service provider (WebHost) you are supposed to be running Web Addition. This
is because it is a stripped down version and does not require any CALs. The
full version will require CALs for all users accessing the server including
website visitors. I think that is going to be the hardest to enforce as I
still haven't seen anyone running Web Addition but all of them host.
The best thing I have seen is the SPLA from MS. You can get a license for
Web Addition for around $25/Month per CPU that includes the full support
package as well.
SQL Server for around $120 per CPU.
(Prices are from my corrupted memory but I do have the price list)
To be in the SPLA you must employ 2 MCP's. You cab also join the SPLA Light
and get a 6 month window to get the 2 MCP's.
Rick
_____
From: John Paul Ashenfelter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
The bulk of the reasons that the "default" install is safer is that it turns
off a lot of unnecessary services/etc. If you standard firewall/DMZ setup,
you weren't really vunerable to external attack on those services anyhow.
And running IIS Lockdown takes care of most of the rest...
So Windows 2000 plus IIS lockdown tool vs Windows 2003 default install --
I'm kind of waiting for Windows 2003 SP1 :) Or running Apache on the windows
box so the point becomes moot.
But I *am* interested in folks impressions of the Windows 2003 web edition
vs standard. I run a small farm of 1U web/cf (only) servers on Windows 2000
that connect to a more powerful db server (running MS-SQL 2000 and MySQL of
all things under Win 2000). I was considering replacing Windows 2000 with
RedHat Enterprise ES 2.1 (3.0 in mid Oct) based in part on cost
considerations and in part on security issues. But the Web Edition of
Windows 2003 is price competetive (both are less than $500/server) so I'm a
little torn. Since all either runs is web/cf, Windows 2003 Web Edition
becomes a sensible upgrade path.
Thoughts? I know Dave said he had liked what he had seen with 2003 so far.
Has anyone tried to license it? Seemed like OEM-only (eg buy a new server)
was the idea when it was released. I've got it through MSDN so no prob
testing it -- but curious about folks using it in produciton or getting
ready to.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> That is total crap as Win2003 is based on WinXP code which
> was based on Win2K code and as such shares many of the same
> vulnerabilities.
>
> Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as "safe" as an
> unpatched Win2K installation.
The "default install" of Windows Server 2003 is much safer in many
respects
than the default install of Windows 2000 Server. This is especially true
with the Web Edition.
As for reliability, it seems pretty good so far, and I've been
recommending
it for use with our clients for about a month.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/ <http://www.figleaf.com/>
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
_____
[Todays
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
