Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:16:08 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <129416735.20050319101608@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNKEMNFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <526177289.20050319004436@wanadoo.fr> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNKEMNFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Not really true unless you do an apples to oranges comparison. Comparing Exchange to groupware products _is_ largely an apples-to-oranges comparison. Despite what Microsoft says, Exchange is essentially a messaging system--an e-mail server. It does that very well--much better than other "groupware" products that offer e-mail as only one of their features. Exchange isn't much use for other things. Given that most large organizations really need e-mail more than anything else, though, Exchange is a good choice. > Exchange has lots of benefits against a simple Sendmail+popper UNIX > mailserver. However, a fully tricked-out UNIX mail server can be > configured to have just as many additional 'advantages' that an > Exchange server has. "Tricking-out" a UNIX server just to avoid using Exchange may not be a wise course of action for an enterprise. I'd be interested in knowing, point-by-point, exactly how a UNIX solution would provide every feature provided by Exchange. > Exchange is popular simply because many corporations bought into > NT4, and 2000 server, and were looking for a way to use their existing > file and print servers to handle e-mail. Exchange is also popular because it's a really good e-mail system for the enterprise--the best around, in fact. > Buying Exchange was seen as a cheaper way to get a mailserver than to > go out and setup a new server running UNIX. Exchange has a much better feature set than any UNIX solution, and that is a major selling point. Most organizations already realize that Exchange needs dedicated servers for anything more than a trivial load, since dedicated servers are not unique to the Windows environment. > And keep in mind that the only serious coompetitor in Windows > mailserver server software was Netscape and we know what happened to > them. Netscape's product was garbage, and it was never a serious competitor. > Not true any longer. The latest Exchange versions have good support for > non-Windows systems. Exchange servers have to be Windows servers. There has been support for _clients_ on other platforms for a long time, but Exchange works best in a mostly-Windows environment ... at least if an enterprise wants to use all the Exchange features (which it should, if it's going to pay for Exchange). > However Exchange makes a poor choice for ISP's because ISP's deal in a > far higher volume of e-mail and of mailboxes than Exchange server is > designed for. Even the smallest ISP's can easily do a thousand > mailboxes, and a thousand mailboxes is considered a pretty large > Enterprise installation for an Exchange server. I've never considered a thousand mailboxes to be a large installation. Exchange can handle a hundred times that without too much trouble, given enough hardware. Exchange is extremely bloated compared to ISP-style solutions, but for enterprises that want the Exchange feature set, it's a good trade. > Licensing for the volumes of clients that ISP's run is > cost-prohibitive espically considering so many ISPs are giving out > mailboxes for free. That is another problem with Exchange for ISPs, although it's due mostly to the obstinacy of the marketing departments at Microsoft, and not due to any technical constraints. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?129416735.20050319101608>