Alternatives to MS Small Business Server

[Cluck]

Microsoft appear to be taking a different direction with the new release of SBS and it's not one that will suit most of my customers. In almost all cases, customers have gone for SBS because of Exchange Server, but this is being removed. Right now I could stockpile SBS 2011, which does include it, but I need to start planning for alternatives. I don't deal with customers any larger than 25-users and I've never set up a multi-server system, hence why SBS has been perfect for over 10 years now.

What I need is a server OS that is simple to install, simple to administer and caters for the following facilities :-

File Sharing
Print Sharing (although this is usually a minor requirement these days)
Local e-mail hosting ala Exchange Server
Remote Access to both server and desktops

I have ZERO experience outside of the MSDOS and Windows environments, hence the need for this to be simple .

I know why Microsoft have done it but instead of keeping a product going and giving small businesses an option, they are taking that away and forcing people to look elsewhere. Exchange is also moving to 'cloud' based which, for most of my rural customers is also not an option. I have some customers struggling with sub.2Mbps connections so you can imagine what it would be like for them .

One last thing. The server OS needs to be damn stable and require very little maintenance. I cannot afford to be running around all the time fixing problems. Believe it or not, I have to do very little work on my customer's SBS-based systems as, once set up, they just work .

Ta .

[Guy]

Do they really need to have Exchange locally?
The number of clients who after actually breaking it down to the bare numbers need it I can count on one hand.

We've just moved away from SBS internally and although we're an IT company in a large business park not far from Virgin Media's HQ we on a good day have a 1.5/2Mbps connection , and have no problems at all picking up remote mail, and functioning day to day. Proper management and QOS'ing helps.

[Seraphon]

I know you're not familiar with linux but check out:

http://www.ubuntu.com/business/server/overview

and:

https://help.ubuntu.com/12.04/index.html

That link contains all of the documentation/tutorials for the latest server version.

I'm now running several linux boxes at my work (a mix of ubuntu and pfsense) and they have the least problems of all the servers.

I recently had to restart one after a security update was patched to the kernel, I checked the uptime before I rebooted it and it had been on for 4 months.

It takes a bit of time to get used to CLI after having a GUI, but I actually prefer it in some cases. There's always the option to install a GUI on a server anyway.

[Cluck]

For the small customers it's certainly cheaper to have a hosted solution but for 15+ users the hosted solution will be more costly over the 5 years they would keep the server. There's also the small matter of a hosting service going 'tits up', whereas keeping it locally means they have complete control.

My own major concern with all hosted services is who's to say that any of these providers will be around in 5 years? If you keep it and control it locally then you remove those concerns . I will lay my cards on the table and say that I have a huge distrust of hosted systems, be it for data or e-mail .

@Seraphon - I'll take a look at those links, cheers . re. uptime, the only time any of my customer's servers get rebooted is when there's an update from Microsoft (so, once a month). Other than that, they just run and run and run. I had one customer's SBS server not updating for some reason and it hadn't been rebooted in 6 months, but was still running just fine . I sell (and used to build) systems almost always for their reliability and that goes double for servers. I cannot afford to run around fixing stupid problems caused by saving a few £££s in the initial server cost .

[Monkey]

My own major concern with all hosted services is who's to say that any of these providers will be around in 5 years? If you keep it and control it locally then you remove those concerns . I will lay my cards on

This^^ add in the fact its another link in the "what can fail" chain.

what is the cost/implications differences from going away from SBS with exchange to SBS and adding exchange? surely its better staying with the devil you know.

[colinjy]

my concerns with the hosted solutions were the connection and unless your providing redundancy for the BB connection or have a line with SLA then it does pose a critical fail over point. were running it at the office on the E3 package and altho we only have a handfull of users and am looking at a solution to replicate the hosted exchange onto a local server. still not sure if it's going to be the way forward as most customers (myself included) like to see a box in the corner of the room flashing and know that that's doing something.

[Cluck]

This^^ add in the fact its another link in the "what can fail" chain.

what is the cost/implications differences from going away from SBS with exchange to SBS and adding exchange? surely its better staying with the devil you know.

Large . You have to install a second physical server for a start and then purchase both Server and Exchange Server and license them separately to Server 2012 Essentials. Exchange Server 2010, with 5 licences, is over £900 ex VAT to me with each 5-client license costing over £300 - so for a 20-user business, that's £1800 cost price, ex VAT, to me just for Exchange Server. That makes it prohibitively expensive IMO .

[mattpayne]

you could always virtualise an exchange server to cut down on cost.
Are you an MS reseller? and can you bulk buy hosted exchange from microsoft?

as this is a medium term strategy, investigate hosting your own colocated server and supply hosted exchange yourself? this also opens you up to supplying hosted virtual desktops, infrastructure, etc...

[Cluck]

^^^ cheers for the ideas matt but that's a little above my level - I deal with home users and small businesses and operate by myself. It's one of the reasons I don't resell internet services, because things will go wrong and I don't normally have the time to deal with those problems.

I've got maybe 30 servers out there that I look after as and when required (which is very little, truth be told) and SBS has always been the perfect product for all of these customers. If I was to suggest to most of my customers that they have to pay over £5000 for their server hardware and software up front (which would be the case for a 20-user set up with the Server 2012 'solution') then I would be told to sod off! It's sometimes a hard enough sell at £2000, but they all understand the benefits of having a server and having their data on their site, always available .

[Jonny Wilkinson]

Do have a look at the ubuntu stuff.

As a newb to system admin, I installed and got up and running on OpenSUSE (which is similar) very quickly and it has an admin GUI of sorts called YAST2.

Doing installs and configuring OS and apps is something I hate with a passion so the "ease of use" you get with MS has always caused me to avoid Linux at home until I had to pay for licence when I decided to give the open source stuff a crack.

My advice would be to research two or three of the different OSs and see what the open source boys are certifying their software on.

If you need an OS that has traditional levels of helpdesk support, then look at Redhat but the costs are not that dissimilar to MS.

For an email server, you can use something like postfix or sendmail.

[Cluck]

Do have a look at the ubuntu stuff.

As a newb to system admin, I installed and got up and running on OpenSUSE (which is similar) very quickly and it has an admin GUI of sorts called YAST2.

Doing installs and configuring OS and apps is something I hate with a passion so the "ease of use" you get with MS has always caused me to avoid Linux at home until I had to pay for licence when I decided to give the open source stuff a crack.

My advice would be to research two or three of the different OSs and see what the open source boys are certifying their software on.

If you need an OS that has traditional levels of helpdesk support, then look at Redhat but the costs are not that dissimilar to MS.

For an email server, you can use something like postfix or sendmail.

Cheers Mr W .

--------

It's semi-related, but a little off-topic so please read this as my general thoughts rather than a request for discussion in this thread .

I'm genuinely worried about the future of Microsoft and, consequently, the industry that has been built up around it. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate both home users (with The Interface Formally Known As Metro) and now small businesses with the discontinuing of Small Business Server. I accept that they need to make money, but they seem to be doing so in a rather bizarre fashion. At no point in the last 19 years have I been so nervous and uncertain about the future of this industry and in particular the one company that has got us here, namely Microsoft. It seems like they want to throw away everything, every last morsel of the last 17 years. I just don't get it. And another thing, music isn't like it was in my day, these days it's just noise .

[mattpayne]

I know its your thoughts, but here are mine... im more excited with the upcoming releases than I was with the appearance of XP! this is a brave new direction and nothing like what anyone else has done... although apple are in the process of dumbing down OSX with each subsequent release.

have you had much exposure to the 2012 rc?? ive been playing with it for just over a month and it tops the charts for server OS - granted its the datacentre edition so im not sure what the standard edition (which I use for my server OS's) the ease of management and features is great, especally for multiple server installs... the BPA tool and dashboard alone make upfor the metro interface. the server core option is one im hoping to play with (girlfriend time permitting)

Win8 - that also uses fun seerver tech - storage pools and virtual disks.... metro is different, but I am now speccing newwer workstations with touch screens, on these that interface makes a lot of sense.... its very quick to navigate and the more metro-esqe software that is written the more useful it becomes...


Back on topic - Virtualisation is the way forward... thinly provisioned desktops and software will be commonplace in the next 5 years, our software is all transitioning over to cloud hosting, all our training is now virtualised and with direct access in Win2008 VPN connections become seamless, time to start planning for the move!

[Guy]

thinly provisioned desktops and software will be commonplace in the next 5 years

This was said 5 years ago...

Cluck: Do most of your customers actually use it to it's full potential or is it more just a file server that happens to also be running the mail?

[Jonny Wilkinson]

This was said 5 years ago...

Cluck: Do most of your customers actually use it to it's full potential or is it more just a file server that happens to also be running the mail?

This was said 15 years ago by one Larry Ellison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Computer


Cluck - If you look at the direction technology is moving, it makes a little more sense. What microsoft focussed on was market-share and used low unit prices to murder all competition and so get economies of scale that allowed them to still be profitable. Many of those market segments are now shrinking as the personal and SME markets move to new mobile technologies where MS doesn't dominate as strongly. To maintain the same level of discounting is simply not commerically-viable but the consumer has got used to it.

The same thing has happened in the UK Sportsbike market. Having got used to paying around 8K for a new bike for around 15 years, prices rose to 12K in less than 6 months and stayed there. People just stopped buying new bikes.

[Cluck]

This was said 5 years ago...

Cluck: Do most of your customers actually use it to it's full potential or is it more just a file server that happens to also be running the mail?

All of them use the server as their central data store and e-mail and the vast majority use them for remote access and remote e-mail (on their phone or laptop) with a few needing them for SQL Server stuff. A couple of them run their web-sites from them, but they are no more than a couple of pages and see little traffic. So, the simple answer is no, but who uses any software to its full potential .

I have just had to discuss it all with the senior partner at the offices I work out of and he's prepared to just buy a copy of SBS 2011 and 'park it' until their current server dies or needs replacing for other reasons. He doesn't want remote hosting for anything, he wants to retain control of it here and I can't say I blame him! A quick and rough pricing shows that going the Server 2012 route would cost him in excess of £8-9K to replicate the features they currently use and for little discernible benefit to them over SBS 2011 (or over SBS 2003 even ), which will be less than a third of that.

Jonny - Yep, I can see that's the way things have moved a little and it's part of the reason I'm worried. But couple that with what I see Microsoft doing and I seriously wonder where it leaves most average small businesses. It seems that they are the equivalent of 'the squeezed middle' and that quite simply nobody gives a shit about them any more .

Matt - I'm sure virtualisation has it's place in larger organisations but I can't see it appealing to the average SBS user . These are not large businesses spread over multiple sites running bespoke applications, they're typically small businesses who at the outset want to manage their e-mail a bit better and get all the data stuck in one place.

I have always embraced change in this industry - I'd have been out of business a long time ago if I hadn't - but that's because most of those changes have been to the benefit of end users (I was one of the rare breed that didn't actually mind Vista - in fact, compared to the unreliability of XP when it got 'pushed hard', I positively loved Vista). What I cannot see is anything other than profit driving the current raft of changes and although I understand that this is necessary, it feels to me that Microsoft are taking things too far this time around . I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

[mks]

Suprised they have taken it out or that they dont offer some kind of discount on their hosted E-Mail service.

Either way even with a small company i think i would be going to microsoft for their hosted E-mail service. Its not exactly expensive..
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/en...e-pricing.aspx

Its simple for people to access in multiple ways outlook, web based, phones.... all setup ready to go..


IF you really did want somthing local then you could check out MDAEMON mail server, its somthing that they used at my current job before i made them move over to exchange.
http://www.altn.com/Products/MDaemon...erver-Windows/

Its not bad really and works pretty good overall.. and now has blackberry intergration.. it also works similar to exchange except they need a plugin installed for outlook. Its also pretty cheap just under £500 for 50 users.
Ours also ran on a 5 year old dell server 2 xeon processors with 2 cores each, 3GB of ram server 2003 this also ran as a file server, domain controller and DHCP server for 100 users.. So might be worth checking out if you dont want to go down the microsoft hosted route...