Mark Minasi's Reader Forum
Mark Minasi's Reader Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Search | FAQ | Minasi Forum RSS Feed
 All Forums
 HALP! Questions on Windows and Windows Server
 Windows Server 2008 R2
 Server 2008R2 better than Linux DC because....?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
Note: please do not cross-post.
Cross-postings will be deleted and ignored.
Thanks for helping to keep this forum junk-free!
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Bruce98 Posted - 01/05/2012 : 08:01:28 AM
Greetings. I've been going around in circles with management for reasons not to use Linux as an alternative to Server 2008R2. While Linux is an excellent O/S it is, I feel, lacking many of the benefits of Server 2008R2.

Additionally, until Samba 4 is stable Linux cannot replace the role of a Server 2008 DC, but rather must be a member server. I.e., basically a BDC as in the days of NT 4.0.

What I am having a difficult time with is coming up with a list of shortcomings of Linux as an alternative to a DC based on Server 2008R2 so as to persuade them.

Any input greatly appreciated.
14   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Bruce98 Posted - 01/27/2012 : 08:54:31 AM
Thanks to everyone for your help with this, greatly appreciated!
joe_elway Posted - 01/20/2012 : 10:53:11 AM
Centralised management, ease of use, reapid deployment, end user computing experience, availability of integrated business solutions, availability of knowledge (without being called a n00b), penguin poo in the computer room, and skills and the list goes on. Windows wins every time.
Endaar Posted - 01/19/2012 : 10:58:06 AM
What about 3rd party apps that extend or tie into AD? Things like deployment software, password management, unified messaging, etc. If you can even get a particular application to work, good luck getting the vendor to support it running against anything other than a Microsoft DC.

What is management's rationale? Not to put too fine a point on it, but it would seem to the me the reason not to use Linux for an Active Directory domain is because AD is a Microsoft technology. And yes, I get that at some level AD is LDAP, but AD is so much more than just an LDAP server...

If I hadn't been asked to consider an Apple X-Serve as a SAN for a 100% Windows network, I wouldn't believe this is even being considered.

James

spitfire650 Posted - 01/18/2012 : 11:36:49 AM
Keep support costs in mind, I know little about Linux support, though I recall that there are many support packages that can be purchased. Aside from cost, quality is is key too. I've always had good experiences with Microsoft support getting things running again, and you would want to make sure that you would have a similar experience with whatever Linux operating system you choose to deploy. This would probably require some research on your part, and I'm sure that some companies will offer great support, but just make sure you know what you're getting into!
Bruce98 Posted - 01/09/2012 : 09:26:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by timberk

I'm not that familiar with Samba v4, but earlier versions could not hold any of the FSMO roles or perform any DC functions. All it really allows is Linux to be a *member* of an AD domain. It will do File and Printer sharing and NetBIOS to IP mapping.

Version 4 is *supposed* to emulate basic DC function, but it's still in Alpha release. Far from Production ready......

As far as a list of shortcomings, here's a start:

  • Linux can't perform *any* function required of an AD Domain Controller



>As far as a list of shortcomings, here's a start:

LOL
Bruce98 Posted - 01/09/2012 : 07:45:07 AM
Thanks to everyone for your input!
Mark Minasi Posted - 01/08/2012 : 5:33:17 PM
For me, one of the deciders is always group policies... Linux isn't so good with that.
netmarcos Posted - 01/06/2012 : 4:21:35 PM
For the same reason that you don't use fax machine to replace the functions of a printing press.
timberk Posted - 01/06/2012 : 1:24:38 PM
I'm not that familiar with Samba v4, but earlier versions could not hold any of the FSMO roles or perform any DC functions. All it really allows is Linux to be a *member* of an AD domain. It will do File and Printer sharing and NetBIOS to IP mapping.

Version 4 is *supposed* to emulate basic DC function, but it's still in Alpha release. Far from Production ready......

As far as a list of shortcomings, here's a start:

  • Linux can't perform *any* function required of an AD Domain Controller
Bruce98 Posted - 01/06/2012 : 08:16:54 AM
Thanks for everyone's input. Management most likely will want to go the Linux route though. However, Samba 4 is still in development and it is essential to emulating many of the capabilities of Server 2008R2. With that brought to light that may be enough to squash it.
Playwell Posted - 01/06/2012 : 02:18:50 AM
Techology wise you could say refering to Samba the original thing is better then the product reverse engineered from the original.
JamesNT Posted - 01/05/2012 : 8:01:39 PM
The issue is going to be cost. Whether the linux crowd believes it or not, MS has won the Total Cost of Ownership war. I recommend calling some firms that use linux and asking them what their yearly cost for the past 5 years has been then do the same thing with Windows.

linux does indeed have the better price tag, but it's the long run that kills ya.

JamesNT
Rastor728 Posted - 01/05/2012 : 2:08:23 PM
Usually, administrations have the "free" or "open source" idea stuck in their heads when it comes to Linux systems, failing to understand how much you have to "stand on your own" with many of these products, especially when you try and "mix" things like SQL, Exchange, Squid, Apache and the actual business applications your business needs to run. It becomes difficult to have on site "experts" sufficient to cover both sets of software systems, and still keep costs and response times reasonable.

I had similar discussions at a public school I worked for (the sole on site technician) a few years ago. Other than that discussion was between Macintosh and Windows systems, and the costs to keep both systems fully functional with one technician. I was even willing to work a 100% Macintosh platform for them, but the State had several MS Based applications that they were required to run for student and fiscal management systems.
wobble_wobble Posted - 01/05/2012 : 11:26:21 AM
Licensing costs.

Maintenance license for a Red Hat box is approx 400 per year (Euro) and that is self service, so patch the server yourself.

Management costs.

Do you have an existing management product (SCE/ SCOM etc) can it manage a Linux box? How much extra is the agent?

Training costs/ employment costs.
Do you need extra training for Linux?
New employees will cost more to employ as the yneed MS and Linux skills.

Hope thats a start.


Mark Minasi's Reader Forum © 2002-2011 Mark Minasi Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000