MS Exchange server on FreeBSD?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Anthony
> Atkielski
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 1:53 AM
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD?
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
> > Fine, you list the features you think are key ones and I'll
> provide it.
>
> Why not just buy Exchange?
>

You said you would be interested in other solutions that provided the
same features as Exchange.  What is wrong, were you not telling the
truth?

> 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.
>

I look for non-Microsoft solutions because they are cheaper and faster
and do what I need them to do.  To me this to me means better.  To
someone else who, perhaps, shits money out their ass when they go to the
crapper, well perhaps they can buy brand new hardware at $30K a pop for a
server, and make up for the speed
difference with it, and perhaps they don't care about it being cheaper.

Maybe you define better as what is better has more features?

Others may define better as running more reliably.  Still others may
define better as being more flexible.


> > 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.
>

I already mentioned Horde in another post.  And that's just from the
open source world.  I didn't even look at the commercial UNIX products.

> > It was garbage but it was a serious competitor, because it
> was the only
> > company that had the name recognition to build it's product
> up - if it
> > had been allowed to do it.
>
> It didn't actually have a product, though.  It bolted together standard
> SMTP and POP bits and pieces and tried to call it an integrated
> solution.
>

That is what they started with but they did also put in some of their
own code.

> 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.
>

How much was the investment in FreeBSD?  And who made it?

>
> > The Exchange webinterface - which is usable from any operating system
> > that you can run a browser on - provides exactly the same
> functionality as
> > Outlook client with the Exchange Connector to an Exchange
> server does.
> > Please explain how a Windows environment provides all the Exchange
> > features to the end user and a non-Windows environment does not.
>
> Not all non-Windows environments have equivalent clients.  A Web
> interface doesn't count, any more than connecting a dumb terminal to a
> mainframe makes the dumb terminal a PC.
>

Why doesen't it count?  That's just rediculous.

Ted