On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bryan O'Neal
<boneal@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-bounces@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-bounces@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