Linked by Alex Chejlyk on Mon 18th Jul 2005 17:09 UTC
Permalink for comment 5885
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
"honestly, if it goes down, the world doesnt end"
No, but your ability to put food on the table for your family might.
When you work for a company with 600+ users spread out all over the country, all connected to the same Exchange server, and it goes down, that's going to have a couple people breathing down your neck, and possibly causing career altering conversations.
And by career altering conversations, I mean getting your butt fired.
I think many IT people here will agree with me when I say trying some "neato" Linux workaround isn't worth jeopardizing productivity, or your job.
Granted 600+ is more than the 50 or so users the author refers to in his experiment, but it's still an SMB, and this is still, IMO, an unacceptable workaround.
I don't like MS's business strategy either, but there are better alternatives than this.