exchange server again

greets!

some weeks ago I posted requesting information about the implications for
a Linux user like myself of my college's decision to move people to
Microsoft Exchange Server.

the IT fellow here made some claims which, though it's pointless in a way,
I would like to rebut. I would welcome some sources and ideas.

he claimed:

(a) it is too expensive supporting Unix (they use some variant of this, I
believe Compaq) because of how much competent staff cost while you can get
competent Windows people relatively easily.

(I know this is an argument that Ballmer has made in some recent
communication.)

(b) many colleges and universities are moving away from Unix (and linux)
toward the Microsoft stuff.

(this runs totally against things I've been hearing but wish I had some
sources and statistics though I know hard statistics are elusive.)

please forgive: I know this is a kind of advocacy question and I will post
separately there (no follow-ups to this group), but I thought here I might
have a higher ratio of sober and informative replies. after I pick your
brains I'll go into the zoo and hope for some reasonable replies.

I see no chance of stopping the move but I would like to have something
more than hunches to utter the next time the IT guy makes these claims if
only for my own understanding.

Felmon

In comp.os.linux.networking felmon <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> greets!

> some weeks ago I posted requesting information about the implications for
> a Linux user like myself of my college's decision to move people to
> Microsoft Exchange Server.

> the IT fellow here made some claims which, though it's pointless in a way,
> I would like to rebut. I would welcome some sources and ideas.

> he claimed:

> (a) it is too expensive supporting Unix (they use some variant of this, I
> believe Compaq) because of how much competent staff cost while you can get
> competent Windows people relatively easily.

You mean Tru64, yep it might not be that easy finding competent
stuff to support alpha server. On the other hand competent
Windows people aren't that cheap either.

> (I know this is an argument that Ballmer has made in some recent
> communication.)

> (b) many colleges and universities are moving away from Unix (and linux)
> toward the Microsoft stuff.

> (this runs totally against things I've been hearing but wish I had some
> sources and statistics though I know hard statistics are elusive.)

Rubbish, see:
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/oss/Report-v8c.htm

> please forgive: I know this is a kind of advocacy question and I will post
> separately there (no follow-ups to this group), but I thought here I might
> have a higher ratio of sober and informative replies. after I pick your
> brains I'll go into the zoo and hope for some reasonable replies.

Colm would have been a better place then coln.

> I see no chance of stopping the move but I would like to have something
> more than hunches to utter the next time the IT guy makes these claims if
> only for my own understanding.

Those statement are the usual FUD you hear every other day from
people who didn't got beyond click/reboot administration.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 402: Secretary sent chain letter to all 5000
employees.

felmon wrote:

> greets!
>
> some weeks ago I posted requesting information about the implications for
> a Linux user like myself of my college's decision to move people to
> Microsoft Exchange Server.
>
> the IT fellow here made some claims which, though it's pointless in a way,
> I would like to rebut. I would welcome some sources and ideas.
>
> he claimed:
>
> (a) it is too expensive supporting Unix (they use some variant of this, I
> believe Compaq) because of how much competent staff cost while you can get
> competent Windows people relatively easily.
>
> (I know this is an argument that Ballmer has made in some recent
> communication.)
>
> (b) many colleges and universities are moving away from Unix (and linux)
> toward the Microsoft stuff.
>
> (this runs totally against things I've been hearing but wish I had some
> sources and statistics though I know hard statistics are elusive.)
>
> please forgive: I know this is a kind of advocacy question and I will post
> separately there (no follow-ups to this group), but I thought here I might
> have a higher ratio of sober and informative replies. after I pick your
> brains I'll go into the zoo and hope for some reasonable replies.
>
> I see no chance of stopping the move but I would like to have something
> more than hunches to utter the next time the IT guy makes these claims if
> only for my own understanding.
>
> Felmon

I think going up head on against any beast is dangerous.
You should focus step by step approach.
For example installing a simple GNU/Linux server with vncserver
and then using windopes to log into it using tightVNC
and use it. Many PCs can log in at once and this is a
teaching aid and gives time for everyone to get
familiar with many aspects of GNU/Linux.

Then you set up another machine that provides exchange like
services. It can run in parallel so that users can
choose where to download their emails where its virus
and spam filtered with tools such as spam assasin.

Then you set up a proxy server such as privoxy
that users can go through to filter out ads and
dangerous scripts from dodgy websites.

And then you give ftp and web space students
on a GNU/Linux server.

Then you give them MySQL and PHP services.

And so on. Keep increasing the levels of service through
these incremental parallel alternatives until
windopes and all its problems and TCO outweigh
the existing systems that are built up in parallel.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:00:07 +0000, 7 wrote:


> I think going up head on against any beast is dangerous. You should
> focus step by step approach.

I am not in that position. I am a teacher in a non-technical field and
have no way to set up anything college-wide, or even in my Department for
that matter. I do sit on a committee that addresses policy and members of
the faculty like me sit face-to-face with some of the info tech policy
people.

I can't do much to change their policies but I can counter some of the
arguments. I am happy to report that I am not alone in having some
misgivings.

perhaps I shouldn't be too pessimistic.

Felmon

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:31:49 +0200, Michael Heiming wrote:

>> (a) it is too expensive supporting Unix (they use some variant of this,
>> I believe Compaq) because of how much competent staff cost while you
>> can get competent Windows people relatively easily.
>
> You mean Tru64, yep it might not be that easy finding competent stuff to
> support alpha server. On the other hand competent Windows people aren't
> that cheap either.

yes, Tru64. hmm..., so maybe their argument is, they can't find someone to
work specifically on this server and then by a breathtaking leap of logic, they
conclude they must go to Exchange Server? I wonder. I may be able to
instigate some discussion of the move in the committee I sit on.

>
>> (I know this is an argument that Ballmer has made in some recent
>> communication.)
>
>> (b) many colleges and universities are moving away from Unix (and
>> linux) toward the Microsoft stuff.
>
>> (this runs totally against things I've been hearing but wish I had some
>> sources and statistics though I know hard statistics are elusive.)
>
> Rubbish, see:
> http://www.ogc.gov.uk/oss/Report-v8c.htm

looking at this, I see some useful stuff but I am just scanning the beginning.
the thing that strikes me is their conclusions are the OSS is robust on the
server even if there are problems on the desktop. it is precisely the server
that our IT people are talking about. strange.

>
>> please forgive: I know this is a kind of advocacy question and I will
>> post separately there (no follow-ups to this group), but I thought here
>> I might have a higher ratio of sober and informative replies. after I
>> pick your brains I'll go into the zoo and hope for some reasonable
>> replies.
>
> Colm would have been a better place then coln.

alright; I will post there.

>> I see no chance of stopping the move but I would like to have something
>> more than hunches to utter the next time the IT guy makes these claims
>> if only for my own understanding.
>
> Those statement are the usual FUD you hear every other day from people
> who didn't got beyond click/reboot administration.

thanks for the advice. there may be a movement afoot to, ah, clarify the
situation esp. since this decision was taken without consultation. however,
I believe the horse is out of the barn.

vielen dank.

Felmon

In comp.os.linux.networking felmon <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:31:49 +0200, Michael Heiming wrote:

>>> (a) it is too expensive supporting Unix (they use some variant of this,
>>> I believe Compaq) because of how much competent staff cost while you
>>> can get competent Windows people relatively easily.
>>
>> You mean Tru64, yep it might not be that easy finding competent stuff to
>> support alpha server. On the other hand competent Windows people aren't
>> that cheap either.

> yes, Tru64. hmm..., so maybe their argument is, they can't find someone to
> work specifically on this server and then by a breathtaking leap of logic, they
> conclude they must go to Exchange Server? I wonder. I may be able to
> instigate some discussion of the move in the committee I sit on.

The question is what is that box running? Sounds like some MTA,
should be sendmail per default. Sure you can easily run your MTA
sendmail/etc on Linux in addition you can implement what works
quite well with a little configuring against spam, SA:

http://spamassassin.org/

(Comes with many distro)

[..]

>> Rubbish, see:
>> http://www.ogc.gov.uk/oss/Report-v8c.htm

> looking at this, I see some useful stuff but I am just scanning the beginning.
> the thing that strikes me is their conclusions are the OSS is robust on the
> server even if there are problems on the desktop. it is precisely the server
> that our IT people are talking about. strange.

Works like a charm on my desktop(s).
[..]

> vielen dank.

Good luck

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 374: It's the InterNIC's fault.