Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>The reason large companies don't do this is they have sunk costs in Exchange and an admin who likes it -- why change?

The bigger reason that with locally hosted mail, you have accountability and control over your own data.

>UI, stability, security, documentation, user license agreement, required system resources, remote exploits that grant admin rights

I am sure Google Apps has none of those issues, except things like this http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4198080

>It is more subtle when it comes to Outlook. For example, the only workstations Dell sells come with a MS operating system, that includes IE and Outlook (but you must pay for Outlook/office after 2 months or something). Or staples. Or Office Depot.

That sounds extremely roundabout. A 2 month trial of Outlook is not going to convince anyone to keep using it.

>Wow, ummm, no.

You have not provided one shred of reason to counter my point that, if there was a Exchange alternative that integrated well with Thunderbird, it might have been a success.




Linux & Thunderbird are much better for local email than MS Exchange. Exchange sells MS server 200x licenses.

Web stuff is for groupware, but not MILSPEC.

Yesterday's Thunderbird is superior to today's Outlook as an email client.

I got tired at the end of my last reply.


Isn't Zimbra basically what you're describing -- a holistic server + client replacement for Exchange? That has actually been reasonably successful.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: