oldman
“SAMBA 4 is still not out the door in production code This being handed the protocol and being helped by microsoft. Even when it does, its going to be one to two years before it is stable enough and trusted enough to make its way into the commercial products that are going to guarantee its spread. even THEN is is highly doubtful that anyone is going to trust for any advanced functions for quite some time.”

This is what is called head in sand problem. Samba 4 doing ADS is already in some commercial NAS products. Funny enough the major delay with Samba 4 is not ADS. Its doing the newer file sharing so group policies work perfectly that is the delay.

Problem is
“And if they are not going to trust SAMBA 4, why should they trust openchange 1.0 and zpush?”

z-push is already used by a lot of commercial bodies it also appears in some NAS boxes already. Yes the ones with a mail server option that allows mobiles to connect. You don’t need samba 4 to run z-push.

The problem here oldman are Linux based Nas boxes perfect replacements for Windows. Answer is no. Are they good enough todo the roles answer for lots of cases yes.

openchange 1.0 to be correct is exactly like z-push it does not store anything. z-push takes active-sync protocol and splits it into rfc standard protocols to go into other back ends. openchange also does not store email takes mapi and breaks it into rfc protocols.

Neither of them are really risking your data. They remove the need to install connectors into devices. Storage used behind both of them can have more years of testing than exchange. So really why should I trust something like exchange that has had less testing.

In fact a lot of business use this http://www.openchange.org/images/openchange/conferences/download/openchange_courses_002_understanding_mapiproxy.pdf already to reduce VPN stress. openchange 1.0 is just a step up from this allowing the proxy to connect to a non exchange servers. Just needs ADS to pull this off. You can use openchange 1.0 with with a MS ADS server so you don’t need exchange right now.

oldman if you have many locations using a vpn or equal to connect central copy of exchange somewhere and you are not using mapiproxy from openchange to reduce the traffic you should be shot.

This is the problem oldman I am not talking about introduction of techs that have not been in enterprise for quite some time. I am talking about those items being able to operate without the MS product.

Neither of z-push or openchange is 100 percent dependant on Samba 4. z-push is in fact not at all.

Openchange is dependant to the point if you want to run without an exchange server somewhere and without paying a Windows license you need a samba 4 or using some of its really advanced functions. Even so with a Samba4 this can still expand its function if you keep on using exchange.

Yes Samba 4 with Openchange can reduce a site to requiring only 1 device Cal per site on the Exchange server if you remain using Exchange. Since only 1 device is connecting to the exchange server the device running Openchange and Samba 4.

Also this makes controlling vpn traffic simpler.

Openchange 1.0 you can choose to remain Exhchange or use a different group-ware servers.

If you go threw the slides notice at end that you can scan the traffic at each vpn point for infections. So slowing network spread back and know what section of your network its coming from.

oldman I am not making assumption based on the idea businesses will have to add this tech. I am making assumption since business are already using this tech they will expand its usage to reduce there costs. Cutting exchange to 1 device call per location or less. is a hell of a income cut.

You are out of touch oldman. Coming out with the idea businesses would have to grow trust for it. Lot of businesses already trust openchange. This is a house of cards thing. MS cannot simply break compatibility with it.

Incredible, Mr. Pogson! I guess the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on web service generation and client level consumption via smart phones, tablets, and personal computers is a totally lost cause and some Simple Simon file sharing scheme added to a terminal/server architecture is the real way to go after all.

Can you find any phone app or tablet app of any level of successful acceptance that is not either a completely stand-alone app on the device or does not involve a focused web service either over the internet or a local intranet for networked functions?

Actually all I said was that a NAS appliance that mimic’ed a windows file server would work well in a situation where cost and east of use was key. And this is fine, because most commercial NAS servers are also administer-able using standard windows tools as well.

But you may have a point When I can manage a linux host remotely using powershell or windows system administrator tools so that it looks no different that a windows box, then you would have something.

But of you think that that level of function and feature is coming any time soon for your vaunted community, you are just IMHO clueless and incompetent.

Most people buy NAS boxes for what they do – provide a windows compliant file share without the hassle of managing a windows server. The fact that you personally can hack them into doing something else is irrelevant. If people don’t want the hassle of a windows server (or any server) they IMHO more than likely aren’t going to buy into using some hacked up appliance whose stability has been compromised by the hacking.

SAMBA 4 is still not out the door in production code This being handed the protocol and being helped by microsoft. Even when it does, its going to be one to two years before it is stable enough and trusted enough to make its way into the commercial products that are going to guarantee its spread. even THEN is is highly doubtful that anyone is going to trust for any advanced functions for quite some time.

And if they are not going to trust SAMBA 4, why should they trust openchange 1.0 and zpush?

Incompetence on your part to make such an assumption IMHO.

Clarence Moon I also would have thought you would have used some brains here. No Windows license sold No MS.
“Sure the stand-alone storage devices and printers, too, probably have some form of Linux or similar firmware embedded inside and no one gives a hoot, Mr. O. It is just part of the hardware as far as anyone actually cares.”
Ok who pays for most of the Linux kernel and Samba development. End users don’t the largest investment is the embedded devices.

Clarence Moon
“The answer, of course, is when you want to run Exchange, SharePoint, or SQL Server. That is what modern companies do.”

Answer is not at all in a very short time. Exchange is highly ADS dependant. Openchange(Mapi outlook) and Zpush(active sync mobile devices) that replaces Exchange is waiting on Samba 4 ADS. So NAS servers will be able todo Exchange equal.

SharePoint there is Alfresco. SQL Server really do you think that is going to be enough.

Exchange, SharePoint are provided by Microsoft as cloud services if you trust them.

As oldman and Clarence Moon stated end users don’t care as long as it acts as a Windows machine so MS is doomed in the server room as Linux gets able to be more and more like a windows machine.

Really both of you oldman and Clarence moon just stated exactly what I suspected you don’t care if server room is Windows only that it work and is cheep. Funny that the anti-linux camp is stating exactly why Windows is stuffed.

Chuckle. oldman doesn’t do maths very well.

Web server edition = half the price, but
“Windows Web Server 2008 R2 FAQs
Q: Can Windows Web Server 2008 R2 be used as a file server or an application server?
A: No. Windows Web Server 2008 R2 can be used solely to deploy Internet-facing webpages, websites, web applications, web services,
and POP3 mail serving.
Q: When using Windows Web Server 2008 R2, are customers restricted to running only non-enterprise­level database application
software with the server software?
A: No. With Windows Web Server 2008 R2, customers may run any level of enterprise or non-enterprise database application software
with the server software.
Q: Can database software running on Windows Web Server 2008 R2 support external applications running on other servers?
A: No. The database software may support only applications that are running on the same local instance of Windows Web Server 2008
R2.”

There are so many restrictions, the thing is pretty well useless as an application server. Do you want world+uncle accessing company data without authentication.

“Is access through the Internet and user/device anonymous?
Yes to both
No CAL required.”

see Pricing and Licensing Guide

So what? The issue was about needing CAL licenses when one has Windows based servers and that is a straw man, bugbear that doesn’t exist in the modern world. Sure the stand-alone storage devices and printers, too, probably have some form of Linux or similar firmware embedded inside and no one gives a hoot, Mr. O. It is just part of the hardware as far as anyone actually cares.

So there is a big question when do you need a traditional server at all

Now you’re getting down to the brass tack, Mr. O! That is truly an accomplishment for you! The answer, of course, is when you want to run Exchange, SharePoint, or SQL Server. That is what modern companies do.

I believe the point being made was that one can minimize costs without having to resort to using Linux at all. The Web Server edition of windows can host web applications without needs for CAL’s avoid the need for CAL’s by using a Windows compliant NAS box.

The fact that the NAS solution in question is running linux is nothing more than a factoid – It acts like a windows device and that all that counts.

“Linux” in the sense of the classical linux server that Pog is arguing for is effectively nowhere in the picture, and the result is easier for a teacher to manage than any agglomeration of service running on a classical linux box.

Pardon learn to look a little more than skin deep.

Lot of those “multiple terabyte drives with built-in wi-fi access” are Linux Servers running Samba. So yes there is server participation just happens to be in a form you are not seeing as existing.

That one day will be Linux Servers running Samba providing ADS from NAS boxes.

Linux is in a lot of shops inside NAS boxes and the like. Entered the market by stealth.

You will find windows machines without a server will go nuts once there are too many clients. Of course the server could be a Linux NAS box so making Windows scale larger. So why you have more than 10 machines in a network might be because that little Linux box NAS that you have in your network. If its only 1 and it fails. Things can turn really bad as you network turns nuts.

“If you absolutely had to have a server involved in the traditional sense, then use a Linux server to do so. Ditto for printing. No big deal, eh?”

That is the problem most people don’t notice the Linux Boxes. They are small they are cheep and they are productive. Lot of NAS boxes do printer as well.

So there is a big question when do you need a traditional server at all.

I don’t actually know that is true, Mr. Pogson, but I will stipulate that to be the case simply to put it to rest. File/Print servers are rather passe’ in case you haven’t noticed. Every printer in our building can accessed directly from one’s workstation via wi-fi connection and no server is needed. One can buy a suitable printer at any local big box store for well under $100. I have one in my house.

Similarly there may be a CAL charge for Windows file sharing, although that itself is also rather trivial undertaking. Here too, the stores are full of multiple terabyte drives with built-in wi-fi access and files may be shared over any network without any such server participation. If you absolutely had to have a server involved in the traditional sense, then use a Linux server to do so. Ditto for printing. No big deal, eh?

You seem to be locked in the Stone Age of computing infrastructure, Mr. Pogson, and need to update your views on things.