Perhaps this subject has been breached previously, perhaps more than once. Is a WHS just a backup appliance and central repository for data? Or is it more?
It depends on what you purchased one for and what you want to do with this OS, which is the cheapest server OS in the Microsoft line-up of server software. Based on SBS 2003, it is a full-fledged server OS. Microsoft removed, disabled, or turned off various features that are part of Big Brother. Depending upon how familiar you are with a server OS and/or how many hoops you want to jump through, it can be made to do many of the functions of SBS 2003.
But why? Perhaps the most common answer would probably be “Because I can.” But should one do so?
Brendan Grant has been active in the WHS scene for quite some time. He has written several add-ins for WHS and he is currently a member of the Microsoft WHS team. He has written a article on his Blog site that explores one specific feature that WHS users try to extend their WHS to be able to do: Why not have email in Windows Home Server?
It is an interesting read and I have no desire to repeat the article here. Please click on the link for the full article.
A couple of points he does make are worth repeating here, though.
Of those users with broadband internet connections (the target market for Windows Home Server) 86% were already “very satisfied” with their existing email which is pretty significant considering that when you broke down what services respondents were using, about ~50% of those using their provided ISP account, while another ~50% another uses one of the major web mail providers (Hotmail, Gmail, etc). Note that these two groups are not mutually exclusive as there company email and existing vanity domain based email and there still exists plenty of room for overlap.
Back then For those who want email on their own vanity domain one would have to contract with a company for web hosting and get the email included or use a straight email provider, both of which would likely cost them a few bucks per month. If they wanted a more advanced mail server (like Exchange) they would likely pay significantly more.
Which is probably a good portion of the reasoning Microsoft used in not providing this capability. And to continue:
Practically speaking… consider this hypothetical case:
Imagine you have a house/apartment fire and on your way out, after making sure the kids and spouse are out the door ahead of you, and that the dog and cat are safe, you stop to grab your Windows Home Server knowing that even if the desktops and laptops go, you’ll have all of the files and backups you need… what then?
Even if your home isn’t a complete loss, you may not be able to setup your email serving Windows Home Server there again right away due to the possibility of water damage or electrical issues. Where do you run your server in the mean time? The in laws house? The hotel room? Tethered to your cell phone?
These are the kinds of issues that the average data center and/or enterprise has to think about in order to provide a given level of reliability and is not something a Home Server owner, even an advanced one should have to think about to ensure that they can keep sending and receiving email.
There is more to this article, please read it. One point that I do gather from this article (reading between the lines, or perhaps my own opinion), is that WHS is a backup appliance. Once you incorporate features that go beyond this intent, it becomes less of a backup server and more of a full-fledged server. Obviously, the cost of upgrading WHS to a full-fledged server is more than the cost of a user adding unintended functionality to WHS. But once done, you no longer have a backup server, you have a server that needs to be backed-up.
Thoughts?
