[olug] IE and mozilla.org

[Rod Hurley]

See since you are making a comparison, consider that I mentioned Nimda
before any signatures were available.  I didn't mention that we have 4
competitors to our company in Omaha, and they all suffered total email
collapse during the same virus storm.  The first company to come back up
was 4 days later, while reinventing the wheel with their Exchange farm. 
At that time, I find it hard to believe that they all had misconfigured
enterprises.  Just stating the facts.  I will administer Exchange and
all its functionality soon, and if it's better I will brag about it.  I
came from Exchange 4 years ago, and although a different version, I saw
nothing to make it better.

And yet I am still on my soapbox addressing your next point: "What
constitutes a properly configured Exchange could be more resource/money
intensive than GroupWise, but that is just part of the product."  My
question is, why does more money and more resources HAVE to be accepted
as part of the product?


>>> smkelly at zombie.org 3/23/2005 11:45:54 AM >>>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:24:11AM -0600, Rod Hurley wrote:
...
> I was here when Nimda was wild and there were NO signatures
available. 
> We had 2 Windows pc users hit a website with an embedded virus and
we
> had to pull those pcs off the network.  Our servers, (through the
drive
> mapping functionality of Windows) accumulated 93,000+ files in 2
hours
> which we manually deleted.  Our email system was never ever down, or
> slowed because the virus was attempting to use Exchange as it's
> incubator.  Groupwise did nothing with the requests.  That is our
> primary difference between the 2 systems.  

I'm not clear on what you're comparing here. Are you comparing a
mail/groupware system to Windows file shares? The two don't really
compare.
A *properly* configured Exchange system also wouldn't puke when it
encountered Nimda. What constitutes a properly configured Exchange
could be
more resource/money intensive than GroupWise, but that is just part of
the
product.

> And I must say this:  "They outclass their competition (Novell,
Lotus)
> because they are Microsoft" doesn't follow.  Being the richest, and
most
> arrogant doesn't make me the best guy in the office.  I let my
> performance speak for itself.

The idea behind this was that Microsoft is the desktop operating system
and
Exchange is a logical offshoot of it. It integrates well with other
Microsoft products without having to install third party software.
Install
Office (which you'd do anyway) and you get Outlook. Integrates nicely
into
Active Directory, which Windows can also use.

I aas also trying to say that many (poor) management decisions are made
on
the "It is Microsoft, so it must be good" line of thought. Microsoft is
a
big company, with many products, and thus they get a lot of the
marketshare
and marketing. 

Novell stlll gets a lot of hostility for the NetWare days. Many
network
administrators who have finally purged themselves of IPX have no desire
to
introduce any new Novell technologies on their network. Novell as a
company
is also not as well off as Microsoft. I know of amny places phasing
out
Novell products, such as NetWare and GroupWise. On the other hand, I
know
of some (though fewer) that are using Novell products like eDirectory.

Does GroupWise also cause you to top post by default?

-- 
Sean Kelly         | PGP KeyID: D2E5E296
smkelly at zombie.org | http://www.zombie.org 
_______________________________________________
OLUG mailing list
OLUG at olug.org 
http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug