> Yeah, I suppose that Access databases are Jet databases doesn't matter.
Correct. A Chevy is a Chevy, but a Chevette is not a Corvette. Jet is just the name for a database technology, but there are many distinctly different Jet engines. Access is one. ESE (what Exchange and Active Directory use) is another. They are totally different.
Tough to address your myriad problems in the present, since it's clear you're only talking about Exchange 5.5. E2k has been out for well over a year and doesn't: have an "ims", crash the store on malformatted messages, corrupt the store on malformatted messages, have slow mail delivery via IMAP or otherwise, OR default configure for open relay.
The corruption of mail store you mentioned on improper shutdown is iffy at best, since it does a transactional log replay when it comes back up. Maybe you have hardware problems that prevented the proper use of the transaction logs (ie - write caching, etc?)
I propose that if a company has 35,000 users -- as in the 300 server example -- their layout is probably this: a small number of powerful servers at a "headquarters" type of location, with the rest spread throughout the world. The vast majority of the executives will be located at the headquarters, and -- seeing that this example is a government agency -- no doubt will number more than 1200. If you don't think these users send 1mb attachments to an "all executives" sort of distribution list, you clearly don't work in a mail-ops job.
Poof. Instant time and space savings, even if spread across 20-30 servers.
That was missing functionality in Outlook, not Exchange -- and no. Not for years. Automatic resource scheduling was added to the client in OL2k, I believe.
> I like how it corrupts its Jet (Access) database
Just because it's "Jet" based doesn't make it an Access database. Perhaps some of the problems you had were because you tried to open it up in Access to look at the pretty tables? With all the problems you list, isn't it possible you might have configured something incorrectly? Crashing, corrupted message stores, slow mail delivery, open relay... Hmm...
>35,000 mailboxes on 300 servers, huh? Wow, that's like, 116 mailboxes per server. Yeah, scales really well.
Again, maybe they have 300 offices. Just because a company chooses to have 300 servers doesn't mean it's a limitation of the software scalability. Come on... oracle proposes to host their entire world-wide network on a single email server/cluster in California. Yeah, that'll be fast for the thousands of email users in China (or anywhere) connected over a slow and/or loaded WAN pipe.
> And since email was stored in regular files, searching for messages was easy.
Searching for messages is easy on Exchange too, with full-text indexing. How much space does your email store take up with each message for each user stored individually? Lots!
How much space and time does it take to deliver an email with a 1mb PPT attachment to all 1200 of your executives (1200 mb + time to deliver to each and every file-based mailbox in the file system)? On Exchange, that same email could potentially take less than a second to deliver to all 1200 execs, and take just a smidge over 1mb to store!
> i think what really would be needed are competitive native linux apps which people would actually want to buy
Talk talk talk. You've got the kernel source code. Don't even have to fight past any undocumented system APIs, as you supposedly have to with Windows. Go write these great "competitive native linux apps" that are "needed" on Linux! Why does it always have to be someone else taking this (oft posted) suggestion? That's the benefit of open source, right? Everybody can get the kernel source, so therefore anyone can be a top-dog programmer and write some great apps...?
Or is the benefit this week the "way better security since everyone takes the time to do security audits on their redhat system before they unleash it on the world"? I can't remember which.
Or perhaps it might apply to families that build (not buy from an OEM) their 2.5 kids a new PC every 2 years for college. If they've sold out, there must be SOME demand for it.
Except if you do that, you cannot get support from MS if/when you need it.
Probably most people who would pirate the software won't call for support anyways, so no loss.
It's folks who aren't as technically self-sufficient who won't hesitate to pay for the proper number of licenses.
The misunderstanding here is that a retail license is not like an OEM license.
Think of it like this: Factory outlet clothes. Sure, they're probably the same clothes, but the label is different... and you can't exchange your factory outlet clothes at the retail store.
If you have a 10% off coupon for a retail GAP store, would you expect them to honor it at the factory outlet? You shouldn't. This is very similar to hardware.. OEM CPU's with lesser warranty periods, no attached fans, etc.
The OEM license is not treated at all the same as a retail license. You're paying much less than the retail price to buy it, so "saving $10 off the retail price" is not worth it to any of the parties involved.
Look. You didn't mention IE in your original post at all. You mentioned the server product, and how Netscape somehow couldn't compete with IIS licenses being bundled with NT.
I'm far enough past high school to know that it's all just business, and I don't think MS is evil. I was sarcastically dismissing your claim as such. Read it again if you're not clear. Netscape never got to be evil in the sense you claim MS is because they were too busy not having a money-making business model and therefore going out of business.
Further, it's disingenuous to your point to put words in my mouth. I never even mentioned "Bill", so I clearly did not "admit that (he) is evil".
Netscape appears to have thought that the whole free-market economy had magically changed once they arrived. Surprise. It's still about making money for your shareholders.
Long explanation, short: It's all just software and business, buddy. If you think the success of one product or vender over the other is really going to change your life, you're likely in for a letdown.
Fine. 6 years ago then. IIS didn't even exist. NCSA's webserver was everywhere... and free. What's your point exactly?
My point was that if the threat of a widely available and free webserver was what killed Netscape, then they were doomed from the start thanks to open source Apache. Run it on BSD, Linux, Solaris, who the hell cares... it's still free.
I would submit that most businesses which put up a website in that time-frame did so on unix, and that the majority of them are still running unix. It's Apache on Unix that killed Netscape on Unix, before IIS on NT was ever a serious competitor.
Yeah yeah, MS is evil. Boo hoo. Netscape would have been evil too if the free-market would have allowed it to.
I could be wrong here but I think next year is 2002, not 2003.
From the link so helpfully posted earlier in the thread:
Desktop operating systems entering Non-Supported phase (effective date):
MS DOS x.xx (December 31, 2001)
Windows 3.xx (December 31, 2001)
Windows 95 (December 31, 2001)
Windows NT 3.5x (December 31, 2001)
Windows 98/98 SE (June 30, 2003)
Windows NT 4.xx (June 30, 2003)
Windows98 is no longer supported as of June of 2003... a full year-and-a-half away, and nearly 5 years after it was released!
You can still run it. It doesn't magically switch itself off... just if you discover a new "bug" somehow, you can't get it fixed any more.
One could conceivably argue that if Netscape's income was mostly based on their server product, and "nobody can compete" with a freebie web sever product included with an OS distribution, then it's really probably more the fault of Linux than Windows that Netscape went under.
Remember, back 3 years ago, many more websites ran on (free) apache running on BSD or Linux than ran on IIS...
As far as XP goes I heard a funny story from a friend who administers Windows machines. He said they demanded their own DNS and refused to work with a standard DNS server. Know anything about that?
I know that it's not true... Active Directory requires DNS that can do SRV records (and your life will be happier if it can also do Dynamic registrations). Both of these are standards supported on BIND if you so desire.
XP standalone or in a workgroup couldn't care less about what (if any) DNS you use.
worth looking at if for no other reason than lack of scripting viruses
I think you're confusing Exchange with Outlook. If he switches to Notes/Domino he would have to swap Outlook at each of his desktops to that ugly memory hog Lotus client. He could much more easily keep Exchange, connect to it with Outlook XP, and not have to worry about scripting viruses!
Oh, for the love of pete. The number depends on the product you're calling for.
But let's humour you for just a second. Say you go out to a retail store and buy Windows XP Home Edition. Here's the number:
(800) 936-5700
Personal Support is available Monday through Friday 5:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. Pacific time, Saturday 5:00 A,M. - 3:00 P.M., and Sunday 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
TTY users, please call (800) 892-5234.
Shh... don't tell anyone you found this though. Cause Microsoft goes to great lengths to hide it from the unwashed masses. I'll let you in on how to find it though, so you can feel all special and tingly inside...
1) Go to http://support.microsoft.com
2) Click on "call microsoft support"
3) Choose your country
4) Decide if you're a home user or a business
5) Select your product from the drop down
finally (get this)
6) click "go"
Now... are you criticizing Slashdot for accepting stupid, redundant articles and rejecting fresh, insightful submissions? That's the new policy, you know.:)
This comment needs to be modded up. I also looked through my OfficeXP With FrontPage EULA and could find no such quote.
He's blowing smoke up our ass just to get a slashdot's load of hits on his column, methinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. A Chevy is a Chevy, but a Chevette is not a Corvette. Jet is just the name for a database technology, but there are many distinctly different Jet engines. Access is one. ESE (what Exchange and Active Directory use) is another. They are totally different.
Tough to address your myriad problems in the present, since it's clear you're only talking about Exchange 5.5. E2k has been out for well over a year and doesn't: have an "ims", crash the store on malformatted messages, corrupt the store on malformatted messages, have slow mail delivery via IMAP or otherwise, OR default configure for open relay.
The corruption of mail store you mentioned on improper shutdown is iffy at best, since it does a transactional log replay when it comes back up. Maybe you have hardware problems that prevented the proper use of the transaction logs (ie - write caching, etc?)
I propose that if a company has 35,000 users -- as in the 300 server example -- their layout is probably this: a small number of powerful servers at a "headquarters" type of location, with the rest spread throughout the world. The vast majority of the executives will be located at the headquarters, and -- seeing that this example is a government agency -- no doubt will number more than 1200. If you don't think these users send 1mb attachments to an "all executives" sort of distribution list, you clearly don't work in a mail-ops job.
Poof. Instant time and space savings, even if spread across 20-30 servers.
That was missing functionality in Outlook, not Exchange -- and no. Not for years. Automatic resource scheduling was added to the client in OL2k, I believe.
Just because it's "Jet" based doesn't make it an Access database. Perhaps some of the problems you had were because you tried to open it up in Access to look at the pretty tables? With all the problems you list, isn't it possible you might have configured something incorrectly? Crashing, corrupted message stores, slow mail delivery, open relay... Hmm...
>35,000 mailboxes on 300 servers, huh? Wow, that's like, 116 mailboxes per server. Yeah, scales really well.
Again, maybe they have 300 offices. Just because a company chooses to have 300 servers doesn't mean it's a limitation of the software scalability. Come on... oracle proposes to host their entire world-wide network on a single email server/cluster in California. Yeah, that'll be fast for the thousands of email users in China (or anywhere) connected over a slow and/or loaded WAN pipe.
> And since email was stored in regular files, searching for messages was easy.
Searching for messages is easy on Exchange too, with full-text indexing. How much space does your email store take up with each message for each user stored individually? Lots!
How much space and time does it take to deliver an email with a 1mb PPT attachment to all 1200 of your executives (1200 mb + time to deliver to each and every file-based mailbox in the file system)? On Exchange, that same email could potentially take less than a second to deliver to all 1200 execs, and take just a smidge over 1mb to store!
Maybe they have 300 offices and don't want the Outlook traffic sent over the WAN.
> i think what really would be needed are competitive native linux apps which people would actually want to buy
Talk talk talk. You've got the kernel source code. Don't even have to fight past any undocumented system APIs, as you supposedly have to with Windows. Go write these great "competitive native linux apps" that are "needed" on Linux! Why does it always have to be someone else taking this (oft posted) suggestion? That's the benefit of open source, right? Everybody can get the kernel source, so therefore anyone can be a top-dog programmer and write some great apps...?
Or is the benefit this week the "way better security since everyone takes the time to do security audits on their redhat system before they unleash it on the world"? I can't remember which.
But what do you run INSIDE VMware? You're not really "wiping" Windows from your system if you're running it under VMware...
Funny post, sure... but realistically, how is it MS' fault that you "clicked on the link" and your "netscape browser promptly crashed". Come on.
I thought it was only 6.5 and earlier...
Or perhaps it might apply to families that build (not buy from an OEM) their 2.5 kids a new PC every 2 years for college. If they've sold out, there must be SOME demand for it.
Except if you do that, you cannot get support from MS if/when you need it.
Probably most people who would pirate the software won't call for support anyways, so no loss.
It's folks who aren't as technically self-sufficient who won't hesitate to pay for the proper number of licenses.
The misunderstanding here is that a retail license is not like an OEM license.
Think of it like this: Factory outlet clothes. Sure, they're probably the same clothes, but the label is different... and you can't exchange your factory outlet clothes at the retail store.
If you have a 10% off coupon for a retail GAP store, would you expect them to honor it at the factory outlet? You shouldn't. This is very similar to hardware.. OEM CPU's with lesser warranty periods, no attached fans, etc.
The OEM license is not treated at all the same as a retail license. You're paying much less than the retail price to buy it, so "saving $10 off the retail price" is not worth it to any of the parties involved.
Let me know how it's going and I might just join up with you after I've finished boycotting MS. HA!
Look. You didn't mention IE in your original post at all. You mentioned the server product, and how Netscape somehow couldn't compete with IIS licenses being bundled with NT.
I'm far enough past high school to know that it's all just business, and I don't think MS is evil. I was sarcastically dismissing your claim as such. Read it again if you're not clear. Netscape never got to be evil in the sense you claim MS is because they were too busy not having a money-making business model and therefore going out of business.
Further, it's disingenuous to your point to put words in my mouth. I never even mentioned "Bill", so I clearly did not "admit that (he) is evil".
Netscape appears to have thought that the whole free-market economy had magically changed once they arrived. Surprise. It's still about making money for your shareholders.
Long explanation, short: It's all just software and business, buddy. If you think the success of one product or vender over the other is really going to change your life, you're likely in for a letdown.
And the communal-thinkers at Slashdot accuse MS of spreading FUD... Sheesh.
Fine. 6 years ago then. IIS didn't even exist. NCSA's webserver was everywhere... and free. What's your point exactly?
My point was that if the threat of a widely available and free webserver was what killed Netscape, then they were doomed from the start thanks to open source Apache. Run it on BSD, Linux, Solaris, who the hell cares... it's still free.
I would submit that most businesses which put up a website in that time-frame did so on unix, and that the majority of them are still running unix. It's Apache on Unix that killed Netscape on Unix, before IIS on NT was ever a serious competitor.
Yeah yeah, MS is evil. Boo hoo. Netscape would have been evil too if the free-market would have allowed it to.
Whew.. Good thing Nintendo is selling it for $199 then!
Well, let's all get out our checkbooks and get started then, shall we?
I could be wrong here but I think next year is 2002, not 2003.
From the link so helpfully posted earlier in the thread:
Desktop operating systems entering Non-Supported phase (effective date):
MS DOS x.xx (December 31, 2001)
Windows 3.xx (December 31, 2001)
Windows 95 (December 31, 2001)
Windows NT 3.5x (December 31, 2001)
Windows 98/98 SE (June 30, 2003)
Windows NT 4.xx (June 30, 2003)
Windows98 is no longer supported as of June of 2003... a full year-and-a-half away, and nearly 5 years after it was released!
You can still run it. It doesn't magically switch itself off... just if you discover a new "bug" somehow, you can't get it fixed any more.
One could conceivably argue that if Netscape's income was mostly based on their server product, and "nobody can compete" with a freebie web sever product included with an OS distribution, then it's really probably more the fault of Linux than Windows that Netscape went under.
Remember, back 3 years ago, many more websites ran on (free) apache running on BSD or Linux than ran on IIS...
I know that it's not true... Active Directory requires DNS that can do SRV records (and your life will be happier if it can also do Dynamic registrations). Both of these are standards supported on BIND if you so desire.
XP standalone or in a workgroup couldn't care less about what (if any) DNS you use.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why not compare your recent linux distro to XP then?
I think you're confusing Exchange with Outlook.
If he switches to Notes/Domino he would have to swap Outlook at each of his desktops to that ugly memory hog Lotus client.
He could much more easily keep Exchange, connect to it with Outlook XP, and not have to worry about scripting viruses!
Oh, for the love of pete. The number depends on the product you're calling for.
But let's humour you for just a second. Say you go out to a retail store and buy Windows XP Home Edition. Here's the number:
(800) 936-5700
Personal Support is available Monday through Friday 5:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. Pacific time, Saturday 5:00 A,M. - 3:00 P.M., and Sunday 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
TTY users, please call (800) 892-5234.
Shh... don't tell anyone you found this though. Cause Microsoft goes to great lengths to hide it from the unwashed masses. I'll let you in on how to find it though, so you can feel all special and tingly inside...
1) Go to http://support.microsoft.com
2) Click on "call microsoft support"
3) Choose your country
4) Decide if you're a home user or a business
5) Select your product from the drop down
finally (get this)
6) click "go"
Now... are you criticizing Slashdot for accepting stupid, redundant articles and rejecting fresh, insightful submissions? That's the new policy, you know. :)
This comment needs to be modded up. I also looked through my OfficeXP With FrontPage EULA and could find no such quote.
He's blowing smoke up our ass just to get a slashdot's load of hits on his column, methinks.