Okay I see what you are referring to as 'souped-up IMAP' as the Zimbra type solution, where there is a one-stop one-package install. I personally have never worked with any of those. I thought you were implying that a properly designed system such as I've built was considered as 'souped-up IMAP'. (And I see a properly designed e-mail system as WAY more than souped-up IMAP, obviously)
When I've made the soup, it's been pretty tasty however - with real solid anti-spam and anti-virus, clustered storage on the backend (over a completely open protocol to boot), we could actually move users and even add more storage servers on the backend without any downtime for the existing users, etc. What I would really like to see is if there was a product, such as the aforementioned on on your first post, that was completely capable of speaking all the right protocols for Outlook clients, but on the backend supported a real LDAP system, supported open-source mail processing, routing and storage systems such as Postfix and maybe Cyrus IMAP etc. I still think that would be very viable. Essentially replacing the 'Exchange' piece of the equation with something that a real admin can really do awesome stuff with. Eventually, those protocols should be exposed to Thunderbird, evolution, etc. so that Outlook is only one of many choices in the field. It would be neat to actually market something open and flexible - if it contained every combination of those little features that Outlook users can't seem to change away from. Roger E. Rustad, Jr wrote: > David Kaiser wrote: > >> 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, >> > > All I said was something I have found in my experience. > > I still maintain that most of the biggest critics I have dealt with on > this issue are those who have not really had to seriously deal with > directory service nuances for large enterprises. You are but one of many > of those critics. > > I also still maintain that NT's way of doing things has its place in > business environments. It is horribly limited compared to other > solutions, particularly messy campus ones (LSU might be a good example > that Brian can comment on), but it meets the immediate and future > business needs of lots of companies. > > >> 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! >> > > Ok, if you're wanting to say you know more than me Directory Services, > I'll give you that. There are IMAP servers (their primary role) where > admins have hacked on various other programs to integrate it with > Exchange. A lot of other products (Zimbra) are very cool, although there > are still lots of things that they can't do. Enterprises that need > those few (and often times stupid) features that MS offers "cannot" > change to these (and I still maintain) "souped up IMAP" servers. > > Souped up stuff comes with a price. It may run circles around other > solutions, but I've seen time and time again that the hotshot guy who is > really good at souping up things quite often is the same guy who likes > flipping the CEO the bird and has better things to do than justify to > others why he choose to make the decisions he did. > > >> I see it as all about vendor lock-in. Do you want to use a product >> which dictates every other components in the system? >> > > Sometimes, yes. > > Sometimes I don't care. And sometimes I really do care, but the client > doesn't care and isn't willing to pay the price. > > It all depends on existing infrastructure, existing IT expertise, and > anticipated future use. Attitudes, skill sets, and budgets all sometimes > compel you to go with an "inferior" vendor lock-in solution. > > >> 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? >> > > I agree that MS AD is not as extensible as RADIUS, and I agree that it's > a vendor lockin. But those don't matter for many companies. > > >> 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? >> > > Sometimes, yes. > > I don't always have power users, and I know that the company's budget > compels them to hire a lower end administrator. Sometimes when I have to > bid out the job, I'm not quite sure how many hours these other solutions > will take. > > I know how long can almost tell you to the minute how long certain tasks > will take on Microsoft. Some of these other open source solutions are > open variables, and I don't know them as well, and because I don't, I > don't bid them. Sure, I could figure them out, but there's little chance > that the company will want to inherit that solution afterwards. > > Also, sometimes I do not want certain admin to have full control over > certain features. Some admins cannot handle sharp tools and we have to > limit the damage that they can do, while trying to maximize their > effectiveness by creating strict roles and not letting them stray too > far from those roles. > > >> 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, that was a huge part of it. > > Sure, the vast majority of Windows admins are in my opinion (as you put) > "pinheads". The Linux admins can be a different sort of pinhead. How > many Linux admins do you know who have tweaked out everything with no > documentation? > > Pick your poison, but it's difficult to claim that either way is > categorically superior or inferior to the other. > > Good NT admins know about official MS ways of doing things, know the > right registry tweaks, and know what MS is good for (and not good for). > > >> 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. >> > > I see this in almost any solution. > > I work for a company that sells products that are (in one sense of the > word) more difficult than Cisco to configure. (Cisco is, in some ways, > the "Microsoft" of the networking world). > > Most of the time, ease-of-use comes with the price of extensibility. > Pick your poison. > > >> 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. >> > > In your opinion, which one solution does this? > > If not one solution, which home-rolled solutions? > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers >
