SUSE today announced the expansion of the SUSE LINUX Server family with the release of SUSE LINUX Standard Server 8 – aimed at small and medium-sized businesses. Available for Intel and AMD 32-bit processors (x86) and supporting up to two CPUs, SUSE LINUX Standard Server 8 includes features such as Internet access, e-mail, file and print services, plus graphical configuration wizards – enabling Linux novices in small and medium-sized organizations to easily set up the server as a Windows domain controller, file and print server in Windows environments, Internet gateway, E-Mail server, application server, DNS server and DHCP server.
SUSE Linux Announces Standard Server 8
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I like Linux and want it to succeed as a serious alternative to Windows. But – it seems to me Micro$oft hit a home run with Server 2003 and wonder why one would rather spend $450 for SuSE Server 8 than… whatever… for Win Server 2003. “Whatever” because price depends on whether one, like me, qualifies for academic pricing, and so on.
I installed this on a nice new server a few weeks ago, It is pretty nice actually. Two bad it was infected with a virus within 5 minutes and it was shutting itself down with an RPC service error. That’s right it was infected by blaster in under 5 minutes. Confirms two things, first a workstation somewhere on my segment was infected and second, Windows 2003 Server would be a great workstation, not a great server.
SuSE has fairly good administration, probably comparable to RedHat (I prefer SuSE over RedHat though, I like YAST and I like the Distribution overall, it seems like they are a bit ahead of RedHat.) I like the fact that you can still go to a shell prompt and do work there and leave the server running on init 3, just daemons.
I think Windows is better overall for ease of administration with out a doubt. I had that server up just as fast as the SuSE servers on the same hardware, I even like the MMC a great deal and it is really easy to configure devices and volumes. However, Linux doens’t require a gui to run constantly for no reason at all (just bugs me), it is more secure, unless patches modify the kernel it doesn’t require a reboot, and it also has a one time upfront cost (no per seat licensing.) For servers it is a no brainer for me, and 2003 is a server product that falls short. I don’t like the fact that an enterprise server that costs a good deal of money is that insecure.
I do like Windows 2003 a LOT more than Windows 2000 Server and I would recommend it if you are forced to run Windows applications on a server. Just make sure you install virus software on it as fast as you can and then race to the website to start patching your OS, I don’t remember how many reboots it took, I stopped counting after 5. So far it has been stable, only one more reboot since it was built a few weeks ago for yet another security patch. Still I think that Windows 2003 is pretty quick.
When I said I liked that you could go to a shell prompt on SuSE, I didn’t mean you couldn’t on RedHat… that wasn’t stated very well. It was meant to be placed in comparison to Windows Server 2003.
That’s a fair comparison
but I have to agree. Once you have Windows up and running, you should update it as soon as possible 
Once you have any OS installed you should update it as soon as possible.
Does this server product use Samba 3.0 for domain controller functions? I could not tell by the dead link…
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this Server the same thing as SuSE Pro?
It seems that I can run a machine with Pro for $79.00 instead.
What is the difference?
I think the server version is more heavily tested and therefore “certified”, it also costs a great deal more and includes updates and packages etc for the term of the maintenance agreement. Your server version is also not likely to be updated more than annualy to increase the stability of the system and should cause less downtime for upgrades, etc. They also have built in clustering and mult-path device support. The OS can be run on multiple platforms (PowerPC, AMD64, etc) and the software configurations can be synchronized between server versions, even across disparate platforms.
Here is a link comparing professional with enterprise server http://www.suse.com/en/business/products/server/which_version/index…
I like Linux and want it to succeed as a serious alternative to Windows. But – it seems to me Micro$oft hit a home run with Server 2003 and wonder why one would rather spend $450 for SuSE Server 8 than… whatever… for Win Server 2003. “Whatever” because price depends on whether one, like me, qualifies for academic pricing, and so on.
1) Why are you comparing academic pricing to a small business server price? the last time I looked, Microsoft doesn’t allow academic products to be used in a commercial environment. Last time I remember, a small business is a commercial environment.
2) Why would you purchase a single Windows 2003 Server license when you can get access to the MSDN Operating Systems Subscription programme which gives you access to all their operating systems at a low price, IIRC, around US$300.
Does Standard Server 8 really support AMD64? There’s no mention of it in that article. No AMD64 would suck. I also don’t see how different it is from the $80 Suse Pro. There is an AMD64 version of Suse Pro 9 for about $120.
Suse might be using AMD64 support in both Workstation and Server to create pricing tiers.
Unfortunately, the Standard Server only supports x86
“Available for Intel and AMD 32-bit processors (x86) and supporting up to two CPUs”
What I mentioned above was contrasting Pro with Enterprise, with Standard… I am thinking the only advantage of Standard Server would be the service and maintenance and support agreement, and a “certified” server version and corresponding libs/packages for it.
http://www.suse.de/en/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sun_de…
SUSE LINUX today announced that it has extended its global alliance with Sun Microsystems beyond the server and out to the desktop. As part of its recent announcement of the Java(tm) Desktop System, Sun has chosen SUSE to provide the core Linux technology of the new solution.
Sounds like more people are moving to SuSE each day. If I were SUN, I would purchase SuSE, however, run it as a side operation. SuSE have the experience needs to create a good Linux core, and SUN has the resources to invest into tweaking the interface and the client list to push Linux out into the enterprise as a good Windows replacement for the desktop.
<< Sounds like more people are moving to SuSE each day. If I were SUN, I would purchase SuSE, however, run it as a side operation. SuSE have the experience needs to create a good Linux core, and SUN has the resources to invest into tweaking the interface and the client list to push Linux out into the enterprise as a good Windows replacement for the desktop. >>
Sun doesnt want to push SuSE or Linux. Sun wants to push Solaris. Soon they will come out with a Java Desktop System built on Solaris. SuSE doesnt need to sell to Sun SuSE does fine on its own and I for one believe they will continue to make profits and make more money by staying away from that whole scenario.
Sun buying SuSE would be a disaster. Sun doesn’t get Linux (yet). I’d rather see them independent, but if i had to choose a buyer, it would be IBM.
Suse’s current strength is that it has many partnerships throughout the industry: IBM, Sun, SGI, AMD, etc.
<< Sounds like more people are moving to SuSE each day. If I were SUN, I would purchase SuSE, however, run it as a side operation. SuSE have the experience needs to create a good Linux core, and SUN has the resources to invest into tweaking the interface and the client list to push Linux out into the enterprise as a good Windows replacement for the desktop. >>
Sun doesnt want to push SuSE or Linux. Sun wants to push Solaris. Soon they will come out with a Java Desktop System built on Solaris. SuSE doesnt need to sell to Sun SuSE does fine on its own and I for one believe they will continue to make profits and make more money by staying away from that whole scenario.
Oh my, I had to pick my self off the floor when I read that post. SUN Solaris on the desktop is atleast a minimum of 3 years away at the current pace of development. Lack of a decent sound API is one major draw back, their X server on the x86 would make anyone crindge with shock and don’t get me started on the applications or there lack of.
Do you really think they’ll push Solaris? that is like thinking that SGI will port IRIX to x86 and start pushing it as a desktop solution to take on Microsoft.
SUN needs a low cost, low R&D desktop solution. Linux fits that mold. The R&D and experimentation is done by the community, the distro is licensed from SuSE and the tweaking is done by them. Solaris on the other hand needs ALOT of R&D and the last thing they’ll be doing either now or in the long term is investing into something just to suite some dogmatic purpose.
Sure, they love their Solaris and would love to see it everywhere, but they aren’t stupid.