Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?
-
I think the biggest problem with Sharepoint Foundation, in terms of cost, is the database requirements i.e. it will only run with SQL Server.
SQL Server Express is free, but is pretty limited and doesn't really seem intended for production environments. In particular the fact that databases are limited to 10GB, which seems pretty tiny for a typical Sharepoint site. So you quickly end up needing SQL Server Standard edition, which is pretty expensive. If you don't have SQL Server already, you probably need to budget for that at the outset, even if you're only planning on using Sharepoint Foundation.
I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more
Don't they? What happened to Workgroup?
-
SQL Server is coming on Linux now, too!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more
Don't they? What happened to Workgroup?
Oh, it got retired in 2012.
-
Speaking as a non-techie, I don't particularly like the fact that with Sharepoint all files are stored in a database. We have another document management system that only stores metadata in a database, and the files themselves are stored in a flat file system. There's something about a flat file system that re-assures me. And it means that the database is very small, so SQL Server Express works fine.
It would be nice if Sharepoint had the option of working like this, if only to allow SQL Server Express to be used.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
Speaking as a non-techie, I don't particularly like the fact that with Sharepoint all files are stored in a database. We have another document management system that only stores metadata in a database, and the files themselves are stored in a flat file system. There's something about a flat file system that re-assures me. And it means that the database is very small, so SQL Server Express works fine.
It would be nice if Sharepoint had the option of working like this, if only to allow SQL Server Express to be used.
If you think of the filesystem as a form of database, which it is, it kind of explains why the logic is here. And if you think of all of the money that Sharepoint makes by selling SQL Server licenses, it explains the rest of the logic
I agree with your assessment only insofar as the SQL Server requirement. If Sharepoint could use PostgreSQL for all of its document storage, or MongoDB, I'd love that it doesn't use the filesystem.
-
Keep in mind that, for the moment, the SQL Server storage instead of the filesystem is a major stop gap between ransomware and Sharepoint storage.
-
Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).
Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
Keep in mind that, for the moment, the SQL Server storage instead of the filesystem is a major stop gap between ransomware and Sharepoint storage.
Wouldn't SP still be a stop gap between the users even if SP was on a filesystem? I would certainly hope that one wouldn't be directly accessing the filesystem when using SP...
Nevermind - already posted.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).
Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.
well, then you're killing the point of SP. Once you can touch the filesystem, how would you expect SP to do it's job?
-
@Dashrender said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).
Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.
well, then you're killing the point of SP. Once you can touch the filesystem, how would you expect SP to do it's job?
Same as if you can touch the DB, which often people enable
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@Dashrender said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).
Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.
well, then you're killing the point of SP. Once you can touch the filesystem, how would you expect SP to do it's job?
Same as if you can touch the DB, which often people enable
Again, defeating the whole purpose.. so those situations don't count.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
I think the biggest problem with Sharepoint Foundation, in terms of cost, is the database requirements i.e. it will only run with SQL Server.
SQL Server Express is free, but is pretty limited and doesn't really seem intended for production environments. In particular the fact that databases are limited to 10GB, which seems pretty tiny for a typical Sharepoint site. So you quickly end up needing SQL Server Standard edition, which is pretty expensive. If you don't have SQL Server already, you probably need to budget for that at the outset, even if you're only planning on using Sharepoint Foundation.
I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more
Don't want to defile an old thread, but I need to add a few things.
First off, comparing Sharepoint to OwnCloud, while beeing a great tool, is like comparing
a warp-capable spaceship to a paperdart. SharePoint is a collaboration platform where you build your own applications on top while OwnCloud is basically a filesharing platform with a few addons.There are quite a few factors which are driving the costs for SharePoint:
- Windows Server CALs (few known users / devices) or Windows Server for Internet Sites ("CAL" flatrate, mucho dinero)
- SQL Server, Standard or higher edition and CALs (UserCAL's for SQL server are very expensive. Use this for a few known users) or Core edition (Flatrate, can be more or less "cheap". I'm using this one)
- If going past SP Foundation:
a) SharePoint CAL, Standard should suffice in most cases
b) SharePoint for Internet Sites if public facing with anonymous access
c) You will most probably need a farm, at least one frontend and one backend server. - ForeFront UAG/TMG and CAL (used to be the only "supported" reverse proxy). Not sold anymore, no successor available, Windows Server publishing role is used today
So SharePoint Standard / Enterprise on a public facing site with anonymous access can burn through your budget like Oracle and SAP. SharePoint for a known user base can be OK from a licensing point of view. Today, SharePoint on Office365 is way cheaper than having something on premise I guess.
SharePoint has a lot to offer and I haven't found anything FOSS that comes even close myself yet. Alfresco is the only one that at least is a very little bit like SharePoint, but nothing I would call a replacement.
So what is SharePoint actually? Simply said, anything you want it to be. It's an application platform with multiple frontends, the well known website is just one of them.
-
@thwr said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:
I think the biggest problem with Sharepoint Foundation, in terms of cost, is the database requirements i.e. it will only run with SQL Server.
SQL Server Express is free, but is pretty limited and doesn't really seem intended for production environments. In particular the fact that databases are limited to 10GB, which seems pretty tiny for a typical Sharepoint site. So you quickly end up needing SQL Server Standard edition, which is pretty expensive. If you don't have SQL Server already, you probably need to budget for that at the outset, even if you're only planning on using Sharepoint Foundation.
I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more
Don't want to defile an old thread, but I need to add a few things.
First off, comparing Sharepoint to OwnCloud, while beeing a great tool, is like comparing
a warp-capable spaceship to a paperdart. SharePoint is a collaboration platform where you build your own applications on top while OwnCloud is basically a filesharing platform with a few addons.There are quite a few factors which are driving the costs for SharePoint:
- Windows Server CALs (few known users / devices) or Windows Server for Internet Sites ("CAL" flatrate, mucho dinero)
- SQL Server, Standard or higher edition and CALs (UserCAL's for SQL server are very expensive. Use this for a few known users) or Core edition (Flatrate, can be more or less "cheap". I'm using this one)
- If going past SP Foundation:
a) SharePoint CAL, Standard should suffice in most cases
b) SharePoint for Internet Sites if public facing with anonymous access
c) You will most probably need a farm, at least one frontend and one backend server. - ForeFront UAG/TMG and CAL (used to be the only "supported" reverse proxy). Not sold anymore, no successor available, Windows Server publishing role is used today
So SharePoint Standard / Enterprise on a public facing site with anonymous access can burn through your budget like Oracle and SAP. SharePoint for a known user base can be OK from a licensing point of view. Today, SharePoint on Office365 is way cheaper than having something on premise I guess.
SharePoint has a lot to offer and I haven't found anything FOSS that comes even close myself yet. Alfresco is the only one that at least is a very little bit like SharePoint, but nothing I would call a replacement.
So what is SharePoint actually? Simply said, anything you want it to be. It's an application platform with multiple frontends, the well known website is just one of them.
I think Drupal + Alfresco can get really close. I've built some really cool stuff with Drupal by itself, and with the pseudo Alfresco integration you can have, it will let you do some really nice things.
