On 10 Dec 2013, at 15:42, Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-10 9:23 AM, DTNX Postmaster <postmas...@dtnx.net> wrote: >> Do your own comparison based on the TCO of what you have, vs. what you will >> need for Exchange Server. Focus on the needs of the company over a five-year >> time period. >> >> Include the higher hardware requirements, licensing, extra staff, third >> party software (backup, management software, archiving ...) and so on. If >> cost is a factor for the company, you might be able to win on that. > > I will be doing this obviously, and yes, cost will be a factor, but not a > huge/insurmountable one. > > My question has to do with the POLITICAL aspect of this question of what > constitutes 'normal' for mid to large(r) companies. In my experience, if the only vector you can argue on is the political one, you will have an Exchange implementation on your hands; 'normal' equals Exchange. The only counter you can really make is the cost/time/simplicity advantages of the F/OSS alternatives. And perhaps these days, the disadvantages of reliance on commercial software that cannot be audited for backdoors and whatnot. Focus on the relevant parameters for your specific situation, and counter based on that. Mvg, Joni
