Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Communications Microsoft IT

Exchange Alternatives Round-up 365

richi writes "eWEEK has a review of Linux-based alternatives to MS Exchange: Group Where? Almost Anywhere. Focusing on how well they integrate with Outlook, it looks at Bynari Insight 4.2, CommuniGate Pro 4.2, Gordano 11 and Scalix Server 9.2.1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exchange Alternatives Round-up

Comments Filter:
  • by bad_outlook ( 868902 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @10:51AM (#13330248) Homepage
    Personally I think these solutions only mimic the problems that Exchange had, why not go a different direction? My money is on Hula [hula-project.org], the great open source project launched by Novell with 20,000 lines of code from their proven NetMail. New versions of NetMail will be built from Hula's codebase, so it will be used in large companies/implementations. It's come a LONG way since February, and I have it running on FreeBSD currently. If interested, hit the mailing list, and we'll help you out.
  • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @10:52AM (#13330252)
    It may be a good idea to check out OpenGroupware.org [opengroupware.org]. IIRC, it integrates with Outlook and they are also heavily working on OpenOffice.org and Mozilla integration. This is awesome if you want to transition your backend first. Once you get the back office off of Exchange, you can move the front office to OOo and Mozilla, followed by a switch out of the OS from Windows to Linux or BSD.
  • Re:MAPI? (Score:4, Informative)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@g m a i l . c om> on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:08AM (#13330400) Homepage Journal
    Do any of these substitute email servers support MS's proprietary MAPI protocol as a fully-implemented workalike?

    RTFA:
    None of the products provides full Outlook-to-Exchange feature fidelity in Outlook, but they all hit the basics of group calendar and scheduling, shared folders, and e-mail. The feature that companies are likely to miss most when using the servers we tested with Outlook is forms.
    Administrators also have the additional overhead of deploying a MAPI (Messaging API) connector to each client. With the exception of Bynari, all the vendors support remote packaged distribution of their connectors. With the Bynari offering, administrators will need to perform a few additional tasks to ensure that the connector installs with user- specific settings.

    The problem with MAPI has been less an issue of reverse engineering a protocol, and more an issue of trying to replicate the DCOM interface. Microsoft piled on the technology stacks in making MAPI, thus confounding attempts to create a compatible connector. It was only a year or two ago that Ximian finally figured it out.
  • GroupWise? (Score:5, Informative)

    by j-tull ( 201124 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:08AM (#13330403)
    I'm surprised that the article neglected to mention Novel's GroupWise [novell.com]. Most of your leading anti-Microsoft shops tend to be very pro Novel, and GroupWise is still very much alive and kicking (with version 7 just released [novell.com] yesterday). It supports e-mail, instant messaging, appointments, Microsoft Outlook, and it even comes with a license of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server [novell.com].
  • by Trigun ( 685027 ) <evil@evil e m p i r e . a t h .cx> on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:13AM (#13330445)
    from their tech demo, they want to sell me everything. The software, the hardware, the OS, everything.

    Sorry but no thanks.
  • Lotus on Linux (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:14AM (#13330464)
    Let's compare apples to apples here... TFA is referring to the *SERVER* side of things, not the client. Lotus Notes is the *client* and yes, it is pretty much Windows-only but so is MS Outlook.

    Lotus *Domino* is the server (analogous to MS Exchange Server), and it's already been ported to Linux for years, in fact Lotus Domino on Linux is one of the best performing and robust Domino platforms you can have, especially on SuSE Linux. IBM doesn't give either the Lotus server or client away for free however, in fact they're quite pricey, but so are MS Exchange server and MS Outlook client. Lotus requires a substantial investment in training, and has a very steep learning curve for administration, plus all your users will hate Lotus because it's not MS Outlook which they're already addicted to using.

    All three of these substitute MS Exchange Server wannabes are also somewhat costly too, and that relatively small price difference between the substitute and the real MS thing, I guarantee you will not justify all the hassles of not having the genuine MS Exchange Server in place. MS's integration with Active Directory, powerful admin tools, the worldwide support for antivirus/antispam softwares and a myriad of other 3rd party stuff available for MS Exchange Servers will make any of these substitutes a complete waste of time and money. If you want a free mail server, just make it out of the usual open source stuff on a *nix box and live with it's limitations, or else pony up the cash and buy the real McCoy.
  • Re:MAPI? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kunta Kinte ( 323399 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:20AM (#13330516) Journal
    It was only a year or two ago that Ximian finally figured it out.

    Ximian hasn't figured out the MAPI, they use WebDAV as their line protocol, I suspect. Could be wrong. Exchange supports WebDAV access.

    Trying to reverse MAPI line protocol is insane. What you want to do is write a client-side connector, like all the vendors in the article. I'm working on one at openconnector.org [openconnector.org]

    MAPI, btw, is a semi-documented standard. There are at least two books on it. But still, MS keeps tweaking it and doesn't release the changes, so we have to go back and reverse engineer those changes. In all its just a lot of coding, rather and reverse engineering.

  • Re:MAPI? (Score:3, Informative)

    by n0-0p ( 325773 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:20AM (#13330519)
    Evolution uses the Outlook Web Access over WebDAV interface. This is far simpler than trying to create a compatible MAPI stack because (as you pointed out) there are a number of complex layered protocols required. To my knowledge, only MS has ever made a complete MAPI stack. Everything else uses either MAPI client connectors on Windows or OWA WebDAV to talk to the server from a non-Windows client.
  • by ejdmoo ( 193585 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:25AM (#13330566)
    That's what MS Small Business Server 2003 is for.

    AD, Exchange, SQL, etc on 1 box, supported.
  • by strredwolf ( 532 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:31AM (#13330620) Homepage Journal
    A client of mine had wanted to switch away from Exchange, and try a few of these out. Out of the ones mentioned:

    Bynari Insight: We've tried working with the software, but testing resulted in much frustration in trying to set it up properly. I'll give kudos for the Bynari folk for helping out... but it looks like there's a long way to go. Maybe they need to upgrade their config to reflect Postfix changes...

    CommunigatePro: Everyone favorite, because it's so eaaaaaaazzzzzzzzyyyyy. This one all I needed to do was manual tweak a few things and it's running perfectly. Expensive, but worth it.

    Scalix: We're testing this one out now. It requires ether RedHat, Fedora, SuSE, or an RPM based system that you can fake out to be ether one of the three -- it ships as an RPM-based installer. It also runs on Java, but it comes with Tomcat, configures itself and Apache, and it works! The community edition is out and free, with some limitations, and there's no native mail fetching (but we can use Fetchmail).

    We haven't tried Gordano, but we have tried exchange4linux (e4l) and that was a mess to set up.
  • by wiggles ( 30088 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @11:39AM (#13330693)
    My college Senior Project was a Linux-based Domino server implementation. Worked great for me.

    Click here [ibm.com] to download a trial of Lotus Domino for Linux. Click here [ibm.com] for a Notes client for Windows (works on Wine) and Mac.
  • Re:MAPI? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Evil Grinn ( 223934 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @12:00PM (#13330851)
    Do any of these substitute email servers support MS's proprietary MAPI protocol as a fully-implemented workalike? Of course not!

    MAPI and the Exchange protocol are two different things. MAPI is an API, a set of functions, for programs that run on Windows to do mail-related stuff. It is also an abstraction, that hides the actual over-the-wire protocol used to talk to Exchange. Third party vendors implement the MAPI interface so that Outlook (and other MAPI clients, if there are any?) can use it. The actual protocol used for talking to their servers is completely different from what Exchange uses.
  • by itomato ( 91092 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @12:06PM (#13330897)
    They use it for a few reasons:

    * To feel important by using more of those MS Office components (Word - check; Excel - check; Outlook - ah ha! check; Powerpoint - hmmmmm *gets cracking on a hum-dinger of a presentation about NOTHING; Access - What the?) They cost a bundle - need to use them!

    * Integration with the Windows Network

    * Corporate, MS monopolized computing environment dictates its use

    * MCSE originally set up the network and all the functionality, carved operating procedures in stone

    * Too ignorant to try something original

    * Outlook Express is free, so it can't be any good.
    ---

    For the vast majority of small-to-medium-sized businesses, they'd be better served with a good Postfix/Courier-IMAP/SquirrelMail setup, with greylisting and SpamAssassin and anti-virus scanning. All of which is free. And MUCH more stable than any Exchange setup I've ever seen.


    So true. I'd be implementing that at my current job if they hadn't just bled anally to upgrade 5.5 to 2000. Instead, I get to extend and entrench that garbage.

    In One workday, I loaded a debian box, apt-got each of those packages (and more), configured them, and had the thing working.

    With Windows, I have to upgrade the NT4 machine to 2000 & apply all applicable Service Packs (to get to Active Directory) before I can upgrade the MAIL SERVER.

    If you are facing this situation, and you have any control over the decision making process, MOVE AWAY FROM WINDOWS AT ALL COSTS (which are actually decreased)

    Windows has no place outside of corporations with IT departments that need to support Grandfathered Windowsisms. Shares, public folders, collab, email, all can be handled for $0, with an infinate (and also $0) upgrade path.

  • FirstClass! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Jackson_Ash ( 571413 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @12:15PM (#13330991)
    http://www.firstclass.com/ [firstclass.com]

    A long time ago I used to work for the company that made the software, so perhaps I'm biased. However, this offers the same functionality as Exchange/Notes and a whole lot more. Unified messaging is the heart of this product, but the featureset is staggering. Server support on Linux/Windows/OSX, client support for each, as well as web/phone/pda/etcetera.

    I could go on and on about the features, but http://www.firstclass.com/AboutFC/ [firstclass.com] has a tonne of information to peruse and it will do a better job of informing you than I will.

    Do yourself a favour and at least look at the features before settling on some other product that will offer either less functionality, or a much higher price point.

    JA
  • Re:Communigate Pro (Score:3, Informative)

    by mrroach ( 164090 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @12:40PM (#13331237)
    >So if you have less than 150,000 accounts you can do it with just one server. I'd like to see
    >an open source mail package that can live up to that particular boast.

    Try Hula [hula-project.org].

    -Mark
  • Lotus Notes on Linux (Score:3, Informative)

    by hweimer ( 709734 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @12:57PM (#13331390) Homepage
    Lotus Notes is the *client* and yes, it is pretty much Windows-only but so is MS Outlook.

    Lotus Notes runs under Linux if you use wine. IIRC IBM had to do some work to get it going, but at least since 2002 it's possible.
  • Open-Xchange? (Score:3, Informative)

    by forevermore ( 582201 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @12:57PM (#13331396) Homepage
    Pity they completely overlooked Open-Xchange [openexchange.com] and its free open source cousin [open-xchange.org].
  • by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @01:14PM (#13331527) Journal
    He is obviously on an Anti-MS kick.

    Exchange is good software. It Just Works. And it performs exceptionally well. I've been working with it for years.

    I consulted at a Univerisity with two Active/Passive Exchange clusters servicing over 12,000 users. Some used Outlook, some used POP/IMAP, some used OWA. It was Exchange 2000, later 2003. It's not like these were powerhouse big-iron type machines, either - quad processor boxes with 4GB RAM attached to a Clariion, I think they were 2.4Ghz Xeons. Of course, those were the mailbox servers - we had other machines for connectors and OWA front-end. But that's just normal best practices with a busy Exchange environment.

    Another placed I worked at had dual-processor Compaq DL380's running the show, with over 2500 users per node. No sweat.

    Usually, poor performance on Exchange is due to mis-configurations and not enough disk I/O. You can throw as many processors you want at Exchange, but it's really all about IO.

    This guy also doesn't know the first thing about database servers if he's bitching about the memory usage on Store.exe. Store.exe is (as we know) the information store database service. It will use as much memory as it needs, and as is available. Usually the big memory usage is just cached data. Store.exe will give up all it's cached paged as soon as another app requires it. A lot of these kids now a days still think every app needs to run in 200k memory or it's "bloat." What's the point in having 4GB RAM if your applications don't use it?

    They've obviously never administered a large database server. A big MS-SQL database server will cache the whole database, if it can. 1GB on store.exe? Try 4GB on mssql.exe.

    I agree that there's issues with Exchange when it comes to administration (Public Folders can get unmanagable if you don't pay very close attention to user activity, although since Exchange 2000 I've never had any issues with PF Replication.) Overall, there's no other system that's as capable as Exchange for your basic groupware needs. It's VERY stable.
  • Hell No (Score:3, Informative)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @01:14PM (#13331531) Journal
    You're going to get advice to just use MS Small Business Server....

    No...don't do it. Yeah, the price is attractive, with everything in one box. But the problem is that a lot of the things in SBS are crippled, and as one consultant put it, "SBS is a Frankenstein of complexity underneath". And if you're getting the version with SQL, you have to buy hardware and memory that's so beefy, you could have bought two inexpensive servers otherwise (unless you like your network and mail to crawl). SBS limits what you can do with your network. It's the same old Microsoft story...they've come up with a model for doing things, great, but if that model doesn't fit how you do things, then you're screwed. Want to run a website locally? If you do it on SBS, you're opening your whole network up to those dangers that come with that territory. Want Outlook Web Access? Same thing. That's the problem with server consolidation in general, and SBS in particular. You've got all this great stuff in one box, but if the box goes down, everything goes down.

    If you're dead-set on SBS, than use a web and mail hosting service, and get a box with dual processors and lots of memory. And I mean Lots.
  • Re:Communigate Pro (Score:3, Informative)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <`bc90021' `at' `bc90021.net'> on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @01:37PM (#13331705) Homepage
    CommuniGate is an excellent piece of software. I've used it, and I would recommend it, too, if I could...

    The only problem with Communigate Pro is that it is *****EXPENSIVE*****. For a small hosting company with 1000 email boxes, they wanted *****THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS*****. That's *****THIRTY TWO DOLLARS PER MAILBOX*****. That's insane. Even Microsoft doesn't charge anywhere near that much, and I think MS's products are way overpriced.

    In case I haven't made my point, it's ridiculously expensive. It's not geared to any business that isn't already an ISP. (I know, because I used to work at a small ISP, and they used it, but still had serious reservations about the price.)

    There's also SurgeMail [netwinsite.com], which is very similar to CommuniGate, but isn't nearly as expensive.

  • by azdio ( 185000 ) <azdio@me . c om> on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @02:57PM (#13332321)
    I am admittedly biased as I am directly connected to CommuniGate Systems. While Groupware and Scalability are interesting, what is really amazing is we're also delivering an integrated and powerful Voice over IP applications with CommuniGate Pro that includes Software PBX, Media Server, and a fully featured NAT traversing SIP server. Most of this available in the new development branch (5.0c1). We have 2 development branches (somewhat BSD-like): current and stable.

    A download is available in a fully functional version except for a few limitations:

    http://communigate.com/content/download.htm [communigate.com]

    We are running a coding contest for Voice applications on our easy to use development environment:

    http://communigate.com/cgpl-contest [communigate.com]

    The product manual will help if anyone would like to try these applications:

    http://communigate.com/communigatepro [communigate.com]

    BTW, this software runs and is supported on thirty-something platforms.
  • Go ORACLE (Score:2, Informative)

    by mattspammail ( 828219 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @03:20PM (#13332504)
    Oracle's Collaboration Suite [oracle.com]

    If you're an Oracle shop, you might want to investigate this one.

    Yes, I realize that that free solutions exist, but some organizations are willing to/prefer to go with commercial software solutions.

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...