I completely disagree with you. I am one of the biggest critics of Exchange BECAUSE I have been one that worried about directory services for a large organization,
I can say that your analogy shows how little you understand about non-Exchange environments. There is no such thing as a souped-up IMAP server. A souped-up LDAP server, on the other hand, kick's Exchange + Active Directory's @$$ - left, right and center. With the LDAP system that I was setting up at LLU for example, you could do all directory functions from any OS, Linux Windows Mac Solaris whatever. You could authenticate for all kind of services, not just e-mail, manage your password, maintain certain directory information, from ANY OS. Do _that_ with an Active Directory setup! I see it as all about vendor lock-in. Do you want to use a product which dictates every other components in the system? Do you want to use Active Directory, where you have to run it on Windows, have to authenticate from a Windows host, have to use only a Windows host to change your password? Or do you want to use something based on a standard protocol such as LDAP that does every one of those functions better and allows you to do this from any OS? Do you want to use Exchange, which is an e-mail server that only works with Active Directory, only allows for up to 12 e-mail rules per user, limits the type of storage options (proprietary mailbox disk format anyone?) etc... or do you want to have your choice of any of the standards-based e-mail servers that allow for users to fully customize their delivery rule options, and allow the administrator to have full control over how the mail is stored? Well, eventually at LLU, and also with every story you've told about your Exchange setups, the choice was not about selecting a system which offered flexible options to ensure that the long-term maintenance was manageable - it is always about ease of initial install. The real reason Exchange gets installed over a standards-based e-mail system is that the decision is left to pinheads that think clicking on SETUP.EXE and running a wizard a few times gives them the optimal system. Yes, if you really manage directory services for a large organization - you'll see that true LDAP directories and multi-OS support wins out over "ease of install but hard to fix later" Exchange. If this Exchange "drop-in replacement" application really serves Calendars to Outlook clients and really does work with open and standards based protocols on the backend, LDAP, IMAP, etc. then to a professional sysadmin, it is certainly a viable replacement for Exchange, if not a preferred one. Roger E. Rustad, Jr. wrote: > Interesting, but I cannot imagine it replacing all that Exchange does. > I've often been frustrated with Exchange, but it works quite well in a > lot of environments. > > (Side note: I find that the biggest Exchange critics are those who > don't have to worry about directory services for large organizations! > A souped up IMAP server with a kickass spam solution is NOT an > Exchange killer, but people who simply work in ISP environments don't > always understand that) > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Dante Lanznaster <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/08/09/19/2023252.shtml > > I've never heard of this thing before. Anyone here has experiences > to share? I'm gonna set up a box with this to try it out soon. > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers >
