Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Integrating Linux into a Windows Network?

Cliff posted more than 9 years ago | from the penguins-and-broken-glass-panes dept.

Linux Business 103

Di0medies asks: "I work for a some-what small non-profit organization that uses a windows-based network. We currently have 6 servers supporting about 25 local domain users and about 25 remote users and we're planning on migrating from Server 2000 to Server 2003 in a month or so. Being a non-profit, we're always a little tight on cash and considering Microsoft charges ungodly amounts of money for server software, migrating portions of the network to Linux leaves more cash available for other IT goodies (like a new high-capacity file server!) and also adds more stability and security to the network. All of this depends on how well a Linux server will work on a Windows network. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding Linux integration? Can Windows and Linux be made to play well together? Is there anything out there to add limited Active Directory support to Linux?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RTFG (0, Redundant)

davidyorke (543505) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195067)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=fire fox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=linux+a ctive+directory&btnG=Search

How this even got posted? (4, Interesting)

aralin (107264) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195068)

Seriously? Just tell the poster to go to Samba [samba.org] and leave space for more interesting questions.

Oh. My. God. (1)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195157)

People, this is Slashdot, not the New York Times. This is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?

For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?

I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.

Damn. Posted that reply to the wrong comment. (1)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195170)

Sorry about that. My bad.

Re:Oh. My. God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11195192)

This is a bit excessive, pal. Hell, I'm so clueless about Linux or unix that I would have believed that 3D GUI in Jurassic Park but even I know what Samba is. It's obvious that the guy submitting the question has not put forth even done one shread of effort. That's what people are griping about. I think you'll find that the people on slashdot are more than eager to help someone who's got a tough problem. But, like anyone, they don't want to feel like their being taken advantage of. Considering how freeking hard it is to get any submissions accepted around here, you gotta kind of understand people getting all grumbly and pissy when they see something like this.

Re:Oh. My. God. (0, Offtopic)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196294)

You would have believed this [sgi.com] was real? That 3D Gui from Jurassic Park runs on IRIX

Re:Oh. My. God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11198162)

their being taken advantage of.

"they're".

Also, a preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with.

Re:Oh. My. God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11236013)

"It's obvious that the guy submitting the question has not put forth even done one shread of effort"

Indeed.

It is so blatantly obvious the message is an stupid troll (hell, six servers for 50 users? am I the only one that see this is plainly incredible, even on a Windows-based typically-clueless-microsoftdroid-managed network?)

This message is most probably sent by a Linux-zealot liking to see how easily this environment can be managed with Linux-based tools.

Just in case the poster is not a troll after all, here comes what I think is te savviest answer it can be given, under the circumnstances:

"migrating from Server 2000 to Server 2003 in a month or so"

Don't do that. But don't save that money for a bigger fileserver either (hell, you already have SIX!!! servers). Spend it on a cluefull consultor. After the operation you will have consolidated all your six servers into one, maybe two, and you will never need to worry about licenses again. One the way, you will freed yourself from worms and viruses and you will be able to have your servers remotely managed and monitored for really cheap.

The real point here is: find a knowledgeable guy.
ASAP.

Re:Oh. My. God. (1)

aralin (107264) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195253)

Your trolling is pointless. I told him all the useless information there is, if you failed to notice :) Keep your moralizing for someone else, please.

Re:Oh. My. God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11196642)

You sir, are a fucking jerk, Mr. (from your bio) ":00:birth: Prague, CZ :11:65C02 - basic, machine code, macro asm :16:80x86 - pascal, c++, OOP :18:internet, lisp, prolog, novell, dos :19:networking, sysadmin :21:linux, PERL, internet games :24:out of uni, IT project manager :25:Oracle HQ emp, CA, US.?"

All that bullshit and the best you can do is tag up a link to samba.org and say, 'nuff said.'

Judging from your resume, looks like your handlers keep you locked away from the humans at all times anyway. Smart move for them.

Moralize that, fuckwit.

USENET (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11202988)

Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.

I was pretty active on USENET during the old days.

1) People were expected to be reasonably knowledgeable about the subjects they were posting on. That is there weren't many newbie groups at all

2) In general people didn't ask dumb questions that were easily researched (though nothing like google really existed).

3) There were other discussion groups like genie, prodigy, AOL and compuserve which were friendlier for these sorts of basic questions. They often had paid tech support staff and a community of users who were helpful. They also had what we would today call FAQs and people were told to check the FAQ quite frequently.

4) Finally the closest analogy to google would have been gopher and people who didn't check gopher were redirected to it.

So using his analogy:

a) he posts to a general computer list something that is specific to SAMBA and gets sent to SAMBA

b) Once he gets to the SAMBA list and does some background research he could post specific questions about SAMBA

c) He needs to pick his groups carefully or he would get rude answers

I'd say the internet is much more firendly today than it was 15-20 years ago to these sorts of users. The AOL flood in '95 set a tone which destroyed USENET. The closest thing to USENET that exists today are the subject specific BBSes and listservers.

Re:Oh. My. God. (1)

Glamdrlng (654792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11223480)

For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?
One of the beautiful things about the open source community is that it is a meritocracy - your worth and status as a member of the community are directly porportional to the amount and quality of the work you've done. If a poster is seeking to join the community and has questions to ask of those who have successfully integrated Linux into Windows environments, essentially asking them/us to give of our time and share our experiences, then the least he can do is show that he's invested some of his own time and energy by asking an educated question.

A more suitable question might be, "I'm considering integrating a Linux server into a windows environment, and it looks like Samba is the way to go. I've read some of the tutorials and whitepapers and it looks like it can be done; have any slashdot readers done such a project? Is Samba the right solution, and what pitfalls should I expect?"

Re:How this even got posted? (5, Informative)

BrynM (217883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195256)

Seriously? Just tell the poster to go to Samba and leave space for more interesting questions.
I'm going to give the guy a break instead of bonking the noob on the nose for asking. Let's gather from his question that he needs to make a case to a PHB (Pointy Haired Bastard - see Dilbert) and needs to know how the heck he'll install and support Samba without knowing what it is in the first place:
  • An explanation [samba.org] of Samba
  • A Google search [google.com] for Samba consultants
  • Some companies [samba.org] that sell Samba support
  • Another Google search [google.com] for problems with Samba and Windows Server 2003 - to know what may lay ahead
  • And of course the classic Samba HowTo [samba.org] with another Google search [google.com] concerning install problems
Do I have a theme here? Yes. Am I doing a little hand-holding? Yes. Is it good gfor my spiritual geek karma? Yes. Am I having a Rumsfeld style self interview? Yes. Am I done now? Absolutely.

Re:How this even got posted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11200931)



Bastard? You retard. Please go see Dilbert. And this time pay attention.

Re:How this even got posted? (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11200994)

Bastard? You retard. Please go see Dilbert. And this time pay attention.
My bad. Pointy Haired Boss. Must be getting the wires crossed with Bastard Operator from Hell [ntk.net] . Maybe a freudian slip ;P

Erm... (0, Redundant)

Nimrod (2809) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195651)

I'm still waiting for the punchline.

If you can't google far enough to ask this sort of thing on a samba mailinglist, you have to ask yourself, "Should I really be running any sort of server in any size enterprise environment?"

And on top of that, someone thought everyone would care enough to have this posted on the front page of slashdot. There's 10 minutes I'm not getting back.

Re:How this even got posted? (2, Insightful)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197897)

Just tell the poster to go to Samba

He specifically asked for suggestions on integration with Active Directory. Just saying 'Samba' is not answering the question.

Re:How this even got posted? (1)

arkulkis (728025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11233776)

Are you, cerberusss, prepared to give him complete instructions on how to set up Samba???? If not, then shut up.

Re:How this even got posted? (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 9 years ago | (#11234577)

I agree my post was somewhat off-topic, but can't you read?! The submitter of the question DID NOT ask for instructions on setting up Samba, but for EXPERIENCE with integration of Linux in AD.

Re:How this even got posted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11236038)

"...but for EXPERIENCE with integration of Linux in AD. "

Which was COMPLETELY out of question, once one consideres that once one is able to take away those six Windows Servers, you don't need AD integration AT ALL!!!

So, in the very end, the poster was just clueless about Windows technologies, Linux technlogies, and quite probably, about any computer technologies for that matter.

Then again, the question is not about how integrate non-windows servers on a windows-clients environment, but if the poster is in any degree up to the task, and if the question deserves, even by far, to be on Slashdot (my bet for both latter questions is NO for they two).

Re:How this even got posted? (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 9 years ago | (#11237410)

For Pete's sake man, if you troll, then at least do it good.

Note to self: don't reply to ACs.

One word (3, Informative)

Fished (574624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195071)

The word is "samba." Samba will more or less allow a Linux server to fully integrate intoa Windows network. I would suggest that, if you are a Linux novice, you leave domain control on Windows and just use Linux as a workhorse. Time enough to move everything to Linux when you're more comfortable with Linux.

Re:One word (1)

musichead (800784) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195079)

Fully integrate?? SAMBA is not AD aware.

Re:One word (4, Informative)

NTT (92764) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195114)

Re:One word (2, Funny)

krewemaynard (665044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197280)

actually, true:

Samba [samba.org]

Ad Aware [lavasoftusa.com]

(saw the window, had to go through it ;)

Give Samba and CUPS a look. (5, Informative)

Padrino121 (320846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195086)

I've done similar things in the past and currently I run my print and file servers on Linux quite seamlessly. All of the Windows admins and users don't know any different.

Samba + PAM + CUPS gives you integrated authentication, SMB/CIFS file serving (Windows file sharing protocol), as well as SMB and IPP printing.

I don't know of any tutorials off the top of my head but Google gave me all I needed to figure it out.

Re:Give Samba and CUPS a look. (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#11198921)

There's a book I'd pay money for in there.

Use Google yet? (0, Troll)

NTT (92764) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195089)

First you need to learn how to google so that you can ask more sensible concise questions [google.com]

You didn't specify if this is servers or workstations. Didn't specify all or just yours. Come on man, do some research before you post to /.

Re:Use Google yet? (1)

chicken_moo (822458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195153)

He DID specify that he is looking at using a Linux server instead of a Windows server, and that all the workstations will remain Windows. Come on man, read the article before you post!

It says "Ask Slashdot." He did. (0, Redundant)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195188)

This is Slashdot, not the New York Times. And this is an "Ask Slashdot" item. Must we tell someone to google it every goddamn time something is posted?

For the love of God, can't we just answer someone with our experiences and build up this "Google" you speak of with some actual content?

I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed.

Re:It says "Ask Slashdot." He did. (1)

NTT (92764) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195418)

I thought the open source community was founded on COMMUNITY. Man, if the old days of USENET could see us now, they'd be ashamed

When people ask lame questions in public forums that could have been answered with a minimal amount of legwork on their part, the standard answer is RTFM [reference.com] , which coincidently was coined during the days of USENET. Google has built the community already. This guy is just walking around it with his eyes closed.

Re:It says "Ask Slashdot." He did. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11209143)

Unfortunatly, google tends to present as much shit as it does shine, there are a number of good beginner sites but once you move beyond these and actually attempt some integration, there is near silence. I think before you condem someone for asking what you assume to be a simple minded question with such an obvious answer (that BTW you don't seem to be able to answer) you should check your facts.

Re:It says "Ask Slashdot." He did. (1)

Kehvarl (812337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196030)

What's funny is, the people with the snide "RTFM" or "learn to google" or "one word: samba" posts, are providing more information than the "Why the hell can't we just help this guy with his question" people.

Here's a suggestion: The "Why can't we help him" people sould all start providing the help they think should be provided rather than berating the "RTFM" people for not being helpful. The RTFM people can continue to say "RTFM" or whatever as long as they provide links to relevant google searches of other helpful sites.

As for myself, I'll shut the hell up and go RT some FMs and maybe post a more helpful response later.

Wasteful (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11195150)

I work for a some-what small non-profit organization ...

You work for a non-profit organization and it's shelling out contribution money for Microsoft products? You are wasting money that has been given to you in good faith by countless people. Christ, remind me never to give money to your wasteful organization. I'll save my money for a group that doesn't turn my contributions over to an illegal monopoly.

Re:Wasteful (4, Insightful)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195322)

Christ, remind me never to give money to your wasteful organization. I'll save my money for a group that doesn't turn my contributions over to an illegal monopoly.
I share your sentiment, but we have to be realistic. Just because non-profits run on donations and are on a tight budget doesn't mean they know the first thing about Linux, or that it even exists. It's one thing to convert individual users, but an entire organization and all its software and data are a whole different story.

I work for an organization that provides tech support for non-profits. It's sad but true, non-profits have to live in the same world as commercial entities. They're subject to the same forces as anyone else -- they have momentum with existing Microsoft installations; there are custom legacy software that would require replacement, retaining, and conversation of data; they have users who only know Windows and (rightly or wrongly) would resist a switch to any other OS because it would mean they have to learn to use something slightly different.

You should be supporting the original poster's efforts to switch, not deriding him for not having already completed the task on every machine they have.

Re:Wasteful (2, Insightful)

Kalak (260968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196534)

I toss down another gauntle that instead of whining about how they're wasing money running Windows, the AC troll above, and all Slashdot that can do 3 things.

1. Consider that this is someone who is looking into using something besides Windows, and not blindly spending money bacause "that the way it's always been done."

2. Sit there and HELP THEM DO IT! (Though above postings are doing a good job, so it may not be necessary).

and this is the most important one:

3. Go help a non-pprofit with their tech needs! They need us, and the community needs them. Time frequently means more than money, espically if they need tech help.

I have a group I'm helping locally to "fix up" their computers, and they have to run Windows in order to run some specific software required for them to obtain a grant. Think they should switch to no Microsoft? Not on your life. They get far more money from their grant than they pay to Microsoft, so it would be extremely wasteful to both their community and their donators if they were to "dump Microsoft." (Giving alternatives where appropriate, is another story entirely.) Think they can always count on being able to find a tech who can support linux? Nope. Most are volunteers who come and leave as they wish, and odds are they know Microsoft. Think they want to become part of a minority population? Turn down tech help because they run an OS that few are likely to know about? No. MS makes sense fror them, at least at the OS level, and definitely at the workstation level.

Re:Wasteful (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197882)

Kalak's comments are spot-on. It's often easy for open-source to infiltrate one part of an organization -- a CMS for their website, for example. But total conversion including desktops can be quite difficult when the very foundation of the org runs on Windows-only software that is mandatory to complete certain tasks or communicate with parent/partner organizations.

Re:Wasteful (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197872)

Sorry, I have a few words in my original post that are technically spelled correctly but are not the right word to use. I think one thing but type another. Ugh...

Re:Wasteful (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195769)

"You are wasting money that has been given to you in good faith by countless people."

And how much would they have spent on consultants to set that all up for them in the first place?

Grow up. They spent money and got what they needed. "Wasteful" is a relative measure.

Re:Wasteful (1)

Bloater (12932) | more than 9 years ago | (#11218326)

I agree. Very few people know how to configure a Windows network, so it works out quite expensive, just as with Linux. Either that or they do it wrong, then throw money away every day on lost productivity.

Note to managers responsible for IT purchases: You have Windows at home, so you feel comfortable with it. So fucking what, you're supposed to be making money for the company you work for, or effectively performing to your charity's charter. Spending other peoples money on making yourself comfortable is probably a breach of your contract.

Note to Linux zealots: see above.

Before choosing an IT infrastructure, identify the *real* requirements (having a menu labelled "Start" rather than with a picture of a foot is not required, and vice versa). And consider the effective lifetime of your purchase (a Windows set-up doesn't last as long as a Linux one as Linux upgrades come anywhere from cheap to free) Experience with the Windows desktop is not a bonus, as (despite the protestations of lazy people) even idiots can switch with incredible ease. My parents are living proof, they can handle Linux as well as Windows after about five minutes ("Hmm, Applications, I think... Perhaps Internet... Ah-ha, that same Firefox program I use on *my* computer").

Re:Wasteful (1)

silicon not in the v (669585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195948)

You work for a non-profit organization and it's shelling out contribution money for Microsoft products? You are wasting money that has been given to you in good faith by countless people. Christ, remind me never to give money to your wasteful organization. I'll save my money for a group that doesn't turn my contributions over to an illegal monopoly.
I'm mad at you and mad at the mod who marked you insightful. Someone already replied to you about the aspect of most people and organizations not knowing about Linux, but I throw down the gauntlet to you to name a non-profit/charity type organization that is entirely on Linux. This is just flamebait at best and a lame excuse to justify your refusal to donate to charity at worst.

Re:Wasteful (2, Insightful)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196540)

I throw down the gauntlet to you to name a non-profit/charity type organization that is entirely on Linux.

The Free Software Foundation?

Re:Wasteful (1)

silicon not in the v (669585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11238489)

I throw down the gauntlet to you to name a non-profit/charity type organization that is entirely on Linux.

The Free Software Foundation?
You should not have been rewarded with a mod point for that. The FSF is an organization whose purpose is to use Linux, rather than provide help to anyone. That is why I said "non-profit/charity" organization, rather than just a non-profit. You were ignoring the question, which was about beneficial charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, American Way, etc. that are trying to help people. They don't exist for Linux; they exist to help people, so your response is meaningless. IHBT.

I like the FSF, and I think it's a great thing, but remember the original discussion. The guy was talking about not giving to this charity because they don't use Linux for all their systems. I was making the point that you probably won't find any charities that do, so don't hold back donations from helping people just because whatever organization is trying to help doesn't have the resources or knowhow to convert their systems to Linux.

Re:Wasteful (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11239794)

You should not have been rewarded with a mod point for that.

I should have been awarded a "funny" mod point - it was more of a joke and it was meaningless to the conversation.

Re:Wasteful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11236058)

"but I throw down the gauntlet to you to name a non-profit/charity type organization that is entirely on Linux"

Humm... let see...

The Free Software Foundation?
The Software in the Public Interest Foundation?
The Gentoo Foundation?

"This is just flamebait at best and a lame excuse to justify your[self] at worst. "

Well... so I think too.

Windows is sometimes free (4, Interesting)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196135)

You work for a non-profit organization and it's shelling out contribution money for Microsoft products?

Just because an organization is running Windows servers doesn't mean they have to pay for it. For some organizations Microsoft will donate software and coordinate with a local .NET users group to develop "line-of-business" applications unique to the non-profit. Case in point, the local (Kansas City) .NET users group developed an internal application to allow the Salvation Army (SA) to coordinate donations and logistics getting items to/from the SA warehouse. Those who contributed to development were given copies of Visual Studio -- for the duration of the project, of course -- and server licenses were given to the SA by the local MS office.

Usually, Microsoft software is not free, but sometimes it is...

Re:Wasteful (3, Insightful)

zymurgyboy (532799) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196516)

I've been asked this same question by at least 6 of my friends who work in or manage a non-profit. They have varying levels of technical sophistication but none are experts. Most have little or no money. They all have an abiding sense of compassion for their fellow man; dedication to causes most of us would like to forget about; a knack for networking and fundraising; etc. They're not simple people.

Not all non-profits are the EFF though.

Don't be a dickhead. You know who you are, AC. Now go put your fuzzy slippers on and get back to daytrading on your Mom's WebTV. It clear you don't have the social skills required to formulate a proper response anyway.

The idea that some other undersocialized loser modded you insightful just removed any hestancy I had in going off on you. Perfect.

Do what you will mods. I could care less if I have 'Excellent' karma with a room full of asshats like this.

A non-profit is the same as a for-profit (2, Insightful)

jasonmicron (807603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196918)

For most of the business end of the company that is. I work for a non-profit as well and I run everything in my power on Microsoft. Why? Because it is the most compatible with what is out there.

I don't have time to sit around and learn an entire new infrastructure from such (apparently) great helpful linux zealots on /. because apparently there is no help to be had.

Windows works with the majority of the applications that are out there and if this person is purchasing through Dell as a vendor for their equipment in bulk they get a great deal of the Windows OS at cut-rate prices, including the server-end. Why would one not go for Windows? A non-profit has enough to keep up with without having to worry about a steep learning curve.

Also, the general turnaround for most non-profits as far as money goes is around 30%-40% to the donation. The rest goes to keeping the company going (employees, maintenance, bills, lease payments etc).

This person also didn't state where the donations were coming from. For all you pinheads know the money is coming from corporations who form partnerships with the non-profit. The general public might not even donate at all to this organization.

Confucius say better to remain silent than to open mouth and remove all doubt.

Re:A non-profit is the same as a for-profit (1)

Kalak (260968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11203865)

I don't have time to sit around and learn an entire new infrastructure from such (apparently) great helpful linux zealots on /. because apparently there is no help to be had.

I certainly don't agree with the troll you're replying to (see my post above in the thread). Don't let him stand for all linux users on /. either. Some of us are open to reality, and do understand that there is such a thing as the right tool for the job. There is help out there. Some of them in your local area may be able to help you, and open your org up to some solutions. (Find a user's group and ask.) Basically, don't get the feeling that we're all AC troll zealots like this dork. Some of us know that we should listen to the needs of the org and help them decide on the right tool, Linux or Windows, one app or the other.

Open Office is probably the area most likely open to change in a generic org, since it is a stable office program, and can more than meet the needs of an org w/o a total conversion and w/o a major learning curve for the users, etc. Firefox/Mozilla is more secure, so the org wastes less effort on security and spyware, etc. All of these are cross platform, and that's no accident. In the future, this may help in a transition if appropriate.

Small inroads are better than none. Knowledge is frequently gained a piece at a time.

Kinda Small (3, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195190)

You have, what, 50 users? Why deal with the licensing headaches from Win* server at all? Linux (running Samba) makes a great Domain Controller. Add another Linux/Samba for SAN/NAS. Throw in one more for a print server. I don't know too much about mail on Linux, but I hear postfix is nice.

In any event, your network is *way* too small to deal with Win* crap. Even if it's *donated* by MS, there's bound to be licensing issues at some point.

Deploy Linux in your server room and then migrate your users at a later date...if at all.

Re:Kinda Small (2, Funny)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196363)

You have, what, 50 users?

I wonder why 6 servers are needed for only 25 local and 25 remote users. Are they doing a render farm for non-profit animations?

Re:Kinda Small (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196554)

PDC, BDC, a couple of application servers (Lord knows that vendors don't like to get along with one another on the same machine!), maybe a web server. They can add up without trying too hard.

Re:Kinda Small (1)

zymurgyboy (532799) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196780)

It's probably not much of a stretch to assume they're running this on less-than-state-of-the-art hardware. Most of the non-profits where I know people in similar situations are a version or two back on their server OS and running it on hardware with which they couldn't take up to Win2K even if they could afford the licenses.

If their remote users are using any of these boxes for RDP or VNC, I'd be wondering how they get along with just 6.

Re:Kinda Small (1)

digitalpeer (564005) | more than 9 years ago | (#11240729)

I wonder why 6 servers are needed for only 25 local and 25 remote users. Are they doing a render farm for non-profit animations?

While I can definately see the comedy in having 6 servers for 50 users, it's still realistic. While small, reliability is still an issue. When you start thinking about the need for file, web, mail, database, and any specialty server applications it makes sense to spread things out.

Microsoft charges ungodly amounts of money for server software, migrating portions of the network to Linux leaves more cash available for other IT goodies.

I don't really understand where this is coming from. With Microsoft Open License [microsoft.com] I've seen Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition for around $100. Why not take advantage of any discounts there are- especially non-profit discounts.

Good plan (0, Flamebait)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195198)

This is a great idea to give yourself better job security. You are planning on staying with this company, right? Cause if not, just leave everything Windows, they'll likely spend much more money hiring someone to sort out what you did.

Re:Good plan (1)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195935)

I'm afraid I have to agree with the parent. The best possible thing you can do for this company is simplify and documentation. You'll save them far more money in the long run then you will by skipping out on a few $2,000 Windows 2003 Server licenses.

Active Directory (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195206)

I've never done this before, so take it with a grain of salt, but Active Directory can act as a kerberos ticket server, and therefore should be able to work with anything that uses kerberos.

Having never set up Linux to use kerberos either, I couldn't tell you what packages are available to do this, but I would imagine that they do exist.

Re:Active Directory (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11211717)

PAM, pam_krb5 [sourceforge.net] , pam_ldap. [padl.com] Have Fun, I would recommend picking up Kerberos: The Definitive Guide [oreilly.com] before even considering going this route. Samba uses kerberos/OpenLDAP to talk to the Active Directory, but the details are hidden. Doing it yourself will quickly lead to the realization that Kerberos is no small subject.

AD integration (3, Informative)

tfiedler (732589) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195212)

We use Vintela's VAS authentication product for active directory integration, and although it isn't free, it is by far the easiest thing to configure. You can completely manage user accounts from within the Users and Computers administrative tool with it and installation of the software can be as easy as an rpm command.

I know there are lots of free software bigots on this site and you can find lots of sites purporting to have easy configuration instructions for kerberos/AD set up, but I don't care. This product works, period. And it does it in an easy manner and it does it flawlessly, at least in our environment, which is a true 24x7 environment where uptime and accessibility matters -- a hospital.

Re:AD integration (1)

walstib (620771) | more than 9 years ago | (#11219851)

What about Edir from Novell? Edir can encompass AD, NDS and Linux. I'm not sure how they price for non-profits, but you may be able to get it free.

Licenses (2, Informative)

tenchima (625569) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195459)

One thing we found when moving from 2000 to 2003 servers is that the terminal server licensing is not free. On a 2000 server each server had an unlimited TS License. On 2003, you have to purchase them. One extra cost to beware of.

Informative?! TS licenses are *not* free in 2k. (1)

millisa (151093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196725)

They did nothing of the sort. You can use 2 terminal service licenses for remote administration in 2k just like 2k3. They are absolutely *not* free in 2000. For regular users, not remote administration, you are supposed to get TS licenses; be it win2k or win2k3. Don't take my word for it. [microsoft.com]

Q. Do I need to purchase a Terminal Services CAL for each machine that is running a validly licensed copy of Windows XP Home Edition and connected to a Windows 2000 Terminal Server?

A. Yes, all Microsoft operating system products (except for Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional) require a Terminal Services CAL to access a Windows 2000 Terminal Server.

Re:Informative?! TS licenses are *not* free in 2k. (1)

slammin'j (532726) | more than 9 years ago | (#11199202)

A. Yes, all Microsoft operating system products (except for Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional) require a Terminal Services CAL to access a Windows 2000 Terminal Server.

I believe the bold section above is what the parent post was referring to. Unlike Windows 2000, Windows 2003 requires seperate Terminal Services CALs for XP Pro and Windows 2000.

Re:Informative?! TS licenses are *not* free in 2k. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11200357)

The "Pro" Windows line come with a TSCAL-2000 included in the OS. 9x and the crappy "home" edition do not.

Linux + Samba (+OpenVPN) = Goodbye MS (3, Interesting)

samdu (114873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195647)

Unless you're running software that requires Windows on the server, you shouldn't have any problems replacing all those Windows servers with Linux boxes running Samba. I don't do Active Directory using Samba, but I've heard that it's possible and that the next version of Samba will have full AD support. I just haven't found any compelling reason to use AD.



And if you need remote VPN access, check out OpenVPN. It's SSL based, easy to configure (comparitavely), and stable. There are clients for Windows, Linux, and Mac.

What Server Based Applications are Running? (2, Insightful)

sybarite (566454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195767)

If you have an application that requires Microsoft to run on the backend, then you are going to have trouble replacing said server with Samba. If it is an application that everyone uses, then even if you replace the other servers with Samba, you will still need the Microsoft CALs (client access license) to attach to the one remaning server. That is where the costs get you, not always the server software, but the CALs.

You can still make a case for migrating away from Microsoft at that point, but not based on software purchase price.

If you still need to buy software, have you seen this website? http://www.techsoup.org/ [techsoup.org] The nonprofit price for Microsoft software is very, very low.

Re:What Server Based Applications are Running? (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196570)

That is where the costs get you, not always the server software, but the CALs.

But if he can get away with getting the CALs for a single server instead of 6 servers, he is still way ahead!

Re:What Server Based Applications are Running? (1)

sybarite (566454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196930)

Not usually. Most people (with more than one server) would be using Per Seat CALs which allow the client to attach to any server in the organization. So it would be the same number of CALs regardless of the number of servers.

What is a server? (1)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11195878)

What do you mean by "server?" File servers? Directory servers? Database servers? Web servers? Backup tape servers? Mail servers? Web proxy servers? What the heck are you serving?

And, how will adding servers improve your stability and security? Is there some sort of hot-backup software you're using that works on both linux and windows?

Regardless, if you're using 6 servers for only 50 users you might want to investigate whether or not all of them are really necessary. First figure out what you're trying to provide to these 50 users. Only then can you figure out the simplest way to provide it.

The question is terribly incomplete. (2, Informative)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196066)

And thus the answers you will get will be equally useless (crap in-crap out model....).

If you are more specific about what your servers are currently doing I am pretty sure people will help you out.

Now, for basic servics:

- File server and print server: Samba.
- Authentication servers: I believe Samba can act as a domain controller.
- DNS server: bind running in Linux.
- Web server: Apache.
- Dsta Base servers: MySQL.
- Backup server: Amanda.
- email: sendmail, postfix....

So, exactly which services are you aiming to provide???

Re:The question is terribly incomplete. (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 9 years ago | (#11201163)

Database - Sybase ASE 12.5

If the box is
Running Linux
On one CPU
With 2G of RAM or less
And keeps the total database space to less than 5G

= free Sybase ASE 12.5
Sybase Linux Promo [sybase.com]

Re:The question is terribly incomplete. (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11203111)

I don't want to start a flame war here. But we should be more careful about recommonding MySQL as a replacement for SQLServer. NQA SQLServer is much more feature rich than MySQL. It is also better designed.

MySQL is faster. Other than that I can't think of any area where it isn't worse than SQLServer.

Re:The question is terribly incomplete. (1)

hellings (703622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11220054)

Hmmm, we use PostgreSQL at work, running on a Linux box (most of the servers, except mail gateways, SQL and a few other miscellanies run Win2003) and it works wonderfully. PostgreSQL, exim (for a gateway setup), Samba file-sharing...they all are using either LDAP or Kerberos to authenticate either a user log-in or that mail is sent to a valid AD user. So far we have been really happy with the migration to Linux (all within the past 6 months) and some more features are starting to migrate (listserv, a CVS-clone, dial-up authentication) and we have had no problem integrating with AD running on a Win2003 box.

Re:The question is terribly incomplete. (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11220622)

PostgreSQL is much more feature rich than MySQL. Its big problem (relative to SQLServer) is ease of use and speed. You seem to be mainly talking about Samba features. I was speaking more about the issues of the databases relative to one another. In other words things that would be equally true of MySQL running on Windows.

Don't jump down his throat (5, Informative)

imsmith (239784) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196131)

This is an honest question, coming from a legitimate source, so all of those who think no one is out there stumbling along trying to understand all at once everything you have learned over the course of years need to take a deep breath.

To the question: Yes, you can phase out your Windows 2000/2003 server in favor of Linux servers. Whether it is worth it is up to you to determine - if you have a lot invested in your Windows server admin skills, and you don't have time to devote to raising your Linux server admin skills, this may not be for you. Both OS's require a degree of skill to manage, particularly for networks of desktops being employed by people who need the desktop to be perfect all the time (which is what my experience tells me small non-profit users expect).

If you are willing/able to meet the skill requirements for the system & network administration, and can translate that into desktop support that meets or exceeds that you deliver now, you need to come to an agreement with the organization about how best to deliver services using Linux. Some services can be moved off of Windows relatively transparently, but those which users seem to be most sensitive to generally aren't as easy to migrate.

If you are running Exchange, particularly if you are using group calendars, there isn't a terrific free-as-in-beer Linux solution. SuSE Openexchange Server offers what looks like a nice solution, but the pricing isn't a significant difference to the Microsoft non-profit pricings that I've experienced, and it comes with a recurring annual client license fee.

If you are extensively using Windows DFS for your file service, then the transition to a system that uses SAMBA, NFS, or DAV will be visible to the desktop user, with all the associated gnashing of teeth that brings. If you haven't implemented DFS, then the reproduction of home directories and shared directories with SAMBA should be simple and, with group policies, transparent.

Authentication of users against the Active Directory to Linux network services isn't as hard as it might seem. By installing the Microsoft Services for Unix (or whatever they are calling it this week) you will get POSIX fields in the Active Directory schema that can be used to write LDAP queries against for authentication via PAM, Apache modules, and PHP, Perl, and Java applications. Likewise, logins on Linux servers and workstations with AD credentials can be directed against the AD via LDAP, and SuSE has this option included in their default install process.

Finally, there are likely applications that are seen as critical to the success of the organization that are only supported on Windows. These niche applications will necessarily govern how much you can remove Windows from your back office.

In general, the introduction of a few Linux server into your back office is as painful as you want to make it. Moving user or customer facing services to Linux has to be an organizational decision, but it doesn't present a lot of technical problems. The biggest thing to remember is that you are meddling with the culture of the organization. These 50 people are doing something they consider very important, and they are not interested in what is cool to a bunch of geeks. If you thing Linux will save you enough money to buy 'IT goodies' then you shouldn't even bother, because it isn't the right motivation. Linux can save money, it can be more secure, and it can be more stable, but all of those things are irrelevant if they users are pissed off because 'it worked fine before you changed things'.

My advice is to use Linux to deploy new services, integrate it into the existing network, but only replace something that works when it is time to upgrade (since it will break anyway) or when it stops working. Be open and honest when you deploy something, when it breaks as well as when it works fine, and if you blow it up, take responsibility and don't blame someone else.

Hrm.... (1)

np_bernstein (453840) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196136)

(1) SMB:
The support is there fore most distros to use an AD server for authentication, (users, not groups, and the users must exist in the password file). On fedora, which I recommend as an alternate to RHEL (RedHat is the easiest to configure in this area imho), the command to look at is authconfig. Enter your domain, your primary and secondary servers, and your AD auth setup is done.

(2) VPN:
consider using PopTop [poptop.org] as a pptp vpn server for linux. There is documentation available but there are also other ways of doing it [tldp.org]

(3) Research:

Do some research. The Linux Documentation Project [tldp.org] is a good source. But google [justfuckinggoogleit.com] is your friend as well.

A lot of choices (3, Interesting)

rsax (603351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196323)

It all depends on your budget. It sounds weird but do you want to go the opensource way and not pay at all or do you have some funds set aside for this change? I'm mainly referring to using commercial Linux distros like RHEL [redhat.com] or SUSE [novell.com] . Both subscriptions, the basic options, can be bought for roughly $350 per year. That will get you a stable platform which doesn't change a lot for five years. If you don't want to pay for RHEL or SUSE support and don't mind supporting yourself with the help of a community then I would suggest going with a RHEL clone operating system like CentOS [centos.org] . It's based on RHEL, the developers use the same SRPM packages provided by Red Hat so you still get some of the benefits.

Now for the application stack. I prefer using Novell's eDirectory [novell.com] as opposed to Microsoft's Active Directory. It'll run on Linux so that's one less Windows server right there. The price is based on a per user basis which comes up to $2 per user! Not a bad price. Tie that in with all your Linux services such as Samba, IMAP server, Postfix with eDirectory using the LDAP protocol. Their password self-service [novell.com] option is pretty enticing as well.

While we're on the topic of Novell and moving away from Windows on servers, look into GroupWise [novell.com] as a messaging server instead of MS Exchange. Again, it runs on Linux as well a bunch of other platforms and has cross platform clients so you're not limited to Windows for end users either.

Devils Advocate, have you *asked* MS? (3, Interesting)

millisa (151093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11196769)

I know the original question was 'how do I dump MS for Linux', but I highly suggest you choose the right tool for the job. Yes, Linux is great. Samba is great. Administering it, well, it depends on *you* really. As most are guessing, it doesn't sound like you've heard of samba, so it is likely you are fairly new to the Linux scene. Great. Welcome.

Now, you really need to decide if it is the right tool and if you can make it the right tool. Before doing that, consider your current setup and your current upgrade path. Is MS wrong for you? Maybe not. Do you qualify for Non-profit MS licensing? [microsoft.com] Yes, it is evil and I should be lashed for suggesting it. However, it is important to know that the option exists. If you do qualify, you are not going to get a better licensing option from MS at your size in all liklihood. Small Business Server 2k3 is definitely targetted at your size organization; find out what pricing you can get for it from the MS marketroids. Let them even give their TCO arguments to you. Remember them, write them down, you'll need them.

Once you have that info, you have the ammunition to help justify your linux proposal. Or you won't and you'll have at least chosen the Evil Empire with thought...

Don't make the switch just because the zealots are pushing you to. Make the switch when it is the right economical, business & technical supportable option. Learn Samba. Prove it works to yourself. Bring in a workstation with it and prove it works to the non-profit. Prove the TCO argument. You *will* win if they really listen.

Two related things you might want to consider (1)

zymurgyboy (532799) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197053)

1) I'm guessing you may have some role other than 'the IT guy' at your office, or that you're the only tech they have for an operation that size. Switch your userbase to Firefox if you haven't already. It can save you unbelievable amounts of time you'd otherwise spend cleaning spyware/adware off your workstations. You can help smooth the trasition from IE using the IEView and Googlebar extensions in Firefox. Get them hooked on the extensions and they'll never look back. There are some truly useful tools there that have no analog in IE.

2) Check to see if your local university or community college has a Linux Users Group (LUG). You'll meet other people with an interest in Linux who may even be willing to help you with design and implementation. They can also help you choose a Linux distro appropriate for what you are doing. I personally like Debian [debian.org] , if for no other reason than dselect, its package management system. You can get Samba, Sendmail, CUPS, Bind, Apache, etc. for it as mentioned above in other posts.

Good luck!

Contact MS (1)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197157)

I know this isn't what you asked, but Microsoft significantly discounts and even donates software to non-profit organizations. You might not need to change platforms at all. See this site [microsoft.com] .

Re:Contact MS (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11197385)

MeanMF...

Microsoft Flunkie?

LK

Take a look at this... (1)

MessageDrivenBean (534518) | more than 9 years ago | (#11198564)

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned.

The European Union offers a 148 page migration guide for going from Windows to GNU/Linux. The IDA-project [eu.int] produced this high-quality must-read [netproject.com] .

You go now.

Re:Take a look at this... (1)

phsdv (596873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11202080)

Last updated 2003-11-26 by netproject
hmmm, I did not read it yet, but is this still up to date and valid?

Re:Take a look at this... (1)

MessageDrivenBean (534518) | more than 9 years ago | (#11212045)

Yes.

A real answer... (4, Informative)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11199012)

...instead of "go use Samba you fucktard".

I run a corporate AD forest that covers 3 countries. We have 3 primary AD controllers at the corporate office and a local AD controller at each major branch office. I've started integrating Linux into the mix, with an Oracle server, Mail server, DNS server, and a few application servers.

The hardest part has been getting Kerberos to properly authenticate with the AD tree. Basically, strip an off-the-shelf copy of Linux of anything related to Kerberos, then install a fresh copy of it from MIT. Once you've got that working, go pick up a copy of pam_krb5 and plug that into the PAM system. From then on out, all the linux services can authenticate with the AD tree through Kerberos.

If you want to share files, then you'll need to go the Samba route, but you don't have to start there. Plenty of Linux services (Courier IMAP, QMail, Bind, etc) work just fine on an AD forest without Samba.

I'm not sure if I'd trust my entire enterprise to Linux just yet. The time involved in figuring out which of the 5,000 configuration files I need to update to add a user isn't worth the ~$15 per user license of Windows. A single Windows 2003 server license plus users is very reasonable. It's the cost of 10+ server licenses that will kill you. Run a Windows AD controller and use Linux for the services on your network.

Re:A real answer... (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11199264)

Yours is the only thinking thread in this entire story.

I've been involved in investigating Linux for our enterprise, and have been completely underwhelmed. Kerberos usually doesn't work out of the box for authentication and administering a few thousand of these machines is going to be a nightmare.

By the time we start maintaining our own distro, train our support people and shove linux down the user's throats, we'll have spent 5x more than the cheap Windows licenses.

Re:A real answer... (2, Insightful)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11199463)

I spent a full week trying to get Kerberos to work with my AD forest. I ran into one thing after another. In no particular order...
  • Choose the right distro. Mandrake is really for a desktop, RedHat costs as much as Windows, so does SuSe. Gentoo? Long compile times - yuck. How about Debian? Which install can be run over NFS? Guess we'll stick with RedHat
  • RedHat Enterprise Linux 3 comes with an old version of Kerberos installed that is incompatible with AD
  • RedHat also puts Kerberos files in non-standard directories making them *very* difficult to locate and remove all of them, then replace them with an updated set
  • To create a Kerberos ticket from the Windows side, you have to add a few DNS entries for the ktpass.exe utility to locate your AD controller, even if you're running on the same box
  • Those magical DNS fixes that you put in for ktpass to work break your Mac OS X client authentication to your AD, so the next day you have 25 calls from people who can't log in to their new macs
  • You can't easily test Kerberos authentication besides a principal logon
  • If your kerberos authentication isn't set up properly, PAM could lock you out of your linux box forcing you to boot from a recovery CD to edit the system-auth config
  • HP blades don't have a CD-ROM drive, so booting from a recovery CD isn't an option
  • PXE booting an HP blade to Linux requires a couple of options set in DHCP that need to be added to the Microsoft DHCP options list manually
  • Oh yea, Microsoft doesn't provide a TFTP server, so you either have to use a working linux box (isn't that how we got in this mess?) or a third-party TFTP windows server (thanks Ph. Jounin!)
  • Figure out why your database server (running on your new linux box) is burning up 97% I/O wait time when your drive array is not busy
  • Apply a patch to the RedHat kernel to disable some flag in some low-level scsi driver (!) and recompile to fix the I/O Wait issue

I'm not saying that linux isn't ready for the enterprise environment. It's just that my first year or so of working with it have been less than painless. Windows has it's share of problems, but for the most part it works well.

Re:A real answer... (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11200628)

Linux isn't ready to be a part of an enterprise Windows environment.

Re:A real answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11205864)

As much as I like linux, I've got to agree with the previous poster. I've spent the better part of three days attempting to configure my RH FC2 with Kerberos so that an application I'm writting can work with a java client and authenticate using Kerberos, AAHHHHH!!! I'm certainly no kerberos expert but I'm no novice either, this has become quite a pain....

Re:A real answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11208417)

Right, so, you were stupid enough to use Red Hat, a horribly broken distribution which needs the support they want you to buy from them, and you're complaining that 'Linux' isn't ready enough. And half of your complaints are about Windows-related brokenness anyway. Great.

Re:A real answer... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11203080)

I've been involved in investigating Linux for our enterprise, and have been completely underwhelmed

What were you investigating it for? It sounds like using Linux servers to replace Microsoft servers on Microsoft specific tasks in an all Microsoft environment using staff that are Microsoft trained. Well yeah I guess Microsoft does probably do a pretty job under those conditions.

You misspelled it, you f*ckt*rd! (1)

MessageDrivenBean (534518) | more than 9 years ago | (#11200853)

It is qmail, not QMail.

Re:You misspelled it, you f*ckt*rd! (1)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11201275)

It is qmail, not QMail.

Oh, the humanity!

Re:A real answer... (1)

kmeister62 (699493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11203275)

One thing to note about MS Kerberos (and I'd hazard a guess this applies to all installs) is that you have to have a stable time source for your AD servers to access. All your other servers get their time from the AD server. I found out the hard way about this one. If the time source gets flakey, or your servers can't reach it for a period of time Kerberos gets out of whack.

Re:A real answer... (1)

muckdog (607284) | more than 9 years ago | (#11221733)

I'd suggest you're think a bit small on your response. ~$15 per user. Maybe if they are just using file sharing. If they are using Exchange take on license there. Take on more when they have to "upgrade" Outlook and Exchange because the old version is no longer supported. Add in some more licensing for SQL Server too. Oh one manager is using MS Project, oh now half the company is yelling for it. Microsoft get expensive quick

Non-profit Open Source Initiative (1)

TekZen (611640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11199524)

Anyone considering using open source software in a small non-profit should be in touch with the non-profit open source iniative (nosi). There is a wealth of experience there and it is a good group of individuals. http://nosi.net

Integrating Linux into a Windows Network? (1)

kackler (790433) | more than 9 years ago | (#11201924)

I'm totally embarrassed that anyone who uses Linux would jump on someone interested in learning it. YOu guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Why?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11216402)

If you already have an all-windows network, will it really save you that much money to migrate just a few servers to Linux? There various costs associated with Linux that many people overlook, including training, support, etc

Look for Non-Profit Pricing (1)

Webmoth (75878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11221851)

As a non-profit organization, you may qualify for special pricing of commercial products, including Microsoft stuff (apps, servers, licenses). If the price is low enough, you may actually be better off with a commercial solution instead of an open source one. That may be heresy here on Slashdot, but then again so were Galileo's teachings in the Catholic Church.

Check out TechSoup [techsoup.com] .

The real problem is the pc with win, if xp home (1)

OlafMarzocchi (845602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11238882)

I managed to connect linux to win xp home almost imeddiately, it's not difficult. The problem is windows itself: I still can't have Win xp home view a win98 pc...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?