CentOS - Jul 2018 - Which is better? Microsoft Exchange 2016 or Linux-based SMTP Servers?

On 7/18/2018 9:03 AM, mark wrote:
> Based on experience at a number of jobs, Exchange may appear to be easy to
> configure, but as soon as you get past the utterly basic configuration,
> when management or other departments want more, it then becomes a major
> headache.
I like to say that Windows is easier to install and initially configure, 
but Linux is much easier to FIX. Things will always go wrong. 
Closed-source Windows software hides everything and its GUI often lies 
about the true state of what's going on under the hood. Open-source 
software can be cracked open and I can dig down to root cause of any 
problems. Check out the free support forums at Microsoft. It's pretty 
hopeless. Responses to problems with open source software are generally 
much more informative. Open source advocates love to show off how they 
can fix problems. Closed source engineers aren't allowed to share 
solutions with the public. If you really want support, you're going to 
have to pay for it. So pay for the product, pay for the support, and nag 
them like you own them. Or go with open source and pay a consultant. (Or 
a hungry college student.)

On Wed, July 18, 2018 11:42 am, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 7/18/2018 9:03 AM, mark wrote:
>> Based on experience at a number of jobs, Exchange may appear to be easy
>> to
>> configure, but as soon as you get past the utterly basic configuration,
>> when management or other departments want more, it then becomes a major
>> headache.
>
> I like to say that Windows is easier to install and initially configure,
> but Linux is much easier to FIX. Things will always go wrong.
> Closed-source Windows software hides everything and its GUI often lies
> about the true state of what's going on under the hood. Open-source
> software can be cracked open and I can dig down to root cause of any
> problems. Check out the free support forums at Microsoft. It's pretty
> hopeless. Responses to problems with open source software are generally
> much more informative. Open source advocates love to show off how they
> can fix problems. Closed source engineers aren't allowed to share
> solutions with the public. If you really want support, you're going to
> have to pay for it. So pay for the product, pay for the support, and nag
> them like you own them. Or go with open source and pay a consultant. (Or
> a hungry college student.)
And on top of all: MS Windows is the only systems I know of whose vendor
tells you, it is not safe to run without 3rd party software (antivirus).

Antivirus itself is fundamentally flawed idea: you can not enumerate bad.
You can enumerate good and prohibit everything else. So, antivirus is like
thinking backwards. (But given long record of MS in building poorly
architectured system, doing antivirus is sort of job security ;-)

Valeri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 2018-07-22, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>
wrote:
>
> And on top of all: MS Windows is the only systems I know of whose vendor
> tells you, it is not safe to run without 3rd party software (antivirus).
AFAIK (my son runs Windows, to my shame) Windows now comes bundled with
antivirus software.  I have no idea if it actually works or not.

--keith

-- 
kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us