Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Exchange vs. Linux/390 Comparison

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the taking-a-close-look-at-it dept.

eclarkso writes: " The Consulting Times has done a quite even-handed study of the TCO for each platform in a fairly large (5000+) enterprise environment. The article is as much a commentary on the mainframe architecture as it is on Exchange vs. Linux groupware."

3 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Management Overhead. by Rimbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "For the sake of simplicity, certain items such as depreciation and management overhead were excluded from the comparisons."

    It's kind of interesting, since management overhead is widely regarded as the main reason why people prefer Windoze systems to Linux systems. People believe that it costs less money to perform essential administration tasks in Windows than it does in Linux.

    I'm not stating that the costs actually are lower, but it's not a terribly informative article if they're going to eliminate that important bit of information.

  2. have you seen the new mainframes? by denshi · · Score: 5, Informative
    In this case, the S/390 series. The zSeries mainframes (12 CPUs) are about half the height of a rack and a bit wider. And the power requirements are way lower.

    Why do you need VM programmers? The port is already done, the logic for running Linux as a guest OS is there, and it's stable. Henceforth you should be coding on the Linux level, not the VM level.

  3. Re:Yes, it looked pretty bogus. Virus, User Troubl by sheldon · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Fred can reply to you@foo.com, but doesn't have a way to reply to "Joe User, Marketing" or whatever Jane's fictitious title is. "

    Huh?

    Exchange automatically does the conversion when it goes out the SMTP layer.