back to article Making the case for upgrading from Server 2003

Server 2003 has been a good friend for the past decade. I have built a career on this operating system, I know its personality and its tics, and quirks have become second nature to me. In 2015, we will see the official end of support for Server 2003, so the time has come to start polishing the business case for the migration …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Androgynous Crackwhore

      Re: Another gushing Trevor Pott Puff Piece

      "Want some impartial advice?"

      Impartial? Eh? From you???

      Still, hypocrisy aside, I'm inclined to think there might be the nucleus of a decent point lurking somewhere within the patronizing, puerile ranting. So have an upvote!.. and a piece of impartial advice: Work on your presentation/communication skills. Please EADON. More thought, less teen angst. Please?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Eadon, I have had enough of you derailing our forums. You are zapped.

    FFS grow up.

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Eadon, I have had enough of you derailing our forums. You are zapped.

      By the same reasoning, can we now zap all of Lewis Page's climate change articles? Thank you.

      1. dogged

        Re: Eadon, I have had enough of you derailing our forums. You are zapped.

        As articles those are by definition on topic - an article cannot derail itself.

        However, the religious fundamentalists who invariably pop up and tell Lewis that climate isn't weather but rather a magical thing that happens when people are naughty and don't pay money to green charities and eat lentils; those people can and do derail.

    3. Turtle

      I Am So Very Sorry... Re: Eadon, You are zapped.

      I am so, so sorry that I didn't get here in time to read his farewell post...

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Oh Thank god or other convenient deity

        EM Pulse. You can reboot the bugger, but something tells me his particular illness will require that he be back. At least spoting the replacement accounts will be no harder with him than it was with RICHTO!

  4. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    It's true though...

    It's true though, if one is replacing a 2003 server anyway, and given Server 2012 is so different (it is, just 2003 to 2008 is pretty much entirely different and 2012 looks pretty dfferent from that...), then it makes sense to at least take a look at other options rather than just automatically buying 2012. You could save serious cash on software and server hardware too (I found Server 2008 straight-up bloated, hopefully 2012 has gone on a diet.)

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: It's true though...

      Though I've posted the link in response to another post, my attempt to reply to you apparently unlocked a torrent of "roll face around on keyboard" that eventually became a blog in it's own right. I figure I'd post the link here for you as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's true though...

        Sadly that link encapsulates my dilemma as well.i When I first started in computing, my PC's occupied the first floors of whole buildings and I got my real exposure to the disciplines involved courtesy of IBM system engineers. I've risen all the way to CIO along the way, not being beholdened to any one firm, just picking the best tools to do the job. Too bad I missed the free perks but there were absolute (go to Ft. Leavenworth) rules against that where I worked. My personal machines were anything but PC-compatible.

        I still like the tech it's just way beyond the reach of the SOHO/SMB's and they can forget "The Cloud." That doesn't work at all by any measure for those markets. What to do?

        Aside: Like you, they will pry my WinXP VM from my cold, dead fingers. And I'm a pretty deadly customer ;-).

    2. Mage Silver badge

      Re: It's true though...

      Yes, I upgraded from Windows 2000 to Linux. It's been a pain though, even though the Win2K box had Apache & IIS as well as MS SQL and MySQL. The "common" LAMP CMS did work on the "WAMP" though I may add one 2003 Server next month (and upgrade it to something Linux flavoured before 2015), or not if the SAMBA shares stay stable.

      Fortunately I don't have to run Exchange or Sharepoint.

      But what to replace the XP with?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        But what to replace the XP with?

  5. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

      Seconded. I mean this is someone that presumably without irony and in all seriousness wrote, and I quote, "Server 2012 is the Microsoft operating system that, in my opinion, makes cloud computing a reality"

      Try saying that with a straight face in real life..

    2. Grikath

      Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

      actually... mr. Pott adressed his stance towards all things microsoft at Eadon right here:

      Now I am nowhere near an expert on servery things as quite a few people here, but I did not take the tone of this article as "sponsored material" at all, but rather a good tie-in for the less deeply-educated, who still have to deal with an EOL of a piece of critical software and convince the higher echelons that it is time to move on this issue now, instead of waiting for the hammer to drop.

      The article is written from a scenario where the company IT infrastructure is based on Windows products to begin with, which means unless you're really lucky, suggesting a move to open source would be a rather frustrating exercise in futility if you have to convince the higher-ups to take heed of an approaching EOL to begin with. It's easy when you can call the shots, but if you've got to go through 4 layers of Management to get anything approved it's hard enough to get *anything* done, let alone propose a platform change.

      But I for one am happy to see Eadons' pavlovian rants cut short. Usually there's plenty of people around who can point out alternatives to an article like this, which in turn makes threads like this, you know, informative and useful. As opposed to Eadons' rantings and the subsequent barrage of facepalms.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

        Aye. I'm pretty sure in my article I made mention of the fact that selling the upgrades wasn't entire about the tech. As to the "making cloud computing a reality" bit, I stand by that statement 100%. In fact, I'm working on several articles that explain that in depth.

        This article was aimed at providing non-techie reasons to upgrade so you can bypass management blocks. I am assuming the techies have passed judgment by now. How to get it past the boss (presuming you want the thing) is really the question.

        You all also have to understand that I've seen Server 2012 R2 and Microsoft's new "Hosted Azure." (Basically a management interface that is simply a "role" in Server 2012 R2.) Hosted Azure honestly and truly does give complete blinking idiots the power to roll their own cloud; one at least as good as what Microsoft is itself running. (I am going to actually argue better than Microsoft is running, because Microsoft has one gigantic AD multi-forest. Replication throughout that forest is slowing everything in Azure (and especially Office 365!) to a grinding halt and causing all sorts of hell.)

        The underlying technology between Server 2012 and Server 2012 R2 hasn't changed all that much. There are some nice improvements, but it is nothing like the generational leap that existed between Server 2008 R2 and Server 2012.

        The technology underpinning Server 2012 really, truly makes cloud computing possible for the average sysadmin. You can roll your own private IaaS infrastructure, move that up to PaaS and even deploy entire SaaS application sets with comparative ease. Not on someone else's cloud, but on your own cloud. From a purely technological standpoint, I am deeply impressed by Server 2012.

        That isn't to say I think it's all roses. The interface is shit. The licensing is mostly shit and they still haven't made things like VDI affordable. Hell, they come out with a great technology like DirectAccess and then restrict it to enterprise only versions while refusing to backport the client to WIndows 7!

        Microsoft makes great technology. This isn't the same company that turned out Windows NT. Those who can't get over 10 or 15 year old prejudices need to grow the fuck up. There's a lot to bitch at Microsoft about, but increasingly the raw technology they put out is not it.

        Indeed, this thread has caused me to mash out an opinion column on my issues with MS. For those that are capable of understanding that you can both appreciate the technology available and loathe the manner in which it provisioned you can read my further thoughts on the topic here.

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        2. Vince

          Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

          My view on Server 2012 is generally that it's the best thing MS have done in the server space in a long time. Server 2003 feels as old and irritating as XP does. 2008 is "OK" but I never really loved it. 2012 is the mutts. I've upgraded everything I can find wherever possible to it, I don't regret it for a second. Everything works, our reliability has shot up, and administration is miles easier.

          The Licensing Changes do suck - for example no 5 CALs included in the base product, madness.


          "Microsoft makes great technology. This isn't the same company that turned out Windows NT. Those who can't get over 10 or 15 year old prejudices need to grow the fuck up. There's a lot to bitch at Microsoft about, but increasingly the raw technology they put out is not it."

          Exactly that. In the server space, the products are excellent. I even really like Windows 8. Try finding a machine in our office not running one of the 2... it's getting much harder.

      2. NogginTheNog
        Thumb Down

        Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

        'but I did not take the tone of this article as "sponsored material" at all'

        It was a useful article, but the Microsoft bias was clearly evident: to discuss virtualising existing servers and only mention Microsoft solutions, ignoring other solutions along with the clear market leader (VMWare), is hardly impartial is it?!

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

          Oh FFS. Looky: VMware:

          They give me word limits, eh? Sometimes you only do a topic at a time, not "HERE IS EVERY PRODUCT UNDER THE SUN COMPARE THEM ALL ASDFOMFGWTFBBQ"

          I'm now a wikipedia, I'M A HUMAN BEING! :flailing:

          1. sisk

            Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...

            A shame really. I was still holding out hope that Eadon would grow up, learn something, and become a proper Linux geek instead of a lunatic, uneducated Penguin fan.

            Yes, yes, I'm an eternal optimist. You can stop laughing now.

    3. BlueGreen

      Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ... @gerdesj

      Eadon is a fool that wasted many people's time, learnt nothing from it and harmed the reputation of Linux community.

      But this "these rather obviously sponsored articles" pisses me off. If you'd clicked on Trevor's name and look at his previous posts you'd know how untrue that was, except you couldn't be arsed. Uninformed smearing of a writer who's actually knows his subject, is fair (AFAICT) and speaks his mind is so much easier. Trevor's a lot more use than some journos here (like the HPC 'guru'), and backs up what he says (see below) and responds in detail to people's posts, and admits when maybe he's got it wrong. What more do you want? I guess you vote for politicians by their good looks because looking at their policies is booooring.

      BTW Trevor, if you're going to slag MS's new interface, you might first not want to use a light grey typeface on a white background for your blog.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ... @gerdesj

        I slag on interfaces for usability ("where the hell is X?") and change management ("GOOGLE, STOP MOVING MY FUCKING BUTTONS!") I never once claimed to have a sense of aesthetics. If you've a better Wordpress theme - or better colour ideas I could bang into the existing one - I'm entirely open to it.

        1. BlueGreen

          Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ... @gerdesj

          Perhaps that came across wrong. I was just saying that low contrast here makes for hard reading. It's usability, not aesthetics. Black text on white is what I suggest. Anyway, it's minor; content is king.

  6. Anonymous Coward

    You like hard questions? ;)

    "The hardest question to answer is the simplest: why make the move from Server 2003 to Server 2012?"

    Well, I think I can top this one with an even better question: "Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?".

    Not only will the price of purchase be lower, you'll also get a product which was designed to be the direct upgrade for 2003, thus making the upgrade process a whole lot easier per definition. Another thing to keep in mind is the product itself: 2008 has been around for quite some time now, so you can be sure that a lot of the "out of the box" bugs have been addressed by now. Server 2012? Considering the very poor reception it gets I have my doubts there.

    Finally there's an even bigger issue to keep in mind: the dreaded End Of Life issue which we're addressing right now. Windows Server 2008R2 extended support ends in 2020, as can be seen here (link to lifecycle page of Microsoft support).

    The Windows Server 2012 EOL date on the other end only adds a meagre 3 years, it's support ends in 2023 as you can see here.

    Sure, time is money. But not having to deal with the dinkey toy interface that was Metro is also worth a lot of money to a lot of systems administrators. There is much more to this story then "merely upgrading".

    In my opinion companies are much better off picking 2008 over 2012.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: You like hard questions? ;)

      "Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?"

      This is a damned good question, sir, and one I still don't have a satisfying answer to. Server 2012 R2 is worth the jump, despite the absolute shite interface. Server 2012 versus Server 2008 R2...

      ...well, the only big reasons I have for that are storage related. SMB 3 is way better than SMB 2, but this sort of presumes you are using Windows 8. Also: the iSCSI target in Server 2012 is way better than the shitemobile in 2008 R2. Oh, and DirectAccess; if you do IPv6 things then you don't want to faff about with Server 2008 R2. Oh, and the whole virtualisation-aware AD controllers. Those are damned cool.

      I'd say "IIS finally stopped sucking monkey dong in Server 2012" but honestly here, who uses IIS?

      So it's really a toss up. If you use iSCSI off of Windows Server then 2012 is a no-brainer. I have an article coming up on why you really should be upgrading your AD controllers to 2012. DirectAccess is a bit of a niche still, but if you use it, go 2012.

      Otherwise? 2008 R2. Until you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Just like Windows 7.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: You like hard questions? ;)

        > I'd say "IIS finally stopped sucking monkey dong in Server 2012" but honestly here, who uses IIS?

        The sheer number of websites with "Server Error in '/' Application" as their "homepage" disagree with you.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: You like hard questions? ;)

          I try to ignore those because they make me sad. It took until Server 2012 before IIS even got a workable bloody FTP server. How many of those websites are running on old? Sads. I have many.

        2. TheVogon

          Re: You like hard questions? ;)

          "The sheer number of websites with "Server Error in '/' Application" as their "homepage" disagree with you."

          Broken app. dev. code does not mean IIS sucks. You could say the same about the number of website with My SQL errors...

        3. TheVogon

          Re: You like hard questions? ;)

          "who uses IIS?"

          Currently 112,303,412 internet facing websites (17.2%) and rising.

      2. Keith 72

        Re: You like hard questions? ;)

        Server 2012's Storage Spaces and Data Deduplication are also good reasons to chose 2012 over the, still pretty brilliant, 2008 R2.

      3. Vince

        Re: You like hard questions? ;)

        Reasons to use 2012 not 2008:

        a) If you use Remote Desktop, it's miles better. At everything.

        b) If you use Remote Access, it scales further.

        c) If you use the centralised deployment, it saves you lots of time

        d) If you use Hyper-V, there is literally no comparison between 2008 and 2012.

        e) If you use SMB3, try telling me that's not better.

        There are LOADS of reasons.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: You like hard questions? ;)

          a) Unless you keep the number of systems you RDP from to a very narrow cone - or you're made out of money - RDP/VDI is too costly to implement. So what good is that?

          b) Remote Access is asstastic if your client is Windows 7 because Microsoft refused to backport the client.

          c) Centralised deployment is awesome! If you're building Azure. We'll have arguments about the usefulness of that particular religion when it comes to servicing downmarket customers.

          d) Damn rights: Server 2012 is finally at parity (well, almost) with VMware, and Server 2012 R2 is so good that you'd swear it can't be the same team that coded Hyper-V 2.0

          3) SMB3 is eleventy squillion times better than SMB 2. That said, SMB 3 requires Windows 8, so what good is that?

          Most of the reasons for Server 2012 over 2008 are only applicable in three scenarios:

          1) You have so much "rolling around in it" money that you can ignore being pecked to death by licensing ducks.

          2) You are willing and able to block move your entire infrastructure to Windows 8/Server 2012 all in one go.

          3) You operate at datacenter scale.

          If you are going from Server 2003 you might as well go Server 2012 in the hope that Windows 9 will be "not ass" enough to make the leap on your clients from Windows 7. At that point you've at least upgraded your backend to be better suited to that hopeful (but bloody unlikely) future.

          If you are trying to build the case for Server 2008 --> Server 2012, I might be able to stomach the arguments. 2008 was pretty bad.

          If you are trying to make the argument for 2008 R2 --> 2012 you've lost me completely. If you were using Hyper-V on 2008 R2 then by now you're already 2012 .

          As to the rest of the market on Server 2008 R2...

          Server 2008 R2 + Windows 7 ain't broke and I have yet to be presented with even a marginal business case to attempt to fix it. The greatest value Server 2012 brought to the extant 2008 R2 customer was the ability to drive down VMware licensing costs come renewal time.

    2. dogged

      Re: You like hard questions? ;)

      "Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?".

      If your only reason not to go 2012 is the interface, you're a poor excuse for an admin.

    3. TheVogon

      Re: You like hard questions? ;)

      "Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?".

      Because Server 2012 doesn't have any GUI interface by default.....

    4. Anonymous Coward

      Re: You like hard questions? ;)

      Actually, Windows 8's & Windows Server 2012's GUI has been the first from Microsoft where I haven't done a rip and replace on the entire "experience/" Where I've been putting my mouse pointers to for a couple of decades is exactly the same place I'm doing normally in "Metro." My only complaints are that the ribbon is for crap, no matter where in app or on desktop. Give me a pop-up menu with those choices. Oh, if I can tear off menus and park them wherever convenient, that's be nice too. [I was already doing that on mi Amigas, but NeXT sealed that deal.]

      If you don't like the desktop, break out the scalpels! In the case of WS2012, don't even install the GUI.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Other alternatives...

    ... include Server 2008 R2 for those still infected with the "OH BOG IT'S BASED ON WINDOWS 8" hatred- 2008 and WIndows 7 are based on the same code base, and win7 is pretty damn stable IMHO. Admittedly, the shiny hasn't quite worn off the majority of the 2008 VMs I help build, but we are looking at 2012 at this point in time, probably starting with our AD infrastructure. (I'm *not* looking forward to that and the inevitable Exchange upgrade, but hey, that's why I get paid the semi-big bucks)

    I can certainly understand why businesses are reluctant to move to 2008 and newer- we have one vendor at $work that would probably be delighted if we still ran 2000 on both the servers and desktops- they are the only reason why we have server 2003 boxes left in our environment, and even then they are starting to realize that like it or not, the gaming industry need to move at the same pace as the rest of the IT industry, even as they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, in that direction. (At least they didn't scream too much when we presented them with virtual instances on it running on our exceedingly grunty production cluster.)

    Anon to protect those semi-big bucks that comprises my paycheck, largely because there are not too many big name vendors in the gaming industry and one can probably figure out just who I'm talking about. :)

  8. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    Required support tools?

    "There are capital expense discussions to be had concerning end of support. For instance, upfront costs of required tools – intrusion detection systems, more advanced firewalls, network segmentation and so forth – are such that buying new Server 2012 licences is almost guaranteed to be cheaper"

    I don't understand won't you require such tools with Server 2012 ..

    "A large and expensive piece of industrial equipment incorporating custom hardware and applications that absolutely require Server 2003 is a mirror of what keeps me running Windows 2000".

    If you had access to the source code then you could recompile the old app to run on Server 2012.

    "Server 2012 contains a vast array of new technologies"


    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Required support tools?

      I don't understand won't you require such tools with Server 2012.

      Nope, you won't need to buy all (or most) of those tools if you run an OS under support. Server 2012 is quite capable of taking care of itself, thank you. This isn't the Windows XP era; you don't need to piss yourself in terror at the thought of running a Windows system with an external IP address. You can pretty much do an "upgrade in place" to your existing badly-designed network without having to rearchitect the whole damned thin and carrying on with a shite security model for the next 10 years or so.

      Should you be tearing up your network and redesigning everything so that there is massive amounts of segregation, multiple firewalls from independent vendors, IDS systems to detect everything, etc? Yes. Will 99%+ of companies unless you have a gun to their heads? No.

      Remember that most companies are SMEs. "Eggshell security" (a hardened edge offering a single point of defence protecting a relatively wide-open and "squishy" internal network) is the best they can afford. Not merely for CapEx but for OpEx reasons.

      As soon as Server 2003 moves out of support there is no rational way to keep on doing eggshell computing. The first trojan that happens along with annihilate your entire network. Server 2012 is secure enough and keep up to date with patches, etc, that you can keep on this path with about the same level of risk (probably lower) than you had before Server 2003 went out of support.

      It isn't the proper way to do things, but it is the common way people do things. Server 2012 basically buys you another decade or so during which you don't have to redeisgn the entire network and retrain all your staff.

      If you had access to the source code then you could recompile the old app to run on Server 2012.

      Maybe. Maybe not. I'd still need someone who could deal with library changes between the two and so forth. Either way, most people don't have access to the source code. Welcome to capitalism. It sucks. Mind who you vote for next time and maybe we can slowly start to change this, eh?

  9. Anonymous Coward

    Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

    We pretty much moved over to Server 2008 R2 (and Windows 7 for most of our IT department) within six months of the OS being released. Never looked back since...especially since you can certainly feel Server 2003's age by now. Heck we could feel it years ago.

    And I'm still deploying new Server 2008 R2 systems. Server 2012 doesn't exist in my world. Much in the same way how vanilla Server 2008 doesn't exist either. Will Server 2012 R2 be better? Only time will tell.

    I do admit that not everyone will find it necessary to move away from Server 2003. Thing is though, these people tend to be the ones who don't fiddle around with their servers much in the first place. You know, screw Windows Updates right. To these people Server 2003 going into End-of-Support is the least of their concern... especially if one of the pending updates is "Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2".

    To a full-time administrator there's lots to love about Server 2008 R2. Lots of tiny little improvements here and there to make life less of a misery. I for one welcomed WSUS becoming an MMC snap-in. Managed Service Accounts being another feature I like since managing the dozens of passwords for the accounts of all our various services has become quite the headache in the past. PowerShell 3.0... and et cetera.

    Oh, and did I mention PowerShell 3.0 yet? Guess I did.

    Again, these are things which really benefit the administrator.

    But if there isn't an administrator... or if it's someone who comes into the office all of five minutes of his week just to visit the loo... then there really are bigger issues at hand which need looking into.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

      With the sole exception of domain controllers - seriously guys, virtualisation aware DCs in Server 2012 are the shit - I can't make the case for moving from Server 2008 R2 to Server 2012. The case for Server 2003 --> Server 2012 is easy. But Server 2008 R2 is a beloved old friend that is more than good enough to get the job done.

      It used to be that I was perfectly comfortable with Server 2003 R2. DFSR was really all I needed to make most of what I do work fine. Then I got a Server 2008 R2 licence and set it up as a DC with DNS and DHCP. Now I can't go back. I just can't do it; Server 2003 is just too old.

      You know what won me over? The ability to right click on a system in DHCP and add a reservation. That's it; right there. I wasn't won over by a firewall or a protocol, I wasn't won over by encryption or the power of Greyskull. I was won over because someone put an improvement into the operating system that does what computers are supposed to do in the first place: make boring repetitive tasks easier.

      I find it interesting to note, however, that I am not nearly so rah-rah about Server 2012? Why? Because Microsoft threw ease of use out the Window. They became obsessed with the technology itself and fuck the people who have to actually use it.

      If I wanted to live in a world like that, I'd use Linux. Oh wait, I do! Though it would send our resident hypertroll into paroxysms of rage, I pick Linux not because of nerdly masturbation or ethical handwaving. I choose it because in very specific circumstances it is actually *way* easier to use than Server 2012.

      If you go the Server 2012 route you're stuck with the same damned things as you are on the "commercial Linux" route: mind-bogglingly shitty UIs or the shell. The shell is the aformentionned "rote memorization route" and we've wound the argument back 'round to "this isn't going to work for SMEs."

      The real question is "what's going to come after Server 2008 R2 for the small business world?" It sure as shit isn't the cloud; well, not for anyone that cares about their data or not getting sued into a lump of coal. (Hi, Echelon!) The truth is that I don't really know the answer. I think there's a gap in the market here that simply isn't being filled.

      That basically leaves me with hoping Synology decides to build a rockstar ecosystem around the DSM. They seem to be the only play that gives anything close to a damn any more...and it's not really all that close to a damn at all.

      I personally think that the era of installed operating systems is simply over for the SME. Virtual and physical appliances are the future. The overwhelming majority of these will be Linux based, with the off BSD and Windows units making appearances for colour.

      Microsoft and Oracle (via Solaris/ZFS) are sitting on the technologies required to make great SME gear. They won't do so because they fear cannibalising their cloud and enterprise licenceing markets.

      Too many Linux types are Eadon-class zealots. They can't see beyond their own neuroses long enough to solve the UI problems. My recent interactions with Microsoft make it clear that under no circumstances do the give any fucks whatsoever about addressing usability issues either.

      The closed source giants say "fuck users and SMEs, they aren't worth the money." Open source giants say "fuck users and SMEs, it's their own damned fault if they are too stupid to see the perfection of our glorious design." The next-generation SaaS vendors are all about the users and SMEs, slaving over designs until they are intuitive, but demand vendor lock-in, or your privacy in exchange for that usability. Worse, they're mostly based in the US, so the other 6.3 Billion of us can't use them!

      It's starting to feel lonely here down at the bottom. No love for the SMEs or end users from any of the players out there. You know you've hit rock bottom when your hopes for the endpoint boil down to "maybe Tizen won't suck too bad" and your hopes for user-grokkable servers are a black box like Synology.

      Beer, because this is damned depressing already.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

        > You know what won me over? The ability to right click on a system in DHCP and add a reservation.

        That was a lovely addition indeed as I've always been fond of running Windows DHCP servers. And yup, I'm also a pretty heavy user of DHCP reservations as I like to be in absolute control of all devices on my network... all the way down to IP addresses.

        This does prove my point though; that Server 2008 R2 isn't about one big change but rather that it's about a million of tiny little improvements put into an awesome package to make life a lot less of a misery.

        Unfortunately however a lot of SMB's couldn't care less.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

          I don't know man, my SMB stable is pretty hard core Small Business Server 2011. You'll pry that out of their cold, dead hands. When you do, I'm almost certain it will be replaces with a Synology, not "Microsoft Azure NSA Edition with +1 to yearly subscription $$$." I wholly expect them to keep clinging to that OS until it goes out of support.

      2. keithpeter Silver badge

        Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.

        "Server App-V is probably the best path forward if you can get your applications packaged up for it. It enables you to stream applications to your users and offers a very good chance of successfully supporting applications that would otherwise be a real pain to migrate."

        <end user alert>

        I'm at home and logged into a remote desktop session to access my work desktop. It is 2008/R2 and you have now explained what that little orange cube is in the system tray is doing. As a result, I can run various 'business applications' of some vintage (I'm guessing from the interface 'design').

        On log-in, scripts run to set up my remote desktop but the same scripts run to set up my desktop on an actual staff machine, and on the student machines when we log into the 'staff' domain.

        I conclude that the IT guys have a remote access/roving desktop system that supports 600 teaching staff with about 300 staff machines and 500+ local student access machines with 15k accounts. We appear to be using a Windows 7 actual desktop session. Most of the hardware is dual core/2Gb with some 1Gb machines knocking around and some thin clients that used to be Citrix but now run the same as the others.

        I suspect this estate and setup will be operated for as long as it can be as dosh is hard to find right now in the public sector, and it works rather well.

        My personal BYOD solution is a laptop running CentOS with an rdp session running over the open wifi in college. Fast screen updating and lets me work anywhere in the building and I imagine is reasonably secure.

        </end user alert>

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome. (Trevor @07:42

        "The ability to right click on a system in DHCP and add a reservation."

        Congrats. You need to hire a DNS/DHCP admin. Nothing, in my opinion, make DHCP harder to manage than widely scattered DHCP reservations.

        IMNSHO, if you need to give a machine a reserved address, power off the machine, create a reservation in the right place, and power the machine back on.


This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021