Right here on this list is a good start in that direction!
At 03:24 PM 9/15/2001 +0400, you wrote:
>The numbers do sound very much interesting. But I think the TCO has more
>parameters than how much a box is costing.
>
>To begin with how organization are happy with just a emailing solution.
>Might as well use a ASP (like usa.net) which offers POP3 or SMTP mails with
>almost 0 investment.(only operational cost)
>
>If they want just a "mailbox host" then why go for IBM At all. Get one of
>those free SMTP, POP3 servers and host it on a BIG server box(No software
>cost at all) on Linux.
>
>I don't think the author of that document knew anything About collaboration
>office Automation etc..,
>
>As I could see the author is an "IBM dude" than a "Linux dude".. If he
>argued on "Lotus notes" on IBM he would have come up with much better
>arguments at least. (Yes, I still do have a soft corner for Lotus notes,
>having seen how programmer friendly that product was..)
>
>
>I think I could find dozen or more such "researches" that argues MS Exchange
>is better than any other solution, Or Lotus Notes is better than any other
>solution. But 99% of them would be paid articles from the respective
>organizations (Microsoft/IBM)etc,
>
>Come to think Of it.. Is there any place that I could see a "independent"
>reviews/Comparisons on various Mail/Collaboration solutions .??
>
>
>
>
>
>Kuminda Chandimith
>Sr. Technical Consultant
>Ducont.com FZ-LLC
>Tel: + 971-4-3913000 Ext 237
>Fax: +971-4-3913001
>http://www.ducont.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: 15 September 2001 14:53
>To: Exchange Discussions
>Subject: Re: TCO - Linux vs. Exchange
>
>
>Chris,
>
>My additional assumption would be:
>
>h. Linux has an equivalent mail system to that of Exchange.
>
>Whilst all these numbers may be great to throw around (and based on the
>publisher they are biased towards a Linux implementation), the real question
>is "does Linux have a mail system that could go head-to-head, or toe-to-toe
>with Exchange" ??
>
>So far, the mail systems / packages / collection of unrelated applications
>on Linux that I've seen doesn't come close to what the Microsoft Exchange
>system offers. Most of the solutions seem to revolve around web-based or
>POP3, IMAP4 clients.
>
>Yes, there is web-based email for Linux, but no, most Exchange installs
>don't use this as the primary client.
>
>Yes, Exchange supports POP3, IMAP, but no, most exchange installs use the
>Outlook client, not Outlook Express.
>
>Looking at TCO number for servers and licensing is great, and is something
>that should be done regularly to ensure your company is receiving value for
>money, but unless the resulting solution provides the necessary
>functionality, what is the point ?
>
>I'll be the first to admit that I'm not 100% up on the offerings from the
>Linux community, but after recent investigations looking for a replacement
>for Exchange on the Linux platform for some smaller companies who see the
>cost of Exchange as prohibitive, I was unable to locate a complete solution
>that offered the same functionality. If someone would like to point me to
>such a solution, then maybe we can have a discussion about the TCO numbers /
>relative merits of such a solution.
>
>Glenn.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Scharff, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:39 PM
>Subject: RE: TCO - Linux vs. Exchange
>
>
> > It's amazingly accurate if the following assumtions are made:
> > a. bandwidth is unlimited
> > b. bandwidth is free
> > c. MCSEs are all paper
> > d. Unix admins are all rocket scientists
> > e. The Unix community if full of messaging experts who are willing to drop
> > everything to run to the aid of anyone with a software issue.
> > f. The exchange community is not.
> > g. morons were hired to design the Exchange infrastructure
> >
> > I'd like the specs on Jimmy's Groupware application though. The T in TCO
> > includes more than what he's listed... I'd like to see how the product
> > enhances productivity in the Enterprise. That certainly has to be factored
> > in unless you're a SSM who isn't aware of how what they do and the
>services
> > they provide effects the bottom line.
> >
> > BTW, "Jimmy went out of his way to be fair to the Exchange/PC solution,
> > since the industry average is 350 mailboxes per server" is a perfect
>example
> > of zealotry blotting out rational thought processes.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Razler
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Sent: 9/13/2001 6:35 PM
> > Subject: TCO - Linux vs. Exchange
> >
> > Hello:
> >
> > I am not advocating either side. I am just providing this as
> > some
> > related reading for Exchange Admins. Maybe you can even comment on it
> > and
> > let the rest of us know if you disagree with it and why.
> >
> > http://consultingtimes.com/Serverheist.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
>Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
>Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
