MS Exchange server on FreeBSD?

[Anthony Atkielski]

Duo writes:

> And you failed to answer his question. Why not stop trying to avoid it by
> answering it.

I did answer it.  I asked for a product that provides ALL the features
of Exchange.  And he surely knows what all of the features of Exchange
are, otherwise he could not say with confidence that other UNIX products
provide them.

> 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.

So you never buy Intel microprocessors, and you never buy anything with
a zipper?  (Remember, YKK has a virtual world monopoly on zippers.)

> And yes, looking for non MS solutions, for the sake of it, is a valid
> choice.

Not for many corporate managers.  They don't care whether it's Microsoft
or not, as long as it's the best tool for the job.  People don't usually
reach the upper levels of management in large corporations by indulging
emotional attachments to one vendor or another.

> It's the only way some things get better.

If you had been using Microsoft Mail (or its inferior predecessor,
Network Courrier, which Microsoft bought, modified, and marketed as
Microsoft Mail), you could have gone to Exchange and things would have
gotten a lot better ... without ever leaving Microsoft.

> 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.

So does Microsoft.  That's how it stays on top.

It's all a bit amusing, since I remember when Microsoft was the underdog
and the Great Satan was IBM or DEC.  The names change, but the game
remains the same, and the flying accusations are just as baseless today
as they were back then.

It's a pity that no discussion of software can be carried out these days
without degenerating into religious jihads against Microsoft.

> I need a credit card before MS will talk to me.

You need a stroke of good luck before someone working on open source
will talk to you.

I'm still waiting for solutions to my SATA and SCSI problems.

> 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.

The success of the product would seem to belie your claim.  A lot of
organizations and users really like Exchange.

> 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.

There's only one process running against the database in Exchange.

I have yet to see anything on microcomputers that I'd call a real DBMS,
but perhaps someone out there is coming close.  Eventually they'll
reinvent what mainframe programmers knew thirty-five years ago.

> 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.

Step number one in any Exchange database failure is to turn off and
deinstall all the antivirus junk running against it.

I'd tend to prefer to put antivirus stuff on the client, not on the
server.  Some users may not want their e-mail scanned for viruses.
Power users, in particular, may not want any virus protections at all,
since they know not to click on attachments and antivirus software all
too often hashes the very system it's supposed to protect.

> 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.

You don't have to run virus scanners.

> The whole point of UNIX, and Open Source is a number of people, getting
> together and saying..."It shouldnt have to be that hard"

Or a number of people drifting apart and saying "I'm tired of working on
this."  Or a number of people saying, "Look, I'm not paid for this, if
you have a problem with it, get the source and fix it yourself."

> MS has had YEARS to put a SQL backend onto Exchange, yet have not.

That was a deliberate choice on the part of MS, mainly because they were
worried about performance and about flexibility.  I've always felt that
it might not have been a very good decision, but there you have it.

Then again, I'm not sure that _any_ kind of database is really a good
idea in a messaging system.  You really don't need a full database for
e-mail.

> 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.

Real-world installations demonstrate that Exchange is indeed a very
worthwhile solution for many large organizations.  The rich feature set
it provides more than compensates for its shortcomings, in the eyes of
these organizations.

> Not quite the "same" featureset as Exchange, but, I am supporting
> developers who *care* about what I want.

Microsoft cares, too, and many changes and features in Exchange were
driven by customer demand.  Companies that don't care go out of
business.

Open-source developers tend to care about doing stuff that's fun, and
ignoring stuff that isn't.  So if the features you want are fun to
write, you'll get them; otherwise you won't.

> I am voting with my pocketbook ...

How much are you paying the open-source developers?

> ... 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.

I think it is professionally irresponsible to let one's emotions drive
one's choice of vendor or product--particularly when one is being paid
to make recommendations on these.  If one can't choose the best tool for
the job with a cool and objective head, it may be wise to move to
another career that one doesn't take so personally.

> Not wanting to use MS is a perfectly valid course of action ...

Not for most large organizations and end users.  They don't care.  They
just want the right tool for the job, and they don't care where it comes
from.

> There probably isint a one stop shop.

I know.  And that's a big point in favor of Exchange.

> However, there dosent need to be.

Yes, there does, for organizations that don't want to hire legions of
consultants or geeky IT staff to stitch something together from bits and
pieces.

> In fact, there is something to be said for multiple services offering
> features. Exchange is bloated. Alot of its problems come from this bloat.

So do a lot of its features and advantages.  In large organizations,
Exchange looks pretty small and insignificant compared to their overall
IT infrastructure.  Buying a dozen cutting-edge servers to support
Exchange is just pocket change to them.

> 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.

You might, but many other organizations have different ideas.

> Bullshit. Exchange is the perfect example of microsofts policy of embrace
> and extend.

How so?

> 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 originally relied heavily on the X.400 standard, which
Microsoft did not write.  They wanted it to conform to standards, and
SMTP/POP were too simplistic to fit the feature set they wanted, so they
went with X.400.  Unfortunately, nobody really used X.400 outside of a
handful of organizations, and so they gradually shifted towards SMTP
models.  Of course, the internal architecture has always been
proprietary, but it was largely driven by a need to fit existing
standards.

> Funny, then you are one of 5 people I know of, who claim to have no
> problem.

I'm one of the people who knew what he was doing.

> 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.

Apparently employers don't agree.

> The mere fact that Exchange admin can be a full time job is sad enough.

In large organizations, mail administration is often a full-time job for
an entire department of people.

-- 
Anthony