Windows Home Server Details

phorest writes "Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server? In any event Microsoft is opening up WHS for users to construct their own system after all; though I'd like to see the price of this OS release before making the jump. From the review: "At the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week... Microsoft previewed its long-awaited Windows Home Server product, a Windows Server 2003 R2-based server for consumers that dispenses with the complexities of most Windows Server versions and provides the core storage, sharing, and remote access functionality that digital media and home networking enthusiasts require... Microsoft will make WHS available in two ways: Bundled with new WHS hardware and software-only, the latter so that enthusiasts can install the system on the hardware of their choice... If you're building your own home server, Microsoft requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more, and as many disks as you think you need. The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."

That Ease of Use Thing

[blueZhift]

This sounds pretty good, and depending on pricing, something I could use. I can, and have cobbled together various backup sever solutions over the years, but who has time for all of that? Having the choice of a hardware bundle or loading my own custom server sounds like a pretty easy path. Aside from pricing, the only other issue of concern to me is how buggy with the first releases be. I wonder if this will easily integrate with an Xbox 360 at some point. It might be just the thing to address the 20GB hard drive limitation right now.

Re:Hmm?

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

If you really thought that was all Windows Server 2003 was, you are confused.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"If you pick windows for a server you have to be crazy."

Because you couldn't get Windows setup on your own (with your stellar credentials of being some guy on the Internet) we must conclude that only the crazies are using Windows? That's a very poor argument. You never even come close to explaining why you couldn't get the setup working. Your comparison to how you setup a Linux server is meaningless because we don't know what caused you problems with the Windows server;

Based on your language of "picked Samba and Apache", I am guessing you just didn't know what you were doing.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, I've set up lots of 2003 servers as file and web servers with no issues.

My windows boxes don't become unstable after weeks of running.

If you only had the 2nd problem, I would have guessed you had a bad driver.

Since you also had the first problem, my guess is you are just clueless.

Editing some .conf files is easy for Apache and Samba, but no easier than the windows GUI settings.

Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.

Shutup.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shutup. Windows has never been difficult in allowing it to share data.

At the MOST you have to say "Yes, I know it's dangerous to share my pr0n". Click Yes and you're sharing.

Drop the OSS fanboy attitude.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[shaneh0]

Like others have said: This is Microsofts fault how?

IIS isn't that difficult. Changing the setting from integrated windows security is, seriously, 2 or 3 clicks from the control panel.

And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.

And no, it's not "idiot proof" but you're talking about a SERVER PRODUCT. A standard license runs for $999. It's meant for PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, it's NOT meant for the home. Thus, WHS.

And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot (assuming you did buy the license).

Let's talk security

[Opportunist]

One thing's for sure. Servers are amongst the most interesting pieces of hardware you can hijack. They run 24/7, they usually have a good bandwidth (ok, not necessarily so for home servers) and they usually also have lots of storage space.

The target audience for those server systems are home users. Who not necessarily have any clue when it comes to security. Actually, it is quite likely that the people buying this kind of system will not have a lot of knowledge in the IT area. And of security.

The systems will also be very similar, if not identical. Unlike Linux boxes, which can almost never be hijacked cookie-cutter style, this would open the venue for boxes which are most likely easier to hack than current implementations of servers.

Not necessarily because MS does a worse job than OSS developers. But it's just like with the other MS systems. The possible gain from a working exploit is incredible, so the effort will match it. And twice so if you can rely on the system running 24/7 and having lots of storage.

I predict a completely new kind of problem for the 'net.

Re:Video Interview from Channel9

[x2A]

"He's dumb as a post"

A post on slashdot?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Overzeetop]

Yes, my server runs for a month or two without a single keystroke or mouse movement of management. If it weren't for the inherent need to restart the system (which takes all of 5 minutes when I decide I probably ought to install the updates), there's no reason to believe that it would even need to be restarted. We see no loss of use over those couple of months, and no advantage upon restart. For my purposes (file and print services), it has run without a single instance of required intervention on the OS for 4 years. This is not a five or six - nines machine, just as a home server is not. We have traffic 9-12 hours a day. I don't consider pressing "install updates, restart when complete" to be an onerous task to perform eight times a year.

But hey, if you've got a production server that can't handle being down for 0.008% of the time, maybe you're not really looking for a "simplified" server OS.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Kadin2048]

Ubuntu is really not the solution someone like the GP was looking for. It's a nice general-purpose server distro, but it's certainly not plug and play. And with Ubuntu's server installation, you're not going to be clicking any buttons, because by default there's no GUI.

I think that the dedicated home-server distros like Smoothwall or maybe Coraid's NAS distro would be more what he's looking for. They're not much harder to set up than a typical broadband router -- you just install from a CD and then do your configuration from a web page -- but they provide a lot of functionality, because they run on commodity PC hardware and run Linux (or BSD, depending).

I think the point the GP is making, and it's a good one, is that not everyone wants something that requires any level of configuration. People want things that are plug and play. Luckily, I think the market has seen this and is producing products that try to fill it: VMWare's list of virtual appliances [vmware.com] lists dozens of possible candidates.

To be frank, I think that virtual appliances are the future of Linux and its related (*NIX) OSes, as it goes more and more mainstream. Average users don't want to configure things, which is why we've seen a tendency towards pre-rolled desktop distros and LiveCDs. As people's home networks become more substantial, I think home servers are going to be the same way. The geeks and early adopters will configure their own gear, but average folks want something that can shove in an old PC's disk drive and set up once, then never think about again.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[shaneh0]

The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part and 2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.

Not to mention, you can click a checkbox on it and it never gets displayed again.

And you're right, "My Computer" is hidden. In fact, the screen is blank of all icons except the Recycle Bin. Windows XP is the same way. Adding these icons is pretty simple, but in any event the start menu was still there.

If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.

Re:Multiple Servers

[PFI_Optix]

How appropriately named you are.

Microsoft thinks people:

1) Are increasingly moving toward a multi-PC household, with a desktop, laptop, and one or more computers for their children.
2) Are willing to spend money on a low-end server to accomodate the growing demand for shared files and applications.
3) Are looking for a way to get the most out of their WMC PC and their new XBOX 360 by streaming video.

Personally, I've been predicting this move since Media Center was announced. It's a logical step toward the "digital home" that we've heard so much about. WHS won't do anything near everything I want it to, but it's a step in the right direction. I'm hoping this will up the ante and get some good, easier-to-use OSS servers designed around home use.

Re:Multiple Servers

[laffer1]

Oh its possible for me. I've got 10 computers here. If I were to use a windows based central file server, I could potentially use it up. Then again, I would probably use MidnightBSD with NFS, samba and netatalk. Prior to starting the MidnightBSD project, I had a FreeBSD file server/router setup. It worked out rather well. I did use it primarily for backup on my iBook, but I mapped my home directory to it in BSD and My Documents in windows to it. It worked out very well. I later needed the machine as a "real" server.

As for the microsoft product, I can see people interested in IT or who currently use one of the seagate or other external backup hard drive based systems getting into this product. Its a logical upgrade from those products for people with a little more knowledge. I would have bought it 6 7 years ago when I was working as a Windows admin. Back then I had an NT4 server up at home running my websites on an ISDN line. OK, there might not be a big demand for this new product.

Re:Multiple Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

While the humor of your statement is based in truth, it may have more truth than you think to it. Think about it for a moment: Microsoft sees the PC market softening. Linux is actually strong competition in the embedded space, which is the next place to compete in, and Microsoft will really have to fight for it.

The PC space, meanwhile, is softening because of saturation and looming competition. Apple is finally back in the game, Linux will eventually catch on. Yes, it's a case of when, not if. There's nobody else to sell to when you're a monopoly with 95% of the market, so what do you do? Try to create a new market. This product is just MS' attempt to create a market for a new product that digital media has shown a need for.

Personally, I'd rather avoid their (most likely) DRM infested route for storing media. This could be a space for open source systems to fill quite nicely and in a much more consumer-friendly fashion. Especially since the nature of the product should involve little consumer interaction outside of set up, then accessing content from a GUI workstation or DVR system.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Corporate Troll]

You do pay a plumber to do plumbing, or an electrician to setup electricity, or a mechanic to service your car, don't you? How is this different? Don't come with the "I can do this myself". Sure you can because you learned something about it. I can't do plumbing, I can't install electricity and I can't service my car, but I damn well can maintain my own Unix servers.

A plumber probably does his own plumbing, but pays a mechanic to service his car....