The numbers do sound very much interesting. But I think the TCO has more
parameters than how much a box is costing.
To begin with how organization are happy with just a emailing solution.
Might as well use a ASP (like usa.net) which offers POP3 or SMTP mails with
almost 0 investment.(only operational cost)
If they want just a "mailbox host" then why go for IBM At all. Get one of
those free SMTP, POP3 servers and host it on a BIG server box(No software
cost at all) on Linux.
I don't think the author of that document knew anything About collaboration
office Automation etc..,
As I could see the author is an "IBM dude" than a "Linux dude".. If he
argued on "Lotus notes" on IBM he would have come up with much better
arguments at least. (Yes, I still do have a soft corner for Lotus notes,
having seen how programmer friendly that product was..)
I think I could find dozen or more such "researches" that argues MS Exchange
is better than any other solution, Or Lotus Notes is better than any other
solution. But 99% of them would be paid articles from the respective
organizations (Microsoft/IBM)etc,
Come to think Of it.. Is there any place that I could see a "independent"
reviews/Comparisons on various Mail/Collaboration solutions .??
Kuminda Chandimith
Sr. Technical Consultant
Ducont.com FZ-LLC
Tel: + 971-4-3913000 Ext 237
Fax: +971-4-3913001
http://www.ducont.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 15 September 2001 14:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: TCO - Linux vs. Exchange
Chris,
My additional assumption would be:
h. Linux has an equivalent mail system to that of Exchange.
Whilst all these numbers may be great to throw around (and based on the
publisher they are biased towards a Linux implementation), the real question
is "does Linux have a mail system that could go head-to-head, or toe-to-toe
with Exchange" ??
So far, the mail systems / packages / collection of unrelated applications
on Linux that I've seen doesn't come close to what the Microsoft Exchange
system offers. Most of the solutions seem to revolve around web-based or
POP3, IMAP4 clients.
Yes, there is web-based email for Linux, but no, most Exchange installs
don't use this as the primary client.
Yes, Exchange supports POP3, IMAP, but no, most exchange installs use the
Outlook client, not Outlook Express.
Looking at TCO number for servers and licensing is great, and is something
that should be done regularly to ensure your company is receiving value for
money, but unless the resulting solution provides the necessary
functionality, what is the point ?
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not 100% up on the offerings from the
Linux community, but after recent investigations looking for a replacement
for Exchange on the Linux platform for some smaller companies who see the
cost of Exchange as prohibitive, I was unable to locate a complete solution
that offered the same functionality. If someone would like to point me to
such a solution, then maybe we can have a discussion about the TCO numbers /
relative merits of such a solution.
Glenn.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scharff, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: TCO - Linux vs. Exchange
> It's amazingly accurate if the following assumtions are made:
> a. bandwidth is unlimited
> b. bandwidth is free
> c. MCSEs are all paper
> d. Unix admins are all rocket scientists
> e. The Unix community if full of messaging experts who are willing to drop
> everything to run to the aid of anyone with a software issue.
> f. The exchange community is not.
> g. morons were hired to design the Exchange infrastructure
>
> I'd like the specs on Jimmy's Groupware application though. The T in TCO
> includes more than what he's listed... I'd like to see how the product
> enhances productivity in the Enterprise. That certainly has to be factored
> in unless you're a SSM who isn't aware of how what they do and the
services
> they provide effects the bottom line.
>
> BTW, "Jimmy went out of his way to be fair to the Exchange/PC solution,
> since the industry average is 350 mailboxes per server" is a perfect
example
> of zealotry blotting out rational thought processes.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Razler
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: 9/13/2001 6:35 PM
> Subject: TCO - Linux vs. Exchange
>
> Hello:
>
> I am not advocating either side. I am just providing this as
> some
> related reading for Exchange Admins. Maybe you can even comment on it
> and
> let the rest of us know if you disagree with it and why.
>
> http://consultingtimes.com/Serverheist.html
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
