Microsoft Recalls Small Business Server

dasButcher writes to tell us VarBusiness is reporting that hot on the heels of many other delays, Microsoft has recalled their Small Business Server 2003 R2. The operating system started shipping to OEMs, distributors, and systems builders in July but was immediately recalled after a recent audit.

Huh - did it explode in a fireball?

I mean, it's only software, how dangerous could it have been?

Therac 25

To hell with your case fans. Software can kill, ask anyone who lost a loved one to Therac-25. [wikipedia.org]

Sinclair ZX81 ads of the 1980s

Does anyone else remember when Sinclair advertised their 4MHz Z-80 A5-sized ZX81 as "Powerful enough to run a nuclear power station"...? I wonder if anyone took them up on that?

Re:Sinclair ZX81 ads of the 1980s

Ok you would be mad to try using a zx81 to run a nuclear power station but consider
a PLC tends to have memory in the 1 - 4k range and racks full of IO cards. If I remember correctly the z80 cpu could address 64k of address's as I/O or memory.
1 bit is all it takes to operate a valve or a motor or read a sensor.
8-16 bits for an analog input or output.

while the ad's seem far fetched in reality the PLC's actually being used will not be that far removed from a ZX81.

for further reading try googling for words like wonderware allen bradley omron SCADA.
simple PLC's run most of the worlds automated processes.

Re:Huh - did it explode in a fireball?

Boeing won't use SBS in their plane avionics - it only allows up to 75 seats, and they'll need up to 330 for the forthcoming 787.

At least they caught it

The article cites 'non-final code' that was found in the audit. At least they found the error before it went out to the public. It's a bit slim on details but it sounds like no end user organizations are using it yet. So, in a way kudos to MS for finding the problem and addressing it rather than just sitting on their hands and making users download even more patches to replace the 'non-final' code.

Re:where did you read that?

Read carefully. 3600 units of SBS went out. None went to end users. They were still in the process of building systems around it.

Re:where did you read that?

sounds like no end user organizations are using it yet' - dreamchaser

No it doesn't actually say *no* end users it says *most* and most does not equate to all. You should realize that most PR statements don't actually mean what the words mean.

"it basically said that in the part you left out:" - kjart

"None went to end users" - dreamchaser

The actual words are:

"Most of Microsoft's voluminous partner base did not have copies of SBS 2003 R2 in hand yet"

In other words some of Microsoft's voluminous partner base did have it. And seeing its a PR statement out of Redmond we can assume the reality is a lot more than a few got copies got out.

This fella seems to think he bought a new server that has the R2 edition on it.
http://snipurl.com/v9i1 [snipurl.com]
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi ndows.server.active_directory/msg/f797472b226c029d ?dmode=source&hl=en [google.com]

No one has still replied to my request for an explanation of what non-final core components mean. Is this the same as bugs?

Re:At least they caught it

Not to defend MSFT, but...SQL Server 2005 was "significant".

Re:At least they caught it

I'd like to add VS2003, .Net2.0, VS2005, Team System and xbox360 to that.

Re:At least they caught it

I think Microsoft occupies the sweetest niche in all of business.

Yeah, monopolies are pretty cozy. Those Exxon/BP/Shell/Total guys have not released a new product in 50 years but still haul in record profits.

Why was it recalled?

For those of us who can't be bothered to RTFA:

"This routine check of the initial software on the manufacturing line found that it contained portions of code deemed "non-final," according to Microsoft... Microsoft plans to swap in the 'final' code, then reissue Small Business Server 2003 R2 to its manufacturing partners,"

Non-final?

Non-final, they say? Was it working properly, then?

What's getting deleted? WinFS???

Looks like WinFS got released as part of Small Biz Server... remember it was withdrawn from Vista, but was supposed to be packaged with SQL Server instead? My guess is that Small Biz Server will not have WinFS... customers will have to buy the separate SQL Servr most probably...

New patent application in the works?

New way of shipping on time?

1. Ship your non-ready product on the stipulated date.
2. Tell your customers your product has not met your enormously high quality standards *giggles violently*.
3. Use the time gained to make the product ready for shipping.
4. If its not ready in time see # 1.

Re:New patent application in the works?

umm...

5. Profit!

SBS made me quit my job...

Slightly off-topic, but SBS is the reason I changed my job. I leave this place at the end of the month, thank god. I support several companies, 10 of which are using SBS. It has to be the best way of putting all of a company's eggs in one basket. It goes against everything that makes good sense about creating an available, stable network with some redundancy. If you go for the Premium edition and install everything, you'll find yourself running: - Exchange - SQL Server - ISA Server - IIS - File/Print services - DNS - DHCP - WINS All on the same box which is ALSO a domain controller for your network. If that box fails (some of our clients are cheap enough to have declined a RAID solution, against better advice), then that's it... the whole place is down the toilet until the box is rebuilt, and you'd better pray that the backups are good. It's a horrible, horrible way of running things, IMHO. I'll be glad to not have to support these boxes any more.

Re:SBS made me quit my job...

You're definitely right about the "all eggs in one basket" risk, but what are the alternatives? A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server. There's a risk it may blow up and they'll lose those things, but for most of these places the alternative is not to have them in the first place.

It's too expensive to buy multiple boxes and too complicated (for these places where the controller/accountant does double-duty as IT guy). Don't even get me started on Linux. I'm sure it's great if you happen to have an open source guru around, but it's just not a viable option for setting up a back-end where no one has any serious tech experience. Then of course they could always just be a Mac shop - if they want to double or triple their IT infrastructure costs (ha!). Not to mention the prevalence of MS Access in small business areas.

I think you've got to hand it to MS. For about $400 you get all the software you need to run your business server, and it pretty much works out of the box. It's a whole lot better than not having anything, and as companies grow they will eventually build out the infrastructure and implement more redundancy. The "all eggs in one basket" isn't unique to just Windows SBS - it pretty much characterizes how small business works.

-stormin

Re:SBS made me quit my job...

Actually, it is not all that scary to support. Almost all of my supported sites run SBS2003, and I and they love it. It provides a clean and easy support structure, though it suffers the "dammit" effect that most software suffers in the way of missing or round-about ways of getting to some features.

The eggs-in-one-basket thing is inevitable in small business. As has been said before, many small businesses do not have the budget to support multiple boxes and IT/support staff. The wizards in SBS2003 make administration nearly a snap, and the rest of the process can be handled with clever automation. SBS can be the foundation of a multi-server environment -- at one site we have three, the SBS server, a TS server, and a WebServer for .Net apps. I would like to add a fourth for handling their specialized apps which require their own SQL engines, to take the load off the main SBS server. In the end, though, what does help is a good disaster plan.

First off, DO NOT RUN A SERVER ON A SINGLE HARD DRIVE. Read that again several times, repeat it, write it on a chalk board a hundred times, spell it out in your Alphabits. Even RAID1 is better than nothing.

Secondly, have a good and reliable backup solution. Tapes are great, and there are several well-priced alternatives which can provide reliability and durability. I prefer tapes, and for large installations an AIT or DLT-V4 drive is great, while smaller installations can handle DAT72.

Secondly-and-a-half, keep an up-to-date ASR tape and floppy on hand! I keep one of these for each customer locked in a fire-resistant and water-resistant media vault.

Thirdly, TEST your backup solution. Build another box, do an install and restore the backup. Make sure your plan works, lest you be caught with your pants down when it counts. VirtualPC, VMWare, etc. are great for this if you do not have extra hardware lying around. You *do* have the Action Pack, right??

Fourthly, have an action plan in place in case one of your clients (or your own site) suffers a catastrophic failure. Be ready to order new equipment, test and restore backups, and spend a day or more on-site getting things back up and running. Fire, frost, or frippery can and do happen.

Fifthly, have recovery software available. I purchased RTools a while back, with FAT, NTFS, and RAID recovery tools. Some people prefer OnTrack or some other tools. I have had great results with RTools. While not the Alpha-Omega of site recovery, such software can prove invaluable in the process. But it early, learn how to use it, and be prepared.

BTW: In reference to the issue of new hardware, REMEMBER MS LICENSING. If you build systems, STAY AWAY FROM OEM SOFTWARE. But it is cheaper, right? Yeah, until your motherboard dies and, technically, so does your OEM licensing. Buying canned systems is not so much of a problem since you can (generally) rely upon the OEM to provide an exact replacement. But if you build your own or order a custom system, things change VERY rapidly, and your favorite Socket AM motherboard may not be available for long after AM2 comes out. (Ran into this problem with a PIV 1.7 rig with the original socket. UGH!)

Attend your local InfraGard general meetings, consider becoming a member. These meetings are often very interesting, especially when they cover topics such as this. You will have a chance to learn from the processes and mistakes of your brethren in the industry. I like to hear tales of state agencies who learned lessons the hard way :)

In essense, you have to be a tech Boy Scout and always be prepared. I always kinda liked the term "Technology Samurai." I cannot say that I am ready for every possible disaster, but I like to think that at this point I have a good start.

Re:SBS made me quit my job...

Linux can be done - I know of at least one company in the area that does it. They don't sell it as Linux; they sell it as an "entire IT system in a box for solicitors".

You would have to streamline everything a lot though:

- The customer isn't expected to do anything with the server. That's the support companies job (this isn't a million miles away from how a lot of these places work anyhow, so that's not a big deal).
- Installation is nailed down to "insert CD, turn system on". All the configuration is pre-done by the support company, and every customer gets the same configuration. The customer doesn't do the install anyhow, the company sends someone to site if necessary, but the fact that everything is already nailed down means that you could get away with shaving a chimpanzee, putting them in a shirt and tie and sending them out to site.
- Server hardware is specified (and usually supplied by) the support company.
- Desktops aren't heavily locked down, but are locked down enough to minimise the likelihood of someone completely hosing their system. Combine that with Ghost, and running as much as possible from the server, and the desktop support overhead almost evaporates.

You could easily charge £a few thousand per company per annum doing this - for the customer, it's a lot cheaper than paying a fulltime IT person when they probably only need a couple of man days a month, and gives them peace of mind.

Re:SBS made me quit my job...

And this is how millions of small businesses around the world get their IT support - be it Windows or Linux based, as soon as the company using the system needs any infrastructure beyond "2 standalone desktop PCs" the setup & support is outsourced. Yet still CNET, /.'ers and recently digg'ers harp on about how "Linux must become as easy to configure and install as Windows!"

No it doesn't. For a lot of uses, it just needs to be easy enough, and customisable enough that a company with the right expertise can seriously consider offering services based on it.

Re:SBS made me quit my job...

I work at a small company. We don't have a full time sys admin (I do the chores myself, while also working as a programmer). We have a single Linux server that runs:
- SMTP
- POP
- DNS
- Apache (hosting mediawiki, mantis, dotproject, phpMyAdmin)
- MySQL (for the mentioned web apps)
- A SAMBA fileserver
- DHCP

The only thing that's not in that server is the firewall... which I kept in a different machine with no services running whatsoever, except those that handle our aDSL connection (pppoe, and sshd to connect from inside the LAN).

Our setup is not great on redundancy... but we can afford a couple of days of downtime (we had to, once or twice over the years) more than we can afford doubling our setup. Our services are used by a small number of employees (six, actually) and none are critical.

If Microsoft wants to pull us away from Linux they'd have to offer a Windows Server with all they usual servers (like those you mentioned), even if they're somewhat limited to prevent being used in a large corporation (max database size, max number of clients, etc.), priced appropiately for the use we'd give it. This product sounds like what we'd need... despite some companies misusing it for some reason.

I feel your pain

I've recently been butting heads with SBS. Put in a samba server and a terminal server for a client to expand their business and bring some sanity to their IT setup. Their existing database app is hosted on a machine running Windows 2000 SBS, and I'm not allowed to move it. The server can't join their new domain - it's not even allowed to be part of a domain trust. The whole situation is hideous. I want to meet the person who recommended it and smack them round the face with the installation media.

Re:SBS made me quit my job...

How do you define a small business ?

I think you can consider a business with only one person a small business, but where do you draw the line ? 5 people ? 10 people ? 20 people ?

I ask, because I worked for a business of twenty people as the full-time IT staff, from 1997 to 1998.

We had a WANG VS system, running our own custom software, based upon the PACE RDBMS.

The support costs every year where about 25000EUR/year I think, but this computer system never failed.

Peripherals, like line printers and terminals needed some replacements and service every year, but that was included in the support costs.

The database consisted of about 350 tables for the operational work, 180 tables for financial reporting, and in addition to that the bookkeeping software.

I could spend about 95% of my time programming and enhancing the system.

Why do I tell all this ?

Because I think that a system like SBS, with all its different features, cannot be optimally used by a company which does not have a good IT staff.

What I mean is that from a certain size you should be able to also hire a good programmer, which is able to service the SBS and start making use of features of SBS specifically tailored to the business.

If you cannot afford such a person, then SBS is no use to a business (except maybe in a bragging 'me too' way), because only the easiest and simplest features will be used.

non-final core components

Are 'non-final core components' the same thing as buggy software?

rs232's Recent Submissions - Title - Datestamp
non-final core components - Thursday August 17, @07:45PM Rejected

Code deemed "non-final"

See, another reason to move to open-source solutions because you never get... oh, wait...

Another recall or /. just slow?

Is this another recall, or is Slashdot about three weeks behind in the news?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Recalls-D efective-Windows-Small-Business-Server-2003-R2-Pro duct-31365.shtml [softpedia.com]

humm

no wonder why the server never worked. it was still in beta. i wonder what will happen to vista now?

Legal precedent?

I know it wasn't sent to any actual customers, but...

One can imagine, if given any serious fault or bug, Microsoft would be obligated to recall copies of their OS. Given that nowdays the OS is a crucial component for several business, can the justice force Microsoft to do it?

After all, if they sell a defective product, that can cause severe harm to its consumers... I guess it's Microsof responsability to fix the damage. I don't know about the USA, but here at Brazil the EULA means nothing, since it can't deny any rights given to the consumer by the constitution or by federal laws.

Not "recalls", rather "recalls"

You've misread this. It's not that they are recalling business server 2003 from the market, rather, they are recalling the good old days of Business Server 2003 and other products they use to finish. Those were the days, weren't they? Back when Microsoft didn't care about security and thus were able to complete products and put them on the market, even if they usually resulted in security breaches, data loss, privacy invasion, etc, for anyone who installed them. Now that they are security focused they are unable to finish and release anything at all. They can't help but look back with misty eyes at what was a simpler time for Microsoft.

Last paragraph

From TFA:

"We started out doing SBS, and it's the foundation, but now that the infrastructure is easier, we're spreading out," says Luby, whose company is moving up the stack into solutions around Microsoft SharePoint Portal Services and Live offerings.

...WTF does this have to do with the original topic? I don't find it remotely helpful or informative compared to the article's original subject. It also doesn't relate much to the fact that SBS 2003 RC2 has been recalled....slow news day?...

I have to return it?

You mean to tell me that what I just downloaded on Usenet Friday is broken? It appears to be working fine enough for testing purposes...

An obvious point

It's the year of our Lord 2006... Not 2003.

 

Recall?

That's odd. They couldn't seem to remember anything in the anotrust trial.

I recall small business server..

...I recall SBS as having been bloated and a total POS. Is that what the article is referring to?

Why not just patch?

"non-final" code? When has Microsoft (or any software vendor, for that matter) ever released "final" code. Sounds like some meaningless measurement dreamed up by an auditor who wouln't know C++ from Chaucer. Those poor MS programmers are probably forced to click some web link that ties into their source code control system that marks code as "final", and they probably all do it and it's pretty useless except to waste everyone's time. Why don't they just issue a patch like they do for everything else?

Old News

They recalled it on July 28... For /. I am surprised we took this long to find an oportunity to slam Microsnot.

heh

they probably forgot to put the bugs in

At least they recall it!

The first issue went out with the defect documented in KB835734, for which a critical fix should have went out immediately!
But nothing was done except providing a nearly nonvisible update, and this issue has caused nearly untamable mailstorms damaging customer reputation, ringing up traffic bills, and causing lots of grief. At least they demonstrated that not everyone can write a fetchmail clone.

The typical customer for this package has no means at all to point out what was happening, and the system integrators usually only come by to look maybe the next day or so.
(when they tried remote access over the same internet connection, it would be stuffed with traffic)

At least now they recall it before it is too late.

Okay, let me guess...

They forgot to install SP1 before installing additional software.

Anyone have it?

It would be interesting to see what changes in the new version by binary-comparing all the files. Having a recall instead of a day-one patch sounds like it's something interesting. =)

Melissa