“There’s been radio chatter this week of a possible new addition to the Windows family: a ‘Home Server’. If the chatter is right, Microsoft will unveil it at CES, which kicks off next week. ‘Home Server’, according to my sources, is about centralized storage, home automation and security.”
Never use Microsoft and security in the same sentence.
Never use Microsoft and security in the same sentence.
Why not? Win2K3 Server has an outstanding security record.
Why not?
Because if you’re writing a serious article it’s maybe not the best approach to make your readers start reading with a sneer.
Depends on the definition on outstanding. Considering the amount of vulnerabilities in Win2K3 I wouldn’t call it outstanding. What is outstanding is the default configuration. Win2K3 is pretty much what XP should’ve been. But it’s due to the quality of the configuration and not due to any quality of the code.
Never use Microsoft and security in the same sentence.
Why not? Win2K3 Server has an outstanding security record.
Because it will not be based on the w2k3 code base?
If I’m not mistaken, both Vista and Longhorn Server are based off Win2k3 code. Odds are this “Home Server” would share the same base.
“Why not? Win2K3 Server has an outstanding security record.”
Yes I read somewhere that Win2K3 has a lot of security issues that are outstanding
Yup, the flaws and virusses really stand out. The only thing that is secure is that they have put paranoid settings in IE. I have used it.
This should be modded down. It’s a troll and nothing moe. You’re playing to the Linux fanboy crowd.
With all do respect sir..It was an honest opinion and I am sure your post is as well. Yes I am a Linux fan and it is based on actual experience. Since this an OS enthusiast site…and you being an OSNews contributor should understand that. Disregard the tone (if there is one).
The comment is flamebait. It offers nothing constructive, just a snarky comment about Microsoft and a poor security record sure to appease the rabid, anti-Microsoft portion of our users.
Look, I don’t like Microsoft, I think Vista looks *completely* uncompelling, in my house we’re Mac only, but your “honest opinion” isn’t really an opinion at all, it’s pandering to the brain-washed.
A flamebait you say? An you say it’s not an opinion? I don’t believe I have to back up every comment that I make with statistics…And speaking about flamebait why don’t you look at a fellow article your OSNews colleague has published “Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?” (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=16783).
And for statistics and security record here are some links to feed your appetite.
1. http://secunia.com/product/1173/?task=advisories – Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition
2. http://secunia.com/product/1174/?task=advisories – Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
3. http://secunia.com/product/4668/?task=advisories – Vulnerability Report: RedHat Enterprise Linux ES 4
It doesn’t matter what your opinion about Vista is. The point is you cannot assume that a comment is flamebait until unless it has generated an amount of controversy such as the example I gave above.
With best regards from a fellow Mac user.
Edited 2007-01-06 19:06
I’m not trying to goat you into a battle, I’m just saying that Macs and Linux have plenty of bugs, you don’t need statistics to impress or convince me. I’m not defending Microsoft’s security, I’m just reiterating that this 1 comment was flamebait.
Also, please don’t hold *me* responsible for Thom’s articles. As the lead guy here, Thom can publish whatever he wants. I’m almost exclusively the webmaster, I rarely publish anything anymore. No editor need run their opinion pieces by me before posting.
I am not “goating” you into a battle as well. I did not hold you responsible for Thom’s article. I merely was stating that my comment does not even close to a flamebait compared to Thom’s article. I did not notice you posting a comment on Thom’s article stating that it was some sort of flamebait. And please do not argue that it was not.
And regarding the bugs on linux and macs, please read the secunia security report for RHEL4 ES and you will see that all the vulnerabilities are patched unlike Microsoft’s Windows Server 2003 which still has 9-10 unpatched issues. The difference is patches come out quicker on Linux.
I did not intended for a flamebait. I do understand why it might seem like it. Although, when you stated that it should be “modded” down, I felt that was not taken into proper consideration.
Nothing like creating yet *another* product with similar features. Yuck.
“Nothing like creating yet *another* product with similar features. Yuck.”
Yeah, because there aren’t like 5,000 different flavors of Linux which all do roughly the same thing as all the other ones.
Edited 2007-01-06 06:42
At least you don’t have to pay for every single Linux distribution…
I do however think you grossly underestimate the numbers of those distributions
“because there aren’t like 5,000 different flavors of Linux which all do roughly the same thing”
So if its true you will not have any problem laying on the table everything you got plus half your earning of the next 5 years ?
“as all the other ones.”
http://www.mvista.com/
http://www.mythtv.org/
http://flightlinux.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LiveCDs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions#Network_Or…
Humm , I like those ods , you see Reality say your lying and wrong , so :
I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE !!!
How do we proceed with the transfer of your belonging in my name ?
You are failing to understand that in the linux side we have a lot of companies which are trying to release their own flavor of a certain tool whereas in the microsoft side we have a single company trying to release as many versions of a certain tool as they possibly can.
To put it in other words, the linux way of doing things is to build a single tool which is more than capable of performing every task there is to perform whereas the microsoft way of doing things is to impose a whole gob of artificial restrictions strategically distributed across a whole gob of different versions.
And you claim that there are “5,000 different flavors of linux” but you fail to mention that there are only about 5 or 6 relevant distros and even then they can be basically sorted into two “flavor”: the debian-based and the red hat-based. How many Vista versions there are? 8 or 9?
So please leave that “OMG there are a lot of linuxes!” FUD comment be. It’s not only silly but also dishonest.
The difference is this:
In the case of Linux, you have a base that different companies use, each one adding there own special improvements, configurations, etc.
With Windows, you have a base that Microsoft strips things off of in order to create all these different versions.
“In the case of Linux, you have a base that different companies use, each one adding there own special improvements, configurations, etc.”
But they all fundamentally do the same thing from a functional standpoint…home users aren’t going to care about what’s going on under the hood, to them it’s just an OS.
“With Windows, you have a base that Microsoft strips things off of in order to create all these different versions.”
The real fundamental difference is that MS charges for all of their OS’s, and thus they need to create different levels of functionality from a business/sales/marketing standpoint, whereas most Linux distros are free. I’m willing to bet that 90% of the software in the top 10 Linux distros are the same.
But they all fundamentally do the same thing from a functional standpoint…home users aren’t going to care about what’s going on under the hood, to them it’s just an OS.
you’re overestimating the end-user. To them, the cosmetic differences between the distros will be much more obvious than the fuctional similarities.
All the different versions of Windows fundamentally do the same thing, and not nearly as well as other OSes, in my opinion. So lets set that argument aside, shall we?
A lot of Linux versions charge for their stuff as well, and some even have a server version, that includes custom improvents and configurations for server use, and desktops, that contain customizations and configurations for desktop use (no need to have OpenOffice, or even a GUI for that matter, on a server, and no reason to have server monitors on a desktop.
Other Linux distributions, like Debian, just give you the whole tamale and let you configure it however you want.
In contrast, with Windows, they have several different server versions from super stripped down to the full version and the same is the case with the Desktop flavors. It isn’t like they have the Windows base and then add improvements to it to do media, home servers, desktop publishing, etc. They take the base and strip things off and call it the “Home” edition, for example.
I think it is odd that you can’t see a difference between that and what Linux companies are doing. As the original poster said, with Linux, you are getting improvements over the base. With Windows you are getting the base minus stripped out features.
Of course it is all about revenue for Microsoft. If you can’t see that, you’re a moron. However, what the original poster said is still true.
Most AV vendors won’t let you install home or desktop anti-virus on windows server. Will I have to shell out 700 USD for a server edition of Avast to install?
Home Server is one heck of niche market anyway…what is Microsoft thinking? Are they trying to move into the Linux gateway/router/webserver/storage home-server market? That’s a TINY market…
WTF is Redmond smoking? I want some. Now.
“Most AV vendors won’t let you install home or desktop anti-virus on windows server. Will I have to shell out 700 USD for a server edition of Avast to install?”
You’re mistaken! Vista won’t require anti-virus software, remember? That’s what ol’ Steve Balmer said, so it must be true, right?
No wrong. It wasn’t Ballmer whose remark was blown out proportion and taken out of context. Gonna spread the same old nonsense at least get it right.
Yeah, ok, so he said a fully locked down vista for his kids is safe enough (and “enough” could be argued further) which just as nonsense. There are times when pissing in the wind can’t change what practice has showed before.
True, but it wasn’t Steve Balmer, it was Jim Alchin, and he was quoted extremely out of context.
It may be tiny, but MS has the bucks to invest in smaller markets like that. Even if they didn’t make any profits on it, getting the home enthusuist crowd on board only helps in terms of brand loyalty and all that. plus, I don’t think it’s all that bad an idea (even if I’m not that interested myself). More folks than you might think could appreciate having something like this: a file server to store lots of downloaded content (legal or otherwise…), if it comes with some web server capability something for a family to wip up a homepage or something cheesy like that, a LAN server for gamers playing counter strike and company, etc.
Yes, I know, you could do all of that (or much of it) with a cheap linux box. But for the windows-only crowd (ie. most of the computer using world whether you and I like it or not…), this could be a better sell.
It may also have the effect of creating a broader market.
It may also have the effect of creating a broader market.
However, it’s a market where the hardware is quite important, if we’re talking about an actual hardware software combination anyway.
If MS is simply releasing another version of its OS for home server, then I don’t see how they’re going to beat the competition. MS’s advantage is its interface, but you don’t need a fancy interface for servers – you can have a complete remote interface through a web browser (as they do for routers).
Either way, even if MS broadens such a market (in essence turning it into a consumer market), it still won’t be able to dominate it like the OS market.
I don’t really see a lot of value in a specific home server product. It would be just as easy to create a network share on a desktop PC offering, for example, your MP3 collection. But, of course, understanding and setting up a network share isn’t all that easy for the average user. So, perhaps what MS is going after is a simple network-connected hard drive that will automatically broadcast its presence, that will be discovered by clients that know what to look for, and which will offer more than basic file/print services; for example, streaming. Perhaps it’s simply a small-scale webserver that supports WebDAV. That would solve a lot of problems.
That would make a lot of sense…but again I fail to see what advantage MS would have over competitors. It would make more sense for a company like Linksys or D-link or other hardware vendors to have their own integrated solution.
I’m surprised you even have to ask that question. Microsoft often likes to get into niche markets early, before other competitors become entrenched and immovable. Some call this “First Mover Advantage”. The real benefit here is that Microsoft gets to improve its client through auto-discovery of media shares. There’s a lot of benefit in that. People are adding lots of storage to their private networks in order to accomodate an increasing amount of media (video, audio, pictures, etc). Plus, assuming that it becomes more prominent, Microsoft gets to influence the direction of streaming protocols, etc, which are vital for caching, playback, etc.
We don’t even know if this is a software product or a hardware product. If it is a hardware product (which would be the most interesting), then I see competitors in a much better position than Microsoft. If it’s a software product only, I fail to see the rationale behind it – there are already tons of solutions out there for those who need them.
Auto-discovery of media shares is nothing new, either. The only thing that MS can add to this is nice packaging and UI (which shouldn’t be underestimated, but again nothing revolutionary).
This is one area where MS won’t be able to compete with free, IMO.
Quote [if it comes with some web server capability something for a family to wip up a homepage or something cheesy like that]
I can’t say I like the idea of many thousands of small web servers many of which will be un-patched, have the minimum of protection and run by folk who have no interest or idea about computer security.
I don’t think MS will want to sell this as a tool for improving security, as this wouldn’t speak well for Vista security, (our most secure OS to date), if it needs to sit behind a “special” security server to protect it from the Internet. After all some MS employees are suggesting Vista won’t even need an AV.
It could also create a situation in which people become used to having a server and then want something more from it, and end up trying linux or a BSD… they would already have the hardware for it too…
//Yes, I know, you could do all of that (or much of it) with a cheap linux box. But for the windows-only crowd (ie. most of the computer using world whether you and I like it or not…), this could be a better sell.//
Why would it be?
A home server would normally be “headless”. You would interact with the device (configure it, etc) via a set of control pages via your web browser.
Rather like this:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/ddwrt.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD-WRT
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt
I defy you to tell me how a Windows version of the Home Server software would be better than or easier to use than any of these type of browser-controlled Linux-based servers.
How would the Windows-only crowd even know what OS the Home Server was using?
Edited 2007-01-06 10:15
I defy you to tell me how a Windows version of the Home Server software would be better than or easier to use than any of these type of browser-controlled Linux-based servers.
Well for starters you won’t have to flash the firmware with software that is unsupported by the manufacturer.
MS is also likely to offer integration with windows that goes deeper than a mere browser interface.
I run openWRT and its great but I don’t think its in the same realm as what MS could offer with this product if they do it right.
How would the Windows-only crowd even know what OS the Home Server was using?
Beyond the stupid windows logo that will probably be on the product they likely won’t know, or even care.
Edited 2007-01-06 10:15
That’s great and all, but aren’t those mods for configuration of Linux based firmware in a router? I don’t believe those are browser-controlled servers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to set up a linux server without learning the obligatory BS command-line crap that comes with it. Yeah I know….flamebait alert!….command line = security…whatever. Take your command line and go back to 1992.
Anyway, I think there may be some market for this. It’s definitely not for the semi-computer literate, though. I think it would be smarter to reserve comment until we actually see where they’re trying to go with this.
Who knows, maybe they’re trying to give Geek Squad more work.
>Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to set up a linux server without learning the obligatory BS command-line crap that comes with it […] Take your command line and go back to 1992.
That’s ok, dear consumer. We do the learning for you so that you don’t have to! We have some nice GUI Play-Doh for you to play with.
Now seriously, from an end (dumb) user perspective, I think you are right.
>Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to set up a linux server >without learning the obligatory BS command-line crap >that comes with it. Yeah I know….flamebait >alert!….command line = security…whatever. Take your >command line and go back to 1992.
Well, seriously, if you want to set up a linux server, you can just do that, graphically. Or if you want to (which for most sets isn’t the default) do it with a not-so-fancy commandline, you can do that too.
Now, wanting to have a server run in graphical mode is not something I’d expect in professional instances but YMMV. W2K3 is graphical and it wastes a bit of resources you would have better used for te server itself.
You want instead of graphics a CLI ? init 3; if you want a graphic front-end, use runlevel 5 (init 5). etc
You stated that we have to go back to 1992 for the CLI; now, why don’t you go to a recent year (and 2000 is ok too) to find that the stuff *is* graphically.
Not just AV vendors. Don’t most ISP disallow people running a server on their Cable/DSL lines?
Unless it’s for the niche market for people to save their mp3/videos at one central location. This doesn’t make sense at all. (In that case, one of the value-added Routers with NAS server would more than suffice)
This is a pipeline product in my view. To me this is a path I have been thinking of for some time. I’d like to run my own “home server” for the very reasons stated in this article.
It may seem odd now, but this is a space to be watched in the future and a market which will grow enormously I think.
Home Server is one heck of niche market anyway…what is Microsoft thinking? Are they trying to move into the Linux gateway/router/webserver/storage home-server market? That’s a TINY market…
‘Home Server’, according to my sources, is about centralized storage, home automation and security.”
I guess not. They’re probably not interested in home Internet gateway market. A $150 wireless ADSL router may have a file and printer server attached nowadays.
But home automation is actually more important one. Even though small at the moment, customers are ready to cash thousands of dollars to fully automate their homes. For example starting up AC while driving from work, automating lights, consolidating security cameras, etc are already being done today.
It’s probably the next logical step for Microsoft after their home media services.
I think AV vendors would be excited about this. It’s an opportunity to create, and sell an additional product per household. That market wouldn’t pay $700 per license but would easily pay 15% more than the desktop version for it. We’ll see…
Ok, maybe not MS.
But seriously, an appliance usable by mere mortals to provide those services that any netizen should have
DNS, HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, XMPP, SIP, BitTorrent, Dual WiFi (one channel for adhoc networks with your neighbors and bypassers), TOR
Now I can install this today using FLOSS on any regular PC. But I’m talking about a device for mortals. It should be dead simple to administer and extend with new functionality.
I’ve actually seen a lot of routers coming out with Bittorrent support lately..
Perhaps OpenSuse will suit your needs? Yast rocks when it comes to setting up servers. (All graphical and such).
heh..
Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
Affected By 111 Secunia advisories
Unpatched 9% (10 of 111 Secunia advisories)
XP worse… RHEL 0%!!
“RHEL 0%!!”
How is that possible? Doesn’t it have firefox 1.x?
Unpatched 10% (4 of 39 Secunia advisories)
As gateway/router/webserver/storage ?
Not even have X running on it.
//RHEL 0%!!”
How is that possible? Doesn’t it have firefox 1.x?
Unpatched 10% (4 of 39 Secunia advisories)//
Firefox 1.x runs on Windows as well as on Linux.
If you are going to count firefox 1.x vulnerabilities, then they count as much for Windows as they do for Linux.
In fact, most copies of Firefox are Windows executables, to the ratio of at least 10 to 1. So that means one should probably ascribe those unpatched vulnerabilities as 10 Windows vulnerabilities for every 1 Linux vulnerability.
In fact, not only are there far more copies of firefox running under Windows than there are under Linux, but it is also relevant to point out that the malware that the system is vulnerable to because of those vulnerabilities runs at something like 10,000 Windows malware item to every 1 Linux malware item.
All things considered, any vulnerability in Firefox is overwhelmingly more of a problem for Windows than it is for Linux.
Edited 2007-01-06 10:20
Firefox 1.x runs on Windows as well as on Linux.
Firefox is not installed by default on Win2k3, nor is it on the install media.
Edited 2007-01-06 11:01
//Firefox is not installed by default on Win2k3, nor is it on the install media. //
So? Your point being?
How does this change the fact that the heavy majority of copies of Firefox are Windows executables, installed on Windows machines? How does this change the fact that the overwhelming ratio of malware is malware for Windows?
I repeat, with emphasis, that any vulnerability in Firefox is overwhelmingly more so a vulnerability for Windows systems than it is a vulnerability for Linux systems. This is not even debateable, it is clearly very much the case.
Edited 2007-01-06 11:12
The “install media” is simply a portable software repository. You can either install the software it contains or not. No one is ever forced to install every piece of software which is present in the install CD/DVD.
While MS does certainly have the marketshare to hold itself afloat, I worry about vendors who release too many versions of a product. Most users get frustrated at the choices, and then they become even more frustrated when they make the wrong choice.
Reducing the feature set for a product and slapping a lower price tag on it works for cars, toasters, etc – why? Because the products are cheaper to manufacture that way (generally speaking – this is coming from my experience in a production/operations management class in college). How much relief does reducing a software feature set bring to the developers? It may take less time to burn the images to CD, I guess..
It could work, but my experience tells me that this could be painful for Microsoft and it’s consumer base. I can understand a couple desktop editions and a few server variations, but I think they really overdid it this time around.
It has more to do with who it’s being marketed to. This doesn’t seem to be a business-class server; thus, businesses wouldn’t be all that interested.
Even more than SBS, any home version of Windows Server would be so heavily crippled from a license point of view to protect more expensive products that it would be of little practical use to anyone, particularly those with the wherewithall who are running their own home servers already.
The home entertainment market just isn’t as lucrative as they think either. For the home media market to take off there will have to be a free flow of content to make it worth anyone’s effort, and thanks to DRM, Microsoft and the media companies, this isn’t going to happen. Besides, if it isn’t able to play DivX files and to share peoples’ iTunes music (which they’re not going to buy again), what use is it?
Think about it. The only reason why people and Microsoft are falling over themselves today talking about the digital home and digital convergence (whatever that may happen to mean), and Apple have the iPod, is because of a format called MP3 that took off some years ago that allowed people to amass large collections of music for practically nothing. You take that away and you are essentially locked into a system and a set of Microsoft developed DRM restrictions you can’t escape from, in your own home no less, with none of the advantages that anyone thought they were going to get. Result? Stagnation. Just look at many Windows Media stores, and the complaints about them, today.
There’s simply too much inertia from various interested parties to make it work on a wide scale.
“I want it to store all your media for your home…. to be able to network multiple Media Centers and PCs and save all your stuff on one back-end home server. That’s what I’ve been dreaming about.”
I stopped dreaming a few years ago mate. It’s called MythTV, has a very large RAID array and it’s worth my while because I can copy, record and do anything I want with it.
That’s as good as the digital home is going to get, it’s what people actually think that they’re going to get – and Microsoft just can’t provide it. It’s that simple.
This is just Microsoft’s attempt at lock-in for the home.
Edited 2007-01-06 01:40
I would think an emphasis on home entertainemnt, and the server taking care of the Anti-Virus and Malware needs to relieve the individuals computers of all the overhead sucking services needed to keep their Windows boxes mostly safe and secure. MS could gain a fair amount of attention with the parental contols crowd.
$250.00 – $300.00 range would probably find a bit more than niche market. Less than that, competitors and partners would choke, and more would not gain sales.
I do not see MS marketing folks hitting the right points to stir up consumer excitement, though. It will be interesting to see what this product actually is.
Given the ‘success’ the xbox360’s video shop have had, i can see potential for this if done right.
Basically it would be what apple have done with the itunes tie-in products like that access point that allow you to stream music to the stereo. only that microsoft i building it from the outside in.
You shop the content using xbox or the zune store, And can access it form a vista media center, xbox or zune.
Apple better get that itv box rolling…
Browser: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.0.6540/1558; nb; U; ssr)
its basically gonna be a basic set of servers, and from what i’ve heard storage based, tie this with a xbox360 on a small box under a desk or in a cabinet with say 2 of those new 2TB drives coming out early 2007 and walla, MASSIVE storage
(god bless encode360 hehe… i’ve reencoded 400 gigs of movies and tv into VC-1 its wicked, my files are about 20-30% smaller and i have to say, the quality looks identical to it did as xvid)
What they should do, if they release this is allow you to install from the product onto desktop PCs.
No more buying separate desktop products but you buy the “Windows Home Network” product that you install on one machine and it lets you install from it onto others.
Let you buy one product, one media with the 3 or 5 user version and take it from there.
Ok, so hear, hear, the giant makes mortals one more soup from yesterday’s remains so now all those who have been getting the food from the other side of the street now could get it from their place. They put everything in it which the other has, it smells like it, it even looks like it from the packaging, just don’t look inside. First, they put the soup in a plate that more like a sieve with larger holes, then they include a spoon in the package only which can be used to eat your soup by telling it your name before each swallow or else it jumps back in the plate. They also promise that if you put your own soup into it, it will be safe and others won’t be able to eat it while you’re away cooking, but you wonder what some cello tape is doing on the side of the package. When your friends come over you show them the thing and invite them to eat from your soup, and you wonder why are they surprised when they get a sticker with their plates about the limited amount of time eat their soups before it evaporates.
Ho hum. This rumour could be just that, perhaps a spoiler to take the shine off announcements at the forthcoming Macworld. At least the Apple rumours sound more on target with iPhones and iTVs, things folks might actually want and enjoy.
Or, this could be a simple storage add-on for the XBox 360 or even part of the spec sheet for the new 360 due out later this year, I believe. At any rate, “centralized storage, home automation and security” sounds just incredibly dull. Retail stores and Christmas stockings are hardly going to be set alight by the IT equivalent of watching paint dry. But who knows. This is Microsoft … And whether you like them or hate them, any product from MS is going to mean more lock-in that there is in a SuperMax.
First. With sites like google offering more and more disk storage, and services such as .Mac and the like. You can store all your files off site and managed by real sysadmins vs. yourself. Anyone geeky enough to need a home server will set there own up using Linux, or Whatever version of windows they have available. This seems like an incredibly outdated concept like something that would be popular like 12 years ago. Today people with HighSpeed Internet connection, Cheap services even .Mac $99.00 a year is better then getting a $500 computer and updating it every 4 years. Plus you don’t need to manage it, chew up you electricity when you are not there. Worry about keeping it up to date. To little to late, and just outdated…
While the discussion on ArsTechnica about the possibility of a Windows Home Server is for the most part positive, look here and for the most part all you see is the Linux Zealots pissing and moaning about another poor Microsoft product, lame security, etc. In other words totally off-topic discussion. Isn’t there enough Linux articles posted on this site for you guys to “pound your chests” and show how “superior” you are to everybody else without posting comments about articles that have nothing to do with Linux?
And as always the Linux Zealots miss the point and the potential audience of such a product. There is a guy I work with that this product (if it does exist) would be perfect for. His knowledge of computers is limited (despite working with Oracle and Visual Basic) and has multiple computers at home with teenagers. If the product includes means of updating client machines with minimal to no intervention and has a good firewall as part of the package, how would this be a bad thing? Not everybody has the skill level to configure various things with Linux (whether they are configured with GUI’s or not). The people who would look at this product are people who are comfortable with Microsoft products, and have been for a long time. And while there are easy to use Linux distros out there, that is not the point, not everyone wants to use Linux (oh the horror!). And while I could go into a long diatribe about why someone would use Windows over Linux, I won’t waste everybody’s time, some people are never going to use Linux.
I’m not a big Microsoft fanboy either, but it doesn’t mean that I cannot appreciate the potential of a product that addresses a specific market, and that some people will find it actually useful and fit their needs. And while I am sure to be modded down for this comment (it’s OK, I don’t live and die by moderation) I think it needs to be said that if you don’t like Microsoft products, that’s fine. I think people who have spent over five minutes on this site get it. A lot of people who comment here are Linux Zealots and need to be heard regardless of whether their comments are on-topic or not. If the product was released and reviewed and found to be buggy, full of vulnerabilities, not perform very well, that would be one thing. But it hasn’t, so why don’t we save the doom and gloom for when it actually is released to the public.
Microsoft uses the word server when they mean data storage device. In the Unix world a server actually holds all your binaries while you connect to it with your client machines without the need for any additional software installation on the client.
Most of what Microsoft calls servers are mere storage devices or software license enforcers and should not be called servers. These writers should stop mudying up their terminologies to promote Microsoft products
Who’s Unix world is this? it certainly isn’t the one I’m familiar with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server
http://microsoftatces.com/archive/2007/01/07/2007-international-ces…