Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
There is now little doubt that Muslim religious extremists perpetrated these terrorist attacks.
Therefore, it is fair to say that Islamic extremism should bear the burden of responsibility for these attacks.
It has long been my opinion that the enemy is not Iran, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, etc. but is in fact Islamic religious culture, which is fundamentally hostile and alien to the Western lifestyle, culture, and civilization.
I have absolutely noting against Muslims in the SECULAR culture of the USA. But you're living in a shell if you think that Islam in the USA is even remotely similar to the anti-secular, anti-West, fanatical culture that you see is so-called "Islamic republics" like Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc. These are places where you can still get stoned to death for adultery or sentenced to death for blasphemy. These nations and cultures are foreign and hostile to secular culture, particularly Western culture.
As far as I'm concerned, it is this culture that is the enemy. It's them or us (certainly Osama Bin Laden feels this way). I the only solution to make the USA truly free from these types of attacks is to utterly destroy these anti-West, fanatical religious cultures.
Now what's the best way to do this? It's not bombs or bullets. It's using our culture. It's Baywatch and Coca-Cola. It's exporting, subverting, and undermining Islamic culture at every turn.
Now this might offend some people. I don't care. This is the REAL culture war, and the battle lines were drawn a long time ago. Either you're for Western culture or you're not. I believe the Western values of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, due process, and secular government are worth defending.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
So here's where I'm going with this. Damn your civil liberties, at least on an aircraft. No, people don't need to be shackled, and they don't need to be treated like they are in a state prison, but our airport security is pathetic. I did a risk assessment on commercial airtravel four years ago. I discovered that 3 out of 4 times airport security won't recognise a -=handgrenade=- going through an x-ray machine. So no, we don't need to do rectal cavity searches. Anyone who tells you that is an alarmist and probably not the brighest bulb on the tree, but we do need to enforce the security protocols that have always been there. That, and can someone please tell me who thought that having knife blades under four inches was allowable? Yeesh.... how deep is your neck anyhow?
To which I say, "So what?" These planes were hijacked with simple knives and boxcutters and EMPTY boxes that the terrorists claimed were bombs? What kind of security is going to prevent this?
Prisoners, in USA prisons, regularly make so-called "shanks" or makeshift knives out of everything from toothbrushes to razor blades. And these are men that are strip-searched regularly. How do you propose stopping these weapons without demanding that every passenger ride NAKED and shackled?
Knife blades under 4 inches are allowable because that is the common rule for concealed weapons or "daggers" all over the country. Under four inches allows common tools like Swiss Army knives and Leathermans, and disallow "daggers" of any sort.
I can't see ANY way to have reasonably prevented this attack. Adding security will do NOTHING to prevent further attacks.
Re:Loss of privacy is not necessarily loss of libe
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Except that it doesn't work the way you think it does. THose with money and power, can, and do, have the ability to conceal their activities and cover-up any of their wrongdoings. Rich corporations will because to throw thier weight around.
Civil liberties aren't for the rich or the powerful, they're for the poor and innocent. The right to privancy is only important to the "little guy".
One bit of trivia about ZDnet (at least) that Gilliard seems to have missed is that ZDLabs also does outsourced QA for the tech companies that send them products that they review. Often the same people that do the QA do the technical evaluations of the products.
That's right, the "reviewers" of products on ZDNet are actually EMPLOYEES of the companies whose products they review.
For some reason, the ZDNet folks don't disclose this bit of info.
I doubt it. More likely, you have a very different body type and behavior from me. I'm tallish (6'3"), and the back of the Aeron bit into my shoulder blades, for example. It gives no neck support whatsoever, so is tiring over long periods, and the armrests didn't come up high enough that I could rest both elbows on them without slumping my shoulders, stressing the muscles in my upper back. You can't sit cross-legged in the damn things without a cushion - that sandpaper material shreds your ankles. Do you get the idea? I'm different from you, and no amount of fiddling with ergonomic levers will change that.
Oddly enough 'm a tll person (6'5") and I had no problem with the Aeron I've used. I found it very comfortabe for an office-type chair. I haven't found ANY office chair that had any significant "neck support", I couldn't imagein sitting cross-legged in any office chair (how do you manage that wiht the long legs?) and I had no problems ajusting the armrests for comfort. THough I do tend to sloch a bit.
Overall, the Areon is a great chair as far as these types of chairs go.
Let's see:
Linux on the desktop is dead because the desktop applications, in development for 3 years or so, are incomplete and immature.
Linux on the server is alive because the server applications, in development for 6+ years or so, are complete and mature.
The big difference is that the server apps were usuable in a "production" environment almost immediately. For example, apache has been widely used on commercial web sites for years. Ditto for samba, squid, etc. On the server side these apps were functional.
And the key argument is that they worked AS WELL as the competition. Early versions of IIS (for example) sucked. IIS has never really caught up to Apache. Squid works as well as comparable commercial packages, etc.
Wheras desktop apps on Linux suck. There are massive compatibility problems, and more importantly, no large body of third-party developers making user graphical apps for the lay user.
This is of course ignoring the major marketing problem. "Joe User" gets his tech information from commercials and the nightly news. Linux companies don't have the marketing muscle to compete with Microsoft (or Sun, for that matter).
THE major commercial Linux boosters, IBM and HP, aren't really interested in Linux on the desktop. Ever wonder why?
A lot of Linux people don't seem to grasp that the Windows gaming market is basically the same as the high-end home PC market. Home users buy fast machines to play games, period.
Sure, there might be a tiny smattering of people that buy high-end systems to do audio or video editing, etc. but most of those people are professionals. And they want Windows too, so they can run Photoshop, Cubase, or Premier.
Last I looked at Wine is was slow, and not compatible with 90%+ of the games out there (admittedly, this was a year ago).
So for the time being, I'm keeping Windows, despite the technical advantages of Linux.
You're assuming that Microsoft doesn't sell "premium" support NOW. Of course, they are. In fact, you basically have to pay for ANY phone support from Microsoft (on Windows, and other "enterprise" products). About the only thing that is free is the Knowledge Base. And the KB is pretty useful, so I suspect that they're going to start charging for it soon.
"Can you imagine if Ford said that they expected everyone to know how to build a car before they could expect to be able to drive?"
But Ford DID expect this in the early days. The classic Model T was designed to be the "everyman" car that was user serviced. Ford wanted to eliminate auto mechanics entirely (the original idea was that the Model T would be maintained and "upgraded" indefinitely).
Jon, it's nice to see that you're so up in arms about the poor state of customer service in the computer industry, but you shouldn't blame the industry. Blame yourself, and all other consumers?
Why? Because Americans buy whatever is cheapest. You might say, "Not that's not me! I care about quality! I'd pay twice as much for something if I got good tech support!" But even if you would, you're not MOST Americans. We're concerned about the bottom line, period. Since whoevert is cheapest "wins" in the computer industry, naturally companies like to minimize or even eliminate their tech support costs. Look at how much software is essentually totally unsupported nowadays. All of this is done to keep costs, and by extension, prices down.
This isn't just a "problem" in the computer industry. It's everywhere. Remember when you had cheerful attendants at the gas station who would pump your gas? Cost. Remember when you had people who would take your grocries to the car? Cost. Some time ago, American companies realized that Americans wanted low prices more that they wanted good customer service. YOu want giod customer service? You have to pay for it.
You might notice that I keep mentioning "American". That's because it isn't the same in Europe. Customer service all around is better for products you buy there. Of course, everything is more expensive too. And it's beginning to change as European consumers become more globalized and cost-conscious.
So in short: Things are cheap because customer support is bad. YOu want good customer support, pay for it.
Just because you buy AMD doesn't mean you're boycotting Intel. AMD pays extensive licensing fees to Intel for everything from x86 code to PCI. So while buying AMD/Cyrix/Via may hurt Intel's bottom line somewhat, it's not like you're going to put them out of business.
If you want to get serious about fighting Intel you'll have to consider other architectures, like PowerPC, MIPS, or Sparc.
As someone who worked inside this industry, including SDMI itself, I can 100% assure you that it's the APPERANCE of security that is important, not the actual practice. Why? Because all the DRM companies that design these systems KNOW that they will eventually be cracked. They're just trying to snow the majors long enough to get them to adopt their system.
The majors aren't stupid though. They know that these systems won't work. SDMI is just a tool to delay the issue. They hope the "problem" of online music will go away. They hope to push the "online music pirates" to the margin and keep them there, like the "warez doodz".
That's why Napster was such a threat. Napster is user friendly, and works well. Napster is MAINSTREAM.
The two camps that make up SDMI are fundamentally at odds with each other. The content producers want to add copy protection, which by definition cripples functionality. And the electronics/software manufacturers want to create a product that consumers are interested in getting, and this product will have to be attractive to consumers because it will be replacing existing technology (namely CD and MP3).
The big problem that the RIAA/SDMI has pushing the new formats is that they add little, if any, real additional functionality. For example, DVD-Audio and Sony's new format (forget what it's called) are basically stillborn because they aren't any significant improvement over CD.
The only reason DVD has succeeded as a format is because it offers vastly improved functionality over existing formats, especially VHS. Also remember that DVD was the result of DECADES, mainly fighting over content protections.
The big problem with the SDMI "format" is that it probably won't offer any significant advantage over the entrenched format, MP3. Hardware manufacturers aren't slowing down the production of MP3 devices one bit.
Also, there are a huge number of political issues about being "trapped" by one company. This is what happened with music videos and MTV, and they don't want to see a repeat. This is why they haven't just adopted Windows Media or RealMedia.
I think Microsoft actually has a pretty good mechanism for distributing patches, WindowsUpdate. They've even got a little remimder tool to inform you of critical patches. There are other, more elaborate, tools if you care to look for them.
The big problem I have with this system is that setting up automatic failover is a pain in the ass with Windows (especially NT), so applying patcheds requires reboots which causes downtime.
However, the MAIN problem is definitely inept NT Admins. I'm an NT admin and, to a very large degree, most NT admins I've seen were incompetent. OTOH, I've met very few truly clueless Unix admins, and those really were just "obsolete", only knowing Unix from the big iron days.
IOW, the internet becames something "for the masses" rather than being restricted to universities and big computer companies. PPP was a godsend to people that used to access the inet through WAFFLE BBS systems (If you can rememmber back that far.)
About the only thing that has REALLY been wrecked by "September" is Usenet, which is now virtually useless due to idiots. However, I suspect that is slowly going to get better due to the fact that so many newbies are gravitation to web boards like Slashdot, and AIM/ICQ.
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
Sometimes I read posts on Slashdot and I'm amazed at the mindless zealotry I see.
jkujawa, while you've made some good points about the relative "elagance" of the Mac architecture, you've failed to dispute the original argument.
Macs ARE niche computers nowadays. This is a fact. Most of the dedicated Mac users I've seen ARE media types. Macs nowadays are basically PhotoShop and prepress boxes. Apple recognizes this in their marketing (who else except graphics pros need Cinema Studio Displays?). For these professionals, they don't think twice about spending a few 1000 more on their PC if it helps them do their work better.
Another big chunk is a audio community, ever heard of Pro Tools? Of course, this is rapidly changing now that good tools (like CuBase, etc.) and more importantly, good sound HARDWARE is available for x86 boxes.
However for the average monkey running Office, the Mac makes no sense. They're slower (in general), cost more, really aren't any easier to use, and have less software and peripherals available. And for the home user we have to add in the lack of games and cutting edge 3D hardware.
Finally, there are "legacy-free" PCs on the market today, that don't have serial, parallel, PS/2, or ISA. They don't sell particularly well because the whole PC periperals industry has yet to embrace USB. Eventually this will change.
The difference is that those options actually EXIST in Outlook. Outlook has robust filtering and integrated PGP (so do other clients, but Outlook is a bit slicker).
Also Outlook has an excellent calendar/contacts manager. And yes, there are in fact better stand-alone PIM's, but Outlook is nicely integrated.
I've used many mail clients, and overwhelmingly I like Outlook for the enterprise. At home, I use Eudora. Outlook also has the side benefit of comeing bundled with Office (which virtually all companies use), which means that most companies are already paying for it. Using another mail client would be a cost ON TOP of Outlook.
Now you might be griping about Microsoft's product bundling, but it's reality. It's difficult for us IT types to justify the additional expense on an email client if Outlook is already available.
"love bug" is an Outlook problem, not an Exchange problem. Exchange can make it worse due to large, enterprise-wide, Contact lists.
However, people are going to use Outlook no matter what. It's the best email client currently available, except Eudora IMHO.
With Exchange the problem is east to solve, get a virus scanner of Exchange (Norton, InoculateIT, etc.) and keep it updated. You're a raving madman if youre not doing this on ANY enterprise mail system.
As someone who is about to change our email system to Exchange, I think the most important thing is to consider WHY you're converting the system over to Exchange.
Remember that Exchange isn't just a mail system per se, it's "groupware". This means you get:
Most of the above (particularly the calendering) are a major hassle to implement with Unix/freeware solutions. You also have the major benefit (from a user perspective) of having this all integrated into a single client (Outlook), that is arguably the best client on the market.
You can also use Exchange as a platform for other applications, like CRM and faxing, that integrate into a single client. You also have web mail (more on that later), offline storage, and everything else you have now.
And relatively speaking (relative to other groupware packages, like Domino and Groupwise) Exchange is cheap.
The big downsides are:
* Exchange only runs on 2000/NT, which means that it's inherently less stable than a Unix solution.
* If you want to run Exchange 2000 you HAVE you be using a Windows 2000 PDC running Active Directory. This basically means that you have to rebuild your entire NT network.
* Exchange is a firewall nightmare because MAPI needs a wide range of dynamic ports. If you just allow POP3 outside the firewall, you lose most of the groupware benefits.
* Ditto for web mail. Also the web client is already somewhat "feature limited". You will basically need some sort of web proxy.
* Relative to your current solution, Exchange is pretty bloated. THis means that you will probably need a LOT more space on the server per user. Assume around 100MB per user. So that means you'll be looking at 100GB of space. However, as cheap as storage is nowadays, I don't consider this a major problem.
* In order to use most of the groupware features you need to use Outlook. This might be a major issue of your network isn't completely or mostly Windows-based. Though I do understand that the Mac version of Outlook works pretty well.
So really what it boils down to is: Do you need groupware? And does Exchange best meet these groupware needs? Other groupware packages include Lotus Domino, Netscape Messagning and Calendaring, and Novell Grouwise. I've personally had bad experiences with Netscape and Groupwise, but YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
There is now little doubt that Muslim religious extremists perpetrated these terrorist attacks.
Therefore, it is fair to say that Islamic extremism should bear the burden of responsibility for these attacks.
It has long been my opinion that the enemy is not Iran, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, etc. but is in fact Islamic religious culture, which is fundamentally hostile and alien to the Western lifestyle, culture, and civilization.
I have absolutely noting against Muslims in the SECULAR culture of the USA. But you're living in a shell if you think that Islam in the USA is even remotely similar to the anti-secular, anti-West, fanatical culture that you see is so-called "Islamic republics" like Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc. These are places where you can still get stoned to death for adultery or sentenced to death for blasphemy. These nations and cultures are foreign and hostile to secular culture, particularly Western culture.
As far as I'm concerned, it is this culture that is the enemy. It's them or us (certainly Osama Bin Laden feels this way). I the only solution to make the USA truly free from these types of attacks is to utterly destroy these anti-West, fanatical religious cultures.
Now what's the best way to do this? It's not bombs or bullets. It's using our culture. It's Baywatch and Coca-Cola. It's exporting, subverting, and undermining Islamic culture at every turn.
Now this might offend some people. I don't care. This is the REAL culture war, and the battle lines were drawn a long time ago. Either you're for Western culture or you're not. I believe the Western values of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, due process, and secular government are worth defending.
To which I say, "So what?" These planes were hijacked with simple knives and boxcutters and EMPTY boxes that the terrorists claimed were bombs? What kind of security is going to prevent this?
Prisoners, in USA prisons, regularly make so-called "shanks" or makeshift knives out of everything from toothbrushes to razor blades. And these are men that are strip-searched regularly. How do you propose stopping these weapons without demanding that every passenger ride NAKED and shackled?
Knife blades under 4 inches are allowable because that is the common rule for concealed weapons or "daggers" all over the country. Under four inches allows common tools like Swiss Army knives and Leathermans, and disallow "daggers" of any sort.
I can't see ANY way to have reasonably prevented this attack. Adding security will do NOTHING to prevent further attacks.
Except that it doesn't work the way you think it does. THose with money and power, can, and do, have the ability to conceal their activities and cover-up any of their wrongdoings. Rich corporations will because to throw thier weight around.
Civil liberties aren't for the rich or the powerful, they're for the poor and innocent. The right to privancy is only important to the "little guy".
One bit of trivia about ZDnet (at least) that Gilliard seems to have missed is that ZDLabs also does outsourced QA for the tech companies that send them products that they review. Often the same people that do the QA do the technical evaluations of the products.
That's right, the "reviewers" of products on ZDNet are actually EMPLOYEES of the companies whose products they review.
For some reason, the ZDNet folks don't disclose this bit of info.
I've been following e-gold and this is the first I've heard of this raid.
Anyone else have more info?
Let's see:
Linux on the desktop is dead because the desktop applications, in development for 3 years or so, are incomplete and immature.
Linux on the server is alive because the server applications, in development for 6+ years or so, are complete and mature.
The big difference is that the server apps were usuable in a "production" environment almost immediately. For example, apache has been widely used on commercial web sites for years. Ditto for samba, squid, etc. On the server side these apps were functional.
And the key argument is that they worked AS WELL as the competition. Early versions of IIS (for example) sucked. IIS has never really caught up to Apache. Squid works as well as comparable commercial packages, etc.
Wheras desktop apps on Linux suck. There are massive compatibility problems, and more importantly, no large body of third-party developers making user graphical apps for the lay user.
This is of course ignoring the major marketing problem. "Joe User" gets his tech information from commercials and the nightly news. Linux companies don't have the marketing muscle to compete with Microsoft (or Sun, for that matter).
THE major commercial Linux boosters, IBM and HP, aren't really interested in Linux on the desktop. Ever wonder why?
A lot of Linux people don't seem to grasp that the Windows gaming market is basically the same as the high-end home PC market. Home users buy fast machines to play games, period.
Sure, there might be a tiny smattering of people that buy high-end systems to do audio or video editing, etc. but most of those people are professionals. And they want Windows too, so they can run Photoshop, Cubase, or Premier.
Last I looked at Wine is was slow, and not compatible with 90%+ of the games out there (admittedly, this was a year ago).
So for the time being, I'm keeping Windows, despite the technical advantages of Linux.
You're assuming that Microsoft doesn't sell "premium" support NOW. Of course, they are. In fact, you basically have to pay for ANY phone support from Microsoft (on Windows, and other "enterprise" products). About the only thing that is free is the Knowledge Base. And the KB is pretty useful, so I suspect that they're going to start charging for it soon.
In case you didn't know, most .coms use the Underwear Gnomes business plan...
Phase 1: Start an internet based business solely supported by advertising.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit.
Not the least bit surprised to hear this. The department was the classic "managed by someone who knew nothing".
I bailed out almost a year ago.
"Can you imagine if Ford said that they expected everyone to know how to build a car before they could expect to be able to drive?"
But Ford DID expect this in the early days. The classic Model T was designed to be the "everyman" car that was user serviced. Ford wanted to eliminate auto mechanics entirely (the original idea was that the Model T would be maintained and "upgraded" indefinitely).
Jon, it's nice to see that you're so up in arms about the poor state of customer service in the computer industry, but you shouldn't blame the industry. Blame yourself, and all other consumers? Why? Because Americans buy whatever is cheapest. You might say, "Not that's not me! I care about quality! I'd pay twice as much for something if I got good tech support!" But even if you would, you're not MOST Americans. We're concerned about the bottom line, period. Since whoevert is cheapest "wins" in the computer industry, naturally companies like to minimize or even eliminate their tech support costs. Look at how much software is essentually totally unsupported nowadays. All of this is done to keep costs, and by extension, prices down. This isn't just a "problem" in the computer industry. It's everywhere. Remember when you had cheerful attendants at the gas station who would pump your gas? Cost. Remember when you had people who would take your grocries to the car? Cost. Some time ago, American companies realized that Americans wanted low prices more that they wanted good customer service. YOu want giod customer service? You have to pay for it. You might notice that I keep mentioning "American". That's because it isn't the same in Europe. Customer service all around is better for products you buy there. Of course, everything is more expensive too. And it's beginning to change as European consumers become more globalized and cost-conscious. So in short: Things are cheap because customer support is bad. YOu want good customer support, pay for it.
Just because you buy AMD doesn't mean you're boycotting Intel. AMD pays extensive licensing fees to Intel for everything from x86 code to PCI. So while buying AMD/Cyrix/Via may hurt Intel's bottom line somewhat, it's not like you're going to put them out of business. If you want to get serious about fighting Intel you'll have to consider other architectures, like PowerPC, MIPS, or Sparc.
As someone who worked inside this industry, including SDMI itself, I can 100% assure you that it's the APPERANCE of security that is important, not the actual practice. Why? Because all the DRM companies that design these systems KNOW that they will eventually be cracked. They're just trying to snow the majors long enough to get them to adopt their system. The majors aren't stupid though. They know that these systems won't work. SDMI is just a tool to delay the issue. They hope the "problem" of online music will go away. They hope to push the "online music pirates" to the margin and keep them there, like the "warez doodz". That's why Napster was such a threat. Napster is user friendly, and works well. Napster is MAINSTREAM.
The two camps that make up SDMI are fundamentally at odds with each other. The content producers want to add copy protection, which by definition cripples functionality. And the electronics/software manufacturers want to create a product that consumers are interested in getting, and this product will have to be attractive to consumers because it will be replacing existing technology (namely CD and MP3). The big problem that the RIAA/SDMI has pushing the new formats is that they add little, if any, real additional functionality. For example, DVD-Audio and Sony's new format (forget what it's called) are basically stillborn because they aren't any significant improvement over CD. The only reason DVD has succeeded as a format is because it offers vastly improved functionality over existing formats, especially VHS. Also remember that DVD was the result of DECADES, mainly fighting over content protections. The big problem with the SDMI "format" is that it probably won't offer any significant advantage over the entrenched format, MP3. Hardware manufacturers aren't slowing down the production of MP3 devices one bit. Also, there are a huge number of political issues about being "trapped" by one company. This is what happened with music videos and MTV, and they don't want to see a repeat. This is why they haven't just adopted Windows Media or RealMedia.
I think Microsoft actually has a pretty good mechanism for distributing patches, WindowsUpdate. They've even got a little remimder tool to inform you of critical patches. There are other, more elaborate, tools if you care to look for them. The big problem I have with this system is that setting up automatic failover is a pain in the ass with Windows (especially NT), so applying patcheds requires reboots which causes downtime. However, the MAIN problem is definitely inept NT Admins. I'm an NT admin and, to a very large degree, most NT admins I've seen were incompetent. OTOH, I've met very few truly clueless Unix admins, and those really were just "obsolete", only knowing Unix from the big iron days.
IOW, the internet becames something "for the masses" rather than being restricted to universities and big computer companies. PPP was a godsend to people that used to access the inet through WAFFLE BBS systems (If you can rememmber back that far.) About the only thing that has REALLY been wrecked by "September" is Usenet, which is now virtually useless due to idiots. However, I suspect that is slowly going to get better due to the fact that so many newbies are gravitation to web boards like Slashdot, and AIM/ICQ.
Sometimes I read posts on Slashdot and I'm amazed at the mindless zealotry I see. jkujawa, while you've made some good points about the relative "elagance" of the Mac architecture, you've failed to dispute the original argument. Macs ARE niche computers nowadays. This is a fact. Most of the dedicated Mac users I've seen ARE media types. Macs nowadays are basically PhotoShop and prepress boxes. Apple recognizes this in their marketing (who else except graphics pros need Cinema Studio Displays?). For these professionals, they don't think twice about spending a few 1000 more on their PC if it helps them do their work better. Another big chunk is a audio community, ever heard of Pro Tools? Of course, this is rapidly changing now that good tools (like CuBase, etc.) and more importantly, good sound HARDWARE is available for x86 boxes. However for the average monkey running Office, the Mac makes no sense. They're slower (in general), cost more, really aren't any easier to use, and have less software and peripherals available. And for the home user we have to add in the lack of games and cutting edge 3D hardware. Finally, there are "legacy-free" PCs on the market today, that don't have serial, parallel, PS/2, or ISA. They don't sell particularly well because the whole PC periperals industry has yet to embrace USB. Eventually this will change.
The difference is that those options actually EXIST in Outlook. Outlook has robust filtering and integrated PGP (so do other clients, but Outlook is a bit slicker). Also Outlook has an excellent calendar/contacts manager. And yes, there are in fact better stand-alone PIM's, but Outlook is nicely integrated. I've used many mail clients, and overwhelmingly I like Outlook for the enterprise. At home, I use Eudora. Outlook also has the side benefit of comeing bundled with Office (which virtually all companies use), which means that most companies are already paying for it. Using another mail client would be a cost ON TOP of Outlook. Now you might be griping about Microsoft's product bundling, but it's reality. It's difficult for us IT types to justify the additional expense on an email client if Outlook is already available.
"love bug" is an Outlook problem, not an Exchange problem. Exchange can make it worse due to large, enterprise-wide, Contact lists.
However, people are going to use Outlook no matter what. It's the best email client currently available, except Eudora IMHO.
With Exchange the problem is east to solve, get a virus scanner of Exchange (Norton, InoculateIT, etc.) and keep it updated. You're a raving madman if youre not doing this on ANY enterprise mail system.
As someone who is about to change our email system to Exchange, I think the most important thing is to consider WHY you're converting the system over to Exchange.
Remember that Exchange isn't just a mail system per se, it's "groupware". This means you get:
* Enterprise Contacts (LDAP)
* Enterprise Calendering
* Enterprise "To Do" Lists
* An "application" platform
Most of the above (particularly the calendering) are a major hassle to implement with Unix/freeware solutions. You also have the major benefit (from a user perspective) of having this all integrated into a single client (Outlook), that is arguably the best client on the market.
You can also use Exchange as a platform for other applications, like CRM and faxing, that integrate into a single client. You also have web mail (more on that later), offline storage, and everything else you have now.
And relatively speaking (relative to other groupware packages, like Domino and Groupwise) Exchange is cheap.
The big downsides are:
* Exchange only runs on 2000/NT, which means that it's inherently less stable than a Unix solution.
* If you want to run Exchange 2000 you HAVE you be using a Windows 2000 PDC running Active Directory. This basically means that you have to rebuild your entire NT network.
* Exchange is a firewall nightmare because MAPI needs a wide range of dynamic ports. If you just allow POP3 outside the firewall, you lose most of the groupware benefits.
* Ditto for web mail. Also the web client is already somewhat "feature limited". You will basically need some sort of web proxy.
* Relative to your current solution, Exchange is pretty bloated. THis means that you will probably need a LOT more space on the server per user. Assume around 100MB per user. So that means you'll be looking at 100GB of space. However, as cheap as storage is nowadays, I don't consider this a major problem.
* In order to use most of the groupware features you need to use Outlook. This might be a major issue of your network isn't completely or mostly Windows-based. Though I do understand that the Mac version of Outlook works pretty well.
So really what it boils down to is: Do you need groupware? And does Exchange best meet these groupware needs? Other groupware packages include Lotus Domino, Netscape Messagning and Calendaring, and Novell Grouwise. I've personally had bad experiences with Netscape and Groupwise, but YMMV.