server 2003 cals ??

knowlesy

knowlesy

knowlesy

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
4,663
Location
Newcastle
right im using server 2003 courtesy of dreamspark, now im sharing some files opn my server at home, using it for bckups of peoples pcs as well as documents for my flat mates uni.... can more than 5 people use the server just for remote shares copy paste store etc as by default you only have 5 cals am i right ?
 
Legally, no. Technically, yes. There is nothing stopping you using more devices than you have CALs for except the legal restrictions.
 
Wrong way round Burnsy ;) - think you mean "Legally, No. Technically, Yes".

Although I still dont see why so many people seem to think Server 2003 is a suitable OS for a home file server...
 
iaind said:
Wrong way round Burnsy ;) - think you mean "Legally, No. Technically, Yes".
Click to expand...

I looked at the after I posted and it didn't look right. I fail. :(

iaind said:
Although I still dont see why so many people seem to think Server 2003 is a suitable OS for a home file server...
Click to expand...

Indeed, use 2008 :D I joke, but I use it at home, but then I use exchange, SQL 2008, Visual Studio Team Server, Groove Server etc, so I think it's justified.
 
If you make use of all that its fair enough, but XP is perfectly sufficient if all you're doing is sharing files :)
 
I can never see the reason for a file server or any kind of server at home unless you need it for work or have a really good reason.

Theres no reason your flat mates cant take care of their own files.

And yes XP Pro could have done the job just fine.

As for backup's, a small NAS box at 80 pound would do the trick.
 
I can see the benefit of having some sort of central file share at home but as you say a NAS, a linux OS or XP is more than sufficient.

Someone I went to uni with was utterly convinced running a server OS (Win2k at the time) made accessing the shared files quicker :confused:
 
iaind said:
Wrong way round Burnsy ;) - think you mean "Legally, No. Technically, Yes".

Although I still dont see why so many people seem to think Server 2003 is a suitable OS for a home file server...
Click to expand...

im using 2003, as im just new to all this server stuff and it would help me for when i go out on site at work for fixing problems :) , i dont use samba (ubuntu linux solaris sadly not zffs) because there isnt a more mainstream less than mess around app to stream files to xbox and ps3 etc .... and xp pro, since im and other peeps are constantly creating and deleteing folders there always pops up a weird issue of folders wont share for some reason and i have to delete them restart and re create them ... its very odd but never mind :) thanks for the replys though

and ive got server 2003 and 2008 for free again courtesy of dreamspark :D
 
iaind said:
I can see the benefit of having some sort of central file share at home but as you say a NAS, a linux OS or XP is more than sufficient.

Someone I went to uni with was utterly convinced running a server OS (Win2k at the time) made accessing the shared files quicker :confused:
Click to expand...

I'd have been tempted to write LOL on his face when he was asleep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom