Microsoft Small Business Server 2008: The SQL Server Twist
As Microsoft debuts Windows Small Business Server 2008 today, The VAR Guy is flashing back to a recent conversation he had with a top Microsoft partner in Australia. During that chat, our resident blogger was converted from an SBS 2008 skeptic into a true believer. Here’s why.
First, a little background: Mathew Dickerson is founder and managing director of AXXIS Technology — the rare solutions provider that thrives as a managed service provider and a Microsoft SBS partner. Dickerson, based in Australia, also the author of SLAM (Service Level Agreement Model), a top-selling book.
SaaS Threats?
During an October chat, The VAR Guy asked Dickerson if software as a service (SaaS) and managed services would begin to eat away at products like SBS. Dickerson’s response: Australia has the highest per capita rate of SBS deployments, and he expects SBS 2008 — launching today — to have a very long lifespan.
One reason: Microsoft has de-coupled SQL Server from Small Business Server. Specifically, a “premium edition” of SBS allows customers to run SQL Server 2008 on a separate server from Windows Server 2008.
That subtle but strategic tweak from Microsoft should give SBS far more scalability, notes Dickerson. And yes, he expects plenty of existing SBS customers to make the move to SBS 2008.
Linux Competition?
Meanwhile, the open source community continues to chip away at the small business market with a range of options.
Still, The VAR Guy has been underwhelmed by the small business offerings from Novell — which has never had a strong corporate brand in the small business space. (Did you even know Novell’s offering is called Open Workgroup Suite Small Business Edition?) And alternatives from Xandros have a nice following but aren’t exactly mainstream names.
So, the small business server market remains Microsoft’s game to lose.
The VAR Guy is updated multiple times daily. Don’t miss a single post. Subscribe to his newsletter, RSS and Twitter feed.
No offense but this is a joke right.
Small Business Server is a term coined by Microsoft to hide the seriously crippled software that first appears to be a cheaper option for small business users looking to roll out their first network vs the more expense version of Windows Server.
As for novell and xandros; I sorry these companies are poor examples of Linux evolution and simply follow the (MS) leader. Hardly a shining star in the galaxy of Linux distributions.
Let me give you an example of what I have recently offered a customer who was originally approached by their microsoft approved administrators regarding their need for an online project management server; LAMP with dotProject w/ Ldap support and remote calendar – $2000 installation and configuration with 24×7 monitoring on existing, but obsolete (according to Microsoft) hardware (Pentium 4, 1GB RAM, 250GB Harddisk) VS MS Windows SBS, some sort of restricted SQL server, etc, at which point I lost interest in the software list when I heard $6000 for the same job. And this didn’t even include the cost of the new server they required because the current one was under spec-ed for Win 2008. Time to delivery? Took us a day from receiving the server to installing it in the customer’s office. The MS shop? Can’t tell you; three months later and they still haven’t delivered.
Lastly, I would like to point out that Australia is incredibly biased towards Microsoft, although I’m not amazed at the amount of frustration towards Microsoft software. I am impressed, however, at the number of companies I talk to willing to roll out open source software to address specific needs and break the stranglehold MS has over their IT infrastructure.
Spaulding: Your name gives you a free pass to post comments on this site ANY TIME. Tell the Judge we said hi, and gambling is illegal at Bushwood.
Now, onto your comment: You’ve just pointed out why MSFT is sooo successful — they PRODUCTIZE technology. Sure, SBS is crippled in some ways (user limits, etc.). But it’s branded effectively for a target market.
In stark contrast, few VARs can walk into a small business customer and start talking about LAMP. LAMP is NOT a product, it’s a collection of fantastic software. But somebody (Red Hat? Novell? Canonical?) needs to do a MUCH better job productizing LAMP for small business.
Update: Dickerson at Axxis Technology (quoted in the blog) is already seeing client upgrade demand to SBS 2008 with specific requests for SQL Server on a separate server… …
Your kidding me right? De-coupling is an advancement? This isnt a chicken and egg question, this is MS playing catch up with linux yet again.
Azerthoth: Looks like The VAR Guy is taking a beating on this blog post. Anybody care to stand up and defend SBS? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
VAR Guy – I think you are right, I know that in my customer base we are seeing demand right now for the seperation of SQL from SBS, so Microsoft I think really have listened to the community. I think that those that focus ONLY on low cost for a solution are foolish. The low cost of outdated hardware that people are using to run free software bites them on the ass when that hardware fails. What warranty can you get on a Pentium 4 that a business would be willing to risk their entire business on? Price is not the only thing to be considered here, functionality and serviceability are also very important. The number of Microsoft Small Business Specialists out there that can help resolve customer issues on SBS would far outnumber the number of people that focus on the open source products. This places the customer in a position of greater power in that they can select from a wider range of service providers than the open source movement offers.
Wayne: Thanks for backing The VAR Guy. He was having a crisis of confidence earlier today. You bring up a key point: Microsoft’s partner channel is vastly larger than the open source VAR channel. Also, price is not always the issue. In The VAR Guy’s own business he often pays for a higher-priced solution if he knows it will work…
I sense that the only folks excited about SBS 2008 are the ones who haven’t looked or seriously considered life outside of the Windows compound. So you decouple and now you get the requirement to buy new hardware twice and pay the long costs of running inefficient Windows on both platforms. Sounds like a great deal–if you work in Redmond that is.
Patch, patch, reboot, reboot, patch, reboot….
But be careful because if your business grows, you may find that the SBS 2008 system (along with the SQL server system) you ponied up big bucks for just does not scale up to the show. Get your wallet out again for another round. Next time around it will even be worse $$. Just up the IT budget for the next go-around…all is good.
SBS has the advantage of being fully pre-integrated. It makes it very easy for your average crap IT department to deploy it. The pervasive Active Directory integration is the big thing here – centralised management by default.
Nevertheless, all this can be done in Linux (for FREE) – but it takes longer/more skill. Frankly, this is why many Australian IT departments are MS only shops – their IT departments are totally inept, incompetent and downright lazy. If not that, then they are too scared about change – “but what if it goes wrong?”. So much so, that they are actually aggressive towards FOSS.
The Var Guy has a point though. Canonical needs to start seriously thinking about putting together a well integrated package for SMB’s that is similar to point-and-click. I’m sure some of you have heard about e-box on Ubuntu. This needs to be extended and adapted to include all common applications that a SMB would typically require: LDAP, Groupware, Website, Database, Backup, etc. Either they need to put some effort into a program like e-box, or they need to extend the scope of their own ‘Landscape’ application and start selling it to the masses. One thing to note here is that there needs to be some simple, clear migration tools for common services such as MS Exchange, AD, IIS and such.
Story cut short: you can already do it all with Linux, Windows does it more easily (for inept IT departments), Canonical needs to make it easy (for inept IT departments).
I think there is a lot of money to be made in the SMB sector in this area (support contracts, $ for Landscape?). If Canonical can just devote some resources to making this happen then they will be profitable sooner than Mark has predicted.
On another note, if they do get this happening then they need to make sure that the Ubuntu desktop distributions are integrated to the degree where it becomes an attractive selling point.
P.S. this SQL Server on another box thing is just a pathetic gimmick. Its quite sad how Microsoft does this. What a ground-breaking feature!!!!11one (NOT). I don’t know how they sleep at night. =P
Socceroos: Always good to have your perspectives. But careful about attacking my mates in Australia. They were great hosts when The VAR Guy was down under.
Closing thought: You nailed it with Canonical Landscape. Anyone who isn’t familiar with that tool should give it a look to see how Ubuntu can be part of a managed small business practice.
Uh, in a less aggressive manner to my last post. Basically, this SQL Server decoupling is a very good example of how crippled Microsoft’s products really are. It shows just how locked-in you are, you have to bleed more money to get a slightly more scalable solution.
The Var Guy: I’m a born and bred Australian. Google my ‘name’ and you’ll understand.
I have the advantage of understanding the situation here in Australia in perhaps a little more depth. It is eternally frustrating to see the lack of knowledge (IT knowledge and FOSS knowledge) that is displayed by so many IT departments here.
Socceroos: In that case G’Day Mate.
Ken: I beg to differ on the upgrade scenario. SBS 2008 can be upgraded to EBS 2008 which certainly allows it to scale well. In fact with Microsofts new Solutions Pathway they will even take into account the value of the software you have purchased when you move up to EBS 2008.
Socceroos: I don’t think that MS have crippled SQL at all in SBS 2008. In fact they upgraded it from SQL 2005 Workgroup Edition to SQL 2008 Standard Edition in recognition of the fact that SMB clients need more features from their SQL. SQL running on another box is actually in response to application vendors that write sloppy code that breaks other things or the fact that the app vendors do not wish to support THEIR application on a box with anything other than SQL on it. Can you blame Microsoft for the third party vendors decision? I sure hope not 🙂
PS – i’m an Aussie too – so I know a fair chunk about the SBS market here in AU given I’ve been selling/installing it for 11 yrs now.
Hello Wayne,
That was my point precisely, SBS 2008 won’t scale. You need another expensive and restrictive product to get the job done. Compare this to the Linux solution where you can scale the solution to your hearts content. –think Google.
As far as setup time for an operational system consider, for example, that you can bring up a fully configured Ubuntu LAMP server from scratch in about 15-20 minutes. My 12 year old son could do this with minimal instruction. –and you can do this on as many systems as you desire for no license fee. On top of this you get incredible rock-solid reliability. There is just no comparison. You can virtualize this solution to your hearts content for no license fee and run on as many processors as you want. Experiment, test, rollout, deploy, all free because it is FOSS.
I have installed Windows systems that have taken many hours and even days to acquire and install all of the upgrades and patches and virus-add-ware. It is a conundrum of futility. I can not imagine SBS 2008 to be any different. In comparison I can install a Linux distro on most systems within an hour and have everything fully updated and running.
I work at a small, non-profit local Christian radio station. Being the sole person in the IT department, I fully appreciate the fact that SBS is a fully integrated install. I actually managed to upgrade from SBS 2003 in just one day! I upgraded our servers on Saturday, and spent the rest of my planned upgrade time this weekend just tweeking settings. All I have to say is SBS 2008 is so much easier to use and manage than 2003 ever was!
IMHO, MS made a smart move in donating this software to the Not-For-Profit community through TechSoup.org. Besides helping charities with their IT needs, getting the software (with Software Assurance, BTW) out to these prime examples of small business can only provide countless testimonies on the ease of installation, use, and management of true corporate / business standard software, where they would normally have to put up with unsupported software, or software that’s at the very least more difficult to use or train their staff on.
(Oh, and this is coming from a Red Hat Certified Engineer / evangelist with no MS certs, just so you know)
Troy: Thanks for providing some balanced perspectives here. Please keep us posted as you take additional steps with SBS 2008.
Also, keep us posted on your efforts with Red Hat Linux.
P.S. I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet, but SBS 2008 premium doesn’t just pack SQL 2008 to be put on another server. It includes the license for a second instance of Server 2008 standard. For SMB, the difference in cost between standard and premium is well made up for in just that second server alone!
Troy: You’ve just reinforced why Microsoft is so good at product positioning. Many open source readers will likely balk at all these artificial license restrictions, cost justifications, etc. But it’s hard to argue with MSFT’s success developing a small business product with specific price points and functions in mind.
My earlier point was that if you are already in the compound, the path of least resistance is to stay in the compound. So you pony up more and keep the status quo. Of course if you are already on SBS, you just upgrade it and pay the price. In some cases you can get it donated? So you have to rely on a donation for a cost effective solution? How far will that carry you? How much will the next hit cost you?
As far as support goes, you can get all of the professional paid-for support you need with Ubuntu and be miles ahead cost wise. LAMP is an industry standard. In addition you have the choice of supporting and distributing it yourself to within or outside of your business. You can drive that ship–if you want to, because you have the freedom to choose. Try that with proprietary vendors, such as Microsoft, and you will get stormed and sued by the BSA.
When the proprietary vendor decides that it is time to upgrade, –er they need more revenue, you are left holding the bag. In for a penny, in for a pound–you have no choice when you live in the compound. What is Vista? What was XP? Can you still get support for Windows 2000 or ME? So a system running anything but the latest rendition of Windows will always be forced into obsolescence. This is the business model of continual licensing fees. The long term effect is a continual drain on the bottom line of your business and living under the business plan of your single source vendor–the tail wagging the dog. ARF!
Ken: The VAR Guy sees value in both open and closed source solution, based on customer need, etc. Sorry for such a political reply. However: You made a very strong case for FOSS.
Ken: I’ll show my ignorance here with a question. I’m certainly a Microsoft focused person, but I would not call myself a die hard MS fan. Sure they do need a smack upside the head at times for their decisins… we all do 🙂 So here’s the question – Who is responsible for detecting and patching the security flaws in a 10+ year old FOSS solution?
” Who is responsible for detecting and patching the security flaws in a 10+ year old FOSS solution? ”
The Linux 2.4 Kernel has been around for 10 years or so. It is still actively supported and maintained. Mainstream Linux has moved on to the 2.6 Kernel but you can still use and deploy 2.4 level Kernel.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/14003
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2002-028.html
There are many answers to that question. You can find support if you need it. The good thing about FOSS is that in many cases you can conveniently move to newer versions because required hardware resources have not gotten out of hand. And I need say nothing about the cost of doing that.
We could even take you back to the 2.2 Kernel which has been around far longer than 2.4. Active support is still happening on that.
http://www.kernel.org/
The problem is that you are used to finding one answer–a rather expensive one at that. In most cases the answer is “Sorry, that is no longer supported. You will have to pay and upgrade.” In the compound there is no choice to find third-party support for what you currently have because there is only one party controlling it–killing it, obsoleting it. No one else can step in because of the licensing and legal restrictions. It is a one-vendor show in the compound.
Enter FOSS… It is like asking where can I get this liquid stuff called water and who will provide it to me? The choices are unlimited because true competition is part of the game plan. You get to pick how you want to deal with it because YOU are in charge. .. With FOSS, the happy dog is wagging his tail ..The way it should be. ARF! 🙂
@Wayne Small:
Not crippled?
“In fact they upgraded it from SQL 2005 Workgroup Edition to SQL 2008 Standard Edition in recognition of the fact that SMB clients need more features from their SQL.”
I had to chuckle – the proof is in the pudding.
I guess it may be hard for people who have only ever used or deployed proprietary solutions to really understand what ‘crippled’ means.
I see The Var Guy’s point about Microsoft’s well thought out packages and price points. But when you stack this up against a solution that does the same thing – for free – and has none of the restrictions of the proprietary one, making it completely scalable to your company’s/situations needs, then (for me at least) it doesn’t make sense to lock myself into a vicious money-spending cycle that is eating away at my already slim margins.
This is why I feel it is important for Canonical to start getting together and marketing a ‘comparable’ package for SMB’s. All the great technology is there, it all works like a dream. But it needs to be marketed/delivered properly before a lot of proprietary minded people realise what it can do.
This is an old post and my reply here may not be seen by anyone, but I hear the complaints and I recognize why SBS is so popular, even at more expense and with vendor lock-in: They know marketing, and they know (pretty well) how to smooth out rough edges and integrate.
That said, it has inspired me to integrate and smooth out rough edges and create a SBS with more products than anyone else has used before. I’m talking firewall, router, monitoring systems, email, calendar, file server, database, directory services, terminal services, remote access, SSL browser-based VPN, a CRM, an ERP, etc. I’m talking dozens of apps. Scalability, security and ease of management would be top priorities.
I would create a TOTALLY FREE Small Business Server. I would sell support/consulting. This way, small IT shops such as Troy at his Christian radio station can manage dozens, even hundreds of end users for free. If he needs support, he knows he can just pick up a phone.
This won’t be easy, but I think I know how to do it. I’ll need to study a lot and learn project management and recruit some good programmers, but I think I can do it. I’m still thinking and praying about whether I should take this on (it’d be ambitious and I have a growing family), but I believe there’s a market in the next few years before SaaS really gets hot.
So, if I decide not to do this, someone else needs to take up the banner. Get inspired by looking at the usability and integration level of something like Untangle or OpenFiler or IPcop. Then start thinking bigger; add in many, many more services, as many as a small business would need. Glue it all together with a seamless web interface. Make sure it is secure and scalable. Hide many options from the admin, but still ensure that your glue scripts respect any manual changes made from the commandline. Hire tier 1 and 2 support staff. Test it with users. Start marketing it. You’ll need usability testing, programmers, infrastructure, technical support and other small business staff. Shoot, you could even run the whole business on your server, so that you A.) eat your own dog food and B.) work out any kinks that customers would see.
Integration, smoothing out the rough edges, a “kitchen sink” mentality, free to the community, more applications than any other solution. I think you’d have a winner. Linux has the potential to be a winner in this category.
Chris: Your voice has been heard. Let us know if/when you move forward with your SBS alternative efforts.
Two concerns:
1.) If I hustle, I could get it right, stable and clean within a year. Will SaaS be well-established quick enough to kill my chances of success? Or would I have 5 good years of success?
What do you think?
2.) I can add more features than Microsoft and also beat them on up-front cost, so my three advantages will be initial cost, no vendor lock-in and features. My one big disadvantage will be a lack of trust from small businesses.
So what concerns me is if I start hurting MS’s sales, will they just add more features and lower their up-front cost and thereby nail me because they are more trusted? They easily could.
What do you think?
I suppose I could gain trust by doing the integration on an established platform like CentOS or Ubuntu and then partnering with them, making my SBS an extension of CentOS/Ubuntu. What do you think? I would want to avoid partnering with RedHat because then we’re back to the initial cost disadvantage.
Chris de Vidal: Take a look at what Jumpbox is doing. Basically leaping beyond on-premise and pushing applications up into the cloud.
What everyone here seems to forget is that you run software for a purpose … to support a business. I run MS software because it does what it should, it is supported by a central organisation and when properly configured it is solid. I COULD spend time learning, configuring and installing some free and brilliant linux variant. I COULD then spend hours figuring out how to make it work with another undoubtably excellent and cost free application but as the admin for a small company I have better things to do with my time. MS allow me to get things done simply and effectively and support my users in a professional, unadventurous way, allowing them to get on with what pays my wages.
I think when get in the FOSS vs. MS battle, one very, very important thing is left out of these arguments: in existing businesses, applications drive the back office. The back office does not drive the applications. To explain this a little more clearly: if company has an application that is of any strategic importance to their business and it integrates with Exchange, AD, MS SQL or any other MS specific technology, then that dictates what they put in the back office. Today, if an application offers integration with a platform, it is almost always going to be MS. 15 years ago, it was Novell (NDS). So, as a consultant, is also important for me to look at the industry any given one of my clients work in and think about what applications that may want to run in the near future. If those solutions also appear to be MS centric than the choice is easy. If they don’t appear to now or in the near future have a need to integration with MS tools and technology, then I’m happy to recommend of the many FOSS options available today. I have never (and I mean ever) met a client, after having the pros and cons explained clearly to them, that was willing to save a few thousand dollars at the expense of running the best application (client, not server) for the job or limiting future options. Remember Microsoft stole the show from Microsoft by monopolizing the desktop applications first, this opened up the back office for them. Good or bad, it’s reality. And when it comes to giving my customers the honest truth, I give them reality every time not my idealistic opinions.
Edit to previous post. The third sentence from the bottom should read: Remember Microsoft stole the show from Novell by monopolizing the desktop applications first, this opened up the back office for them.
[…] MS releases SBS 2008; can Linux keep up? : http://www.thevarguy.com/2008/11/12/microsoft-small-business-server-2008… […]
We got suckered into buying a SBS server a few years ago. We had and office that has to run some garbage software that required MSSQL. With all of the licenses we would have had to buy to get things working under a real server the SBS server was far cheaper. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! That was until we actually wanted to USE IT FOR SOMETHING. The pile of crap INSISTS on taking over the whole network. EVERYTHING is completely crippled and ass-backward. You want interdomain trusts? Nope. You want to integrate with anything, ever? Sorry, no can do.
If you want to try the SBS experience before you buy then you should do the following: get a server running Windows Server 2003 or whatever. Modify all of the normal administrative interfaces so that instead of doing what they normally do they completely screw the machine sideways from Wednesday to the point where you just sit there saying “I can’t believe how much that screwed the machine up”. Then write a pathetic joke of an administrative interface that doesn’t do anything that you want. Then get a bear trap, carefully lower your testicles into the thing until you hear the SNAP. Then weld the trap closed.
SBS server was designed with one goal in mind, to ensnare businesses and make escape almost impossible. Every possible escape route that doesn’t involve shelling out a pile of money to buy the server that should have been bought in the first place has been walled off.
DO NOT BUY THIS CRAP. If your requirements are so simple that you can’t administer your own AD server then you don’t need the functionality that SBS supposedly provides. If you do need these features then do yourself a favour and shell our the extra dough now instead of finding yourself completely pooched in a few years.
Breaking the Wall: The VAR Guy’s comment board is wide open for reader feedback like yours. But we do try to maintain a G-rated discussion. Got complaints? You’re definitely free to share them here. Just watch the language. And The VAR Guy has to point out… there are plenty of happy SBS customers and VARs out there. Thanks for taking the time to write.
-TVG