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."

Comments

Re:Anything like 2k3?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:whats it give us?

[paganizer]

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.

Re:whats it give us?

[Kjella]

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".