To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why waste time trying to become Exchange compliant, if the community is trying to squash Exchange? Why not instead work to create a server-side Outlook-compatibile Exchange replacement? Linux has been better accepted server side than client side, so leverage that acceptance with a server side replacement. Then, there is no more "must be Exchange compatibile" argument against moving the clients.
Note my personal belief here - I believe a company with majority Windows admins is not ready for Linux desktops (who supports the desktops? and their interactions with the servers?). A company with majority *nix admins is ready for Linux desktops.
Well there is a solution out there and i'm sure 99.99% of the regular readers here know what it is.. right?
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1498637333
"The best way to ensure 100 per cent compatibility with Exchange/Outlook features is to run Outlook itself. Crossover Office from Codeweavers (http://www.codeweavers.com) allows you to do just this. "
"The best way to ensure 100 per cent compatibility with Exchange/Outlook features is to run Outlook itself. Crossover Office from Codeweavers (http://www.codeweavers.com) allows you to do just this."
From the codeweaver web site:
*1 - Outlook 2003 is not supported.
You were saying?







Member since:
2005-06-28
My husband's company of over 1000 employees are using Exchange, not Domino. The company is unix-friendly (many of their dev systems are running solaris, freebsd or linux), but they would not consider moving their desktops to linux without a good Exchange client. You see, their desktops are all running Windows...