server.
Wow, you must work for my employer; we also have a bunch of clueless, lazy admins who would rather stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA, sorry too busy" instead of keeping abreast of current technology and trying to find innovative ways to do more with less. Instead it's the guys who actually figure out ways to save their company money -- even though that isn't in their job description -- that will be moving up the value chain.
I don't disagree with what your saying, but I don't think thats the main reason people should go for a NT based solution.
I really, seriously think its the Trained Chimp factor.
If you set up a NT network properly, lock it down, and make sure someone with a clue looks in on it every once in a while, you can have a much lower pricepoint trained chimp fix the day to day problems; sure, there will be more day to day problems, but your chimps are a lot cheaper, and easier to find.
Also, I had a lot of problems trying to work with earlier versions of Samba; I imagine a lot of other people did, as well, it's going to take a while to get over the distrust.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
That page you linked to hasn't had a major edit in two years or so, and it does not reflect the current best practices for setting up a simple Linux/Samba file server with AD integration.
Then what the fsck is it doing on the samba.org site? Why isn't it removed if not updated? You know, this IS one of the real pitfalls of Linux, whenever you're looking for a guide you're likely to find something that's two years old and may or may not be valid. If documentation sucks, documentation re-verification on newer versions suck even more. I bet that's 99% of the reason Ubuntu got their code names down the way they do, if you search for "active directory hardy", "active directory intrepid", "active directory jaunty" you're much more likely to get relevant hits than "active directory ubuntu" or worse yet "active directory linux".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings