From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 20 07:32:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1E516A4CE for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:32:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F59A43D2F for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:32:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5F6DE1C00083 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:32:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3BDFD1C00081 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:32:09 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050320073209245.3BDFD1C00081@mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:32:09 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1936155371.20050320083209@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <1111279870.650.11.camel@chaucer.jeays.ca> References: <423AD243.5030601@myunix.net> <423BEAD4.6040207@myunix.net> <245622616.20050319101955@wanadoo.fr> <423C1ACF.1050102@myunix.net> <1766695713.20050319222202@wanadoo.fr> <1111279870.650.11.camel@chaucer.jeays.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:32:10 -0000 Mike Jeays writes: > I have to disagree with this! In my organization, a government > department with about 6,000 staff ... I said FOR SMALL INSTALLATIONS, not organizations of 6000 people. I'm thinking more of small businesses with a single geographic location and perhaps in the range of 100 employees or so. They don't need Exchange. > ... the ability to schedule meetings and > book conference rooms has become an essential part of our computing > infrastructure. Any attempt to remove these features or reduce their > functionality from that provided by Outlook/Exchange would be met with > considerable hostility and the permanent sidelining of he/she who > proposed it. A definite career-limiting move. Hmm. First Jim Durham suggests chucking all this and replacing it with sendmail as a career-saving move, and now you suggest the opposite. You can't both be right. Anyway, I agree that taking these features away from people who are used to them is an extremely unwise move. People are spoiled by Exchange. > It is a major reason why we can't go to a fully open source desktop. I don't believe there are any fully open-source solutions that provide the same functionality. One of the advantages of proprietary solutions is that they are pretty much guaranteed to work as an integrated whole, which is never the case for open-source. -- Anthony