Re: Straw poll - separate ISA from SBS base
- From: <isa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'[ISAserver.org Discussion List]'" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:11:47 +0800
> > Jim: Read this..
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/backofficeserver/techinfo/deployment/
> > 2000/multiserv er.asp
>
> Excellent find!
>
> Now the BQOD; how is this deployment attained?
> Many folks who've tried have run face first into the CD key issue
> with separating ISA from the lot...
>
With SBS you can't separate ISA. With the FULL Back Office 2000 product
you can, but you must purchase additional W2K Server licenses.
I don't have a problem with that - I think that's great policy from
Microsoft. However, I do have a problem with artificially restricting a
business' security potential by removing the capability to install ISA
on a separate server. I think SBS will be the more common example of ISA
installs, and the security situation is a compromise, as Jim H has
explained.
Better policy from Microsoft would be to go a bit further for SBS and
allow ISA install separately. Keep in mind too, that SBS 2000 is
available as an OEM option for server builders, but the full Back Office
2000 isn't. This further increases the price gap between the two
products.
Some personal emails I've had seem to agree with this position. Allow
separate ISA install, even with the "low-end" SBS 2000 product.
Regards,
Connor Moran
Other related posts:
