Re:None do what is required to displace Exchange.
on
What is the Best Calendar?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Outlook Connector is currently under development by a friend of mine... He recently got some corporation sponsorship so hopefully it will be completed soon... BUT IT'S PURPOSE IS TO EXACTLY SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
It connects into Outlook (via the Mapi protocol) and allows you to bypass an exchange server and instead use an open source linux solution. it is already in beta on sourceforge.net...
SO IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO HELP... I AM SURE MY FRIEND WOULD APPRECIATE IT!!!
Hi Hugh, Dr. Thompson,
I really liked reading your study. I thought it was well written and setup a nice framework for studying Business Solution Reliabilty.
I would like to as you these three questions:
1) When Novell bought Suse they got pretty late into the linux game; about 1-2 years ago (not sure). I am not familiar with Novell/Suse's offering but i am familiar with Red Hat, which has been in the Linux game for a much longer period. The RHN works very well to update key components smoothly... just as well.. if not better than Windows Update. Red Hat should have been picked, but instead Suse was picked, which i believe is like comparing apple to oranges, because Suse/Novell's offering is just too new for a fair comparison. I believe, the study would have been quite different if Red Hat had been picked.
-> Why was Suse picked?
2) Study fails to mention the specific software components that were installed citing them as not being relevant. This is major source of bias, since the software components themselves could have been created by software manufacturers who had a higher priority on focusing compatibility with windows than with linux. Since the software vendors were not mentioned... it is impossible to verify if the software vendors were equally committed to create good software on both platforms.
-> Why is it unimportant to include the Software vendors?
3) Study fails to measure # of reboots in reliability study. It is not an opinion but a fact that windows requires a lot more reboots than linux when making changes to the system, such as updating key components. A reboot should also be considered as downtime, but wasn't included in the study at all. For example if, if every reboot takes 2 minutes, and windows required 10 reboots and linux only 2; this should be added to the timeline.
-> Why were reboots not considered?
I am looking forward to a response from you.
warmest regards,
Daniel
I searched on Google for "email system" for "1 million users"...
this page came up:
@Mail with large user bases
-> it even gives you a case stude of Hotmail!!!
the company is called @Mail
it is the exact same solution that seeqmail.com uses and they have over a million users.
Read it... Find out more... and Google some more
Don't pay over-priced consultants unless it is something you have absolute no expertize in. It is your job to figgure out how to get it done.
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook Connector is currently under development by a friend of mine... He recently got some corporation sponsorship so hopefully it will be completed soon...
BUT IT'S PURPOSE IS TO EXACTLY SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
It connects into Outlook (via the Mapi protocol) and allows you to bypass an exchange server and instead use an open source linux solution. it is already in beta on sourceforge.net...
SO IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO HELP... I AM SURE MY FRIEND WOULD APPRECIATE IT!!!
Hi Hugh, Dr. Thompson, I really liked reading your study. I thought it was well written and setup a nice framework for studying Business Solution Reliabilty. I would like to as you these three questions: 1) When Novell bought Suse they got pretty late into the linux game; about 1-2 years ago (not sure). I am not familiar with Novell/Suse's offering but i am familiar with Red Hat, which has been in the Linux game for a much longer period. The RHN works very well to update key components smoothly... just as well.. if not better than Windows Update. Red Hat should have been picked, but instead Suse was picked, which i believe is like comparing apple to oranges, because Suse/Novell's offering is just too new for a fair comparison. I believe, the study would have been quite different if Red Hat had been picked. -> Why was Suse picked? 2) Study fails to mention the specific software components that were installed citing them as not being relevant. This is major source of bias, since the software components themselves could have been created by software manufacturers who had a higher priority on focusing compatibility with windows than with linux. Since the software vendors were not mentioned... it is impossible to verify if the software vendors were equally committed to create good software on both platforms. -> Why is it unimportant to include the Software vendors? 3) Study fails to measure # of reboots in reliability study. It is not an opinion but a fact that windows requires a lot more reboots than linux when making changes to the system, such as updating key components. A reboot should also be considered as downtime, but wasn't included in the study at all. For example if, if every reboot takes 2 minutes, and windows required 10 reboots and linux only 2; this should be added to the timeline. -> Why were reboots not considered? I am looking forward to a response from you. warmest regards, Daniel
I searched on Google for "email system" for "1 million users" ...
this page came up:
@Mail with large user bases
-> it even gives you a case stude of Hotmail!!!
the company is called @Mail
it is the exact same solution that seeqmail.com uses and they have over a million users.
Read it... Find out more... and Google some more
Don't pay over-priced consultants unless it is something you have absolute no expertize in. It is your job to figgure out how to get it done.