I too am interested in a FOSS version of Exchange, so if anyone has any recommendations, I am all ears.
Eric On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bryan O'Neal <bon...@cornerstonehome.com>wrote: > Craig, I think you are missing the point. So, not to call you out on the > carpet here but have you ever managed a large enterprise? If so could you > please explain your ideal concept of how you manage to keep productivity > high and cost low without use of any non-free or non-open products? Take > Asterisk for example. I love it but the total cost of ownership is > outrageously high in comparison to systems like Avaya and ShoreTel. And > that is without the incredible ease of integration of systems like ShoreTel > have with outlook. You bag on Exchange but offer no comparative substitute. > You complain about the fact it uses AD and how much it costs even though it > is included free in several flavors of Exchange distribution. You complain > about mailbox implementation but seem to think it is the only DB your > company would be running. How do you back up your Oracle, MySQL, DB2, or > Postges systems? And again with the scanning, it provides it's own free > scanning system, however it is idiotic to be dinging the bulk of your spam > scanning on the mail server. By the time it reaches your server the cost > of > resources expended to handle it far outweigh the cost of third party > scanning. And the fact that Third party AV scans can be integrated easily > is not a bad thing, saying so is like saying postfix sucks because you can > use spamassisen and calmav. In fact I can use clamAV but it does not > provide the same level of service for the same maintenance cost of better > products like Avast. That said you say the only client is outlook, so my > question is what server/client system do you have that provides anywhere > near as much to the party as exchange/outlook? If you have one I would > really, really, love to try it out! But I have not found one. Certainly > Cyrus is not it. And for cost I can put an exchange system in for a 70 > person office with all the clients and servers licensed from scratch with > AD > and everything, including the server and my time to set it up for less then > $1500. In addition each users outlook costs only $40 and that also > includes > all the other MS bundled stuff we have not talked about (Share point, > etc.). > And while there are far better solutions for nearly all of it (especially > MS > SQL Server) Tell me now. Can you purchase a server, provide a integrated > collaborative PIM suite in a single interface providing mail, contacts, > basic CRM, takes, notes, and journal com tracking for the same price? If > so > I really would like to see it because I have bee hunting for this for > almost > 10 years! I hold fast that Exchange is one of very, very few MS products > that has a very high ROI. And, have you every had to integrate a BES with > something other then Exchange? Or are you some one who has never managed > more then a handful of mobile devices. > > Now if you're a single person or a company of 5 it is stupid to implement > exchange. Use Google. If you're a fleet of sales people who never talk to > each other and have an independent sales management application, then > again, > Exchange is not your option, but for most small campus based businesses > that > employ a group of average people who need to communicate easily with their > teams exchange is your answer. In the real world your business needs and > the bottom line dictate the solution, not your personal feelings. And time > and time again, for medium business after medium business, Exchange has > provided. If you really want we can conger up an average small company > prototype and each deliver a robust communications plan. But I think your > average CFP will pick the exchange plan every time. > > And yes one of my three home computers is MS, and yes I run outlook on it > (Evolution and thunderbird on the other two) But Outlook is my primary > PIM. > > I find on lists like this I have the fringe voice of pay/proprietary > software, just like in the business world I am the fringe voice of free and > open source. So, I get flamed from both sides. > > -----Original Message----- > From: plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Craig > White > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:24 AM > To: Main PLUG discussion list > Subject: RE: OT:Exchange good? (Was:Re: new hotness?) > > On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 09:45 -0700, Bryan O'Neal wrote: > > I disagree... Mostly. > > > - Tough to backup > > Like any database it needs to be shut down for standard file backups > > to work properly. This can be done via a simple script and is not a real > issue. > > However the use of back up programs like BackupExec make it a breeze > > to back up and restore. However I will agree that if you never had to > > deal with it before and you don't have much space and you don't have > > something like Backup Exec it can be daunting to figure out how to get > > regular backups working. That said I also like to run all the clients > > so they keep a copy of all activity locally. Not only does this speed > > up the clients but it also ensures that if the server suddenly went > > belly up and the last backup I had was 10 or 12 hours old (if I was > > using a file backup system) I could restore everything up to the > > minuet for people who had their clients running. If I thought it was > > worth the time I would have liked to virtualizes the exchange server > > and take regular snap shots of it throughout the day. However other > > projects provided a greater return for the time invested so I never got > around to it. > ---- > this is absurd - once you have used cyrus-imapd and all of the e-mails are > separate files you realize how antiquated and stupid the concept of an > Exchange mail store is. Oh, you can buy programs with Exchange 'agents' to > allow you to back up live or you can use some routine to shut down Exchange > to allow a backup but it's clearly a hostile environment, much like backing > up any database. > ---- > > > - Costly to integrate spyware, anti-virus and other content scanning > > I never had any issues and must totally disagree. I have always used > > the scanning built into exchange. This has been quite a nice feature > > since Exchange 2003 SP2 which is quite good at controlling spam, > > viruses, and generally enforcing corporate policies. However, for > > less then $500 a year you can get a third party to spam scan all of > > your email before it ever hits your server. If nothing else this pays > for > it's self in saved bandwidth. > > If you are a medium size company initial spam scanning should be done > > by a third party, after that Exchange can be tweaked quite easily to > > help enforce corporate policies. In addition integration with > > products like Avast make it easy to offer AV/Threat scanning. After > > that exchange is easy to set up for limiting the kinds of files that > > can be sent or received, how big a email can be, and even who emails > > can be sent or received from. And while I never did it, I am fairly > certain you can do key word scanning as well. > > Most of this this can be customized on a per user basses. > ---- > I think you just made my point...buying specialized software add-ons to > perform scanning - and of course, the 'Exchange Server' options. > ---- > > - Specialized client software (Outlook) You can chose what ever client > > you want, but some features may not be limited or not available. A > > fairly good webmail client is provided. You can use POP and IMAP for > > any client with regards to your email. With some server side add-ons > > colanders can be made available as well and global contacts can be > > driven via ldap. While it is true if you want to use the advanced > > features you have to use outlook, but again, I have not found any > > other client/sere pair that provides these features, so it is not > > surprising that other clients can not use them when connecting to the > server. > ---- > good webmail is easily implemented as are LDAP client applications. OWA is > adequate. > ---- > > - Requires AD > > Yes. However this is like saying that it requires an MS server to run > > so I really don't see your point. I can integrate my Linux servers > > and clients seamlessly into AD using krb and some people indicate the > > opposite is also true. It is an enterprise mail system designed > > around collaboration. If you don't have an enterprise to collaborate > > with you probably are not looking at outlook. If you believe it ads > > additional expense look at the small business edition. The price for > > a fully integrated MS environment is very cheep these days. > ---- > My point seemed to be rather obvious. You're in for the penny, you're in > for > the pound. The issue isn't about whether Linux or Macintosh can integrate > into an AD environment...of course they can. > > The issue was about buying in and having AD dictate everything from user > accounts to machine access and all resource management. To use Exchange, > you > have no choice other than to go the whole hog...there was no other options > after Exchange 5.5 > > The simple truth is that Microsoft didn't create the Enterprise environment > nor do they possess the only logical implementation. They have the > marketing > muscle and the foresight to create artificial dependencies to use software > to dictate implementation. > > Start tossing in curveballs such as IP Telephony integration and it becomes > a major clusterf**k. > > The ultimate issue is that the only decent client for Exchange is Outlook > and thus the only decent OS to use is Windows and thus the vendor lock-in > is > full circle. > > Clearly as businesses tighten their belts, the costs of license 6 or just > generally the various licenses necessary to be purchased for client access, > whether to files or to Exchange Server or to MS-SQL server get to be > absurd. > As few businesses have embraced the move to Vista, Linux options for the > desktop continue to improve and Exchange Server will see its value > declining. > > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
