Slashdot Mirror
Exchange vs. Linux/390 Comparison
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."
That is my experience too. Some uninformed managers think that because WindowsNT/2000 has a familiar user interface it is easier to manage and can be done by less competent adminstrators (or even themselves :-)
Let's face it: The major factor is the system administrator. If he/she is competent the system TCO will go down. If he/she is incompetent the TCO will go up.
Good system administators are lazy and try to automate everything so they don't have to work. *nix systems are better at that than Windows (or OS/2, DOS for that matter)
The reason that Notes users use less e-mail is that most Notes shops have a plethera of other groupware applications that they've hacked together. That is actually a *good* thing because information is centrally managed and indexed, and not laying around people's inboxes.
I've worked at several Notes shops. People have their nose in Notes all day long. Can't say that for the Microsoft shops I've worked at (where things are spread around between different VB and Access apps, and way way too much stuff is done in e-mail for the lack of a better way.)
Exchange has most of the infrastructure, BTW. Just that Outlook is a real pile of shit from a programmatic standpoint (just as Notes is shit from a UI perspective...)
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Somehow those numbers look pretty high - especially if you look at the solutions other companies run...
3 6xXeon systems 2 to 1 failover $80k
1 Linux retail box $75
2 Admins @ 75k/year $150k
-----
$230.075
Well, dont know but somehow this whole linux on mainframe seems like overkill for me - especially since the mainframe CPU's arent all that impressive and the linux vm's dont profit all that much of the datatransfer rates a mainframe offers...
Um, don't get too excited about this report:
The custom test was designed by eTesting Labs to simulate from 33,320 to 83,300 POP/SMTP users that checked their mail every 60 minutes and sent a single 10K byte message to three recipients every 60 minutes.
Honestly, if you are using your Exchange server as a POP/SMTP server only you are wasting your money. Exchange is groupware, you do not use it as a POP/SMTP server. Save your money and just run sendmail on Linux, BSD or Solaris. Exchange is for calendering, scheduling, messaging, etc. This report is pretty much worthless.
Q.
That's incorrect.
At a minimum every company I have ever encountered with Exchange, Lotus Notes etc has used it for email and scheduling. Most critical is the scheduling of conference rooms and other resources.
I agree that there are a great many features that are not used routinely, but in the companies where they are used they are absolutely critical.
Many companies have built solutions for ordering office supplies, computers, move/add/change requests, etc. using automated message forms. I've seen these in both Exchange and Notes.
I think you would have a hard time walking into any major corporation and telling them. "Look, we know you use groupware. But we are a lot smarter than you and we know that all you really need is just simple email."
Of course, Bynari also runs on Linux/x86 and Solaris/sparc, for folks with a more typical environment.
Folks,
.. In the corporate world, you have to be able to do things such as "recover" a significant (L)user deleted email. If the CEO says "whoops, I poo-poo canned it accidentally", you're expected to fix the situation..
You're missing the entire point of deploying a messaging system in a corporate environment. This is what messes Linux up. It's nice that you can run SendMail, popD and whatever on the big hardware.. but.. for my corporate end users, this isn't adequate.
Here are my criteria, sorted in no particular order, for a system that I would be happy to deploy to my 700+ users:
1) Reliable: No loss of data (no PC storage, backups are centralized). [admittedly, tough to maintain with exchange, in the field]
2) Useability: (l)Users can find their info quickly and easily. (search via header, sender, date, text in body, text in attachments, etc..)
3) Manageable costs associated with the above two criteria. I'm not claiming $0 cost -- but predictable and manageable costs.
That's it. Exchange rules at meeting those criteria. I don't want to backup 700+ PC's -- I don't run an ISP!
Which is quite common, for the market that Linux is "trying" to target -- except that most implementers assume there is a *nice* SLA in place.. the small/medium size market is not ready for the lack of end-user features that are present in the *VAST* majority of the distributions.
gimmie M$ Small Business Server vs. a Linux/POP3/IMAP solution and I only have to wait until the first end-user "OOPSIE" as a sysadmin, before I toss linux out the window..
Cheers,
Scoots.