The below isn't meant to shoot down your idea, but I'm an Open Source
groupware developer and am very familiar with the Exchange-vs-XYZ
equation.
> As per the subject, I am about to pitch the idea of dumping Exchange
> and moving to Postfix. From what I can observe, the Calendar and
> Meeting functions are used very little if at all. We have roaming
> profiles (call center area has no fixed seating and hectic
> scheduling). Biggest use people get out of Exchange is the sorting /
> folders and that's nothing T-bird can't handle.
Postfix is an SMTP MTA; it isn't an IMAP/POP server. It can't replace
Exchange, it isn't the same thing. Cyrus IMAPd + Postfix can replace
the mail portion of Exchange, but not Postfix alone. The much more
difficult part is setting up [appropriately] the IMAP server and
clients. Configuring Postfix is as easy as falling-off-a-log for most
sites.
> Ideally (laugh if you like):
> I want to set up Postfix on a second box and transition transparently,
> importing or converting anything and everything that can be imported
> or converted. I want to tell management about how they can do
> everything they currently do on Exchange (i'll let them realize it's
> faster and less annoying after it happens).
But they can't, be careful what promises you make.
> I need users to log in to any machine in the building and get the
> same IMAP and customization they currently have (again, roaming
> profiles and Thunderbird would handle this, right? I've not banged my
> head against this kind of thing in Windows much, but now seems a good
> time to learn). I want the general user population to notice as
> little as possible before, during and after the change, except for
> clicking Thunderbird (or whatever might be better) instead of Exchange
> to read their mail.
Yes, Thunderbird works with roaming profiles; albeit rather badly.
Thunderbird has no auto-configuration mechanism so every user's
account(s) need to be setup manually and it is prone to making HUGE
cache files if not setup carefully. All-in-all it is a rather lousy
IMAP client compared to others. Why not just stick with Outlook? Your
likely to have a much easier time with the users if they are used to
Outlook (and you already paid for it anyway).
> What are selling points i can outline for said management? Is this
> even a good idea? Realistic goal? Something I shouldn't attempt
> unless I already know how?
It is realistic to replace the mail component. But (a) will they
tolerate using a client other than Outlook and (b) if you have even a
few user's who use calendering how loud are they going to scream when
you take it away? If your Exchange is working how do you justify the
cost [labor] of transition? Effort to deliver a solution that provides
less functionality is a pretty hard business case.
> Essentially this is coming about due to a "need this dun nao!" for a
> new server that, it turns out, we have no windows server license for.
> Rather than coughing up the cash for Winserver 2k8 and the associated
> CALs (ouch), i'd like to point out to the Director that we can do
> everything we use exchange for, fer free. We already have the
Is that true? "everything we use exchange for" needs to be *very*
carefully researched.
You can transition your license(s) from your old/existing server.
> hardware (new robust server a database is going on, linux-based). I
> hate trying to sell this kind of thing when my impulse is to wave my
> arms around yelling "IT'S OBVIOUS!" :)
But it isn't.
--
Consonance: an Open Source .NET OpenGroupware client.
Contact:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://freshmeat.net/projects/consonance/
