ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?

    IT Discussion
    10
    35
    16.3k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • C
      Carnival Boy
      last edited by

      I think the biggest problem with Sharepoint Foundation, in terms of cost, is the database requirements i.e. it will only run with SQL Server.

      SQL Server Express is free, but is pretty limited and doesn't really seem intended for production environments. In particular the fact that databases are limited to 10GB, which seems pretty tiny for a typical Sharepoint site. So you quickly end up needing SQL Server Standard edition, which is pretty expensive. If you don't have SQL Server already, you probably need to budget for that at the outset, even if you're only planning on using Sharepoint Foundation.

      I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more 🙂

      scottalanmillerS thwrT 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @Carnival Boy
        last edited by

        @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

        I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more 🙂

        Don't they? What happened to Workgroup?

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • StrongBadS
          StrongBad
          last edited by

          SQL Server is coming on Linux now, too!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            @scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

            @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

            I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more 🙂

            Don't they? What happened to Workgroup?

            Oh, it got retired in 2012.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C
              Carnival Boy
              last edited by

              Speaking as a non-techie, I don't particularly like the fact that with Sharepoint all files are stored in a database. We have another document management system that only stores metadata in a database, and the files themselves are stored in a flat file system. There's something about a flat file system that re-assures me. And it means that the database is very small, so SQL Server Express works fine.

              It would be nice if Sharepoint had the option of working like this, if only to allow SQL Server Express to be used.

              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller @Carnival Boy
                last edited by

                @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                Speaking as a non-techie, I don't particularly like the fact that with Sharepoint all files are stored in a database. We have another document management system that only stores metadata in a database, and the files themselves are stored in a flat file system. There's something about a flat file system that re-assures me. And it means that the database is very small, so SQL Server Express works fine.

                It would be nice if Sharepoint had the option of working like this, if only to allow SQL Server Express to be used.

                If you think of the filesystem as a form of database, which it is, it kind of explains why the logic is here. And if you think of all of the money that Sharepoint makes by selling SQL Server licenses, it explains the rest of the logic 🙂

                I agree with your assessment only insofar as the SQL Server requirement. If Sharepoint could use PostgreSQL for all of its document storage, or MongoDB, I'd love that it doesn't use the filesystem.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  Keep in mind that, for the moment, the SQL Server storage instead of the filesystem is a major stop gap between ransomware and Sharepoint storage.

                  DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • C
                    Carnival Boy
                    last edited by

                    Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @Carnival Boy
                      last edited by

                      @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                      Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).

                      Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.

                      DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DashrenderD
                        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by Dashrender

                        @scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                        Keep in mind that, for the moment, the SQL Server storage instead of the filesystem is a major stop gap between ransomware and Sharepoint storage.

                        Wouldn't SP still be a stop gap between the users even if SP was on a filesystem? I would certainly hope that one wouldn't be directly accessing the filesystem when using SP...

                        Nevermind - already posted.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DashrenderD
                          Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          @scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                          @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                          Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).

                          Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.

                          well, then you're killing the point of SP. Once you can touch the filesystem, how would you expect SP to do it's job?

                          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                            last edited by

                            @Dashrender said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                            @scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                            @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                            Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).

                            Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.

                            well, then you're killing the point of SP. Once you can touch the filesystem, how would you expect SP to do it's job?

                            Same as if you can touch the DB, which often people enable 😞

                            DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • DashrenderD
                              Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                              last edited by

                              @scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                              @Dashrender said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                              @scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                              @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                              Not if the document management system doesn't expose the file system directly to users (which it shouldn't).

                              Good point. Although... once they do that, you'd expect them to expose it for performance reasons. Not that they should, only that they would.

                              well, then you're killing the point of SP. Once you can touch the filesystem, how would you expect SP to do it's job?

                              Same as if you can touch the DB, which often people enable 😞

                              Again, defeating the whole purpose.. so those situations don't count.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • thwrT
                                thwr @Carnival Boy
                                last edited by

                                @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                                I think the biggest problem with Sharepoint Foundation, in terms of cost, is the database requirements i.e. it will only run with SQL Server.

                                SQL Server Express is free, but is pretty limited and doesn't really seem intended for production environments. In particular the fact that databases are limited to 10GB, which seems pretty tiny for a typical Sharepoint site. So you quickly end up needing SQL Server Standard edition, which is pretty expensive. If you don't have SQL Server already, you probably need to budget for that at the outset, even if you're only planning on using Sharepoint Foundation.

                                I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more 🙂

                                Don't want to defile an old thread, but I need to add a few things.

                                First off, comparing Sharepoint to OwnCloud, while beeing a great tool, is like comparing
                                a warp-capable spaceship to a paperdart. SharePoint is a collaboration platform where you build your own applications on top while OwnCloud is basically a filesharing platform with a few addons.

                                There are quite a few factors which are driving the costs for SharePoint:

                                • Windows Server CALs (few known users / devices) or Windows Server for Internet Sites ("CAL" flatrate, mucho dinero)
                                • SQL Server, Standard or higher edition and CALs (UserCAL's for SQL server are very expensive. Use this for a few known users) or Core edition (Flatrate, can be more or less "cheap". I'm using this one)
                                • If going past SP Foundation:
                                  a) SharePoint CAL, Standard should suffice in most cases
                                  b) SharePoint for Internet Sites if public facing with anonymous access
                                  c) You will most probably need a farm, at least one frontend and one backend server.
                                • ForeFront UAG/TMG and CAL (used to be the only "supported" reverse proxy). Not sold anymore, no successor available, Windows Server publishing role is used today

                                So SharePoint Standard / Enterprise on a public facing site with anonymous access can burn through your budget like Oracle and SAP. SharePoint for a known user base can be OK from a licensing point of view. Today, SharePoint on Office365 is way cheaper than having something on premise I guess.

                                SharePoint has a lot to offer and I haven't found anything FOSS that comes even close myself yet. Alfresco is the only one that at least is a very little bit like SharePoint, but nothing I would call a replacement.

                                So what is SharePoint actually? Simply said, anything you want it to be. It's an application platform with multiple frontends, the well known website is just one of them.

                                stacksofplatesS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                • stacksofplatesS
                                  stacksofplates @thwr
                                  last edited by stacksofplates

                                  @thwr said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                                  @Carnival-Boy said in Sharepoint-like application that doesn't cost a huge fortune?:

                                  I think the biggest problem with Sharepoint Foundation, in terms of cost, is the database requirements i.e. it will only run with SQL Server.

                                  SQL Server Express is free, but is pretty limited and doesn't really seem intended for production environments. In particular the fact that databases are limited to 10GB, which seems pretty tiny for a typical Sharepoint site. So you quickly end up needing SQL Server Standard edition, which is pretty expensive. If you don't have SQL Server already, you probably need to budget for that at the outset, even if you're only planning on using Sharepoint Foundation.

                                  I'd like Microsoft to provide something in between Express and Standard, but I'm not allowed to criticise Microsoft on ML so I'll say no more 🙂

                                  Don't want to defile an old thread, but I need to add a few things.

                                  First off, comparing Sharepoint to OwnCloud, while beeing a great tool, is like comparing
                                  a warp-capable spaceship to a paperdart. SharePoint is a collaboration platform where you build your own applications on top while OwnCloud is basically a filesharing platform with a few addons.

                                  There are quite a few factors which are driving the costs for SharePoint:

                                  • Windows Server CALs (few known users / devices) or Windows Server for Internet Sites ("CAL" flatrate, mucho dinero)
                                  • SQL Server, Standard or higher edition and CALs (UserCAL's for SQL server are very expensive. Use this for a few known users) or Core edition (Flatrate, can be more or less "cheap". I'm using this one)
                                  • If going past SP Foundation:
                                    a) SharePoint CAL, Standard should suffice in most cases
                                    b) SharePoint for Internet Sites if public facing with anonymous access
                                    c) You will most probably need a farm, at least one frontend and one backend server.
                                  • ForeFront UAG/TMG and CAL (used to be the only "supported" reverse proxy). Not sold anymore, no successor available, Windows Server publishing role is used today

                                  So SharePoint Standard / Enterprise on a public facing site with anonymous access can burn through your budget like Oracle and SAP. SharePoint for a known user base can be OK from a licensing point of view. Today, SharePoint on Office365 is way cheaper than having something on premise I guess.

                                  SharePoint has a lot to offer and I haven't found anything FOSS that comes even close myself yet. Alfresco is the only one that at least is a very little bit like SharePoint, but nothing I would call a replacement.

                                  So what is SharePoint actually? Simply said, anything you want it to be. It's an application platform with multiple frontends, the well known website is just one of them.

                                  I think Drupal + Alfresco can get really close. I've built some really cool stuff with Drupal by itself, and with the pseudo Alfresco integration you can have, it will let you do some really nice things.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • 1
                                  • 2
                                  • 2 / 2
                                  • First post
                                    Last post