I would think a company using Citrix desktops would not be considered a small business. If they can afford those, they can afford a failover server. Nothing you've said requires a second domain. You just are biased on the Linux side, and don't know how to properly use Windows.
Actually, in a lot of 10-or-less person businesses, everyone needs to access almost every file, with a possible exception of the financial books. So having two users named "employee" and "president" (or something similar) isn't such a horrible plan. If you create multiple users, you'll still have to give each one access to almost all of the files; so if a single password leaks, you'll have the same problem.
The only advantage of having a separate username for all employees (assuming you're not running a mail/calendar server) is traceability, but if you trust your employees, that's not too much of an issue really.
I imagine SOX would dictate that some traceablity other than 'someone in the company' changed the file. Even if it doesn't apply, I would again think figuring out who changed what is a good thing.
You totally ignore the maintence part too; the good idea of pushing all updates to the computer rather than installing them one at a time.
You seem to think data is worth less than the hardware too. That's typically not the case in this day and age.
What does the hardware have to do with this new system? Just because the domain controller goes down does not mean your software will magically stop working. The fact that the system has become unreliable is not a problem with SBS; its a problem with maintence, which there seems to be none.
FWIW, if the company is really that dependant on this SBS server, does it matter if your application still works when the controller goes down? Not likely..
think about it another way. If you are a painter having just completed your masterpiece [abcgallery.com] stretching across a huge canvas, would you be happy if someone just took a detail [candysangels.com] from it and refused to see the whole work?
But songs are regularly chopped up. They each have their own start and end; a painting isn't a collection of other paintings which CAN be seperated. Its ONE piece of art. Most view ONE song as art, if they view it as art at all.
If these bands are so worried about their 'artistic vision' being chopped, why do they not force the radio stations to play every track in order? They don't; the hit songs get played, some other songs may never be played.
Except that most don't care about whatever the musican has to say. They just want a cool song to listen to, forget about, and move on to something. At worse, they want some background noise for their car ride. Music isn't something most sit around to do and concentrate on. Its on while they're doing something else.
Yes but typically you have one password shared by everyone. Not very good from a security standpoint. It costs more to maintain all the computers without a domain.
This is your problem, not a problem with SBS, which clearly states that you can't have more than one domain, you can't have domain trusts, etc. Why on earth you think a second domain is needed is beyond me..
Why not just make the samba a member of the domain and be done with it? The vendor app should install just fine there.
SBS is targeted at those that DON'T want more than on server. Other than load, why exactly does it matter where the lnvu software runs?
The number of businesses which can live with the SBS restrictions seem to be growing, as they likely wouldn't have any kind of integrated solution at all. If the company needs more, its likely the small business isn't very small anymore, and outgrowing the target audience for SBS. If that's the case, there's a clear migration path from SBS to full Server 2003.
So again, its not a problem with SBS, its your problem.
Then you have that lovely lack of security on any fileshares you may have. You know, since you no longer have a central security database. Oh, and anyone can just plug in and access the files. Also, you have to visit every machine; not much time when you only have 5, but its still easier just to be able to push the updates to all computers at once.
A single domain for a small business is certainly not overkill.
Maybe you should learn to read before you post. You know, the part where I said it was just the discs that I bought. Which isn't the total truth; that $400 includes the base 5 CALs as well.
Um, what exactly are you getting at. I already do pay for both my water and my oil. Where do you live that you pay a flat fee no matter how much water you use? No state I've ever lived in has such a scheme.
You forget the masssive subsidies which keep food prices from dropping lower than they already are. With biofuel, these subsidies can be halted, which means tax payers could keep more, which means we have more resources to put else where, which presumably would lead to more jobs.
Perhaps you should stick to your core competnences, instead of messing with software you don't understand. The server can join the domain, there's no limitations on that (unless you're trying to make it the 'primary' domain server). Small businesses are the ones most likely NOT to need domain trusts or more than one forest.
I guess you never heard of froogle or price grabber huh? I got my SBS 2003 with Premium Technologies (Sql Server, ISA, etc) for $400 as well; just discs, no manuals or anything like that. This is just to run my home network though.
Um, Sql Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005, Windows Server 2003 R2 editions (pretty recent, since.Net 2.0 comes pre-installed on them), just to name a few. Then there's Office 2007 due out real soon now, IE7, Vista.
Lets not forget the host of other software; Money 2006, Money 2007, etc etc. Not nearly as large as OSes, but likely not insignifcant either. Oh, and the Xbox 360.
Did you even read what I said? Of course MS would be finished if they misrepresented the contents of a critical update that blatantly. Even without lawsuits, the backlash from their customers would be incredible, and nowhere do I dispute this. But that doesn't change the fact that the power exists, and it could be used.
You need to read what I said, and then work on your critical thinking skills. By your own admision, MS would be finished using the power. So they won't, ever. Just having the power means jack shit if you can't ever use it without destroying yourself... which is why we haven't had a nuclear war yet.. the former USSR and US knew if they used their power, they'd be destroyed.. so they never did.
And the reality is that if you use Microsoft products, you give Microsoft this power (by installing their opaque binary updates), or your computer is hacked tomorrow. Not much of a "choice". Microsoft is certainly not unique in this regard, they are simply the widest-deployed.
Bullshit. You just have a blind hatred of MS. Its clear from this statement. You know what's in the binary before you install it, you choose to install the update. You gave them power, but power they can never use. So its meaningless. As far as being hacked goes, last I checked no OS was bullet proof, and I fail to see how you getting your workstation hacked has anything to do with MS shutting off your computer. Grow up already.
Well, think back before Auguest 2003. When was the last time we had an outage like that? I don't remember one, and I've lived my whole life near Philadelphia. FWIW, my employer only lost power for the afernoon. We were working the next day again.
At any rate, as long as you shut of your server, I'd think the UPS would provide power for a while.. a router + cable modem don't require huge amounts of electricity. The only trouble would be your cable co losing power.. but at least you've done all you could.
It's not FUD, it's a fact. You can choose not to install critical updates, but if you don't your security is forfeit. You may have declined WGA, but did you decline the patches for the latest remote code execution exploits?
The FACT is that MS details exactly what each critial update is doing. Not disclosing could open themselves up to lawsuits.
Furthermore, whether or not you choose to install critical updates, there are enough people who do to give Microsoft control over a significant fraction of the world economy at the push of a button. I'm not insinuating that Microsoft would ever be stupid enough to use that power themselves, as it would of course be instant corporate suicide. But the power exists.
Well that's the choice they make, isn't it? The notion that 'MS has total control over my 'puter!' is just silly. They only have that control if you choose to give it to them.
Of course plenty of men and women get loaded together and rapes don't occur. That is because most men are not rapists. There is never an excuse for rape. However, it is a very good idea to not place yourself in a situation where you can be victimized.
If agree that most men at a bar are not rapists, then how is dressing differently and not getting drunk going to help in that situation? It won't, since dress has no effect, and most men won't rape anyone anyway. Its useless advice in this case, since it won't really affect the changes of being raped at all.
I fail to see how pointing this out is blaming the victim. When I was a teenager, all the girls were warned not to help out the nice guy with the cast on his arm load his boat onto his Volkswagen. I don't recall anyone blaming Ted Bundy's victims for his crimes.
I'm not sure how much you've been following this thread, but original statement was 'if you get attacked, its your fault for not finding another way out of the situation / putting yourself in the situtation.' I'm not against avoiding risk; its the thought that if you don't, and someone else attacks you, it becomes partially your fault. That was the orginal thought that spawed this thread, and the reason the OP said that his punishes BOTH his kids, even if one of them did nothing except get beat up.
Your argument is lame. The parent should do more research into the game's rating (or lack thereof) and not rely on Walmart to do their parenting for them. Would you just assume that candy given at Halloween is safe?
I'm sure the police here would be much more effective without having to ever get warrants at all. Our government isn't about making governments job easier, our government is founded on the idea that its SUPPOSED to be crippled, because organized abuse of power is much more harmful than any terrorist plot.
Freedom is more important than life itself, which is why our founders and those that followed fought a war. I'm sure you'd be safe from terrorists in the old Soviet Union as well. You're replacing one threat (terrorist) with an even bigger one (uncontrolled government).
If you're worried about preventing deaths, why not crusade against cars? Car accidents cause much more death than any terrorist. Indeed, you're more likely to die of heart disease than a terrorists bomb.
How you can call the judge an idiot is beyond me; the government ADMITTED THEY WERE TAPPING!! It wasn't just her feeling, they said loud and clear "Yes, we are conducting massive un-warranted wiretaps."
Dude, learn to think, worry about things that actually have a good chance of killing you, like cancer and heart disease.
Ahh, refreshing that we can have more Windows FUD on a thread about DVRs. You choose whether or not to install critical updates. Like that WGAN update, I unselected it, and told it not to ask me again.
Violation of privacy, sure, but who ever said you are guarenteed privacy communicating on public lines to a foreign country?
The lines are private, as in no one is legally allowed to listen to the conversation without a warrant. Its clear from the decisions when the network was being built that a phone call is to be treated as the equivlent of talking to someone in the same room; that fact that you call outside the US doesn't change this. A warrant is required.
Yes, Iraq is 437,072 SQ KM. The US is 9,631,418 sq km, for comparison. There's a lot more to watch in the US, plus our government kindly tells us how far we can zoom in and still release pictures. Spy satilites can see much more, and in Iraq have to watch a MUCH smaller area. (Yes, our government DOES have sats. that can see the licence plate on your car).
I know how satilites works; there are two I use to get a radio signal, yet they are always over the US only.. hmm..
At any rate, the US isn't the only nation with sats. The French spy sat. might not be looking at Iraq right now, but the Russian one just might be.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think a company using Citrix desktops would not be considered a small business. If they can afford those, they can afford a failover server. Nothing you've said requires a second domain. You just are biased on the Linux side, and don't know how to properly use Windows.
I imagine SOX would dictate that some traceablity other than 'someone in the company' changed the file. Even if it doesn't apply, I would again think figuring out who changed what is a good thing.
You totally ignore the maintence part too; the good idea of pushing all updates to the computer rather than installing them one at a time.
You seem to think data is worth less than the hardware too. That's typically not the case in this day and age.
What does the hardware have to do with this new system? Just because the domain controller goes down does not mean your software will magically stop working. The fact that the system has become unreliable is not a problem with SBS; its a problem with maintence, which there seems to be none.
FWIW, if the company is really that dependant on this SBS server, does it matter if your application still works when the controller goes down? Not likely..
But songs are regularly chopped up. They each have their own start and end; a painting isn't a collection of other paintings which CAN be seperated. Its ONE piece of art. Most view ONE song as art, if they view it as art at all.
If these bands are so worried about their 'artistic vision' being chopped, why do they not force the radio stations to play every track in order? They don't; the hit songs get played, some other songs may never be played.
Except that most don't care about whatever the musican has to say. They just want a cool song to listen to, forget about, and move on to something. At worse, they want some background noise for their car ride. Music isn't something most sit around to do and concentrate on. Its on while they're doing something else.
Yes but typically you have one password shared by everyone. Not very good from a security standpoint. It costs more to maintain all the computers without a domain.
This is your problem, not a problem with SBS, which clearly states that you can't have more than one domain, you can't have domain trusts, etc. Why on earth you think a second domain is needed is beyond me..
Why not just make the samba a member of the domain and be done with it? The vendor app should install just fine there.
SBS is targeted at those that DON'T want more than on server. Other than load, why exactly does it matter where the lnvu software runs?
The number of businesses which can live with the SBS restrictions seem to be growing, as they likely wouldn't have any kind of integrated solution at all. If the company needs more, its likely the small business isn't very small anymore, and outgrowing the target audience for SBS. If that's the case, there's a clear migration path from SBS to full Server 2003.
So again, its not a problem with SBS, its your problem.
Then you have that lovely lack of security on any fileshares you may have. You know, since you no longer have a central security database. Oh, and anyone can just plug in and access the files. Also, you have to visit every machine; not much time when you only have 5, but its still easier just to be able to push the updates to all computers at once.
A single domain for a small business is certainly not overkill.
Maybe you should learn to read before you post. You know, the part where I said it was just the discs that I bought. Which isn't the total truth; that $400 includes the base 5 CALs as well.
You don't like it therefore it sucks. Yup, great argument there. I use it too, and its my favorite IDE.
Um, what exactly are you getting at. I already do pay for both my water and my oil. Where do you live that you pay a flat fee no matter how much water you use? No state I've ever lived in has such a scheme.
You forget the masssive subsidies which keep food prices from dropping lower than they already are. With biofuel, these subsidies can be halted, which means tax payers could keep more, which means we have more resources to put else where, which presumably would lead to more jobs.
Perhaps you should stick to your core competnences, instead of messing with software you don't understand. The server can join the domain, there's no limitations on that (unless you're trying to make it the 'primary' domain server). Small businesses are the ones most likely NOT to need domain trusts or more than one forest.
I guess you never heard of froogle or price grabber huh? I got my SBS 2003 with Premium Technologies (Sql Server, ISA, etc) for $400 as well; just discs, no manuals or anything like that. This is just to run my home network though.
Um, Sql Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005, Windows Server 2003 R2 editions (pretty recent, since .Net 2.0 comes pre-installed on them), just to name a few. Then there's Office 2007 due out real soon now, IE7, Vista.
Lets not forget the host of other software; Money 2006, Money 2007, etc etc. Not nearly as large as OSes, but likely not insignifcant either. Oh, and the Xbox 360.
Did you even read what I said? Of course MS would be finished if they misrepresented the contents of a critical update that blatantly. Even without lawsuits, the backlash from their customers would be incredible, and nowhere do I dispute this. But that doesn't change the fact that the power exists, and it could be used.
You need to read what I said, and then work on your critical thinking skills. By your own admision, MS would be finished using the power. So they won't, ever. Just having the power means jack shit if you can't ever use it without destroying yourself... which is why we haven't had a nuclear war yet.. the former USSR and US knew if they used their power, they'd be destroyed.. so they never did.
And the reality is that if you use Microsoft products, you give Microsoft this power (by installing their opaque binary updates), or your computer is hacked tomorrow. Not much of a "choice". Microsoft is certainly not unique in this regard, they are simply the widest-deployed.
Bullshit. You just have a blind hatred of MS. Its clear from this statement. You know what's in the binary before you install it, you choose to install the update. You gave them power, but power they can never use. So its meaningless. As far as being hacked goes, last I checked no OS was bullet proof, and I fail to see how you getting your workstation hacked has anything to do with MS shutting off your computer. Grow up already.
Well, think back before Auguest 2003. When was the last time we had an outage like that? I don't remember one, and I've lived my whole life near Philadelphia. FWIW, my employer only lost power for the afernoon. We were working the next day again.
At any rate, as long as you shut of your server, I'd think the UPS would provide power for a while.. a router + cable modem don't require huge amounts of electricity. The only trouble would be your cable co losing power.. but at least you've done all you could.
It's not FUD, it's a fact. You can choose not to install critical updates, but if you don't your security is forfeit. You may have declined WGA, but did you decline the patches for the latest remote code execution exploits?
The FACT is that MS details exactly what each critial update is doing. Not disclosing could open themselves up to lawsuits.
Furthermore, whether or not you choose to install critical updates, there are enough people who do to give Microsoft control over a significant fraction of the world economy at the push of a button. I'm not insinuating that Microsoft would ever be stupid enough to use that power themselves, as it would of course be instant corporate suicide. But the power exists.
Well that's the choice they make, isn't it? The notion that 'MS has total control over my 'puter!' is just silly. They only have that control if you choose to give it to them.
Of course plenty of men and women get loaded together and rapes don't occur. That is because most men are not rapists. There is never an excuse for rape. However, it is a very good idea to not place yourself in a situation where you can be victimized.
If agree that most men at a bar are not rapists, then how is dressing differently and not getting drunk going to help in that situation? It won't, since dress has no effect, and most men won't rape anyone anyway. Its useless advice in this case, since it won't really affect the changes of being raped at all.
I fail to see how pointing this out is blaming the victim. When I was a teenager, all the girls were warned not to help out the nice guy with the cast on his arm load his boat onto his Volkswagen. I don't recall anyone blaming Ted Bundy's victims for his crimes.
I'm not sure how much you've been following this thread, but original statement was 'if you get attacked, its your fault for not finding another way out of the situation / putting yourself in the situtation.' I'm not against avoiding risk; its the thought that if you don't, and someone else attacks you, it becomes partially your fault. That was the orginal thought that spawed this thread, and the reason the OP said that his punishes BOTH his kids, even if one of them did nothing except get beat up.
Your argument is lame. The parent should do more research into the game's rating (or lack thereof) and not rely on Walmart to do their parenting for them. Would you just assume that candy given at Halloween is safe?
I'm sure the police here would be much more effective without having to ever get warrants at all. Our government isn't about making governments job easier, our government is founded on the idea that its SUPPOSED to be crippled, because organized abuse of power is much more harmful than any terrorist plot.
Freedom is more important than life itself, which is why our founders and those that followed fought a war. I'm sure you'd be safe from terrorists in the old Soviet Union as well. You're replacing one threat (terrorist) with an even bigger one (uncontrolled government).
If you're worried about preventing deaths, why not crusade against cars? Car accidents cause much more death than any terrorist. Indeed, you're more likely to die of heart disease than a terrorists bomb.
How you can call the judge an idiot is beyond me; the government ADMITTED THEY WERE TAPPING!! It wasn't just her feeling, they said loud and clear "Yes, we are conducting massive un-warranted wiretaps."
Dude, learn to think, worry about things that actually have a good chance of killing you, like cancer and heart disease.
Ahh, refreshing that we can have more Windows FUD on a thread about DVRs. You choose whether or not to install critical updates. Like that WGAN update, I unselected it, and told it not to ask me again.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned meetings in a dark parking garage late at night?
Well, its not quite as easy when the informant is in another nation, and even attempting to travel to the US could be viewed as suspisious.
But look. As far as I can tell, nobody did anything illegal and nobody went to jail.
Wiretapping a US citizen without a warrant is illegal. Its trivially easy to get a warrant too.
It's not a violation of free speech because no speech is being suppressed.
Threat of being arrested for exercising speech is suppressing speech.
You have a lot more to fear from the government passing more laws than the government's efforts to enforce existing ones.
You have even more to fear from a government which doesn't follow its own laws.
Violation of privacy, sure, but who ever said you are guarenteed privacy communicating on public lines to a foreign country?
The lines are private, as in no one is legally allowed to listen to the conversation without a warrant. Its clear from the decisions when the network was being built that a phone call is to be treated as the equivlent of talking to someone in the same room; that fact that you call outside the US doesn't change this. A warrant is required.
Yes, Iraq is 437,072 SQ KM. The US is 9,631,418 sq km, for comparison. There's a lot more to watch in the US, plus our government kindly tells us how far we can zoom in and still release pictures. Spy satilites can see much more, and in Iraq have to watch a MUCH smaller area. (Yes, our government DOES have sats. that can see the licence plate on your car).
I know how satilites works; there are two I use to get a radio signal, yet they are always over the US only.. hmm..
At any rate, the US isn't the only nation with sats. The French spy sat. might not be looking at Iraq right now, but the Russian one just might be.