Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:21:30 -0600 (CST) From: Duo <duo@digitalarcadia.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.61.0503200652340.17363@valkyrie.local> In-Reply-To: <266982083.20050320105247@wanadoo.fr> References: <129416735.20050319101608@wanadoo.fr> <266982083.20050320105247@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > >> Fine, you list the features you think are key ones and I'll provide it. > > Why not just buy Exchange? > > You make the same mistake that so many people with emotional investments > in software make: You feel you must look for non-Microsoft solutions > _just for the sake of avoiding Microsoft_. But in this case, as in > several other cases, the Microsoft solution tends to be the best > overall. And if one has no sacred mission to drive Microsoft back into > the Pit, there's no reason to look for cobbled UNIX solutions that do > the same thing. And you failed to answer his question. Why not stop trying to avoid it by answering it. List the features. I am interested in Ted's list of items to replicate them in UNIX. =) As for looking for non microsoft solutions, yes. There is a point to that. It's called voting with your pocketbook, and its a valid course of action in a capitalist society. Choosing to go outside a monopoly is a right. And yes, looking for non MS solutions, for the sake of it, is a valid choice. It's the only way some things get better. If for instance, I go with a product of MS, as opposed to a smaller OSS project, the OSS Project typically *cares* about the feedback I give it. It cares about the features I want and need. I need a credit card before MS will talk to me. The Exchange solution might be best for a gold partner with M$, but overall, a very poor solution, which locks you into a feature set, and a company that has shown little concern for its base of customers. In regards to its use of JET, Jet2003 cannot handle any other process running against its datastore, because it dosent have the ability to cache and then commit like a REAL RDBMS. This is a problem for things such as virus scanning, and tight integration with an AD Environment, which is getting more and more replication based. In fact, some types of virus scanning can introduce data corruption of the store, which could lead to other issues. There are several papers on this, including some in Bugtraq. On this very issue. What's more, the virus scanners that do run against Exchange's DB, also cost money, and typically require some more hardware. And overhead. So now I am running exchange, and a bevy of other stuff to prop it up. The whole point of UNIX, and Open Source is a number of people, getting together and saying..."It shouldnt have to be that hard" MS has had YEARS to put a SQL backend onto Exchange, yet have not. With its history, and its track record, and indeed, with even most recommending a dry SMTP server outside of the regular exchange server, exchange is hardly a worthwhile solution. With the number of machines you need to run Exchange properly, (basically, 2-3) with freeBSD, I can do *alot* more. FYI, while I do need to run a tight AD environment where I work, I *still* dont do exchange. I use MDaemon (a real mailserver, not piled on with crap) and WorkGroup Share, coupled with the MDaemon Groupware function. Not quite the "same" featureset as Exchange, but, I am supporting developers who *care* about what I want. I get contact, scheduling, etc. I am voting with my pocketbook, and, its highly arrogant of you to sit there and thinly accuse people of not doing right by their situation by not choosing M$ because they dont want to use MS. Not wanting to use MS is a perfectly valid course of action, and its rather lame of you to suggest otherwise. this is freebsd-questions@ not ms-questions@. >> No it doesen't. Exchange has a better feature set than MANY of the >> UNIX solutions but not all. > > Show me the one-stop UNIX solution that meets or beats Exchange. > There probably isint a one stop shop. However, there dosent need to be. In fact, there is something to be said for multiple services offering features. Exchange is bloated. Alot of its problems come from this bloat. Id rather have 5 different standards compliant services (LDAP based) talking to one another, maybe with a text db, or sql backend, than one huge asinine monstrosity, with a crappy and outdated DB backend, running mission critical for me. > Exchange was written from scratch specifically to provide an integrated > solution. Nobody else was or is going to come up with the same thing > without making a similar investment ... and the investment in Exchange > was substantial. Bullshit. Exchange is the perfect example of microsofts policy of embrace and extend. That fact is bolstered by you sitting here, and justifying their policy as valid. Id rather have world wide standards, not the standards (or features that MS feels are standards) Microsoft feels I need, or that I should have to pay for. >> Exchange in the beginning was garbage also. As I recall Exchange 5.0 >> couldn't even be configured to disallow promiscious relaying. > > I used Exchange from the very beginning, and had no problems with it. Funny, then you are one of 5 people I know of, who claim to have no problem. The web, security boards, are rife with exchange issues, and the people who suffer from them. Indeed, I see ads in the paper all the time, for "Exchange Admins". Id rather have spend my money on one guy who knows SQL, Postfix, apache, LDAP etc, than one guy, who knows one server. The mere fact that Exchange admin can be a full time job is sad enough. -- Duo Although the Buddhists will tell you that desire is the root of suffering, my personal experience leads me to point the finger at system administration. --Philip Greenspun
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSX.4.61.0503200652340.17363>