Alternatives for Microsoft server products
-
FreeIPA, also called Identity Management is a great tool for RHEL based systems. Uses OpenLDAP/389 Directory Server, Bind, Kerberos, Dogtag, NIS (for central sudo), and will do automounting. It's an awesome tool.
It's the upstream for Red Hat's Directory Server that's crazy expensive.
-
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
You specifically mentioned SharePoint in your OP. And I read your post in another thread where you said there is no real competitor to SP in the FOSS that you've found so far.
If you really need/want SP functionality - why not go the O365 route? You could move completely away from onsite servers for management if you run all Windows 10 with Azure AD, Intune for GPO management and O365 for SP and email. But I do realize this doesn't give you a FOSS solution, and it's not what I would call cheap either.
As for O365, for the small business market, it appears that they removed SharePoint from the offerings. Team Sites are no longer listed on non E level plans, which means the baseline price is currently $8.00/u/m.
So you have $6/u/m for Intune and $8/u/m for O365 (assuming no local Office) for $14/u/m.
In a 100 user environment, $1,400 a month or $16,800 a year. If you need local Office this is suddenly $33,600/yr (damn that's a huge pile to swallow!)
Huh? That math doesn't seem right.
$6/u/m for Intune and Azure AD = $7,200/year
$12.50/u/m for Office365 with local install rights = $15,000/year
Total = $22,200/YearStill a bit of money but that includes 1TB/user of online storage, access to Sharepoint, and the added value that O365 brings I don't think you'd be able to do it for much less locally.
I mentioned that I don't think you get SharePoint (team sites) in non E level O365, that's why our prices are different.
You picked $12.50 Business Plan, and I picked E3 for $20. If Team Sites aren't SharePoint, then your price would be correct, assuming that SharePoint is included in Business Plans.
Team sites are, more or less, Sharepoint. I've worked with them in the past and they do have the a lot/most, of the functionality that Sharepoint does. I think the big thing that is "missing" are some of the customization options of the full product.
-
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
Your numbers may be correct for Open License, but I am on a Select 6.
That must be some education/government thing. I've heard the O365 pricing is lower, so that's good for you, all the more reason to go to it when possible. But I can understand if it's not.
-
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
You specifically mentioned SharePoint in your OP. And I read your post in another thread where you said there is no real competitor to SP in the FOSS that you've found so far.
If you really need/want SP functionality - why not go the O365 route? You could move completely away from onsite servers for management if you run all Windows 10 with Azure AD, Intune for GPO management and O365 for SP and email. But I do realize this doesn't give you a FOSS solution, and it's not what I would call cheap either.
As for O365, for the small business market, it appears that they removed SharePoint from the offerings. Team Sites are no longer listed on non E level plans, which means the baseline price is currently $8.00/u/m.
So you have $6/u/m for Intune and $8/u/m for O365 (assuming no local Office) for $14/u/m.
In a 100 user environment, $1,400 a month or $16,800 a year. If you need local Office this is suddenly $33,600/yr (damn that's a huge pile to swallow!)
Huh? That math doesn't seem right.
$6/u/m for Intune and Azure AD = $7,200/year
$12.50/u/m for Office365 with local install rights = $15,000/year
Total = $22,200/YearStill a bit of money but that includes 1TB/user of online storage, access to Sharepoint, and the added value that O365 brings I don't think you'd be able to do it for much less locally.
I mentioned that I don't think you get SharePoint (team sites) in non E level O365, that's why our prices are different.
You picked $12.50 Business Plan, and I picked E3 for $20. If Team Sites aren't SharePoint, then your price would be correct, assuming that SharePoint is included in Business Plans.
Team sites are, more or less, Sharepoint. I've worked with them in the past and they do have the a lot/most, of the functionality that Sharepoint does. I think the big thing that is "missing" are some of the customization options of the full product.
I have an older account when Business did include full blown SharePoint as a bullet point, so I have no idea what this new online storage vs team sites vs SP looks like.
ODfB is supposed to be SharePoint - so how do you have the online storage without having SP, yet not have SP? I'm so confused.
-
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
You specifically mentioned SharePoint in your OP. And I read your post in another thread where you said there is no real competitor to SP in the FOSS that you've found so far.
If you really need/want SP functionality - why not go the O365 route? You could move completely away from onsite servers for management if you run all Windows 10 with Azure AD, Intune for GPO management and O365 for SP and email. But I do realize this doesn't give you a FOSS solution, and it's not what I would call cheap either.
As for O365, for the small business market, it appears that they removed SharePoint from the offerings. Team Sites are no longer listed on non E level plans, which means the baseline price is currently $8.00/u/m.
So you have $6/u/m for Intune and $8/u/m for O365 (assuming no local Office) for $14/u/m.
In a 100 user environment, $1,400 a month or $16,800 a year. If you need local Office this is suddenly $33,600/yr (damn that's a huge pile to swallow!)
Huh? That math doesn't seem right.
$6/u/m for Intune and Azure AD = $7,200/year
$12.50/u/m for Office365 with local install rights = $15,000/year
Total = $22,200/YearStill a bit of money but that includes 1TB/user of online storage, access to Sharepoint, and the added value that O365 brings I don't think you'd be able to do it for much less locally.
I mentioned that I don't think you get SharePoint (team sites) in non E level O365, that's why our prices are different.
You picked $12.50 Business Plan, and I picked E3 for $20. If Team Sites aren't SharePoint, then your price would be correct, assuming that SharePoint is included in Business Plans.
Team sites are, more or less, Sharepoint. I've worked with them in the past and they do have the a lot/most, of the functionality that Sharepoint does. I think the big thing that is "missing" are some of the customization options of the full product.
I have an older account when Business did include full blown SharePoint as a bullet point, so I have no idea what this new online storage vs team sites vs SP looks like.
ODfB is supposed to be SharePoint - so how do you have the online storage without having SP, yet not have SP? I'm so confused.
It's Sharepoint. You're right though it is a bit confusing maybe our friendly neighborhood Office365 partner can clarify the difference.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
My major concern about using Microsoft software is not about the quality or the price. It's about managing all the licensing, which really is a PITA and nearly impossible to overcome for just a one or two men show.
I am often amazed to find SMBs unwilling to consider the licensing overhead aspects of software choices. It can represent a massive cost. When people talk about the "hidden" costs of open source, they normally mention things that are equal with closed source, but they universally overlook licensing which is the only unique cost between the two and often one of the largest.
"You git what you pay fer" - Every anti-Open Source salesman. Every once in a while I still hear that from regular IT people who shouldn't be in IT. It used to happen more often, about 15 years ago I used to constantly hear "Linux? You get what you pay for!" and of course quotes from Robert Heinlein novels about neoliberals on the Moon.
-
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
Your numbers may be correct for Open License, but I am on a Select 6.
That must be some education/government thing. I've heard the O365 pricing is lower, so that's good for you, all the more reason to go to it when possible. But I can understand if it's not.
It's a mixed contract, the whole city of Hamburg's (a city-state here in Germany) GOV/EDU is buying from that contract. We get some decent discount on top because we're public EDU / non-profit research.
Cloud is not an option at all for us, because (mentioned that before) we are working on quite some confidential stuff in civil avionics and related fields, like airport and air cargo topics. Even with encryption, I cannot give our data to someone else.
On top of that, there's the "Bundesdatenschutzgesetz" (English version here: German Federal Data Protection Act), a highly restrictive act about managing and protecting data that may be somehow related to a real person. Simply said, cloud and personal data is a complete no-go. The person who is in charge for data privacy just sent a follow up mail stating again that it is even forbidden to forward mails including any kind of personal data, for example a students name and birthday via auto-forwarder (a user configured a Sieve fordwarding rule to his iCloud mail address...). -
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
You specifically mentioned SharePoint in your OP. And I read your post in another thread where you said there is no real competitor to SP in the FOSS that you've found so far.
If you really need/want SP functionality - why not go the O365 route? You could move completely away from onsite servers for management if you run all Windows 10 with Azure AD, Intune for GPO management and O365 for SP and email. But I do realize this doesn't give you a FOSS solution, and it's not what I would call cheap either.
As for O365, for the small business market, it appears that they removed SharePoint from the offerings. Team Sites are no longer listed on non E level plans, which means the baseline price is currently $8.00/u/m.
So you have $6/u/m for Intune and $8/u/m for O365 (assuming no local Office) for $14/u/m.
In a 100 user environment, $1,400 a month or $16,800 a year. If you need local Office this is suddenly $33,600/yr (damn that's a huge pile to swallow!)
Huh? That math doesn't seem right.
$6/u/m for Intune and Azure AD = $7,200/year
$12.50/u/m for Office365 with local install rights = $15,000/year
Total = $22,200/YearStill a bit of money but that includes 1TB/user of online storage, access to Sharepoint, and the added value that O365 brings I don't think you'd be able to do it for much less locally.
I mentioned that I don't think you get SharePoint (team sites) in non E level O365, that's why our prices are different.
You picked $12.50 Business Plan, and I picked E3 for $20. If Team Sites aren't SharePoint, then your price would be correct, assuming that SharePoint is included in Business Plans.
Team sites are, more or less, Sharepoint. I've worked with them in the past and they do have the a lot/most, of the functionality that Sharepoint does. I think the big thing that is "missing" are some of the customization options of the full product.
SharePoint is, well, it's a bit hard to tell. Think of it as a large data pool, maybe a bit like a document-oriented database somehow. You put data into sites, lists and libraries and can filter, link, query and wildcard search that data later. The great point about it: The average user can do that, it's very simple. A user can even build tables with 1:n relationships without knowing much about the process behind. From a developers point of view, you get a user driven database which is accessible via SQL (not really supported) or through a bunch of powerful webservices. You can run any kind of server-side .NET code, clientside JS, integrate into Office. From an admin's perspective, you'll get a searchable document management system that seamlessly integrates into Office, versioning, checkin/checkout, publish/unpublish and a whole bunch more.
On top of that, there's a powerful workflow system with a graphical editor that at least an advanced user can use. For example, I've built a simple vacation system out of a calendar, a bit of JS for coloring and calculation and a background list that holds your current and yearly amount of vacation days. Just click into that calendar and a custom dialog will popup, showing your currently left amount of vacation days and the amount of days you need (with recalculating days needed whenever you chance the start and end date etc). Anyway, there's a approval workflow in the background. When you (as a user) tick the box "approve this" in the dialog and press "OK", the user's manager will receive a mail where he can approve or deny the vacation request. There's more going on in the background, but this should give you a little idea about what SharePoint can do.
So SharePoint CAN be a jack of all trades, website, document management, knowledge base, ticket system, ... whatever you want it to be, it's "just" an application platform.
Teamsites are just a single aspect about SharePoint, some prebuilt functionality.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
My major concern about using Microsoft software is not about the quality or the price. It's about managing all the licensing, which really is a PITA and nearly impossible to overcome for just a one or two men show.
I am often amazed to find SMBs unwilling to consider the licensing overhead aspects of software choices. It can represent a massive cost. When people talk about the "hidden" costs of open source, they normally mention things that are equal with closed source, but they universally overlook licensing which is the only unique cost between the two and often one of the largest.
"You git what you pay fer" - Every anti-Open Source salesman. Every once in a while I still hear that from regular IT people who shouldn't be in IT. It used to happen more often, about 15 years ago I used to constantly hear "Linux? You get what you pay for!" and of course quotes from Robert Heinlein novels about neoliberals on the Moon.
I heard this from financial VPs at a company I used to work for. Even when I would give a list of open source products that we used.
-
@Dashrender said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
Your numbers may be correct for Open License, but I am on a Select 6.
That must be some education/government thing. I've heard the O365 pricing is lower, so that's good for you, all the more reason to go to it when possible. But I can understand if it's not.
There are many different levels of agreements and they aren't based on being education or government any plan besides open will be cheaper, and the higher you go up the cheaper it is.
-
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@tonyshowoff said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
My major concern about using Microsoft software is not about the quality or the price. It's about managing all the licensing, which really is a PITA and nearly impossible to overcome for just a one or two men show.
I am often amazed to find SMBs unwilling to consider the licensing overhead aspects of software choices. It can represent a massive cost. When people talk about the "hidden" costs of open source, they normally mention things that are equal with closed source, but they universally overlook licensing which is the only unique cost between the two and often one of the largest.
"You git what you pay fer" - Every anti-Open Source salesman. Every once in a while I still hear that from regular IT people who shouldn't be in IT. It used to happen more often, about 15 years ago I used to constantly hear "Linux? You get what you pay for!" and of course quotes from Robert Heinlein novels about neoliberals on the Moon.
I heard this from financial VPs at a company I used to work for. Even when I would give a list of open source products that we used.
that's when you come to NTG and ask us to "sell" any open source product that you need, at 20% above the cost of whatever closed source product you are looking at instead. Problem solved.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@tonyshowoff said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
My major concern about using Microsoft software is not about the quality or the price. It's about managing all the licensing, which really is a PITA and nearly impossible to overcome for just a one or two men show.
I am often amazed to find SMBs unwilling to consider the licensing overhead aspects of software choices. It can represent a massive cost. When people talk about the "hidden" costs of open source, they normally mention things that are equal with closed source, but they universally overlook licensing which is the only unique cost between the two and often one of the largest.
"You git what you pay fer" - Every anti-Open Source salesman. Every once in a while I still hear that from regular IT people who shouldn't be in IT. It used to happen more often, about 15 years ago I used to constantly hear "Linux? You get what you pay for!" and of course quotes from Robert Heinlein novels about neoliberals on the Moon.
I heard this from financial VPs at a company I used to work for. Even when I would give a list of open source products that we used.
that's when you come to NTG and ask us to "sell" any open source product that you need, at 20% above the cost of whatever closed source product you are looking at instead. Problem solved.
Haha, oddly enough I did exactly that. Worked like a charm!
-
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@coliver said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@tonyshowoff said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@scottalanmiller said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
@thwr said in Alternatives for Microsoft server products:
My major concern about using Microsoft software is not about the quality or the price. It's about managing all the licensing, which really is a PITA and nearly impossible to overcome for just a one or two men show.
I am often amazed to find SMBs unwilling to consider the licensing overhead aspects of software choices. It can represent a massive cost. When people talk about the "hidden" costs of open source, they normally mention things that are equal with closed source, but they universally overlook licensing which is the only unique cost between the two and often one of the largest.
"You git what you pay fer" - Every anti-Open Source salesman. Every once in a while I still hear that from regular IT people who shouldn't be in IT. It used to happen more often, about 15 years ago I used to constantly hear "Linux? You get what you pay for!" and of course quotes from Robert Heinlein novels about neoliberals on the Moon.
I heard this from financial VPs at a company I used to work for. Even when I would give a list of open source products that we used.
that's when you come to NTG and ask us to "sell" any open source product that you need, at 20% above the cost of whatever closed source product you are looking at instead. Problem solved.
Haha, oddly enough I did exactly that. Worked like a charm!
Once "highest price means best deal" happens, all logic is out the window and some weird things happen.
