THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF THE SBS "DIVA"

iTWire - The real reason consultants use Microsoft SBS over Linux:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20619/1141/

You are doing it again aren't you?  You want eyeballs so you write something that will get it.

Okay .. I'll fall for it again, let's dissect this one.

"The most frequent complaint was that zillions of small companies will never grow beyond 75 users. Actually, this isn’t really a criticism of what I wrote than a depressing admission that lots of companies will plateau, stagnate or fail.
In fact, this kind of statement even readily acknowledges SBS has limitations but is going with the line that the SBS constraints are tolerable in a lot of circumstances.
I would hate to be seen as lambasting small business. My parents owned their own restaurant for most of my young life. At other times they also owned a bookshop and a pool and leisure product store. On the one hand in a situation like theirs of course they’re not going to grow beyond 75 staff that legitimately require a login and e-mail address.
However, then again, isn’t that a limiting statement?
How can I look at a business and decide it won’t grow, it won’t become part of a franchise, and it won’t be acquired by a larger entity?"

Apparently you missed the memo of the gazillions of small businesses who CHOOSE to stay below 75.  Who make a decision that being boutique in size is exactly where they want to be.  You see it as limiting.  I see it as a choice.  My firm has been under 75 users or devices for going on 28 years now.  (And no I'm not going to admit how many of those years that I've been at that firm but let me just give a hint that I was involved in picking the Lantastic modem share and Novell software when that was the network solution that fit our needs)

And if ... we'd be talking merger to a larger firm there is a product called the SBS 2008 transition pack.  It installs on the SBS 2003/2008 box and takes the 75 cap off.  So even if tomorrow my firm was bought out by whatever big 4 or 3 Accounting firm is left, we could still merge over the data with no sweat.  If you see that a firm will grow, this is a total non issue from the get go.  This has been anticipated and planned for by Microsoft.  Heck it's even planned for in EBS to outgrow the 300 cap on it.

In my firm we have consciously made a choice to stay in a boutique size.  When we were approached for a merger we CHOOSE not to.  That's right we turned it down.  That doesn't mean we turned our back on ensuring we didn't get the benefits of a larger organization though.  You see small firms can join associations of like minded companies where they keep their autonomy but share information and resources amongst themselves.  Small firms do it all the time.  We're not stagnating.  We've developed a niche, specialized.  Targeted a specific field and gone after that.  We've decided that to ensure quality to stay a certain size.  That's not stagnation.  Nor is it plateauing given that we keep ensuring that we are on the cutting edge of training, education and certifications in my firm.

"User limitation isn’t the only constraint in SBS. You’re also restricted to having just one SBS server in your network (well, until EBS.) If you want more servers you have to pay the full price for a Windows Server 2003 license.
This particularly comes in to play if you set up a second office. And that’s definitely not outside the realm of possibility for any small business. Even the type of stores my parents operated. If you have a branch network – even if only two branches – you would be best served by networking them. This gives you consistency of logins and authentication, a consistent and unified address book and calendaring system. You can share files and other resources.
So what do you do? Well, firstly, if you have the domain, mail and file server in one office, and let the second office’s users drag files over the wide area network (WAN) connection you’ll just frustrate them. They’ll experience lag.
Oh crap, that’s right; SBS doesn’t let you run terminal services. You need a second server if you want to use terminal services. And it must be a Windows Server product at the regular price, not the SBS price. Oh yes, and you will need to buy new terminal server client access licenses (CAL) too. Thanks for nothing, SBS."

So I'm reading between the lines that you are advocating running Terminal Services on your Domain controller.  Cool!  You do this in your non Windows domains as well?  You do realize that having users log into that domain controller places undue risk on that domain controller.  Anyone, any consultant who complains about Terminal Server being blocked on SBS 2003 gets a "tough!"  "We never should have been able to do it on SBS 2000 in the first place" lecture from me.  I don't  buy that agrument as a valid one given that you are advocating a deployment that puts undue risk for that domain controller.

As far as the price tag of another Windows Server, in SBS 2008 there's a premium SKU that provides a second server.  These days that Premium sku also provides a sweet platform for virtualization as well as you can take the second license of Windows 2008 and have it as the HyperV base.  Also there's no need for addtional server cals when a Windows Server is added to a SBS domain.  I can stand up Windows Servers cheaper in a SBS network than I can if I had normal Windows 2008 server.  In the R2 era we didn't have to buy extra Exchange or SQL licenses if we placed separate Exchange or SQL on a second box.  And right now if you buy SBS 2003 with Software assurance you get gobs of software making a offering even a pencil pushing beancounter can love.  And remember, I'm still in a business world where having the base platform of Windows is a requirement for my Line of Business applications.  Want to do a read only domain controller in a branch office?  You can do that in the 2008 era.

"However, not one person said I was wrong that SBS limited the number of users, it limited the number of SBS servers, and it did not lend itself to participating in larger, multi-domain, networks because it does not permit trust relationships and more."

As Dana Epp pointed out in his blog, http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/archives/001054.html, there is more than one way to skin this cat.  We can use various replication tools these days to pretty much serve the needs of small business.  Again the choice here of SBS does not limit small firms. There's a phrase that some folks use when it comes to SBS in a firm with multi-branches.  Strawberry plants.  You plant the base plant and out come the runners. 

To me this is an unacceptable risk and it cannot be underestimated. If you use SBS, no matter how many additional servers and domain controllers you deploy your Active Directory root and FSMO roles are all held on the one single machine. If it fails your network goes down. The fix is not pretty; a dead SBS server requires what’s known as “graveyard swing migration” and it’s not a trite operation.

Okay I'll give you a one up for a point there.  Which is why one of the big buzzy things folks are talking about (besides the lame Jerry and Bill commercials lately at www.microsoft.com/windows ) is the fact that SBS 2008 can be virtualized.  I have been running SBS servers since 1999 and not a single time has my firm been jeopardized by running SBS.  Good hardware, Solid backup strategy including imaging of domain controllers (one reason to CHOOSE a single DC structure is in fact to image that box with Storagecraft and have a bulletproof way to get that box back fast), and now with SBS 2008 virtualizing it... since 1999 the risks of SBS have been totally acceptable and quite frankly, non existent when properly planned for.  Quite frankly, one should properly plan disaster recovery in any sized network.  I find that choosing to do a single DC and imaging actually provides a better solution, quite frankly.

"You don’t have to take my words for it. An SBS consultant – a Microsoft Valued Professional (MVP) in the product no less – has this to say:

“There’s firms like mine that want to stay in the sweet spot of seat size of SBS. We pass on mergers. We don’t want to grow big.”

Yes, according to the so-called SBS Diva the reason a lot of consultants recommend SBS is because they, themselves, are content with being small. They don’t want to know more. They don’t want to grow their own business. They don't want to grow with the client's business. They don’t want to do the hard work. SBS suits them. To hell with the client’s needs."

And that's where you went too far in your follow up article, David.  Part of that is my fault as you don't know my background and how I'm really not a true SBS consultant.

That blog post (that obviously you totally missed my point about) was written from the viewpoint NOT of the SBS consultant but rather the SBS customer and business decision maker in my office.  My firm is a CPA firm.  Not an SBS consulting firm.  Beancounter firm.  I do many things in IT.  I am the network consultant for the firm, IT guru, Forensic computing specialist for the litigation work.  Patch Management and writer of articles for WindowsSecrets.com  And yes I am a consultant, but certainly not what you would deem a SBS consultant.  I would probably be more deemed to be one of those icky folks who is a consultant for the consultants.  Yeah one of THOSE people.

Therefore, my statement was not from the SBS consultant view, but rather the SBS network administrator view.  The IT business decision maker of my firm.  The person making the IT decisions.  My firm does not want to grow.  Newsflash.  There are other small firms like mine too.   Your entire argument was that SBS stopped small firms from mergers and acquisitions.  And the point was that I'm here to say that not all small firms want to grow big.  We choose to stay where we are. 

Want to hear a funny story?  Back when I was looking to hire a consultant to install my SBS 2000 network I went around and interviewed Consulting firms.  I had investigated solutions and had a current SBS 4.5 network.  I knew based on my analysis that SBS 2000 was right for my firm.  But every consultant I went to back then said to me that my firm would outgrow SBS.  That my firm would find it too limiting.   None of them would listen to the needs of my firm.  They were all too busy deploying the solution that they deployed to every other firm.  They were unwilling to deploy a solution that would best fit the firm we were then and still are now.  To hell with my firm's needs.  They wanted to recommend a solution to my firm and who cares if I would be better served by using SBS.  They didn't have my interests at heart at all.  So I ended up deploying it myself to my firm because all of the firms I interviewed would not listen to my needs and wanted to put me in a "Full Server OS because you will grow and merge".

Guess what.  We didn't.  We're still the same size.  (Again I'm speaking from the Beancounter firm view here).  One of the things I get asked to do many time by my fellow CPA firms is to review bids that IT consultants have put together.  It's amazing to me the number of times that consultants put together a solution without really listening to the clients needs. 

The reason "I" still recommend Small Business Server 2003 and Small Business Server 2008 to a small firm that needs an on premises server with security and remote access combined with sharing of calendars and other firm productivity tools, is that no other product, not even Clark, not even Nitix puts together the software in a solution that is affordable for a small business that gives the combination of tools and value.  That gives them the technology we need for the Windows world we still live in.  That give my firm the ability to have secure remote technology that does not include a VPN connection. 

When I have less than uber tech savvy users, there is nothing better to give them a Remote URL and allow them to get back directly to their exact workstations with the icons and settings just so.  It's why logmein.com and Gotomypc work in the small business space as well.  Terminal serivces isn't always better for small firms.  It pains me when I do see a firm who has no clue about Remote Web Workplace.  A firm not in the know may not buy SBS for Remote Web Workplace, but once they find out about it, you won't be able to pry their hands off of it.  Because it truly has become the feature that in my firm I would be strung up and killed over if I got rid of it.

I also still live too much in a Windows world that even if I deployed Linux, I'd be plopping a virtual server of Windows on there to host my Windows requiring applications.  I'm saying this from the IT decision maker opinion of my firm.  The body of community knowledge for Linux isn't there.  The total cost of ownership of the non Windows platform is too high for small firms.  Heck there are more Macintosh consultants out there.  It's that body of knowledge and support that still resides in the Windows world.

Will there be a time when it tips somewhere else?  Maybe.  Like I've said I've been Lantastic and Novell before.  But in the technology choices in my firm I look to stay with the 'pack'.  In small business, right now, it still make sense to have a Microsoft solution.

Again if you want to come up with a better argument, try arguing with hosted solutions and SaaS next time.

Essential Business Server 2008 with it's three servers is a very interesting solution.  I've been beta testing it in fact.  But it does have limitations though as well.  300 users or computers in fact.  They too understand that there 'might' be some firms who will find that they hit that 300 mark and just like with SBS there is a transition pack to allow you to grow out of both EBS and SBS.

But I will agree with kinda the jist of your article.  A good SMB consultant will have already been deploying Exchange 2007 in some of their networks.  He or she should be playing with Ubuntu and Macintosh.  Should know about all the solutions available to them and pick the RIGHT one.  Which is quite frankly what they do now.

As we go forward SBS 2008 may not make sense for all firms.  They may be better with a cobbling of a on premises server with a hosted messaging solution.  We'll have to see how the future shakes out.

So you want to know the real reason that consultants recommend Microsoft SBS over Linux?

Because it still makes sense to the total cost of ownership for a small firm to stay with the Windows platform.

And that's a beancounter opinion for you.