Topic: How to justify using SME server among other free software distributions?

[yersin]

Hi, everybody.

I'm using SME server only as a web server for a university project. I find SME server easy to administer; however, I have been asked to justify first my using a GNU/linux distribution, and second my choosing SME server, especially considering that the business where I am implementing my project already has licenses for Windows Server.

In summary, I need to answer these questions:

How to "demonstrate" that a GNU/Linux distribution is better than windows? (in terms of security and speed, maybe?)

How to justify using SME server among other free software distributions?

I wonder if I could find statistics or studies related to what I need to prove (mainly the second question, since it would be hard to find answers to it in other forums).

Thanks for your time.
Yersin
(Huancayo, Peru)

[raem]

yersin

For starters read
http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:About

[yersin]

yersin

For starters read
http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:About

Thanks for answering quickly, MRayMitchell. I had seen that page before and I think it's good for starters; besides, those references are a little old.
How else is it possible to compare SME Server with other distributions and windows?

Thanks again.

[mmccarn]

SME vs Windows (Pros):
* Easier to backup & restore  - a "warm spare" server can be setup using free software (Affa) that can take over for the primary server within minutes in the event of a failure
* Proven security history (I am aware of no security issues on any up-to-date SME server that cannot be attributable to bad security choices made by the sysadmins - bad passwords or insecure PHP scripts, for example)
* Open source solution does not leave users hostage to future Microsoft plans
* Open source solution has lower up-front costs than proprietary solution (not much lower if you are a non-profit who can get Windows for almost $nothing...)

SME vs Windows (Cons):
* Exchange server is pretty cool and does a lot of stuff that nothing else does except Notes or Groupwise.
* "Knowledgeable" windows support can be obtained almost anywhere

SME vs Other Linux (Pros):
* SME is kept up-to-date by the developers, so it is easy for a careful network admin to keep their system patched with all security updates.
* SME community is knowledgable and friendly, providing help at almost any level (admittedly with frequent suggestions to read the manual, wiki, or whatever...)
* Proven security history - even for relatively inexperienced admins.
* Friendly developers, willing to help users develop custom solutions to specific problems - either by creating the solutions themselves (in exchange for $$$), or by helping and advising users who want to develop SME-compatible updates or addons
* SME is a great open-source server solution if your desired functions are included in the SME base or in the well-supported contribs.
* Less linux experience is required to safely and effectively administer a SME server compared to other Linux distros.


SME vs Other Linux (Cons):
* It can be tricky installing generic Linux software on a SME server
* An experienced linux admin will find it easier to add software to a "generic" linux/unix server.
* The SME templating system is non-standard and must be learned and understood before customizing a SME server outside of the bounds described in the wiki, forums, or bug tracker.


Conclusions:
* Get SME if what you need is included in the core feature set and well-supported contribs.
* Get SME if you can't afford a Windows / Exchange solution.
* Get SME if you don't have the amount of linux experience required to maintain a "generic" linux/unix server.
* Get SME if you can't afford to pay for linux support from one of the large linux vendors.
* Get SME if you want to actively support Open Source Software
* Get SME if you want to actively avoid Microsoft.

[CharlieBrady]

* "Knowledgeable" windows support can be obtained almost anywhere

I actually don't find that to be true. The internal workings of Windows are intentionally hidden, and are in any case complex and sometimes self-contradictory. Knowledge at a superficial level is certainly widely available, but really knowledgable windows support is relatively rare.

[zatnikatel]

One other thing a like about linux once setup it just keeps going
SME is fast as easy to setup i love the distro centos is cool as well but setting up postfix mailscanner dovecot will take a better part of a day but once done it runs with out a problem
it can take like 2 housr just to install windows and exchange server and SBS version of win2k3 is painfull on the install
the amout of ram that exchange uses is just over the top you have 2GB of ram it will use almost all of it and that is just for store.exe
linux rocks
and when you patch linux no problem but patch vista with SP1 and you will have a computer that goes into and endless reboot cycle

[yersin]

Thanks a lot, mmccarn.

That list was pretty much I've been looking for. I'd really appreciate it if more things can be added by other users. On the other hand, is there anyway to prove SME Server's "Proven security history" or "Exceptional reliability". I mean, are there studies or statistics related to it that could be referenced?

I've also read somewhere that SME server is quite small and thus consumes less resources and is faster. Can that be proven with numbers too? (I need to be as convincing as possible)

Thanks.
Yersin

[CharlieBrady]

I've also read somewhere that SME server is quite small and thus consumes less resources and is faster. Can that be proven with numbers too? (I need to be as convincing as possible)

You should do your own testing.

[zatnikatel]

You should do your own testing.

true but you know some big companies like case studies not information from a little guy

[CharlieBrady]

true but you know some big companies like case studies not information from a little guy

We are all little guys here. If a big company wants a study, they should pay for it.

[zatnikatel]

We are all little guys here. If a big company wants a study, they should pay for it.

And you know the evil empire MS will stop people useing Linux any way they can i do think the Suse deal wont go anyware mandriva linux would have to be the best for a desktop SME or centos as a server but centos as a multimedia work station is a pain in the ass to setup even to play MP3 for a multimedia linux workstation nothing can beat mandriva and urpmi is cool and easy to use easyurpmi.zarb.org and there is much PLF (Penguin Liberation Front) files for mandriva mencoder beats any windows video encoding programs

true most companies only know MS and pay for the nose for it

[cactus]

centos as a server but centos as a multimedia work station is a pain in the ass to setup even to play MP3 for a multimedia linux workstation nothing

First off all irrelevant as CentOS is an enterprise class distribution and SME Server is a server distribution, both are not a multimedia box. Second I have been very succesfull on running MythTV on CentOS where many other Linux flavours were failing almost out of the box (as I only needed to (re)compile network drivers). I watch and record television, play CD's, MP3, ogg and a wide variety of video files on it without problems (Still needs some updating but here it is: http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/User:Cactus).

[yersin]

You should do your own testing.

I've thought of doing that, but I don't know what steps I should follow. If I user virtual machines, what tools or programs can I use to prove that SME server is faster, more secure, and consumes less resources? Or how should I do tests? (I'm kind of new to networking)

Thanks for helping me.

[pfloor]

You can compare published system requirements:

For SME: http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:Documentation:Administration_Manual:Chapter4#4.1._Minimum_Hardware_Requirements

Minimum (I would not recommend this):
400 MHz Processor
256 Meg Ram

Recommended:
1.5 GHz Processor
512 Meg Ram

For Exchange-2007 on *Server-2008x64: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx
(*Note: Full version Exchange 2007 will not run on 32 bit OS)

Minimum:
64 bit Processor
2 Gig Ram

MS doesn't publish "recommended" specs (as far as I could see) but I can tell you this from personal experience:

2 Gig of Ram is barely enough for 1 or 2 users.  The server will run with 2 Gig and 5 users but will run slow.  3 Gig worked better but it took 4 Gig of ram to get this server with 9 users working good.  This machine is used for email only.

I am used to SME and snappy responses.  Exchange 2007 is sluggish at best on standard hardware.  It takes (what seems) forever just to load the Exchange Management Console.  It may perform better on multi-processor server hardware but I don't have the equipment to test it.


Also, Server-2008 is intended to run behind a separate firewall so setting up the firewall on Server-2008 is not for the inexperienced.  2008 doesn't have the "easy to use" firewall manager like SBS server and it took me the better part of 2 days to figure it out and feel confident that it was set up correctly.

In short, the hardware difference required by MS alone will cost thousands more than SME, not to mention the software itself.  However, if money is no object, then go with all the bells and whistles that MS offers.

If you need/want all the little things that only Exchange does then you really have no choice but remember to dig deep (really deep) into the bosses wallet

[imcintyre]

Yersin;

For reliability, look at this post; http://forums.contribs.org/index.php?topic=36026.0

I have also made good use of being able to swap disks between machines, i.e. I wanted to upgrade my hardware, took my 2 disks out of old machine, put it into new one, turned it on and away it went. Very useful if you try out on a spare machine and then try/need to go to more horespower.I don't think this ever works with Windows.