But when have facts worried a lienux zealot? > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] > Sent: 06 November 2002 20:04 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > It's not "open" and it's certainly not Exchange. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:tony.mccullough@;hcs.state.or.us] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:21 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > You mentioned that there is nothing in the Linux world like > Exchange. > > I haven't looked at this but I received this "Open > Exchange" link from > > a friend of mine the other day. I can't vouch for it, but > thought I'd > > throw it out. > > > > > http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/in > > dex. > > ht > > ml > > > > Tony McCullough > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet@;kimball.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:09 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > Here's my take: > > > > A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 > > http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. > Microsoft is > > offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and > > answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. > > > > I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment > on that. > > You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. > > > > You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat > painful (I might > > argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 > mailboxes is > > not that painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds > > themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put > in in the > > first place. > > > > Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big > ones, too). It > > does have some drawbacks, though. > > > > 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is > > going to be harder than finding someone to support > Microsoft products. > > > > 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company > > outside the mainstream and limits third party server > applications like > > mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. > > > > Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable > > option. But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to > > smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is > > targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. They > would much > > rather farm it out to a consultant. > > > > Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's > > nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that can > provide the > > same functionality that Exchange provides. > > > > I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when > > applied in the appropriate environment - that is a small > company (5-15 > > employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no > > resident system admin. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is > the fun in > > that? > > > > First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can > > think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange > system as a > > foreign mail system, meaning export and import mailbox data to > > migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it would be to > > simply put another server in place and move users. But, if is your > > only option... > > > > Now on to the fun... > > > > SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) > > > > Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) > > E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to > Enterprise > > if > > needed) > > > > Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the > > Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the > amount you > > eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, > real products > > versus cripple-ware. > > > > But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for > $100 for > > your firewall and it is wide open outbound. > > > > But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. > > Otherwise, you don't need it. > > > > If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or > > actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first > > scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and under > the second, > > you have invested just a little more money but have primed your > > business for growth. > > > > And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford > > the extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free > > software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. > > > > And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license > ~$2000.00. > > So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you > get lots and > > lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. > > > > So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for > > closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that do > not think > > far enough ahead to keep them from running into closed doors. > > Installing SBS is setting yourself up for failure, period. > I have seen > > it time and time again. > > It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get > what you pay for > > and > > you get what you deserve when you don't plan ahead. > > > > I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, so show me a > business case > > where SBS is the RIGHT solution. And by that, I do not mean > the lowest > > cost solution, because Linux has that one well in hand. I > mean, when > > all the pros > > and cons are analyzed, that SBS is the winner. I honestly have never > > encountered it. > > > > > > > You know what they say: opinions are like, well never mind... > > > > > > Personally, I think SBS is a fantastic product, provided you keep > > > it's limitations in mind up front. Yes, it would be a pain to > > > upgrade, but my guess is that the vast majority of SBS > installations > > > would never face that task. > > > > > > Most small companies (10-15 employees) could never afford to buy > > > Win2k, E2K, and ISA server, let alone SQLServer. SBS > gives them all > > > this for the price of Win2K server alone! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:22 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > Well, the easiest way to do this is to install another E2K server > > > and simply move the mailboxes to the new server. Now, the > only thing > > > that might throw a wrench into this for you is running > sbs2k. And, I > > > have repeatedly stated this and let me go on record as > stating that > > > SBS is a terrible product that should never be installed > anywhere in > > > the entire world because of the serious limitations that > it imposes > > > on organizations. This is a perfect example as to why an > > > organization should NEVER install SBS. And if there are any > > > companies out there that have consultants recommending SBS, fire > > > them immediately and get somebody competant. > > > > > > One of the big problems with SBS is that it uses the Standard > > > Edition of Microsoft Exchange, which has the nasty > limitation of not > > > being able to support multiple Exchange servers. > > > > > > From Microsoft docs: > > > "Exchange 2000 on a Small Business Server installation is > restricted > > > from being part of a larger Exchange server organization. Because > > > Small Business Server 2000 is installed as the root of the Active > > > Directory forest, you cannot install the Exchange 2000 component > > > into an existing organization." > > > > > > Also from Microsoft docs: > > > "Full installation of Windows 2000 is required. It is not > possible > > > to upgrade Microsoft BackOffice Small Business Server to > the Windows > > > 2000 operating system; however, if your hardware meets the system > > > requirements > > > > > > (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/sysreq > > s/) > > > for Windows 2000, you can install the full product. > > > > > > The current plan for the next release of Small Business > Server is to > > > base the product on the Windows 2000 operating system. For more > > > information about Small Business Server, see the Small Business > > > Server Web site > > > (http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusinessserver/default.htm)." > > > > > > What this means in a nutshell is that I don't have a solution for > > > you. I have searched Technet and have not been able to find an > > > acceptable upgrade path from SBS to anything useable. > Essentially, > > > since you are running SBS, you cannot install a new E2K > server into > > > the organization and simply move the user mailboxes. And, in all > > > honesty, I have not found an acceptable way to upgrade SBS to W2K > > > enterprise. > > > > > > If anyone has a solution out there for upgrading SBS to > enterprise > > > versions, I'd love to see it. There HAS to be a way, > Microsoft could > > > not have been THAT bone-headed. On the other hand, they > released SBS > > > so I guess I wouldn't put anything past them. > > > > > > One thing you might try is backing up your stores, > installing a new > > > non-SBS server with full W2K and E2K and restoring to that server. > > > > > > Avoid SBS like the plague, it is a terrible, terrible product and > > > Microsoft, in good conscience, should NEVER have released > it upon an > > > unsuspecting public. > > > > > > > Exchange is working fine on the server its just that > the raid set > > > > on this dodgy ibm server keeps going critical after a > reboot(keep > > > > getting the runaround from ibm) and we want the customer to > > > > purchase a better server but there is a lot of mail > stored on it > > > > and i was just wondering how easy/hard would it be to move the > > > > mail to another server. Also is their any repercussions moving > > > > mail from sbs2k to a win2k o/s. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Damian. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
