OT:Exchange good? (Was:Re: new hotness?)

[Bob Elzer]

Well I haven't used the latest exchange and it's been a while, so maybe you
can tell me if they worked around the issues I had with it.

It requires it's own server. On a single core server, it bogged the system
down so much, we couldn't run other apps. (granted it's probably best to do
that, but when you don't have the budget for it, you have to do)

There's no way to look at the raw email message on the server. Or go through
all the mail boxes.

Recovery requires a second machine. From what I remember it was convoluted,
but you need a second box.


-----Original Message-----
From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Bryan
O'Neal
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:45 AM
To: 'Main PLUG discussion list'
Subject: RE: OT:Exchange good? (Was:Re: new hotness?)

 
I disagree... Mostly.
> - Tough to backup
Like any database it needs to be shut down for standard file backups to work
properly.  This can be done via a simple script and is not a real issue.
However the use of back up programs like BackupExec make it a breeze to back
up and restore.  However I will agree that if you never had to deal with it
before and you don't have much space and you don't have something like
Backup Exec it can be daunting to figure out how to get regular backups
working.  That said I also like to run all the clients so they keep a copy
of all activity locally.  Not only does this speed up the clients but it
also ensures that if the server suddenly went belly up and the last backup I
had was 10 or 12 hours old (if I was using a file backup system) I could
restore everything up to the minuet for people who had their clients
running.  If I thought it was worth the time I would have liked to
virtualizes the exchange server and take regular snap shots of it throughout
the day. However other projects provided a greater return for the time
invested so I never got around to it.
> - Costly to integrate spyware, anti-virus and other content scanning
I never had any issues and must totally disagree. I have always used the
scanning built into exchange. This has been quite a nice feature since
Exchange 2003 SP2 which is quite good at controlling spam, viruses, and
generally enforcing corporate policies.  However, for less then $500 a year
you can get a third party to spam scan all of your email before it ever hits
your server.  If nothing else this pays for it's self in saved bandwidth.
If you are a medium size company initial spam scanning should be done by a
third party, after that Exchange can be tweaked quite easily to help enforce
corporate policies.  In addition integration with products like Avast make
it easy to offer AV/Threat scanning.  After that exchange is easy to set up
for limiting the kinds of files that can be sent or received, how big a
email can be, and even who emails can be sent or received from.  And while I
never did it, I am fairly certain you can do key word scanning as well.
Most of this this can be customized on a per user basses.
- Specialized client software (Outlook)
You can chose what ever client you want, but some features may not be
limited or not available. A fairly good webmail client is provided. You can
use POP and IMAP for any client with regards to your email. With some server
side add-ons colanders can be made available as well and global contacts can
be driven via ldap.  While it is true if you want to use the advanced
features you have to use outlook, but again, I have not found any other
client/sere pair that provides these features, so it is not surprising that
other clients can not use them when connecting to the server.
- Requires AD
Yes.  However this is like saying that it requires an MS server to run so I
really don't see your point.  I can integrate my Linux servers and clients
seamlessly into AD using krb and some people indicate the opposite is also
true.  It is an enterprise mail system designed around collaboration.  If
you don't have an enterprise to collaborate with you probably are not
looking at outlook.  If you believe it ads additional expense look at the
small business edition.  The price for a fully integrated MS environment is
very cheep these days.
- Quirky management interface
Agreed.  But then again I feel the same way about Mac OSX Server.  Each
flavor of server OS has it's quirks and MS is no different.  However I will
agree it is some what poorly documented and takes a bit to get used to. I
did not find it too difficult to learn but it took some learning to perform
a new task.  Similarly if you have not done something in six months it may
take you a bit of poking around to do it again.
- Vender lock
Yes if you don't use Outlook you lose features, but that is like saying if I
don't use the Yugma or Skype client I lose features of their services.  Sure
I may be able to hook up a multi protocol chat client to different IM's but
now I can't do multiple party video conferencing via the AOL IM server if I
don't use the Mac AOL IM client! That vender lock! :)  The argument is
rather ridicules especially since exchange server comes with unlimited
outlook client licenses (depends on version but basically you get one free
client for every licensed user)
- Outlook Training
True, this is something that generally is believed to lower your TCO.
However, the really advanced features are often unknown to most users.
Despite the fact that my users often complained about not having "something"
that could do X they never took the time to notice Outlook did X the whole
time.  Training should be required for every application I don't care what
OS.  And outlook is not as easy to understand as Evolution, but it is
something that the business world is used to and thus requires less
training.  That said we used to do lunch hour training session regularly on
almost everything IT from the email to the phones to the CRM package. We
also trained on standard policies and procedures.
-Best of Breed vs. Homogenous Enterprise Both purchasing the rite tool for
the job and keeping to a single vender have merits.  I personally believe in
the best of breed method, however I have never found a substitute for
Exchange/Outlook.  There are few to no other options to what outlook
provides an enterprise these days.  Remember we are not talking straight
single user email and calendar we are talking about something that provides
collaboration.  The ability to assign tasks, track those tasks, integrate
all communication associated with those tasks, etc., etc. etc. for
calendaring, contacts, tasks, etc. all in a single pim is a very nice thing.
Have you every used the journal feature in outlook?
Just because you have to pay for something does not mean the cost always
outweighs the benefit.  Once you have to start justifying your ROI on new
projects and show a comprehensive TOC analysis on what you already have, you
have to take a cold hard look at your products and emotions play no longer
can play a role in decision making.

All this said, I put SpeekBack.com on a combination of Google Aps and
Postfix because they were the rite tools for the job.  However for
Cornerstone Homes (and ASU) Exchange was the rite tool for the job.
Exchange is a very good tool to have in your IT bag of tricks when your job
is to reduce cost and maximize productivity of an entire enterprise. Unless
you have a real replacement, you should not bag on Exchange just because it
is Microsoft.  Indeed it is one of two evil empire products I often feel
compelled to defend.  Most others have their substitutes or are not commonly
used.  
Some uncommon product like groove are also quite interesting with few real
substitutes, but don't have the wide spread adoption to be used by most
businesses. And while I use others MS products, like Visio, it is only
because I already own it and know it, like using Photoshop vs. GIMP.  I
would never go purchase Photoshop, but I would not go out of my way to learn
GIMP if I already had Photoshop and new how to use it. Basically what I am
saying is don't hate a product because it is proprietary and you don't
understand it.  Now Hans can get away with hating something just because it
is not open but he never says he hates it because it cant be integrated, he
just says it's not open and that's enough :)

-----Original Message-----
From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Craig
White
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:14 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: OT:Exchange good? (Was:Re: new hotness?)

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 19:37 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Stephen <cryptworks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree on exchange really
> > If you need just email exchange is the wrong thing but if you are 
> > looking at all the other stuff I haven't seen anything close without 
> > some serious work and cobbling
> 
> As a forced user of Exchange via Outlook I consider the combination 
> proof that MS is a monopoly.  The number of UI odd-nesses, broken 
> metaphors, failures to schedule, etc. that I regularly suffer with 
> amaze me.  If it was a tool competing in a fair market, it would have 
> been ridiculed and died.  (Or our IT people are doing it wrong.)
> 
> That said, I have not been an administrator of such a server nor have 
> I used other competing solutions, other than Google.  But I am 
> saddened to think that Exchange and Outlook, as broken as they are, 
> represent the best enterprise PIM solution available.  Sad indeed.
----
Exchange can be a nightmare...

- Tough to backup
- Costly to integrate spyware, anti-virus and other content scanning
- Specialized client software (Outlook)
- Requires AD
- Quirky management interface

Perhaps the most aggravating thing is that if you don't use Outlook, you
lose features and it all just plays into vendor lock-in to support protocols
and features that are simply not standardized.

The main selling point to Exchange/Outlook is that management likes the
simple interface of Outlook...it's something that they can almost use
without much training and all of the nastiness is handled by others.

Today's office needs to look beyond single source, proprietary software if
they want to provide less costly, more standard options.

Contact management - LDAP is a fairly well standardized commodity.
IMAP is a well defined standard
CalDAV is well on it's way to becoming a standard

To combat this, Microsoft has apparently recently released documentation on
MAPI protocols so that other applications can integrate into Exchange
Server.

Thus there is little reason to adopt Exchange/Outlook today because there
are a lot of other options.

On the other hand, you are staring at an entrenched beast and we all know
that people purchase emotionally and defend rationally so it's a difficult
proposition to change, especially when the typical pointy haired boss is
comfortable with Outlook.

All I can say is that the wisdom of this can be found in the fraternity
initiation scene in Animal House...Thank you sir, may I have another.

Craig

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss