Q: Why is ANYONE paying for Windows servers for file sharing???

[FormerDittoHead]

Recently, a very small printing company I work for needed a replacement for a file server that was dieing on them.

Now, this can be a long story, because I started out trying linux file file server, but the program they were using didn't work with it. We then tried Windows, but the *same* errors occurred. Something kooky about their program, and the situation has yet to be resolved - I don't want to make up a false ending but that's not the point of the story...

OK, at home, I have 6 PCs running, 3 with Windows 2k pro, 1 duel boot, 2 linux and happily share files between them all.

Because my work is focused on small offices and personally with linux, I really wasn't up with how much it cost to run Windows servers!

So, as I described above, I tried Linux & Samba - everything worked with the Macs and other PCs connecting, just not this kooky outdated printing / Rip program (called Rampage). Since this small company doesn't "support" linux, mgmt decided Linux wouldn't work and said we should move onto Windows.

So I bought Windows XP home (didn't need all the bangs and whistles of the pro version) and I figured I was good to go.

We share three folders out of the server. But there's something funny about MACs. They need to create a different connection for each share. This isn't the case with PCs - one login and you're in to as many shares as there are...

I didn't know this, but XP home is limited to let only *5* 'connections'... So we couldn't completely connect *TWO* Macs.

So, after discovering this wonderful limitation (and I'm looking for a registry hack) we repartitioned in order to put everything in a big single share, but even then the Macs had mysterious problems seeing certain files that the PCs could (neither system nor hidden files).

So anyway, after the Rampage program failed to work, we have turned our focus to IT. We're put the server behind us for now...

But I did some checking about Windows pricing...

Now, remember, Linux is FREE...

But if I had a not-so big environment, and happened to have more than 10 users (the XP pro limit) and simply wanted to share files off of a server, I'd have to buy Windows 2003 server for $700 PLUS $40 PER USER.

Now, call me funny, but how in the HELL can IT "professionals" justify this, when Linux does the same job FOR FREE???

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Microsoft has forced my own migration

I used to be a Microsoft developer -- Visual Basic for Applications, mainly MSOffice integration, as well as special tools for the scientific community to quickly produce journal and regulatory submissions.

My former employer, an enormous pharmaceutical company that's now in trouble for regulatory fraud over their COX-2 painkiller, partnered with MS, and MS persuaded them to outsource most of their computer work to India. I'm not joking about that -- Microsoft sold their partner company on firing their Microsoft developers. The mind boggles -- and the income drops.

Now, Microsoft wants something like $900 for me to keep current with my developers' subscription, so I can develop for DotNet. And while I agree that DotNet is a Good Idea, this company which pushed for my firing now wants me to send them money I don't have for skills I can't market.

I had tried Linux several times in the past, including once under the personal evangelization of Eric Raymond, whom I live near. (As cool and fun to listen to as ESR is, he's a balls-to-the-wall Libertarian and Social Darwinist. A man can take only so much! :) ) Each time, I gave up in frustration. And then, a few months ago, I tried a live CD distro of Ubuntu.

My dilemma, I think, has been solved.

Now, Microsoft has been making it nearly impossible to just run their stuff with unregistered serial numbers. Squawk all you want about theft and justification and Free Enterprise, but MS used it as a way of both justifying tax write-offs and to popularize their software. But all that is coming to an end; Win2k is the last OS that won't be buttoned up tight, and Office 2000 the last version of Office. The DotNet development platform will likewise be "secured".

This is the perfect opportunity for Linux and other "Software Libre" projects to take off. The economy sucks, and it looks like it's only going to suck more until Bush is out of the White House. Microsoft's income stream has already been pinched to the point of pain, as almost all the users are now corporate. No more users self-training at home on "stolen" (sic) software. No wonder the CFO has been whining about how Linux was socialistic.

The only reason why I stay in Win2k at all is because I rely heavily on Word; there really is nothing quite as good in Linuxland, but I think that will change quickly.

None of us IT people can justify using Microsoft beyond our own jobs anymore. And those million of us who are now not employed in IT have been looking for the first good excuse to jump ship. Microsoft has its hands around the neck of the Golden Goose and is intent on a full strangulation. I'd give them five years before Microsoft goes Open Source with a vengeance. Or, actually, a motive to survive.

--p!

[bemildred]

2. Windows is toast and they know it.

What you are seeing is M$ following a path many companies
have followed before, when they fell behind the curve, IBM,
DEC, Sun, HP, off into the expensive afterlife bottomfeeding
on the leavings of others and extorting money from those too
clueless or lazy to transition to better, cheaper platforms.

WRT your job, it's simple, a company without its own in-house
development staff is far more at the mercy of the company that
"supports" them, and management is generally fat dumb and
happy at getting rid of "difficult" technical staff.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. You have written the writing on the wall for MS...

One thing you address is their licensing. It's a fact that in every single small business I've worked for they only bought software to the point where it made them comfortable, which usually meant if they needed support. As you wrote, the new versions can't be copied as such, and if presented with WORKING Linux alternatives, managers will flock to them.

For example, I've used OpenOffice, you should give it a try. I found it to be quite usable as a full featured word processor. It may not be as user friendly as Office 2k, but it's a matter of evolution and time, I gather. For 95% of what I see people do with word processors (and their spreadsheet as well) you're only paying for ease of use because you don't want to take the time to learn something new.

Here's the senario:

I can set up one Linux box as a server, and run Linux Terminal Server http://www.ltsp.org/ from it. Using it (and this is for those who don't know) I can use cheap computers without hard drives or CD roms in them to run full blown GUI desktops complete with web browsing, email and word processing. That's 90% of what most people say they want a computer for. Add a vertical application for a given business, and you've got a deal. Microsoft? Bye, bye.

The problem is, as you wrote, the vertical applications and other specialty apps. Adobe and others, for example, just indirectly announced that it will be supporting Linux.
http://software.newsforge.com/software/05/10/18/141242.shtml?tid=130&tid=138

If office managers can see that they can finally run their business apps on Linux, and when faced with having to pay the full price for MS products (excuse me, $40 a pop just for a singe person to READ files off of a server??? The Internet never would have happened!!) we will have seen MS 'jump the shark'...

edited for my spelling. god bless you people who can spell.

[Occulus]

4. "The only reason why I stay in Win2k at all"

Try OpenOffice. Just as good as Word- and I think it imports Word-format files.

Free.

:D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. AND it saves documents as PDF! (nt)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. I've seen lectures by Richard Stallman in Brazil.

A much better evangelist. Then again, I was already evangelized by then.