 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
28 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-sqwebmailRe: [sqwebmail] Re: Spelling and othe...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 21, 2004 1:57 pm | |
| Brian Candler | Dec 28, 2004 3:11 am | |
| Sam Varshavchik | Dec 28, 2004 4:16 am | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 28, 2004 11:32 am | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 28, 2004 7:45 pm | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 28, 2004 8:45 pm | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 28, 2004 9:02 pm | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 29, 2004 3:28 am | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 29, 2004 11:39 am | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 29, 2004 1:18 pm | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 29, 2004 2:34 pm | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 29, 2004 4:50 pm | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 29, 2004 9:08 pm | |
| Brian Candler | Dec 30, 2004 1:10 am | |
| Brian Candler | Dec 30, 2004 2:29 am | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 30, 2004 9:56 am | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 30, 2004 12:15 pm | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 30, 2004 2:39 pm | |
| oth...@freeshell.org | Dec 30, 2004 3:14 pm | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 30, 2004 4:07 pm | |
| Brian Candler | Dec 31, 2004 2:40 am | |
| Laurent Wacrenier | Dec 31, 2004 3:00 am | |
| Paul L. Allen | Dec 31, 2004 3:41 am | |
| Brian Candler | Dec 31, 2004 4:11 am | |
| Pawel Tecza | Dec 31, 2004 4:47 am | |
| Laurent Wacrenier | Dec 31, 2004 5:22 am | |
| Brian Candler | Jan 1, 2005 4:45 am | |
| Brian Candler | Jan 1, 2005 5:17 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Re: [sqwebmail] Re: Spelling and other templates (Was: stale processes and m17n) | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Brian Candler (B.Ca...@pobox.com) | |
| Date: | Jan 1, 2005 4:45:01 am | |
| List: | net.sourceforge.lists.courier-sqwebmail | |
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 11:41:35AM +0000, Paul L. Allen wrote:
Our public servers may have that many, but the dedicated servers we put in have a lot less. However, people see what Exchange has to offer and ask why our system doesn't do that. It doesn't matter that the feature is worthless, or that the system is unreliable, they want Exchange. It is, after all, the "industry standard."
Fine, then let them eat Exchange - I don't see the problem. If they want it, they are prepared to pay for it, and they are prepared to accept all the negative consequences of such a platform (poor resource utilisation, virus susceptibility, weekly patching etc), then good luck to them.
Their decision is not based upon technical merits but upon cosmetics and tick lists.
One of our guys who deals with on-site installation/maintenance replaced a dedicated mail server with Exchange. He was impressed with it because OWA made the webmail look exactly like using Outlook so people didn't have to learn how to drive a webmail that worked differently from Outlook. And the people who were using it were impressed too. Exchange is no longer a simple mail/webmail/imap/pop3 server, it has scheduling and groupware that is integrated with Outlook - I'm not saying these are things I want or would use but our customers do.
He likes the product, and so does his users, and presumably the downsides are acceptable. It sounds to me like everyone is happy. Why spoil the party?
The race is to get Open Source products that come close enough to duplicating Exchange functionality and can be installed painlessly enough that they are economically viable.
I don't see such a race. I work in the ISP world, and Exchange is simply irrelevant. It badly implements Internet standards, has dreadfully poor manageability, scalability, reliability, and security. Maybe it makes a dandy office/enterprise mail server, but it's useless at an ISP, and there are many superior products - commercial and open-source.
In an ideal world it would not concern me if they switched to Exchange. In this world, however, building dedicated mail servers around qmail/ courier-imap/sqwebmail is one of the things that pays my wages. Since I like getting paid, I would prefer them not to switch to Exchange.
Ah well, then you have a selfish interest in people using difficult software. Surely, if courier was as "easy" to install and use as Exchange, you would also be out of a job?
Yes I am serious, because management here is coming to the conclusion that we can't make money out of selling dedicated mail servers unless we put in Exchange. And that in the longer term we'll probably have to switch the public servers to Exchange too, just to give people the features they think they want (but don't actually need). If we don't then our customers will switch to somebody else that can offer Exchange-based mail, even if they charge more for it.
Then your management may be correct in providing the services that people ask for. Or your management may be making an incorrect choice, and some other provider will be able to undercut you or take your customers by providing a better/cheaper service. Or more likely, you will get some of the customers, and they will get others. That's entirely a business decision. If they are correct in saying that people want the Microsoft label on their service, then it doesn't matter how good the non-Microsoft alternatives are.
It's no good saying the vehicle you offer does the job far better if everyone wants a SUV.
Then if you want to make money out of this, then surely the thing to do is go open an SUV dealership?
The point was that if Hotmail is running Exchange, or ever manages to do so, the per-seat licence costs would make their service uneconomic if it weren't for the fact they'll get a special deal.
And how does that affect me or you? That's an internal business/pricing decision between Bill and Hotmail. If they did use Exchange at an unfairly low price, *and* it gave them some competitive advantage, then you'd be saying that Exchange is the better product anyway. And of course Bill will price the product so that it is economically viable for such a large customer, rather than lose them to someone else.
Regards,
Brian.