Not saying he couldn't, but what is the process of backing up not only the data shares, but the whole OS config as well? What is the restore procedure of the WHOLE thing? NTBackup is clearly easier to backup and restore the entire server config and file shares. I'm not suggesting it can't be done on Linux, as you and I know it can. Question is how long will it take him or any new employee to learn it? NTBackup is so easy my wife can use it (she's of the non-geek type). Don't think you can say the same about Linux. :-/ P.S. I like linux; I run a linux router/firewall, and a Fedora Core 3 box. Be realistic about Linux though - for all the good things about it like better security, better performance, a command line interface that makes the command prompt in windows a joke, not to mention the low cost, it's not as easy to use as Windows, period! ;-) "By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, ‘contentious, but futile protest vote by Democrats.’ By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you’ll be so w

0

>>What is the restore procedure of the WHOLE thing? Amanda, backing up to a drive, tape device or over the wire - about 20 minutes for an 80 gig partition Cron job to back up system-wide config files - 20 minutes to setup (or 5 if you use something like YaST or Webmin), another 5 minutes to run nightly. >>NTBackup is so easy my wife can use it And Amanda is so easy, the $7/hour high school age interns at the last ISP I worked at could use it. What's your point? Anyone capable of learning to run 2003 Server + Exchange + Sharepoint + Terminal Services, as you are suggesting, should also be capable of learning how to setup either of those two backup solutions without much difficulty. Give people some credit, dude. Linux is no longer arcane or difficult to learn. I'm not suggesting he compile a custom kernel or anything like that. >Question is how long will it take him...to learn it About 20 minutes. See above ;) >>Question is how long will it take...any new employee to learn it? How long will it take to train a new employee to follow a pre-defined sequence of commands? About as long as on Windows or any other platform, I would imagine. >> it's not as easy to use as Windows, period! ;-) What are you basing this on? That may have been true 5 years ago, but with many modern distributions it's nothing more than a stale rumor now. >>Don't think you can say the same about Linux. Again, what are you basing this on? See above, re: stale rumor.

0

The backup and restore procedures - what I mean is what do you have to do to do it? For example, to back up the whole drive in Windows, you start the backup utility in wizard mode, select back up everything, tell it to wherever to back it up to, insert the disketter for ASR, done. Right there it also says you can schedule it. If someone had absolutely no clue how to use backup, if you started the utility up, you'd figure it out. To restore, boot off Windows CD, hit the button when it prompts for ASR, insert the ASR diskette, insert or connect the backup media, and BAM, you're back to working config. That's freaking easy! "And Amanda is so easy, the $7/hour high school age interns at the last ISP I worked at could use it. What's your point?" I know high school kids who can port forward for games. Doesn't mean understanding managing firewalls is easy, either. You can not know NOTHING about NTBackup, and be able to use it effectively the first time. "Anyone capable of learning to run 2003 Server + Exchange + Sharepoint + Terminal Services, as you are suggesting, should also be capable of learning how to setup either of those two backup solutions without much difficulty. Give people some credit, dude. Linux is no longer arcane or difficult to learn. I'm not suggesting he compile a custom kernel or anything like that." You obviously haven't seen Small Business Server 2003. There's a world of difference in setup and admin of SBS2003 and the full blown versions of Exchange, Win2003, Sharepoint, etc. So yes, I'm suggesting that he could at the very least admin SBS2003 - with Exchange, Sharepoint Services, etc. Microsoft designed it for small businesses that don't have full time techie admins since that's expensive. "How long will it take to train a new employee to follow a pre-defined sequence of commands? About as long as on Windows or any other platform, I would imagine." Virtually anyone could run NTBackup without any prodedural guide, as I stated before. "What are you basing this on? That may have been true 5 years ago, but with many modern distributions it's nothing more than a stale rumor now." Like Fedora Core 3? HEY! I run that!!! While better than before Linux still isn't as easy to run. I'm basing this on actually running, setting up, admining, troubleshooting both OS's for years (Windows since about 1997, Linux since about 2000). It's not a stale rumor. It's people repeating the obvious truth that apparently you don't want to face. Not saying linux is bad, as I stated before. I just said it's not as easy to run. "By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, ‘contentious, but futile protest vote by Democrats.’ By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you’ll be so wasted you won't even notice the war in Syria!"

0

>>The backup and restore procedures - what I mean is what do you have to do to do it? Once the procedure is in place? Nothing, it runs automatically as a cron job. To restore, you boot from any live CD (Fedora Core, for example) and run the restore script. Not too difficult. I'm sure even your wife could manage it :) >>I just said it's not as easy to run. Simply untrue. But even if it were true, you do Travis a disservice by refusing to consider an available option becuase you don't think he's smart enough to learn how to use it. >>You obviously haven't seen Small Business Server 2003. You obviously think you know more about me than you actually do ;) >>You can not know NOTHING about NTBackup, and be able to use it effectively the first time. Do you really want people working on your servers who know NOTHING about them? Or are you implying that Travis knows NOTHING, nor is capable of learning, anything about Windows or Linux? >>Microsoft designed it for small businesses that don't have full time techie admins since that's expensive. Which is not the case here. Travis is the techie admin for his business, so your point is irrelevant. >>I know high school kids who can port forward for games. Doesn't mean understanding managing firewalls is easy, either. Just as there is a big difference between forwarding a port and managing a firewall, there is a big difference between setting up a pre-packaged distribution and some services, and...doing whatever you think is so difficult about Linux. I'm still not quite sure what that is. >>Virtually anyone could run NTBackup without any prodedural guide, as I stated before. Which is hardly the ideal way to manage a server. I would expect anyone deploying a server to, at a minimum, learn a little about it themselves. >>I'm basing this on actually running, setting up, admining, troubleshooting both OS's for years (Windows since about 1997, Linux since about 2000) You've gotten one firewall and one FC3 box running in 5 years? No wonder you're so unfamiliar with the platform ;) >>It's people repeating the obvious truth that apparently you don't want to face. Obvious truth? Please..... If you would like to, you know, maybe provide some kind of side-by-side comparison of features I might consider what you're saying valid. As it is, all I hear you saying is "OMG! Windows is teh easy!!!!".

0

"Once the procedure is in place?" NO! SETTING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE! "I'm sure even your wife could manage it :)" Probably not. "You obviously think you know more about me than you actually do ;)" Dude, how can ANYONE say someone who works with computers would have a difficult time admining a Small Business Server 2003 box unless they've either... A. Never seen it before. B. Are totally stupid. I'm assuming you've never seen it before because I don't believe you're stupid. If you'd like me to change my mind about that, I'd be happy to. Dude, you boot SBS2003 up, and it says... "What would you like to do? A. Manage Users B. Back up the Server etc." You select Manage Users... "What would you like to do? A. Create a user B. Delete a user C. Edit a user" Not in those exact words, but you get the idea. When you create a user, it asks you if you would like to create a mailbox at the same time. Oh, and you can do this via webforms remotely... Now you suggested Travis couldn't manage that. I assumed you didn't know SBS2003, and now you're telling me you do, so are you implying Travis is so dumb he can't admin a server that looks like that?! Say it ain't so! "Simply untrue. But even if it were true, you do Travis a disservice by refusing to consider an available option becuase you don't think he's smart enough to learn how to use it." Never said don't consider it. Just said it was easier to do it in windows. You do also know that learning has also to do with MORE than how smart you are. You also have to take the time to learn it. Something more intuitive doesn't take as much time to learn. I really don't appreciate you implying I'm calling other people dumb, and underestimating them. If the goal is to get the stuff backed up, I'm suggesting a method that is easier. I do not know what the original poster's background is, although it appears more Windows based than Linux. "Which is not the case here. Travis is the techie admin for his business, so your point is irrelevant." Point is VERY relevant. SBS2003 means you don't need Microsoft Certified Professional level knowledge to run Exchange, SQL, etc. I know PLENTY of techie people who don't have the kind of knowledge I have about Exchange, and I'd feel comfortable with them admining Exchange in SBS2003, but I wouldn't feel very comfortable with them admining a full Exchange server. "there is a big difference between setting up a pre-packaged distribution and some services, and...doing whatever you think is so difficult about Linux. I'm still not quite sure what that is." When you come from a Windows background, pretty much ANYTHING in Windows is easier to figure out and learn, from installing drivers and software, to figuring out how to backup your server. Without a Windows background, it's STILL easier to learn how to simply install the OS for example. With Windows, you have varying levels of service. Home, Pro, 2003 Server, Advanced Server, and it's pretty easy to figure out which one you need. With Linux, there are threads right here in computing.net of people who are trying to figure out WHICH DISTRO to use, and they haven't even begun to install it yet. Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSe, etc. Some install exceptionally easy, some are hard, some are downright almost impossible. With Windows, it's exceptionally easy. Sharing folders with other Windows boxes? Exceptionally easy. Right click the folder, share, and say which users/groups can access it. You don't have to get educated on Samba, or the fact that Samba has a totally different user account database than the account database in Linux. Do you really want me to keep going? It's hilarious to me that you're suggesting integrating a linux server into a windows network is gonna be just as easy as integrating a Windows server into a Windows network. That is unequivocably absurd. "Which is hardly the ideal way to manage a server." You're right, it's hardly an ideal way to get the system up and running, and learn how to operate it faster. What was I thinking? "You've gotten one firewall and one FC3 box running in 5 years? No wonder you're so unfamiliar with the platform ;)" I was talking about in my house. When I say *I'M* running it, it means I have it in my house. Where I work I manage too many to think of off the top of my head, I'd say somewhere around 40 predominantly SuSe servers. I also manage about 500 Windows servers, too. You know, simple stuff like Active Directory in a multidomain forest for a large federal agency with 20,000 users or so, give or take a few thousand. Wanna make any more snite remarks about my experiences with EITHER linux or Windows? "If you would like to, you know, maybe provide some kind of side-by-side comparison of features I might consider what you're saying valid." BTW, I really don't care if you think what I've said is valid or not. It's the truth. But sure, let's compare how to share files with other windows client - Windows Server vs. Linux! No problem, let's see which is easier!

0

>>ANYONE say someone who works with computers would have a difficult time admining a Small Business Server 2003 box I don't recall saying that. >>I also manage about 500 Windows servers, too Phone support, if I recall correctly from one of your other threads. >>Wanna make any more snite remarks about my experiences with EITHER linux or Windows? No, you clearly have superior skills in that area. >>Do you really want me to keep going? No, not really. From what I can see, you're a loud-mouthed, close-minded, self-important bigot. You'd rather expound on your "credentials" than have any kind of meaningful dialogue. If the entirety of this issue is, to you, simply which "is easier" - Linux or Windows - then you have utterly missed the point.

0

Oh, and by the way: >>But sure, let's compare how to share files with other windows client - Windows Server vs. Linux! No problem, let's see which is easier! Add the following lines to smb.conf [sharename] path = /path/to/share There - that wasn't so hard, was it? Once a Windows user gets over the mind-numbingly difficult learning curve of editing a text file, sharing files with Windows is pretty easy. Of course, that's doing it the hard way. There isn't much need to manually edit conf files anymore. But you knew that, right? And, as you know, I only recommended Linux as a cheap replacement for Windows as a simple file server. Even if you are right about everyting else (which I still do not concede), your arguments get stretched pretty thin when you apply them to setting up a simple file server. Surely you must see that there is some grey area between "simple file server" and "multidomain forest"? Maybe you could shed some of that anger you seem to have and actually talk about this? Are you willing to stop shouting and talk about that grey area? Or do you just want to be right? If that's the case, you get to be, because I have no interest in your shouting match. There are far more interesting Internet cranks than you I can waste my time on ;)

0

I'm sorry...I don't mean to keep harping on you, heropsycho, but... >>BTW, I really don't care if you think what I've said is valid or not. It's the truth. I am greatly amused by this. All that ranting, and when you are prompted to provide some factual information to support your (extremely loud) position, what is your response? "I don't have to prove anything to you!" Sound and fury.....how's the rest of that go?

0

"If the entirety of this issue is, to you, simply which "is easier" - Linux or Windows - then you have utterly missed the point." Uhh, who exactly missed the point. Go back through the thread and you might notice I said THIS! "The use of Samba for a file server in this case could be a good solution, but make sure you know how to backup the files on those shares, and consider if you need full backup capabilities to restore it's config efficiently. An argument for using a Microsoft product in that case is you can do scheduled NTbackups, although you could still do that in samba from an XP workstation of the shares." I flat out said a Samba file server would be a good solution provided you know how to restore the file shares and config efficiently! I then pointed out that a benefit of using a windows file server is it would be easier to do those things. You then picked the fight. Now you tell me who missed the point! Who feels they need to be right? You turned this into a Linux vs. Windows debate when I was only defending my point that Windows would be easier to use in this situation. I NEVER said a windows file server was the better way to go. That's for him to decide! You are right in that a Linux file server in his environment would be cheaper, and you can go back through this thread and you will never see me question that. You will never see me say "windows is better than linux" in totality. I said it was easier to use. "Phone support, if I recall correctly from one of your other threads." Sounds like you're making fun of the fact I USED to work phone support. Are you suggesting anyone who works phone support doesn't have the same skills as someone who admins the machines? Nice subtle personal attack, buddy. And no, that's not my current position. Oh, even though this is throwing out credentials, I worked as a Senior Product Support Engineer onsite for Microsoft for Exchange. Man, that means I must have sucked, eh? BTW, that remark you made, was THAT meaningful dialogue? And why did I throw my credientials out? Because you suggested I don't have experience with Linux, I just recite "stale rumors". Other than me saying you haven't seen SBS2003 (very specialized product, wouldn't blame you if you haven't), I don't recall ever saying you don't have experience. Yeah, so I got a little angry when someone accuses me of ignorantly repeating "stale rumors" instead of debating this rationally, changes the focus of the debate, then proceeds to imply I missed the point, makes fun of my credentials, calls me an internet crank, a closeminded bigot when all the while I said both were good solutions (doesn't sound like closeminded to me!)...I'm sure there are more insults in this thread thrown in my direction. "BTW, I really don't care if you think what I've said is valid or not. It's the truth." My point was I didn't have to persuade YOU, and didn't care if I did. You aren't the final judge in who has valid points in this debate and whod doesn't, and neither am I for that matter. This was a discussion to help Travis make a decision, not persuade you that you were wrong, and I was right. And I'm through with this. Complete and utter waste of BOTH our time.

0

You are one angry dude, dude. I feel sorry for your wife :(

0

By the way, who changed the focus of the debate? I responded to every single one of your points regarding the relative difficulty of backing up Windows and Linux servers. That was, in its entirety, the point. Let me restate this more simply for you: Windows Server - SBS2003 in particular - is easy to use. It is so easy that a person with little or no technical expertise may install and run it effectively with little or no training. I concede this. Travis requires a simple file server for ~10 peer workstations. Linux - SuSE in particular - is not significantly more difficult to install, setup, and backup as a simple file server than is Windows SBS2003. As such, I suggest that Linux is a valid alternative to Windows for this specific application. That's it. That's the entire debate right there. Anything else is outside the scope of this thread. You are probably right about some of your other points, but they are peripheral and irrelevant to this debate. You conflate "all of Windows" and "all of Linux", and seem to be incapable of discussing task-specific subsets of each. And, >>Sounds like you're making fun of the fact I USED to work phone support. No. Since you brought it up, I am questioning your experience as it relates to the topic of discussion. If you, as you say, "manage about 500 Windows servers," I find it odd that the first and most relevant examples of your experience are working the help desk, and a couple of Linux boxes you have running at your house. I believe that you are exaggerating your experience, which leads me to believe that your actual employment situation is not as interesting as you portray it. That is not to say that you are uninformed or inexperienced. It does, however, somewhat explain your apparent lack of communication skills.

0

I'm not arguing this with you anymore. Defending my expertise is one thing, but I'm not gonna take the bait and fire back at your experience or lack thereof, as much as I'd like to. Question my experience all you want. I honestly couldn't care less, as I stated before. For Travis's benefit only, SBS2003 was only a suggestion if messaging, webserving, and ease of administration was being considered, especially if the environment he's working in doesn't have a permanent in house admin for the server. I only suggested to at least look at that if it were to fulfill current or future needs, not necessarily to adopt it as the solution for a simple file server.

0