SuSE's OpenExchange server product sounds like a close replacement for a Windows e-mail/collabaration server:
http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/index.html On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:08, you wrote: > Here's my take: > > A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 > http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. Microsoft is > offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales literature and answer > 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. > > I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot comment on that. You > are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. > > You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat painful (I might argue > with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 mailboxes is not that > painful...), but I would maintain that if a company finds themselves > outgrowing SBS, then it should not have been put in in the first place. > > Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big ones, too). It does > have some drawbacks, though. > > 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux system is going > to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft products. > > 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts a company outside > the mainstream and limits third party server applications like mail > filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. > > Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a very viable option. > But, it pretty much requires a resident propeller-head to smooth over the > rough spots. Most small companies (where SBS is targeted) just can't afford > a full-time system admin. They would much rather farm it out to a > consultant. > > Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as well. There's nothing > in the open source arena (that I know of) that can provide the same > functionality that Exchange provides. > > I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent value when applied in > the appropriate environment - that is a small company (5-15 employees) > needing at least file-sharing and Exchange and with no resident system > admin. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is the fun in that? > > First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only option I can think > of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange system as a foreign mail > system, meaning export and import mailbox data to migrate. Migration costs > will be 10-20 times what it would be to simply put another server in place > and move users. But, if is your only option... > > Now on to the fun... > > SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) > > Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) > E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to Enterprise if > needed) > > Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this is all the > Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times the amount you > eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have actual, real products > versus cripple-ware. > > But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box for $100 for your > firewall and it is wide open outbound. > > But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's $1,499.00. Otherwise, > you don't need it. > > If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for $1.5K or actual > software to run your business for $2-4K. Under the first scenario you are > setting yourself up for failure and under the second, you have invested > just a little more money but have primed your business for growth. > > And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you cannot afford the > extra grand or two, then you should probably be looking at free software. > Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. > > And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license ~$2000.00. So > again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars you get lots and lots and > lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. > > So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. It is for > closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people that do not think far > enough ahead to keep them from running into closed doors. Installing SBS is > setting yourself up for failure, period. I have seen it time and time > again. It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get what you pay > for and you get what you deserve when you don't plan ahead. > > I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, so show me a business case > where SBS is the RIGHT solution. And by that, I do not mean the lowest cost > solution, because Linux has that one well in hand. I mean, when all the > pros and cons are analyzed, that SBS is the winner. I honestly have never > encountered it. > > > You know what they say: opinions are like, well never mind... > > > > Personally, I think SBS is a fantastic product, provided you keep it's > > limitations in mind up front. Yes, it would be a pain to upgrade, but > > my guess is that the vast majority of SBS installations would never > > face that task. > > > > Most small companies (10-15 employees) could never afford to buy > > Win2k, E2K, and ISA server, let alone SQLServer. SBS gives them all > > this for the price of Win2K server alone! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:22 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > Well, the easiest way to do this is to install another E2K server and > > simply move the mailboxes to the new server. Now, the only thing that > > might throw a wrench into this for you is running sbs2k. And, I have > > repeatedly stated this and let me go on record as stating that SBS is > > a terrible product that should never be installed anywhere in the > > entire world because of the serious limitations that it imposes on > > organizations. This is a perfect example as to why an organization > > should NEVER install SBS. And if there are any companies out there > > that have consultants recommending SBS, fire them immediately and get > > somebody competant. > > > > One of the big problems with SBS is that it uses the Standard Edition > > of Microsoft Exchange, which has the nasty limitation of not being > > able to support multiple Exchange servers. > > > > From Microsoft docs: > > "Exchange 2000 on a Small Business Server installation is restricted > > from being part of a larger Exchange server organization. Because > > Small Business Server 2000 is installed as the root of the Active > > Directory forest, you cannot install the Exchange 2000 component into > > an existing organization." > > > > Also from Microsoft docs: > > "Full installation of Windows 2000 is required. It is not possible to > > upgrade Microsoft BackOffice Small Business Server to the Windows 2000 > > operating system; however, if your hardware meets the system > > requirements > > (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/sysreqs/) > > for Windows 2000, you can install the full product. > > > > The current plan for the next release of Small Business Server is to > > base the product on the Windows 2000 operating system. For more > > information about Small Business Server, see the Small Business Server > > Web site (http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusinessserver/default.htm)." > > > > What this means in a nutshell is that I don't have a solution for you. > > I have searched Technet and have not been able to find an acceptable > > upgrade path from SBS to anything useable. Essentially, since you are > > running SBS, you cannot install a new E2K server into the organization > > and simply move the user mailboxes. And, in all honesty, I have not > > found an acceptable way to upgrade SBS to W2K enterprise. > > > > If anyone has a solution out there for upgrading SBS to enterprise > > versions, I'd love to see it. There HAS to be a way, Microsoft could > > not have been THAT bone-headed. On the other hand, they released SBS > > so I guess I wouldn't put anything past them. > > > > One thing you might try is backing up your stores, installing a new > > non-SBS server with full W2K and E2K and restoring to that server. > > > > Avoid SBS like the plague, it is a terrible, terrible product and > > Microsoft, in good conscience, should NEVER have released it upon an > > unsuspecting public. > > > > > Exchange is working fine on the server its just that the raid set on > > > this dodgy ibm server keeps going critical after a reboot(keep getting > > > the runaround from ibm) and we want the customer to purchase a better > > > server but there is a lot of mail stored on it and i was just > > > wondering how easy/hard would it be to move the mail to another > > > server. Also is their any repercussions moving mail from sbs2k to a > > > win2k o/s. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Damian. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
