Submitted by “Exchange Server 2007 will be released to manufacturing in December and be available to customers within a number of days after that, Microsoft officials have confirmed. The formal announcement of Exchange 2007’s RTM date was made in David Lemson’s keynote on November 7 at the Exchange Connections conference.”
2007 uses the same craptastic file format as 2003,2000,5… yeah if it ‘corrupts’ it can take *DAYS* to scan & fix.. If it fixes.
Why they don’t use SQL server as a backend is beyond me.
2007 uses the same craptastic file format as 2003,2000,5… yeah if it ‘corrupts’ it can take *DAYS* to scan & fix.. If it fixes.
Yer. Looks like more of the same unfortunately.
Why they don’t use SQL server as a backend is beyond me.
As with a lot of other things, particularly with the hype around WinFS not too long ago, Microsoft tried to make SQL Server as a back-end to just about everything. They failed. Either that or they felt that they could just roll more features into SQL Server instead to try and keep that marketable.
The problem is the next version of SQL server is stil under development and as such a moving target.
They really need to wait until that is out before they can start doing things like WinFS and what was supposed to be part of Exchange 07.
SQL Server fails as well. Granted the Jet format Exchance uses is a bit more error prone, but simply moving to a SQL Server backend doesn’t negate the need for a disaster recovery plan.
“Why they don’t use SQL server as a backend is beyond me.”
Because an RDBMS is not a good message store. Not that that has ever stopped people from doing it.
I wonder if the F/OSS (or just plain compatible with Linux) world will come up with a Exchange equivilent any time soon that intergrates into my existing directory (OpenLDAP/Kerberos) services.
At the moment, Exchange – for all it’s faults – seems to be one of the better groupware pieces of software out there, simply because of the above.
Currently, everything I’ve seen on the market either refuses to use existing infrastructure (Mail, LDAP or Kerberos) or demands the use of a particular distro. It’s quite infuriating to have to reccomend that people stay with MS because of Exchange.
There are a pile of Exchange equivalents – more or less. Web versions, monolithic versions, direct copies you name it, they’re available.
Exchange is a pile of crap, actually. Even the most jaded Microsofties recognize that Exchange is a shiny penny balanced on a turd. Meaning that the architecture of the software is pathetic but the client software sucks somewhat less.
Try Kontact, Ejabberd and a groupware server such as Kolab or OpenGroupware. In fact, just visit this link:
http://www.kontact.org/groupwareservers.php
Exchange is a pile of crap, actually. Even the most jaded Microsofties recognize that Exchange is a shiny penny balanced on a turd. Meaning that the architecture of the software is pathetic but the client software sucks somewhat less.
But it works. And while that’s a really bad reason (Goodness knows how many times I’ve railed against the developers here for similar thinking), but that’s how many orginizations will see it. From an admin point of view, many of the open replacements require you to maintain another set of accounts. Speaking as a Sys-admin, I’m exceedingly adverse to maintaining vast lists of users and passwords in each application. Most of the apps listed on the kontact page have this problem, except for Novell GroupWise which will only run on SuSE. (Which means yet another server).
LDAP and Kerberos were made to fix these problems, and nobody seems to want to use them.
(eGroupWare may be an exception here. I’m installing it at the moment, I’ll see how it turns out).
“But it works.”
As bad as Exchange is, it is still better than many of the myriad of shitty Windows “mailservers” that manages to break standards in even more spectacular and incompatible ways than Exchange. Yes, it’s quite a feat but sadly not uncommon.
Maybe this happens because Microsoft uses “extended” version of Kerberos and their own LDAP schemas wrt. other LDAP and Kerberos servers.
Most of the apps listed on the kontact page have this problem, except for Novell GroupWise which will only run on SuSE. (Which means yet another server).
GroupWise runs on Windows(and suse, redhat, netware). It’s actually the most flexible group ware product that I know of in terms of platforms. Plus, with GW7, you can use just about any client you want. Outlook, outlook express, Evolution, the Groupwise client itself. It has webmail too.
GroupWise uses an older DB technology too. In terms of its domains(not to be confused with active directory domains), they are replicated from the primary domain so you can lose a server and not lose the whole email system assuming you have a secondary domain.
You also need eDirectory, which presents overhead. But again, it runs on the same operating systems I mentioned above. Moreover, you should be running eDirectory instead of Active Directory anyway.
Edited 2006-11-14 21:23
GroupWise runs on Windows(and suse, redhat, netware).
Ubuntu?
You also need eDirectory, which presents overhead. But again, it runs on the same operating systems I mentioned above. Moreover, you should be running eDirectory instead of Active Directory anyway.
Well, perhaps, but I’m already running OpenLDAP + Kerberos – not Active Directory, and last I asked, eDirectory didn’t support SSO, which was less than helpful.
I don’t believe it will fly on Ubuntu. Its installers are RPM based. I’m not sure if you can run RPMs on ubuntu. It’s probably not supported, however.
eDirectory does do SSO. I honestly can’t tell you much about it, because I’ve never needed it for anything. But it has done single sign on in one fashion or another for years now. eDirectory is LDAP compliant and I believe you can even go as far as to extend the schema through LDAP.
Obviously, it’s not the answer to all of life’s issues, but it’s a pretty damn good product and doesn’t get enough credit in the face of active directory which is technically inferior.
Hmmm. If that’s the case, they really need to advertise it better. The whole ‘log-in-once-and-never-type-in-your-password-again’ thing was the entire reason I didn’t touch eDirectory and used Kerberos instead.
80%+ of corporations beg to differ with you.
“80%+ of corporations beg to differ with you.”
The majority isn’t necessarily right.
Also, 80% of the worlds corporations does not use Exhange. A lot, sure, but not 80%.
Edited 2006-11-14 03:21
The majority isn’t necessarily right.
True, but there’s no arguing that messaging is a mission critical activity — and, clearly, the majority wouldn’t use Exchange if it didn’t measure up.
Also, 80% of the worlds corporations does not use Exhange. A lot, sure, but not 80%.
In 2002, the estimate was 44%:
http://www.serverwatch.com/stypes/servers/article.php/1298941
But, of course, that was 4 years ago, and I would submit that the number is more like 55-60% now.
To the person who mod’ed this comment down: I really feel sorry for you. You need to work on your self-esteem and not fear other peoples’ opinions.
The majority isn’t necessarily right.
True, but there’s no arguing that messaging is a mission critical activity — and, clearly, the majority wouldn’t use Exchange if it didn’t measure up.
Also, 80% of the worlds corporations does not use Exhange. A lot, sure, but not 80%.
In 2002, the estimate was 44%:
http://www.serverwatch.com/stypes/servers/article.php/1298941
But, of course, that was 4 years ago, and I would submit that the number is more like 55-60% now.
Meaning that the architecture of the software is pathetic but the client software sucks somewhat less.
How so? Have anything to back that up?
Again, modded down for no reason. It’s really sad how some people don’t want to engage in honest debate here.
How so? Have any data to back that up?
Check out the product I sell called Desknow. (www.desknow.com) Built on top of Qmail. Can use any SQL server as the backend including MySQL, MSSQl, Oracle etc!
Has web interface like outlook web access, has connector to allow you to use Outlook and sync calender and contacts (Tasks etc)
Can be clustered on any OS, can run on ANY OS, built in backup, can plug into almost any antivirus etc!
We also support Ldap and Active Directory…
We get exchange customers all the time because exchange ONLY runs on Windows, the license pricing is HIGH, does not cluster well, still uses PSTs on the server side, cant scale as well or as easy, also can’t support low end hardware like we can.
Check out the product I sell called Desknow. (www.desknow.com) Built on top of Qmail. Can use any SQL server as the backend including MySQL, MSSQl, Oracle etc!
I have a very soft spot for qmail systems… see qmail.org and look for my name.
Thanks for posting this up, I wasn’t aware of this solution and it might be something I can use. Can it convert from an existing qmail + vpopmail system?
Edited 2006-11-14 17:10
Yes you can move from your current system no problem. We have migration scripts. If you have a small amount of users then you can pop down the mail in a client like Thunderbird and then copy it over to the new server using IMAP.
Ether way its not a hard task.
If you have any other questions, I am a beta tester, bug tester and reseller of this product. Just email me at [email protected] and I can help you.
Check out the product I sell called Desknow. (www.desknow.com) Built on top of Qmail. Can use any SQL server as the backend including MySQL, MSSQl, Oracle etc!
We also support Ldap and Active Directory…
—
Sounds useful… but doesn’t it support generic (MIT) Kerberos? And will it work with my bewildering array of clients (Linux, Windows, Mac, Pocket PC, Palm, Treo, and Web)?
Is it also possible to plug into my existing (and working!) Exim/Courier based setup, or would I need to scrap everything?
“Sounds useful… but doesn’t it support generic (MIT) Kerberos? And will it work with my bewildering array of clients (Linux, Windows, Mac, Pocket PC, Palm, Treo, and Web)?
Is it also possible to plug into my existing (and working!) Exim/Courier based setup, or would I need to scrap everything?”
1. Yes you can connect to Kerberos to use for authentication. No problem.
2. You can use the web interface with any OS. You can also use Thunderbird or any other IMAP client. Also we have a plugin for Outlook to use calendars etc. On the web side we do have a pocket PC interface also that works pretty well with phones, palm, Treo etc. (And we have an oulook like plug in for Blackberry that is in beta test stage)
The current set up you have can be used, it would slow you mail down some, but our server could pull all mail down from your current set up to the desknow server for users to access.
If you have any other questions, I am a beta tester, bug tester and reseller of this product. Just email me at [email protected] and I can help you.
>I>I wonder if the F/OSS (or just plain compatible with Linux) world will come up with a Exchange equivilent any time soon that intergrates into my existing directory (OpenLDAP/Kerberos) services.[/i]
You can do a little work and you get what you ask for.
Use QMail+LDAP, CourierIMAP, Binary Connector and webmail of choice.
It was my choice until now. But now I’m trying to integrate complete setup + vpopmail with Fedora-DS. I’m only sorry, I don’t use setups w/o vpopmail, otherwise everything would already work for me. But vpopmail meant for me the same thing as sliced bread meant for humanity, so I can’t live without.
Currently, everything I’ve seen on the market either refuses to use existing infrastructure (Mail, LDAP or Kerberos) or demands the use of a particular distro. It’s quite infuriating to have to reccomend that people stay with MS because of Exchange.
But even larger problem is they demand their own choice of servers. With distro of their choice I could live, with for example mail server of their choice, I can’t.
And the fact that you find just what you’re looking for, but it doesn’t work as you would need pisses me off too.
Why can’t developers simply build on basics and then after that provide their solutions for underlaying structure beats me.
You can do a little work and you get what you ask for.
Use QMail+LDAP, CourierIMAP, Binary Connector and webmail of choice.
That’s what I’ve got… for email. (Well, I use Exim/Courier with LDAP & Kerberos for accounts and password managment, but the outcome is the same), but that doesn’t address the calendering needs.
These should be more explanatory than me
Hope it suits your needs.
http://www.bynari.net/index.php?id=4094
http://www.courier-mta.org/imap/
It is a feature that exists in CourierIMAP from 3.0 times. Bynari was the first to use them.
btw. Shared folders are default feature in CourierIMAP and you don’t even need Bynari for that feature only.
As far as calendaring only. Hula-lite might answer your prayers, I know it will answer mine.
http://www.nabble.com/Introducing-Hula-Lite-t2425869.html
Which means, soon you won’t need Connectors like now. Thunderbird + iCal client (while more or less every file manager already works with webdav, the only one I had problems with was Finder in OSX, which has more or less half assed support for that) will do work just fine.
Edited 2006-11-14 23:30
Exchange is great because it’s such a nice backand for Outlook. I don’t use Outlook any more for email, but for calendaring, it’s great! Good UI and plenty of options to manage your shedule. Adding a Word document, picture or rich text to your appointpent can be done by just dragging and dropping. Most OSS programs only allow plain text and hide the attachments in a seperate tab.
http://www.evert.net/temp/outlook.png
I really hope Kolab will become popular. Kolab’s use of IMAP folders is in my opinion a great idea. Still, they need impressive clients and a good web interface to offer an alternative to Outlook.
I suggest a lot of people need to have a look at exchange 2007 and not just think of exchange 5.5.
Exchange has come a long way, 2003 was a solid product, ive never had a problem with any network it’s been installed on, even with gb’s of messages.
Exchange 2007 offers voice, universal message access and is now 64bit with a larger message store.
Out of all of the Microsoft products i have always liked exchange the most. The productivity this brings to businesses both large and small is unbeliveable. Thats not to say that the others on the market are bad, Alt-n’s Mail Daemon just keeps going from strength to strength with each version for example.
However i still believe Exchange + Outlook is one of the best groupware configurations for a lot of different companies.
Exchange has come a long way, 2003 was a solid product, ive never had a problem with any network it’s been installed on, even with gb’s of messages.
Lucky you, but you’re wrong here. It’s still built on the extremely antiquated DB technology underpinnings (related to Access, I understand) that have plagued Exchange for years. If you don’t run into a problem, you’re fine. If you do, only your god can help you.
Exchange 2007 offers voice, universal message access and is now 64bit with a larger message store.
All heaped tall on the same old shaky foundation. Voice is a nice touch, potentially, but hardly a big deal given that phone systems have been in place for many years and aren’t likely to get the yank just to be integrated into Outlook. I’ll read up on this a bit more… I’m suspicious that this might be a sounds-good-but-doesn’t-deliver type feature.
It’s not even the slightest bit revolutionary. But I do understand that the integration is the key.
Lucky you, but you’re wrong here. It’s still built on the extremely antiquated DB technology underpinnings (related to Access, I understand) that have plagued Exchange for years. If you don’t run into a problem, you’re fine. If you do, only your god can help you.
Your information is outdated. Exchange’s DB has undergone significant change to add improved transaction, failover, replication, and journaling support.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2007/producte…
Your information is outdated. Exchange’s DB has undergone significant change to add improved transaction, failover, replication, and journaling support.
All because the actual store is ancient technology. Read up on Exchange’s mail store – the transaction support is less advanced than Berkeley DB’s which is a 20+ year old design.
Regardless, any mail system based on a relational/transactional database is a *bad* design. Ones based on SQL are potentially even worse. All the problems of a mail server, a database server and a file system rolled into one. The only advantages are in doing searches on data.
Anyway, too much time spent on this, as all you have to know is that Exchange isn’t the second coming either technically or philosophically.
Edited 2006-11-14 18:55
SQL is easy to make redundant. Like with the product that I sell (Desknow) using an open source application called Sequoia http://sequoia.continuent.org/HomePage I can add SQL servers on the fly and give the mail server load balancing, redundancy etc.
This is something that you can’t do with Exchange. Also the other big problem with Exchange having PST files on the server side is no single mail box can get over 1.5 GB with out corruption problems. MS knows that most admins would never let a single mail box get that big and that is how they avoid that issue (They don’t care that most people copy their mail down to local PST files which get corrupted all the time!)
On top of that the 64 BIT issue is a mess! Now you have to get the full 64 BIT version of Windows, you have to get 64 Bit hardware to run Exchange 2007. Shoot I have 7000 users on 5 bottom basement gateway “PC” servers. 2 web interface and instant messaging servers clustered facing the internet, 1 Sequoia server and 2 MySQL servers on the back end all running on CentOS (Which is free as you know) It cost me about $2500 total. (And then I pay a yearly support fee for upgrades etc to Desknow)
Yet another acronym. Is it the polite way of RTFM ?