What is your preferred OS to use for a small business server?
Is getting an Exchange server really needed?
[spoiler]How expensive is it to actually use WIndows Server 2012 and is it worth it?[/spoiler]
Debian
No
Very and no.
>>42955687
>windows
>server
>>42955699
Why would I use Debian over CentOS?
>>42955719
Feel free to use CentOS if you prefer
>>42955699
how expensive is a windows server today? do you have to pay per computer that can use it?
and exchange a while license thing itself?
Windows Server 2012 R2 has been fantastic for us. Don't listen to the /g/ hivemind, If you have a .edu email address, you can use it for free via MS's Dreamspark program.
>>42955687
CentOS or RHEL.
Windows shit is never worth it.
>>42955802
You can either pay per computer, or pay thousands for a corporate license
>>42955923
Or you can get it for free:
>>42955835
>>42955923
That's fucking retarded
>>42955835
And violate the EULA by deploying it in a for-profit business. Enjoy explaining that to MS support when it fucks up.
>>42955687
CentOS or ClearOS should work just fine for you.
centOS is what my university uses for their cluster, it seems to be really stable
>>42958904
>>42958932
I am currently trying to figure out Debian vs CentOS. They're both as stable as you can be. One is 3 years vs I think 10 years support and I heard CentOS has a very hard time in upgrading to newer versions unlike Debian.
People talk about yum vs apt-get. How much difference can there really be?
Currently I am running a Ubuntu server for this server box I am making and it works fine but I'd like to offer something stable to avoid headaches so I am looking into redoing the whole thing with Debian or CentOS. I have only used CentOS for remote servers only for the past several years and basically Ubuntu/Debian based for desktops and local machines for several years.
>>42955923
my boss insisted we set up an exchange server for our small business (~30 machines).
we're paying like 10k a year for all of the windows licenses we have. my boss wrote me up for going over budget.
>>42958981
You may not feel the same way, but I _want_ my servers to be as boring as possible and not need upgrades for years at a time. If your server runs your business and gets security patches, why would you want to update it frequently?
>>42959016
Has anyone used openchange to replace Exchange?
Many clients are used to WIndows Server 2003 and Exchange and if I could use OpenChange on modern Outlook that'd be brownie points for clients
>>42959033
This is a good point.
Does the new systemd feature in CentOS cause issues? I keep hearing that systemd is flawed
>>42959051
i've tried it in a sandbox with decent results. to be completely honest there isn't much separating exchange from other email programs.
>>42959033
this right here. debian is awesome because once it's configured it will run for years without issue.
>>42955687
Zentyal
>>42959101
I think I will use Debian over CentOS as the UBuntu setup is great and I can easily replicate it again with Debian.
also can't see anything not having a Debian variant for installation and usage.
"Small Business Server" is such an expansive category that I can't even begin to give a recommendation. If you are only using it for one or two services, I would recommend paying for SaaS alternatives if at all possible, for the time- and cost-efficiency. You save way more in the long run compared to maintaining your own box and software. Focus on your business itself, not on how you cobble together the tools. That means unless your business is IT, spend as little time as possible on this-versus-that server.
Again, without knowing the business and what your explicit needs are, it's hard to give an actual recommendation or solution. Consequently my "Look into some quick-signup SaaS products" is only a general-case suggestion.
FreeBSD
No
Yes
No
CentOS
Guys, can someone even explain what is the difference between exchange server, lync server and sharepoint?>
>>42959458
It's not my server, I make and setup the server and computers for other businesses. They want quickbooks 2014, file shares, and what not.
Many despise the cloud or thinking their business info is cloud hosted.
noob question
if company runs windows, can you still install centos/debian/ubuntu server and have windows cooperating with it?
>>42959705
on a different server maybe. Cooperating how?
We've been running our site on Debian
Not sure how to answer your question without knowing what you plan to use it for, though.
Unless you need Windows-specific software, don't choose that. Linux is the industry standard, it's much more natural to configure, has a larger community, and more software.
>>42959738
accessing and using files stored on a server
>tech companies faces when software licensing
>>42959685
>It's not my server
Ah okay. I thought you were asking what you should use for your own company.
If you're not the decision maker then, well, good luck.
>Many despise the cloud or thinking their business info is cloud hosted.
Indeed. Sometimes they might even LIKE "cloud" services but are required physical control of their data for regulatory reasons, and so forth.
>>42959750
>We've been running our site on Debian
>Not sure how to answer your question without knowing what you plan to use it for, though.
How's it been running?
>>42959785
One of my clients was quoted $8000 for a server. $1600 for the hardware, the rest was Windows Server 2012 and Exchange license keys for her computers
Stepped in, Told her a price 1/7th the cost for better hardware and same features. She's excited to try the Linux solution. She's heard about other companies going Linux too.
>>42959802
>Ah okay. I thought you were asking what you should use for your own company.
Well I'm a small time one person show. I have a dedicated hosted server running CentOS that just runs my websites, client portal, databases, and gameservers. Not the same though. I tend to use SaaS for most everything I do business related for myself.
>If you're not the decision maker then, well, good luck.
The businesses are deciding on on-site servers and prefer it. As for software, they just want the thing to work and have little downtime if possible.
>>42959832
>She's excited to try the Linux solution.
Yeah, too bad most business shy away from Linux (bar RHEL) because MUH SUPPORT
>>42959705
you can run them in a virtual machine if needs be.
>>42959962
but what happens if company wants to build its first server while already having ~10 pcs running windows?
>>42959934
That's sort of why I have a few companies who have signed me up as their on call IT man. Many like the idea of a physical IT guy coming in and doing the work while they continue working on what's possible to use instead of staying on a phone line doing things they ask you to do.
Remote access from support works usually but most likely a solid linux server should only go down from hardware breaking.
>>42959995
You're talking about if the desktops run windows?
Linux with SAMBA works perfectly fine completely with printers, user logins, private user home folders, etc.
Its easier to setup than even from Windows imo
>>42960028
>You're talking about if the desktops run windows?
yeah
>Linux with SAMBA works perfectly fine completely with printers, user logins, private user home folders, etc.
so, whatever linux with samba installed would work? ok, nice to know
>Its easier to setup than even from Windows imo
wat
>>42959995
chances are if you don't need to run a linux server there is no reason to.
just use dreamspark and play around 2008 r2 and 2012, 08r2 is a proven version.
hell you could probably get away with something like home server if you want, depends entirely on how many clients they have and will expand to and what you actually need to do.
dont bother going to linux unless you have to
>>42960000
Dem quads. Also, now that CentOS is all cuddled up with RH, you get most of the upside of RHEL with no real cost unless you have money you just absolutely have to throw at a support agreement.
>>42960096
Thing is, i live in a country that doesn't give 2 flying fucks about piracy, even at corporate level so i wouldn't have to worry about paying anything MS related
>>42960060
>Its easier to setup than even from Windows imo
>wat
http://www.thefanclub.co.za/how-to/how-setup-ubuntu-business-box-server-ubb-part-1
11-14 is a step by step guide on how to easily setup SAMBA and use webmin to configure it
>>42960121
But what is the upside of RHEL in CentOS that I can't use in Debian. Cause I just downloaded Debian after trying to make a choice between CentOS and Debian for a few hours today and all I got was one uses yum and hard to upgrade vs one uses apt-get and LTS is only 3 years but upgrades easy and that I already know how to setup a Ubuntu server.
>>42960129
on the corporate level using anything but a proven install is stupid. if you really work for a company they wouldn't mind spending the money to get a real version.
>>42960168
Not if you live in 3rd world where software licenses are a thing to kek'd at
Debian Testing or Slackware.
>Windows
>>42960204
why would you use Debian Testing over Stable for a server?
May as well use Ubuntu
>>42960204
I don't know what to think
In my 3rd world pretty much all banks use windows servers (seen they run lync server), i doubt they would risk that much with win servers if /g/ says they are THAT bad
>>42960229
Testing is, amusingly, far more stable than Stable. Also far more up-to-date. I bet even Unstable is more stable than Stable. Half the time, I get kernel panics at boot with Stable. Stable is murderer.
>>42960248
I expect the banks themselves use PDP-11s with some arcane but stable COBOL shit running on them.
>>42960313
Don't do this to me. I already spent hours deciding to download Debian 7.5 Stable over CentOS 7
Now my brain is hurting from the thought of making a decision that wasn't the best
>>42960351
https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/jessie_di_alpha_1/amd64/iso-cd/debian-jessie-DI-a1-amd64-netinst.iso
Enjoy m8.
>>42960351
>spent hours deciding to download
Why not just download them all at once, WHILE deciding, so that you can change your mind moment-to-moment if you damned well please, and have all the ISOs ready to go whenever you settle. Downloading and deciding are non-exclusive, concurrent operations, m'boy.
>>42955687
Don't use jessie for a server until it's frozen! You don't know what major application upgrades are going to come along and break everything.
Wheezy is fine, i have 10-15 servers running it with zero issues.
>>42960416
I downloaded Debian 7.5 DVD-2 torrent that was 4.4GBs in 2 minutes. Not an issue. The issue is which one I will use on basically ALL small business servers I am currently building and about to build soon (and in the future)
And this guy >>42960386 >>42960313
Is unnerving my shit with his Testing Debian being more Stable than Stable.
>>42960485
He's a little misguided imo.
Testing gets more up-to-date packages, true, but there are always backports, and Stable will also get all security updates. Period.
Testing CAN be better, but often that's for more userland desktop environments or people doing more cutting edge development of server on TOP of the Linux platform. You want something stable and unchanging to make it easier to support.
And when it comes to nit-picking between Debian channels there are edge cases where Testing is left broken for longer than Sid is (aka "unstable" even though it's really not), purely due to release cycle details of when updates and fixes roll from Sid to Testing.
But none of that matters to you, because you should use Stable and be A-OK.
Fedora with btrfs
Yum integrates nicely with it. also dat yum history plugin
>>42960734
I have genuinely found Testing to be more stable than Stable. If I can make it through the Stable installer (it often freezes indefinitely at unpredictable points (like just before language selection), requiring a reboot after leaving it for ten minutes to see if it straightens out) then I'll have the problem of kernel panics at boot. With Testing, no such problems exist.
>You want something stable and unchanging to make it easier to support.
Might as well just netinstall Testing and leave it as-is until the next iteration of Stable, which would be a good point to dist-upgrade.
>>42960828
OP is building servers for small businesses that he will support himself, at a cost/expense of other types of business for himself. You are seriously recommending a userland/desltop-oriented distro on top of a still-in-development file system?
>But btrfs has worked fine on my desktop for years!
That's fine, but there's a big difference between accepting risk on your personal data and assuming the risk for dozens of businesses with god-know-what use cases:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Is_btrfs_stable.3F
>>42960858
>Might as well just netinstall Testing and leave it as-is until the next iteration of Stable, which would be a good point to dist-upgrade.
Fair enough.
>>42960882
>desltop-oriented
*desktop-oriented
>>42960858
is testing better with your hardware? what is the hardware?
>>42960882
This. He may as well go the last cunt hair into full retard mode and run Arch on servers.
>>42961090
M5A78L-M LX (shit -- avoid), AMD FX-4100 (shit but fine if you have no money), AMD HD7850. Works better than stable with this hardware, yes.
>>42961188
the server that is currently built and using Ubuntu is using an Asus M5A97 r2.0 and an AMD FX 8320
maybe stable Debian is not stable on piledriver?
>>42959458
Why am I seeing this album everywhere suddenly?
>>42955687
>Is getting an Exchange server really needed?
You're gonna need more than just a Exchange server for running a Business.
>>42960164
yum is much, much more user-friendly and much more feature-rich than the APT utils on Debian.
Also, CentOS is basically what you want when you want to set up a system and barely touch it for the better part of a decade.
Debian is for when you're upgrading more often and/or need slightly newer software.
>>42961923
>yum is much, much more user-friendly
I have heard the exact opposite everywhere regarding this.
I also have used yum and apt-get equally as much though and hardly find them much different
>2014
>not using superior Oracle Linux for free
>using depreciated Debian
lel
>>42962101
I miss SUN
>>42961804
what
>>42955687
That REALLY depends on what it's for!
Only time i see Windows Server as a viable solution is in office environments where you need AD and maybe an Exchange server.
Usually in office environments people are used to the MS Office application suite and need that, so the clients are running Windows and then I think it's easier with Windows Server when administrating GPs and if you use Branchchache you can't do it without Windows Server.
>>42964162
I'm surprised by a lot of my clients wanting to switch to Gapps for GMail or just going to normal mail hosting onsite or online via their web site host.
I haven't seen Exchange being used fully beyond School systems and big corporations such as my father works for UnitedHealthcare and they all use Outlook with exchange.
And I can see why Gapps would be great, using a fleet of Android phones that sync and have push email on top of a good Calendar system.
>>42962101
>depreciated
