Windows licensing question

unkel

A small charity (max 10 concurrent users) needs an OS for their basic server. Is it ok from a licensing point of view to buy and install Windows 2011 Home Server?

They only need their server as a file server (for people to have access from their PCs to files on the server, depending on the access rights of the users etc.)

The charity will also apply for free MS software for charities but this might take time...

Fysh

I'd be surprised if it were banned from use, especially considering the price differential between Home Server and Small Business Server. But I can't find a clear answer on the topic, so don't take this as a definitive answer.

unkel

As a registered charity in receipt of subsidies, they can be audited. All software must be completely above board, so I need to know for sure!

Fysh

unkel wrote: »

As a registered charity in receipt of subsidies, they can be audited. All software must be completely above board, so I need to know for sure!

The EULA (see here) offers some bit of help in specifying certain functionality limitations, including:

• Specific Use – You may not use the server software to run or support any line of business applications (e.g. time management software), end-user client applications (e.g. Microsoft Office), or add-ins for these types of applications.
• Active Directory - You may not use the server software as a domain controller or otherwise make use of DCPromo.exe. You also may not join the server software to any Active Directory domain.
• Server Roles - You may not use server roles other than the roles that are already enabled during the server setup process.

If you've got more than 10 users, Home Server is probably the wrong choice, because it maxes out its allowed userbase at 10:
"Using the Server Software. You may install and use one copy of the server software on a licensed server. You may use up to 10 accounts. Each account permits a named user to access and use the server software on that server."

Windows Server 2012 Essentials (the replacement for Windows Small Business Server) lets you go up to 75 users, and might be a better fit for your needs.

To be honest, if you've got access to anyone with any bit of experience it may be worth considering something like a Samba 4 or FreeNAS setup instead.

unkel

Fysh wrote: »

You may use up to 10 accounts. Each account permits a named user

There are more than 10 users. So that rules it out. Combined with no domain controller

Only MS server OS is considered, especially if it can be got for free

Also thinking of going serverless (shared internet through DHCP from the DSL modem, shared ethernet printer, no domain) with file sharing via the cloud (dropbox etc.). Any thoughts on that?

Fysh

unkel wrote: »

There are more than 10 users. So that rules it out. Combined with no domain controller

Only MS server OS is considered, especially if it can be got for free

Also thinking of going serverless (shared internet through DHCP from the DSL modem, shared ethernet printer, no domain) with file sharing via the cloud (dropbox etc.). Any thoughts on that?

Cloud sharing is going to be dangerous from a security perspective because many cloud providers can't guarantee the location of their servers (which in turn determines what set of Data Protection Act laws they enforce). For context, this has been the deciding factor in the university where I work opting for Microsoft as a cloudy mail provider over Google - MS offered guarantees that all servers would be located within Europe, Google wouldn't, and that made the difference.

You could always get a Windows desktop and configure it as a de-facto server - use Homegroups to link the machines, configure that machine with disks and folders as required to be shared over the network and printers too if you want. The EULA for 7 Pro allows up to 20 devices "to access software installed on the licensed computer to use only File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services and Internet Connection Sharing and Telephony Services." so you could connect that machine to the DSL connection, configure it with a local admin account to create a Homegroup, configure the services you want to share, and connect it (possibly via a switch to cut down on the required NICs) to the other machines for network access.

One big disadvantage here is that user account administration overhead is much bigger - you don't have single signon, you have to administer accounts on each machine (so you can't move people around different machines easily) and the filesharing aspects get tricky.

unkel

It's a very traditional setup, everybody has their own PC. I'm feeling more inclined towards cloud storage - their data will be safer than where it is now

The budget is very limited here too. There's no spare PC to function as a homegroup server. A new server can be bought for as little as €250 (HP Proliant microserver) - €400 (DELL entry level PowerEdge server) landed including VAT, but that's as far as the budget goes and those prices do not include a server OS

Torqay

Anything wrong with a Linux Server? Setting up Samba for file and printer sharing is no arcane science and the users won't see the difference.

unkel

Torqay wrote: »

Anything wrong with a Linux Server? Setting up Samba for file and printer sharing is no arcane science and the users won't see the difference.

Nothing wrong with it, but MS is preferred.

Fysh

unkel wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it, but MS is preferred.

Ah yeah, but if all they're going to use it for is a fileserver and maybe a printserver, the difference between a Ubuntu or FreeNAS or Samba setup and MS is that one costs money and the other doesn't. In terms of setup, if you pick the right distribution they're equivalently straightforward to configure if you don't have complex/unusual requirements.

I've got a ProLiant N40L with ~4TB of storage in it along with a half-height graphics & sound card as a media centre and they're very nice, affordable machines (got mine for £230 including a 3 year warranty after cashback). At a hardware level they're great, and my experience of running WHS2011 is good too; if you can get the MS free software deal then go for it.

You could always run Server 2012 Essentials (valid for up to 25 users and 50 deviceS) as a trial for 6 months while you sort out the charitable application, although you'd want to have a plan for what you'd do if your application is rejected (ie either find the money for a licence or migrate to a free platform).

FSL

If you are only using it for file sharing I would definitely go Linux. You could run a file server on a Raspberry Pi which would work as fast if not faster than cloud storage.

unkel

Fysh wrote: »

the difference between a Ubuntu or FreeNAS or Samba setup and MS is that one costs money and the other doesn't.

Well we're exploring the option that the MS one doesn't cost money either (free software for charities, see my link in my above post)

They wouldn't be comfortable with a non-MS environment...

Fysh

unkel wrote: »

Well we're exploring the option that the MS one doesn't cost money either (free software for charities, see my link in my above post)

They wouldn't be comfortable with a non-MS environment...

Yeah, I can appreciate that - aside from anything else getting consistent donations of time from people who will not only be competent admins but also understand and cater to their needs is non-trivial, so keeping it simple is vital.

Keep us posted on what way you go and how the MS free licence request goes, it'd be useful to know in future.

unkel

Will do! And thanks for your help