[NTLUG:Discuss] RE: Messaging system & support

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 17:45, Cameron, Thomas wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying this - I certainly need to be spoken to "in
> layman's terms."  I'm not terribly technical, you know, and apparently
> neither is the rest of the list.

It was a figure of speech, not meant to be an insult.  My apologies if
it was taken that way, because I did not intend it as such.

Most people don't understand that most of these "Exchange Replacements"
simply use a MAPI SP to a _proprietary_ back-end.  As such, what does
that buy me over MS Exchange?  Nothing really.

> I guess in my case the question is more "will it do everything I want
> without the security and stability problems, and without having to pay
> the insane licensing fees MS charges."

Sort of.  A lot of it is still "soon" instead of "now."
That was just my observation.

There are a lot of capabilities that work "now."
Bynari has been doing this for 4+ years, with a lot of IBM consulting
support.

You've got IBM support centers _all_ around you.

> If it does the main functions of Exchange (mail, shared calendars,
> tasks, etc.) and it's 20% the price, it's probably worth looking
> into.  As I said in my initial post, I just saw the presentation, I
> haven't tested the product.

And I stated I haven't either.  But what I did say is that I didn't see
anything compelling over what's been sold to me before.

I guess what really "turned me off" was the amount of "vapor."  ;-ppp

> I'm curious how you know that.

First hand experience.  ;-ppp
I've dealt with Bynari's techs and sales before.

> I was making a suggestion for a commercially supported Exchange replacement.

And that's cool.  I was just commenting on it because I _was_ interested
too.  But, again, there was a lot of "vapor" going on their site.

I didn't say they didn't offer a better product, I was just saying their
technical details didn't seem to show such.  It looked like the same
old, same old.

> OpenGroupware.org looks great, but I don't find any professional support
> for it locally.

SKYRiX is European-based.  I only mentioned it because SKYRiX 4.1 is
basically OpenGroupware.org.  But they were reasonable on their support.

For the US, I'd look more towards Bynari.  IBM is a big proponent
because they implement it under Big Iron as well as Linux.

> Yeah.

That's all my point was.  I didn't mean to offend or seem like I was
rebuking you for merely suggesting it.

All I said was is one has to sit back and go, "what does this buy me?"

If you have a good relationship with a local support/reseller, then
that's gold!  But I've had some cases where companies have sold my IT
management, then left me hanging.

That's why I _always_ trust the underlying technology.  If it's sound, I
can make it work _regardless_.  And if I can make it work, then someone
else probably can too.

> Umm, support.  Not all of us are as brilliant as you, so we
> occasionally need to ask for help.

And I addressed that below.

> Support.  I think that the OP made clear that they were looking
> for up to 24/7/365 support.

Very good, I guess I missed the 24x7 reference.  My apologies then.

> Different philosophies.  When I make a recommendation I factor in
> general functionality and availability/responsiveness of the vendor.
> Using mailing lists and newsgroups simply doesn't cut it if a business
> relies on a product.  Messaging and calendaring are core needs of many
> (if not most) businesses.  I'm not typically going to tell someone to
> rely on a product for their communication that I can't pick up the
> phone and talk to tech support.

And that's where established vendors like Bynari and SKYRiX come in.

I'm not saying they don't have a sound support staff.  But based on the
"promises" of the product on their site for "future" implementation, it
scared me a bit.

Nothing aganist you, but I've seen vendors jump up and say "Exchange
Replacement" and then Linux enthusiasts go "Cool!  I didn't think there
was an Exchange Replacement!"

There have been Exchange Replacements for 5+ years.  They have largely
been proprietary and haven't solved the problem of vendor lock-in.

> Horse feathers.  Whether or not a system "needs" support - i.e. it
> breaks - you should be able to get support.

And SKYRiX supports OpenGroupware.ORG.

> I could make the argument that a 120-user Exchange 5.5 installation
> that I did back when 5.5 was brand spanking new is still running with
> almost no support.  The noise about Exchange being so fragile is only
> partially correct.  It is fragile if it is not designed and
> implemented correctly.

I find the term "not designed and implemented correctly" to be a whole
new definition with Microsoft software.  It means "scrap your network
and restart."

No, I can't afford that.  That's why I don't run it.

But yes, I _did_ "scrap my network and restart" with NT 4.0 and Exchange
5.5 and it didn't matter.  I was an experienced NT 3.1 and 3.5x admin
(original NT 3.1 beta tester at a major deployment site of the first
native NT app) and it didn't matter.

With Windows 2000 AD and Exchange 2000, I had the same problems again
and again.  I stumped Microsoft everytime with them.  The MSP and their
MCSEs were useless.

> In most cases, the worst Exchange nightmares that I've seen have been
> due to some schmuck who just clicks "next, next, next" on the install
> with no clue what is actually going on.  I deployed Exchange 2000 for
> 6000 users across 20 sites in Angola, Africa.  We planned and designed
> it well, trained the local IT staff correctly and now it Just
> Works(TM).
> I've done very successful upgrades to Exchange 2003 and Windows 2003
> at the same time to take advantage of native mode for both.  It's all
> about planning, design, countless simulations and appropriate
> follow-through.

And totally "scrap my network and restart."  Yes, I agree.  That's what
you have to do.  Plan and scrap, plan and scrap.

The problem is I can't do that with 24x7 networks.  We literally have
engineering operations that run 2-5 weeks interrupted.

> Great - it definitely bears further investigation.
> You have different needs and skill level from most small IT shops.

Actually, I consult rather well doing such.  They don't call me back
except to have me over for a BBQ or something to tell me there isn't
anything wrong.

> Please have a look at http://www.sideroad.com/Netiquette/signature-files.html
> and http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html and
> http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/signature_file_use.html.  Seriously.

Nope.  I've been on the Internet for 15 years and the last thing I need
is someone telling me "what works best."

Not my words, but several people in my LUG.  They notice people only
nitpick to see how I respond.  I've learned not to even consider it.


-- 
Time to switch: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/switch.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith                                   b.j.smith at ieee.org